|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Feb 23, 2009 0:24:52 GMT -5
The Serbian identity in Bosnia The following is a chronological listing of some of the documents that identify the emergence of the Serbian identity within present day Bosnia. ------------------------------------------------Royal Frankish Annals or Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks are annals written for the early Frankish kings, covering the years 741 to 829. They exist in two versions: the original Annales Laurissenses maiores and the later revision, called the Annales qui dic**tur Einhardi. At least three different authors were involved in their compilation, one of whom may have been Frankish historian Einhard. They are among the most important sources for the political and military history of the reign of Charlemagne. Einhard (also Eginhard or Einhart) (775 – 840) was a Frankish(German) courtier, a dedicated servant of Charlemagne, of whom he wrote his famous biography, and Louis the Pious. Einhard, in his anals describes the uprising of the Pannonian prince Ljudevit (818-823). In his work, he claims that Ljudevit ran from Sisak and went "among the Serbs". Accordingly, Serbs must have lived somewhere around Una, maybe even to the west, likely where the modern Serbian Krajina (region of Lika) lies. "Liudevitus Siscia civitate relicta, ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatie partem obtinere dicitur, fugiendo se contulit" , that is: [Ljudevit (prince of Lower Panonia 822. - prim. CafeHome) having left the city of Sisak, ran toward the Serbs, for whom the people say inhabit the greater part of Dalmatia). ------------------------------------------------De Administrando Imperio (948 and 952) Author - Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (aka CONSTANTINE VII FLAVIUS PORPHYROGENITUS) ( 905-959) - Byzantine emperor from 913 to 959. His writings are an immense source regarding the empire and neighboring lands. His work "De Administrando Imperio" is kept in its original manuscript in the Vatican library. It deals primarily with the Slavic peoples of the Balkans and is a huge account of the geographical, cultural and political situation of the Balkans at the time. The following notations refer to the Serbian inhabitants of Bosnia or areas of present day Bosnia that were not known as Bosnia. 1. The following passage describes initial Serbian migration into the Balkans early in the 7th century. The regions in which Serbs settled are parts of modern day Croatia (Pagania-Dalmatia) and Bosnia (Zachlumia & Travunia in Hercegovina). But when two brothers succeeded their father in the rule of Serbia, one of them, taking a moiety of the folk, claimed the protection of Heraclius, the emperor of the Romans, and the same emperor Heraclius received him and gave him a place in the province of Thessalonica to settle in, namely Serbia, which from that time has acquired this denomination. Now, after some time these same Serbs decided to depart to their own homes, and the emperor sent them off. But when they had crossed the river Danube, they changed their minds and sent a request to the emperor Heraclius, through the military governor then governing Belgrade, that he would grant them other land to settle in. And since what is now Rascia (Serbia) and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumi and Trebounia and the country of the Kanalites were under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, and since these countries had been made desolate by the Avars (for they had expelled from those parts the Romani who now live in Dalmatia and Dyrrachium), therefore the emperor settled these same Serbs in these countries, and they were subject to the emperor of the Romans; and the emperor brought elders from Rome and baptized them and taught them fairly to perform the works of piety and expounded to them the faith of the Christians. And since Bulgaria was beneath the dominion of the Romans * * * when, therefore, that same Serbian prince died who had claimed the emperor's protection, his son ruled in succession, and thereafter his grandson, and in like manner the succeeding princes from his family.. 2. Zahumlje "From Ragusa begins the domain of the Zachlumi and stretches along as far as the river Orontius; and on the side of the coast it is neighbour to the Pagani, but on the side of the mountain country it is neighbour to the Croats on the north and to Serbia at the front." "The Zahumljani (Захумљани) that now live there are Serbs, originating from the time of the prince (archont) who fled to emperor Heraclius" "The land of the Zahumljani comprise the following cities: Ston (το Σταγνον/to Stavnon), Mokriskik (το Μοκρισκικ), Josli (το Ιοσλε/to Iosle), Galumainik (το Γαλυμαενικ/to Galumaenik), Dobriskik (το Δοβρισκικ/to Dovriskik)" 3. Heading 32 of De Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, is called "On the Serbs and the lands in which they live". It speaks of the territories inhabited by Serbs in which is contained the first referenced mention of Bosnia. In baptized Serbia are the inhabited cities of Destinikon, Tzernabouskei, Megyretous, Dresneik, Lesnik, Salines; and in the territories of Bosona, Katera and Desnik. ^ Baptized Serbia. ------------------------------------------------Iovan Kinamos (Joannes Kinnamos or John Cinnamus in Greek) (11xx->1185) was a Byzantine historian who wrote of the reigns of John II Komnenos and Manuel I that covered the period 1118-1176. He wrote the following in the mid twelfth century (1150 – 1154) when describing the attack of Manoilo I Komnin, Byzantine Emperor against Rascia. "River Drina separates Bosnia from the rest of Serbia" "Borik was ruler of Serbian land Bosnia, and..." Note – Ban Boris was known to be the second ban of Bosnia. ------------------------------------------------Pope Clement III (1130 - 1191) was elected Pope on December 19, 1187 and reigned until his death. The Pope sent in 1189 to the bishop of Dubrovnik a letter and in it he acknowledges all the old rights of the Dubrovnik church. In the letter, he mentions Serbian Bosnia: "regnum Servilie, quod est Bosna" (Serbian kingdom of Bosnia). That was in the time of Ban Kulin. ("regnum" must have loosely meant kingdom in that time for, Bosnia was then a "banovina") From: I. Kukuljevic, Codex diplom, II, 148, str 21.) ------------------------------------------------The Principality of Hum was a medieval Serbian principality that existed between the 12th and 14th century in the Herzegovina region of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. During this period, the principality was ruled by princes from the Nemanjić dynasty. Its first prince was Miroslav, brother of Serbian grand župan Stefan Nemanja. In the 14th century, the principality was restored by prince Vojislav Vojinović. Its last ruler was Nikola Altomanović, who was defeated by Serbian prince Lazar Hrebeljanović and ban Tvrtko of Bosnia. ------------------------------------------------Miroslav's Gospel, the most valuable and the oldest manuscript written in Serbian in the Cyrillic script, dates from the last quarter of the 12th century.(about 1190 A.D.) Confirmation of this dating is also found in words written by one of the scribes on the last page of the manuscript:"I, sinful disciple Gligorije... have inscribed in gold these Gospel for the celebrated prince Miroslav, son of Zavida..." Prince Miroslav, brother of Grand Zhupan Stefan Nemanja, was the ruler of Hum, an area that largely coincides with the territory of present-day Herzegovina. It is the earliest manuscript with rich coloured illustrations written in Serbian Cyrillic script. The Gospel had been preserved in the library of Hilandar Monastery on the Holy Mountains, Athon (Greece). During the previous two centuries, the Gospel changed several times its place until it was kept in the National Museum of Belgrade. ------------------------------------------------The Writings of father Diocletian (Dukljanin) also known as the Bar document or by its Serbian acronym LPD, written in 1196. The LPD divided Serbia into two parts as follows: "Surbiam autem quae et Transmontana dicitur, in duas divisit provinciam: unam a magna flumine Drina contra occidentalem palagam usque and montem Pini, quam et Bosnam vocavit, alteram vero ab eodem flumine Drina contra orientalem plagam usque ad Lapiam et [ad paludem Labeatidem], quam Rassam vocavit". The LPD called Bosnia and Raska (the name of the first Serbian state within the borders of modern Serbia) by the common name "Serbia", which clearly indicates the united Serbian national identity. ------------------------------------------------Charter of Ban Matej Ninoslav - 1232-1235. The following was written when Bosnia stretched only from Sarajevo to Zeniva. In the name of the father, son and the holy ghost! I, God's slave, Matej, branch of Ninoslav, great viceror of Bosnia, swear unto the prince of Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik's Zan Dandole (Gianni Dandolli) and all the regions of Dubrovnik. I swear just as Ban Kulin swore before me: For the Vlachs to walk freely as they did in the time of Ban Kulin, freely without deciet and evil...thus if a Serb decieves a Vlach, may he be held in the Ban's court. Also; In the international accord on the lack on Bosnian-Dubrovnik relations, the Ban (viceroy) Ninoslav explicitly calls his subjects "Serbs" (Srblji) and the Dubrovnikers "Vlachs" (Vlasi): "For deceit by a Vlah of a Serb, a Bosnian court was to be conveyed. But for deceit of a Serb over a Vlach, a court was to be convened in Dubrovnik." ------------------------------------------------In a letter written by Johannes, the Archbishop of Dubrovnik (Archiepiscopus Ragusinus) on February 24th 1252, the following passage is stated; Bosnia: "regnum Seruilie, quod est Bosgna" translated "Serbian kingdom of Bosnia". Note: "Regnum" must have loosely meant kingdom in that time since Bosnia was then still a "banovina." "...tria regna, videlicet regnum Zachlomie, regnum Seruilie, quod est Bosgna et regnum Tribunie. Et regnum Zachulmie extenditur vsque ad prouinciam Spalatensem, regnum Seruilie extenditur vsque ad prouinciam Collocensem, regnum Tribunie extenditur vsque ad prouinciam Dirachinam." From: "Bullarium Ragusium", 401-402 ------------------------------------------------The first King of Bosnia, Tvrtko Kotromanic was crowned as 'the King of SERBS, Bosnia, the Seacoast and Western Parts" in 1371. His Charter also contains references to Serbian language and his Serban heritage. Numerous other events within his life and times demonstrate a prevailing Serbian identity in Bosnia. For example in order to emphasize his relationship with the Nemanjic dynasty (Serbs of Rascia, the first Serbian state within the borders of modern Serbia, Montenegro & Bosnia) and the Kotromanic dynasty, Tvrtko puts before his own name, the title Stefan, which indicates that he is crowned as was the case with all other Serbian leaders of the time. In this letter the name Stefan is consistently mentioned. Further consistency is found in the concept of "Serbian land" or "Serbs" (Srbljem) as one ethnic categorization as was the case with the leaders of other Serbian lands. Tvrtko also clearly indicates the roots of his 'parents of Serb nobility." Tvrtko was buried at the grave of St. Sava in the Mileseva monastery. Furthermore, until 1390, Tvrtko carried the title, "King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seacoast and Western Parts". From this title we can see that he ruled only (if not mainly) one people, the Serbs. When Tvrtko conquered parts of lands inhabited by other people, his title was changed. In 1390 after some successful campaigns in other lands (particularly in Croatia) his title was changed to "King of Rashka, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croatia and the Sea Coast.” This observation also emphasizes the extent to which Tvrtko was conscious that he was a Serb and that Serbs live in Bosnia. Original letters of the medieval Bosnian rulers which have been copied to microfilm are kept in the Dubrovnik archives. ------------------------------------------------After Tvrtko, the next Bosnian rulers of the house of Kotromanic continued to take the title "King of Serbs…" since they no longer ruled lands populated by significant amounts of Croats but returned again to ruling mostly Serbs. This continuation speaks of how conscious the Bosnian nobles were that they and their people were Serbs. This also continued to be the only ethnic name used in their title. They were Kings of Bosnia but they only mention Bosnia as a territory just as they saw other lands as territories. This is consistent with other Serbian lands which were still not called Serbia. For example, the Kotoromanic’s also called the state of the Nemanjic kings “Raska” because it was the only name of that land at the time that would later become part of present day Serbia. Kings of Bosnia; 1. Stefan Tvrtko I Kotromanic (1377–1391) 2. Stefan Dabiša Kotromanic (1391–1395) 3. Jelena Gruba (1395–1398). Wife of Stefan Dabiša above. 4. Stephen Ostoja Kotromanic (1398–1404) 5. Tvrtko II Kotromanic (1404–1409) 6. Stefan Ostoja Kotromanic (restored 1409–1418) 7. Stefan Ostojić Kotromanic (1418–1421) 8. Stefan Tvrtko II Kotromanic (restored 1421–1443) 9. Stefan Tomas Kotromanic (1443–1461) (1446-1461) (kralj Srbljem, Bosni, Primorju, Homsci zemlji, Dalmaciji, Hervatom, Donjim krajem, Zapadnim stranam k tomu) 10. Stefan Tomašević (1461–1463) also last despot of Serbia. Charter Examples Stefan Dabisa Kotromanic Stefan Ostoja Kotromanic ------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Feb 23, 2009 0:50:24 GMT -5
I honestly have 0 will and energy to destroy these pathetic arguments. Why? Cuz I've seen them destroyed a 10000 times and most of them are based on specific twisting of words, phrases, meanings and dates. I could reply with even SERB authors laughing at these theories but I'm too lazy and semi-drunk. Plus we all know you just copy and pasted this from some cetnik forum lolz You should post them on bosnahistorija.16.forumer.com/ and see how you end up. The saddest part is you probly thought this was some super smart and hard hitting thread and after you posted this Bosnia would become part of greater Serbia. But I'll give you some advice. Learn to read and comprehend the wording of documents better. "And in the teritory of Bosona" actualy goes against your argument. Not to mention the hillarity of a "Serbian identity" a 1000 YEARS ago in Bosnia of all places. There was no "Serbian identity" in SERBIA lmao.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Feb 23, 2009 1:11:02 GMT -5
I'll huff & I'll puff & I'll blow your house down says Kapetan. Same as what he usually says come to think of it.
Far out you've said some stupid sh!t. Why don't I post in a Bosniak forum? lol. Why don't you post your sh!t in a Serbian forum. I've seen the Bosniak's (Smajzers - ancient Bosnian name) responses & they're week as fvcking piss. A handful of bs documents from the 18th 19th century. Gotta laugh hard at most of it. Your whole identity is based on deconstructing the Serbian identity & generally disproving anything & everything rather than proving anything to do with your own, you Bosona river ethnicity person you.
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Feb 23, 2009 1:15:56 GMT -5
I'll huff & I'll puff & I'll blow your house down says Kapetan. Same as what he usually says come to think of it. Far out you've said some stupid sh!t. Why don't I post in a Bosniak forum lol. Why don't you post your sh!t in a Serbian forum. I've seen the Bosniaks (Smajzers what kind of a name is that) responses & they're week as fvcking piss. A handful of bs documents from the 18th 19th century. Your whole identity is based on deconstructing the Serbian identity rather than proving anything to do with your own you Bosona river ethnicity person you. I have nothing to prove so why would I go around posting things on Serbian forums idiot? I don't have the complex you do. And why would it matter that it's a Bosniak forum? So is this wtf. specificly says forum focusing on bosniaks and bosnia. You POSTED HERE LOOKING FOR ANSWERS AND ARGUMENTS FROM BOSNIANS I PRESUME. lmao imbecile so my answer is you're better of posting ther where there is much smater people who will debate your argument better. Nobody here is anyhting close to any kind of historian even as a hobby. and again if i cared so much about deconstructing serb identity id be posting this type of s**t in your forums. Im not. I dont care about Serbia, unlike your obsession with us. Maybe out of boredeom maybe jealosy I dont know. Either way in 50 years you'll be pretty much extinct from Bosnia so who cares.
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on Feb 23, 2009 2:12:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Feb 23, 2009 2:38:34 GMT -5
my link was just a forum with some people who I know are well read on bosnian and balkan history and could debate well your link is highdukes propaganda page....where only he has a say....and his views are extreme even to other serbs... lol
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Feb 23, 2009 3:12:05 GMT -5
The Serbian identity in Bosnia The following is a chronological listing of some of the documents that identify the emergence of the Serbian identity within present day Bosnia. ------------------------------------------------Royal Frankish Annals or Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks are annals written for the early Frankish kings, covering the years 741 to 829. They exist in two versions: the original Annales Laurissenses maiores and the later revision, called the Annales qui dic**tur Einhardi. At least three different authors were involved in their compilation, one of whom may have been Frankish historian Einhard. They are among the most important sources for the political and military history of the reign of Charlemagne. Einhard (also Eginhard or Einhart) (775 – 840) was a Frankish(German) courtier, a dedicated servant of Charlemagne, of whom he wrote his famous biography, and Louis the Pious. Einhard, in his anals describes the uprising of the Pannonian prince Ljudevit (818-823). In his work, he claims that Ljudevit ran from Sisak and went "among the Serbs". Accordingly, Serbs must have lived somewhere around Una, maybe even to the west, likely where the modern Serbian Krajina (region of Lika) lies. "Liudevitus Siscia civitate relicta, ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatie partem obtinere dicitur, fugiendo se contulit" , that is: [Ljudevit (prince of Lower Panonia 822. - prim. CafeHome) having left the city of Sisak, ran toward the Serbs, for whom the people say inhabit the greater part of Dalmatia). ------------------------------------------------De Administrando Imperio (948 and 952) Author - Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (aka CONSTANTINE VII FLAVIUS PORPHYROGENITUS) ( 905-959) - Byzantine emperor from 913 to 959. His writings are an immense source regarding the empire and neighboring lands. His work "De Administrando Imperio" is kept in its original manuscript in the Vatican library. It deals primarily with the Slavic peoples of the Balkans and is a huge account of the geographical, cultural and political situation of the Balkans at the time. The following notations refer to the Serbian inhabitants of Bosnia or areas of present day Bosnia that were not known as Bosnia. 1. The following passage describes initial Serbian migration into the Balkans early in the 7th century. The regions in which Serbs settled are parts of modern day Croatia (Pagania-Dalmatia) and Bosnia (Zachlumia & Travunia in Hercegovina). But when two brothers succeeded their father in the rule of Serbia, one of them, taking a moiety of the folk, claimed the protection of Heraclius, the emperor of the Romans, and the same emperor Heraclius received him and gave him a place in the province of Thessalonica to settle in, namely Serbia, which from that time has acquired this denomination. Now, after some time these same Serbs decided to depart to their own homes, and the emperor sent them off. But when they had crossed the river Danube, they changed their minds and sent a request to the emperor Heraclius, through the military governor then governing Belgrade, that he would grant them other land to settle in. And since what is now Rascia (Serbia) and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumi and Trebounia and the country of the Kanalites were under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, and since these countries had been made desolate by the Avars (for they had expelled from those parts the Romani who now live in Dalmatia and Dyrrachium), therefore the emperor settled these same Serbs in these countries, and they were subject to the emperor of the Romans; and the emperor brought elders from Rome and baptized them and taught them fairly to perform the works of piety and expounded to them the faith of the Christians. And since Bulgaria was beneath the dominion of the Romans * * * when, therefore, that same Serbian prince died who had claimed the emperor's protection, his son ruled in succession, and thereafter his grandson, and in like manner the succeeding princes from his family.. 2. Zahumlje "From Ragusa begins the domain of the Zachlumi and stretches along as far as the river Orontius; and on the side of the coast it is neighbour to the Pagani, but on the side of the mountain country it is neighbour to the Croats on the north and to Serbia at the front." "The Zahumljani (Захумљани) that now live there are Serbs, originating from the time of the prince (archont) who fled to emperor Heraclius" "The land of the Zahumljani comprise the following cities: Ston (το Σταγνον/to Stavnon), Mokriskik (το Μοκρισκικ), Josli (το Ιοσλε/to Iosle), Galumainik (το Γαλυμαενικ/to Galumaenik), Dobriskik (το Δοβρισκικ/to Dovriskik)" 3. Heading 32 of De Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, is called "On the Serbs and the lands in which they live". It speaks of the territories inhabited by Serbs in which is contained the first referenced mention of Bosnia. In baptized Serbia are the inhabited cities of Destinikon, Tzernabouskei, Megyretous, Dresneik, Lesnik, Salines; and in the territories of Bosona, Katera and Desnik. ^ Baptized Serbia. ------------------------------------------------Iovan Kinamos (Joannes Kinnamos or John Cinnamus in Greek) (11xx->1185) was a Byzantine historian who wrote of the reigns of John II Komnenos and Manuel I that covered the period 1118-1176. He wrote the following in the mid twelfth century (1150 – 1154) when describing the attack of Manoilo I Komnin, Byzantine Emperor against Rascia. "River Drina separates Bosnia from the rest of Serbia" "Borik was ruler of Serbian land Bosnia, and..." Note – Ban Boris was known to be the second ban of Bosnia. ------------------------------------------------Pope Clement III (1130 - 1191) was elected Pope on December 19, 1187 and reigned until his death. The Pope sent in 1189 to the bishop of Dubrovnik a letter and in it he acknowledges all the old rights of the Dubrovnik church. In the letter, he mentions Serbian Bosnia: "regnum Servilie, quod est Bosna" (Serbian kingdom of Bosnia). That was in the time of Ban Kulin. ("regnum" must have loosely meant kingdom in that time for, Bosnia was then a "banovina") From: I. Kukuljevic, Codex diplom, II, 148, str 21.) ------------------------------------------------The Principality of Hum was a medieval Serbian principality that existed between the 12th and 14th century in the Herzegovina region of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. During this period, the principality was ruled by princes from the Nemanjić dynasty. Its first prince was Miroslav, brother of Serbian grand župan Stefan Nemanja. In the 14th century, the principality was restored by prince Vojislav Vojinović. Its last ruler was Nikola Altomanović, who was defeated by Serbian prince Lazar Hrebeljanović and ban Tvrtko of Bosnia. ------------------------------------------------Miroslav's Gospel, the most valuable and the oldest manuscript written in Serbian in the Cyrillic script, dates from the last quarter of the 12th century.(about 1190 A.D.) Confirmation of this dating is also found in words written by one of the scribes on the last page of the manuscript:"I, sinful disciple Gligorije... have inscribed in gold these Gospel for the celebrated prince Miroslav, son of Zavida..." Prince Miroslav, brother of Grand Zhupan Stefan Nemanja, was the ruler of Hum, an area that largely coincides with the territory of present-day Herzegovina. It is the earliest manuscript with rich coloured illustrations written in Serbian Cyrillic script. The Gospel had been preserved in the library of Hilandar Monastery on the Holy Mountains, Athon (Greece). During the previous two centuries, the Gospel changed several times its place until it was kept in the National Museum of Belgrade. ------------------------------------------------The Writings of father Diocletian (Dukljanin) also known as the Bar document or by its Serbian acronym LPD, written in 1196. The LPD divided Serbia into two parts as follows: "Surbiam autem quae et Transmontana dicitur, in duas divisit provinciam: unam a magna flumine Drina contra occidentalem palagam usque and montem Pini, quam et Bosnam vocavit, alteram vero ab eodem flumine Drina contra orientalem plagam usque ad Lapiam et [ad paludem Labeatidem], quam Rassam vocavit". The LPD called Bosnia and Raska (the name of the first Serbian state within the borders of modern Serbia) by the common name "Serbia", which clearly indicates the united Serbian national identity. ------------------------------------------------Charter of Ban Matej Ninoslav - 1232-1235. The following was written when Bosnia stretched only from Sarajevo to Zeniva. In the name of the father, son and the holy ghost! I, God's slave, Matej, branch of Ninoslav, great viceror of Bosnia, swear unto the prince of Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik's Zan Dandole (Gianni Dandolli) and all the regions of Dubrovnik. I swear just as Ban Kulin swore before me: For the Vlachs to walk freely as they did in the time of Ban Kulin, freely without deciet and evil...thus if a Serb decieves a Vlach, may he be held in the Ban's court. Also; In the international accord on the lack on Bosnian-Dubrovnik relations, the Ban (viceroy) Ninoslav explicitly calls his subjects "Serbs" (Srblji) and the Dubrovnikers "Vlachs" (Vlasi): "For deceit by a Vlah of a Serb, a Bosnian court was to be conveyed. But for deceit of a Serb over a Vlach, a court was to be convened in Dubrovnik." ------------------------------------------------In a letter written by Johannes, the Archbishop of Dubrovnik (Archiepiscopus Ragusinus) on February 24th 1252, the following passage is stated; Bosnia: "regnum Seruilie, quod est Bosgna" translated "Serbian kingdom of Bosnia". Note: "Regnum" must have loosely meant kingdom in that time since Bosnia was then still a "banovina." "...tria regna, videlicet regnum Zachlomie, regnum Seruilie, quod est Bosgna et regnum Tribunie. Et regnum Zachulmie extenditur vsque ad prouinciam Spalatensem, regnum Seruilie extenditur vsque ad prouinciam Collocensem, regnum Tribunie extenditur vsque ad prouinciam Dirachinam." From: "Bullarium Ragusium", 401-402 ------------------------------------------------The first King of Bosnia, Tvrtko Kotromanic was crowned as 'the King of SERBS, Bosnia, the Seacoast and Western Parts" in 1371. His Charter also contains references to Serbian language and his Serban heritage. Numerous other events within his life and times demonstrate a prevailing Serbian identity in Bosnia. For example in order to emphasize his relationship with the Nemanjic dynasty (Serbs of Rascia, the first Serbian state within the borders of modern Serbia, Montenegro & Bosnia) and the Kotromanic dynasty, Tvrtko puts before his own name, the title Stefan, which indicates that he is crowned as was the case with all other Serbian leaders of the time. In this letter the name Stefan is consistently mentioned. Further consistency is found in the concept of "Serbian land" or "Serbs" (Srbljem) as one ethnic categorization as was the case with the leaders of other Serbian lands. Tvrtko also clearly indicates the roots of his 'parents of Serb nobility." Tvrtko was buried at the grave of St. Sava in the Mileseva monastery. Furthermore, until 1390, Tvrtko carried the title, "King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seacoast and Western Parts". From this title we can see that he ruled only (if not mainly) one people, the Serbs. When Tvrtko conquered parts of lands inhabited by other people, his title was changed. In 1390 after some successful campaigns in other lands (particularly in Croatia) his title was changed to "King of Rashka, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croatia and the Sea Coast.” This observation also emphasizes the extent to which Tvrtko was conscious that he was a Serb and that Serbs live in Bosnia. Original letters of the medieval Bosnian rulers which have been copied to microfilm are kept in the Dubrovnik archives. ------------------------------------------------After Tvrtko, the next Bosnian rulers of the house of Kotromanic continued to take the title "King of Serbs…" since they no longer ruled lands populated by significant amounts of Croats but returned again to ruling mostly Serbs. This continuation speaks of how conscious the Bosnian nobles were that they and their people were Serbs. This also continued to be the only ethnic name used in their title. They were Kings of Bosnia but they only mention Bosnia as a territory just as they saw other lands as territories. This is consistent with other Serbian lands which were still not called Serbia. For example, the Kotoromanic’s also called the state of the Nemanjic kings “Raska” because it was the only name of that land at the time that would later become part of present day Serbia. Kings of Bosnia; 1. Stefan Tvrtko I Kotromanic (1377–1391) 2. Stefan Dabiša Kotromanic (1391–1395) 3. Jelena Gruba (1395–1398). Wife of Stefan Dabiša above. 4. Stephen Ostoja Kotromanic (1398–1404) 5. Tvrtko II Kotromanic (1404–1409) 6. Stefan Ostoja Kotromanic (restored 1409–1418) 7. Stefan Ostojić Kotromanic (1418–1421) 8. Stefan Tvrtko II Kotromanic (restored 1421–1443) 9. Stefan Tomas Kotromanic (1443–1461) (1446-1461) (kralj Srbljem, Bosni, Primorju, Homsci zemlji, Dalmaciji, Hervatom, Donjim krajem, Zapadnim stranam k tomu) 10. Stefan Tomašević (1461–1463) also last despot of Serbia. Charter Examples Stefan Dabisa Kotromanic Stefan Ostoja Kotromanic ------------------------------------------------Ne postoji zemlja Srbija nego Raska.Postojao je mali Slavenski narod Srba, Tzoraba, Tzervaniosa, u bilo kojem jeziku:Grcki, Latinski, znaci sluga, i samo SLUGA.Znaci, narod sluga.Kako od Grka, kako od Rima, kako od Turka..sve isto 2) Ako je Srbija i Bosna zasebne zemlje.Zasto se svi pozivaju na Ljudevita i Ajnhajda, kad Ajnhard nije bio historicar, on je bio na Njemackom dvoru, putopisac i filozof.To je isto kada bi ja ucio historiju od Homera u 3 stoljecu, iako Homer nije tad zivio.Dajem samo neko poredjenje.Ili od Jordanesa, vodeceg historicara tog perioda.Jel mi treba filozof uciti historijom? Hajmo dalje Ako je Srbija za Vojseslava, citaj Raska dobila autonomiju u Bizantskom carstvu 787, dok je Bosna bila zasebna zemlja, koja ima poznate vladare od 822 godine, citati i Ivana Franju Jukica Bosanskog Franjevca i Bosnjaka, i citati Lasvanina i Ljetopis Nilkole Lasvanina.Onda znaci da to nije Balijska propaganda.Ako je Svetimir kralj Bosne, od Luidia Vilarija, to znaci da nije Mehmed, Mustafa ili Miralem izmislio Bosnjake Nego su Italijanski historicari, a ako su stranci spominjali Bosnjake i Bosnu prije Srba.Kako onda mogu da budu izmisljen narod?Da je neki Mustafa pisao 2003 iz Visokog, a ne Luidji Vilari, onda bi to bilo tacno.Zar ne? Ako od 9 stoljeca, imamo razlicite i zasebne vladare Raske i Bosne.I ako je Bosancica izvedena od Crkvenjaka i putopisca, jezicara Metoda.Ako Metodovi Kanonici spominju kralja Bosne prije 880 godine.Kako je mogla da Bosna bude Srbija Ako je Srbija bila u Bosni i prije.Zasto je Zdeslav pravio invaziju na Bosnu 929 godine, i okupirao je punih 30 godina.Zasto je morao s vojskom dolaziti u Bosnu, kada je u Bosni vladao gradjanski rat, nakon sloma Hrvatskog kraljestva, nakon smrti Tomislava, i Madjarske prevlasti Zasto je Zdeslav/Caslav isao na Bosnu Mozda zato sto historicari ne spominju Srbiju Mozda zato sto Zagorska Sklavinija je zasebna od Srbije i Hrvatske Mozda zato sto postoje drugaciji zakoni od raznih drzava Ako je Methodious, Sveta Hrvatska knjiga pisana 753 po Mandicu, iako sama rijec Methodious ili Metod aludira na Metoda, koji je umro prije 882 i bio je prosvjetitelj i pisan Slavenskog pravopisa i zacetnik jezika.Otkud onda 100 godina prije moze po Mandicu da se Metodov kanonik spominje.Nidje veze.Mandic je bio dobar crkvenjak i ima neke dobre teze, cudno, ali ima Ali ima i lude teze, tipa Ferdo Sisic Onda se postavlja tema hereze, ili jereze, tipa Srpski Babuni u Bosanskoj drzavi, Babuni su nevjernici po Srbima Ako car Dusan spominje Bosnu i Bosnjake, nevjernike u Bosni i zasebno Bosansko i Srpsko carstvo, onda Zasto Stjepan Kotromanica zove babunskim psom i otpadnik.Da je Stjepan bio Srbin i Pravoslavne vjere, ni bi sirio Bosnu prema Limu i Polimlju. Dalje, koje pravoslavlje medju Bosanskim vladarima Pa, i sami anali Hrvoje Vukcica spominju njega kao vodeceg plemica Bogumilske crkve, kao zastupnika Bosanske crkve.Dok Vukcic nije presao na Katolicanstvo i poceo da udara svoje zakone.Ako je Vukcic naljutio Bosanske didove konverzijom u katolicanstvo, znaci da postojalo je jako patarenstvo i pripadnistvo eclesia Bosnensisu, ili crkvi Bosanski, i to prije Ostoje, prije Hrvoja, prije Stjepana, i prije Kulina Ako papa Innocent III pise o heretickom vladaru Bosne Kulinu koji je presao na pravu vjeru.Onda znaci da je Kulin bio po Rimljanima nevjernik.Hereza je postojala Zasto ljudi iz Italije putuju u Bosnu?Da vise Bosanskog papu, u Bosni je bio centar Katarskog ucenja To i sam Hrvatski historicar JOSIP VRANDECIC SPOMINJE.Ako je Josip Balija, i Musliman, onda sam ja Bik koji sjedi, ili Geronimo No, da nastavimo.Imamo Hrvatske historicare Josip Vrandecic, Nada Klaic, imamo Italijanske Luidji Vilari, imam zapise Daniela Farlatija o zemlji Bosni ili Iliriku o Bosanskim kraljevima Pa, nemojte mi reci da su svi oni Balijski placenicii, ili mozda potplaceni, a zivjeli su par stotina godina prije danasnjeg dana Cek, onda Povelja Mateja Ninoslava, citam sad da je on bio Srbin, jebote sta je ovo.Matej Ninoslav je bio Bosanski vladar i bogumil., koji je stijesnjen odlukama Rima i napadima na njegovu Bosansku crkvu, dala zeleno svijetlo Dominikancima, da dodju u Bosnu O tome pise i sam Salih Jalimam, djelatnost dominikanaca u Bosni.Kako je mogao Matej da bude pravoslavan po cijim obredima Da nije mozda Hvalov apostol, i zacetci v ime boga, sina, duha svetog,dokaz da su Bosnjaci bili pravoslavni Ili mozda Anjhard Ako Ljudevit putuje ka Srbiji.Zasto je iduce godine ubijen u Kninu od brata Ljudemisla.Kako, kada je mogao 822 da dodje u Srbiju.Zato sto je isao ka Srbu a ne Srbiji.I Srbija nije bila na mapi tada.I da je sve istina.Zasto bi slijedece godine bio ubijen, negdje kraj Knina.I da mi neko kaze da je to jos centar Srpske drzave Loool Jebote, cime se ovi pravoslavne nindza kornjace hrane.Materi mi Ovi su gore od Cirkovica i spomen 7000 godina Srpske kulture.,sta je ovo sad
|
|
|
Post by bosanskinovi on Feb 23, 2009 4:10:41 GMT -5
Ok I read about one word of this topic.....Arsenije, you dont have to feel like you have to prove the Serbian identity in BiH; most of us dont really care what you Serboids identify as...I know for me personally I only use the "Serbs are Orthodox Bosniaks" card when they start talking about "Serb Muslims"...(I prefer Vlah though )
|
|
|
Post by whateva on Feb 23, 2009 4:52:01 GMT -5
Why do you even bother answering them? It's not like this is the first time Serbs have to "prove" to us that we are Serbs just like Croats like to claim us as their own. I say let the christian brotherhood fight between themselves to decide what we are and then the winner can come back so we can tell them to suck on our osunecene kite.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Feb 23, 2009 4:57:52 GMT -5
All pawning in this topic should be made sticky.
Kapetan is completely bolestan & deluded if he think's he's done any pawning. These people mostly had Serbian names, say they spoke Serbian, passed laws distinguishing Serbs, Serb this Serb that 100 times over, exactly the same as in other Serbian lands, & then it's like nah prove they were Serbian. Nah they really meant Bosnian. Matej Ninoslav said "u ime oca i sina"... & distinguished Serbs & said "just like Ban Kulin before me" and then Kapetan is like nah get f**ked he was a heretic Bogumil. You got owned. lol. Well no not lol but it's sad actually. What a deluded nutbag you'd have to be to deny it. Or of course Serbs had a totally different meaning to Serbs when the Nemanjics spoke of us or Stefan Decanski. Where were all the Bosnians? If that's what you think pawning is then yeah you should be happy to make this sticky lol.
This topic 100% sticky please.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Feb 23, 2009 4:59:19 GMT -5
Their constant need to prove to themselves and others who they are is really sad but I say let them think they are whoever they want to be, we must respect that, to me every person that declares himself as a Serb is a Serb.
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Feb 23, 2009 5:08:20 GMT -5
Their constant need to prove to themselves and others who they are is really sad but I say let them think they are whoever they want to be, we must respect that, to me every person that declares himself as a Serb is a Serb. yes yes it is. but not only is the need sad, their failure to do so is even sadder. he couldnt stand up to any argument in that whole post. The idiot thinks Slavic Bosnian names from 1000 years ago are "Serbian names", becuz today Bosnians have "Islamicky" names. Dear God.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Feb 23, 2009 5:11:27 GMT -5
rofl I remember once someone said LOOK the Bosniak kings were christian, not muslim!!! ROFL I just don't understand the need to steal the history of others, although if we take into account the fact that nowadays the word Serb is associated with genocide I can understand why many of them do that.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Feb 23, 2009 5:15:19 GMT -5
Dear God Kapetan adressed not one single article in the post. Could not stand up to one single article from the Bosnian bans and Kings which is the closest we get to any identity in Bosnia. THESE ARE THE RULERS TALKING ABOUT THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Is it even possible to get something more authentic than this? Tvrtko - King of Serbs. Not Bosnians. Serbs is mentioned 100 times over in language and reference to heritage. Serbs Serbs Serbs. All of them have religious references. And his argument back is they just had "slavic" names and they were heretic. Once again feel free to think you're doing owning. It is sad though. Sticky topic please. All owning preserved here.
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Feb 23, 2009 5:38:41 GMT -5
If I was you I'd be emberassed, honestly. To be part of a nation THAT chauvenistic and downright psychotic. Arsenije, you're a joke, its a waste of time talking to you. Using your logic anyone here could just say "charter of ban kulin" or any other document from then mentioning bosnjani, bosanski jezik or even iliri and end the argument. "Straight from the rulers mouth" and all that. You just don't seem to know or get certain historical facts that destroy your stupid theories. Like digging deeper into your claims and wondering why Tvrtko took those titles, what did they mean at the time, what land was he actualy ruling when he took them, and why did he drop them again. Stuff like that that idiots like you don't consider when foaming at the mouth to "destroy the bosnain nation". More of those facts were posted in that first post and you went on like you didn't undertand what was said. What? Can't read Bosnian? Sorry maybe you can get one of those lessons on tape from Pimsleur Im going to sleep, nitey nite brave serv warrior
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Feb 23, 2009 5:54:26 GMT -5
Are you really asleep? Something tells me you're not sleeping well tonight.
And this is not to prove that all Bosniak’s were Serbs even though it does a pretty good job of that. The non Serbs were Vlachs. And Kapetan, these authentic documents are not "my theories." There's hardly even any interpretation in there. Not that they need much interpretation for heavens sake. If it says it has Serbian heritage, says it speaks Serb language, passes laws between Serbs & Vlahs, has a Serbian name, says it's the King of Serbs, addresses a Christian God, does all the same things leaders of other Serbian lands do, but it's actually a heretic ethnic Bosnian Bogumil then fark me I really am crazy.
Sticky topic please.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Feb 23, 2009 6:21:29 GMT -5
Ok I'll start
Here the translation from latin is correct.
And... if this is your quote it's really a weak one because nowhere it talks about the river Una or the region of Krajina all the quote says is:
'Ljudevit having left the city of Sisak, ran toward the Serbs, for whom the people say inhabit the greater part of Dalmatia)."
Where do Serb historians see special references to Bosnia is still a mystery to us.
Let's go on ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
About DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO it was written from an Emperor that never stepped into Bosnia. It's historical accuracy is disputed by many but obviously not by Serbs but what is the thing that interests us the most?
The fact that Serbia and Bosnia are to separated provinces (something the map you posted fails to portrait) and the fact that Bosnia was not part of the baptisation that occured to Serbs - as a matter of fact, it is not part of Baptised Serbia.
I need to say how I do agree that in the modern region of Herzegovina there was a strong Serb influence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Iovan Kinamos
I really searched on google for any reference to the Borik (which btw... what does Borik have to do with this if the ban was Boris??) BUT I can post many more quotes of his, you be the judge
So that same author says how Bosnia is not subjected to the serb ruler, how it's a land on it's own and finally how the PEOPLE THERE ARE ARE A DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT HAS A DIFFERENT WAY OF LIFE.
Would he say that if they were Serbs? I doubt it, but he's probably part of the great islamo-american conspiracy against Serbs
ROFL @ "regnum" must have loosely meant kingdom in that time... like the pope, the head of Catholic Christianity had no idea what a king, what a duke, what a ban was.
28.marta 1187 godine u jednom papinom pismu (buli) Dubrovcanima pojavljuje se po prvi put jedan vrlo zagonetan izraz “regnum Servilie,quod est Bosna”,sto znaci:”Kraljevstvo Srbija,sto je Bosna”,te su srpski historicari pokusavali da ovo prikazu kao “dokaz” da je Bosna bila srpska zemlja,sto je naucno dokazano kao apsolutno neistinito. Ovaj izraz se pojavljuje samo jedno izvjesno vrijeme (do 1252 godine),a prije i poslije toga ne.Kako je nastao ovaj izraz?Prije svega treba uociti jednu stvar vrlo jasno : papine bule su vjerski/crkveni dokumenti i u njima se navode crkvene oblasti,a ne drzavne.Kao najocitiji primjer koji to moze ilustrovati treba navesti primjer Bosanskog franjevackog vikarata,koji je formiran 1385 godine i koji je ukljucivao u sebi 35 franjevackih manastira,od kojih su pak samo 4 bila na teritoriji Drzave Bosne,naime Bosanski franjevacki vikarat se pruzao sve do Rumunije,ali niko nikada nije ni pokusao “dokazati,da je sve do Rumunije u stvari Bosna,jer se tu radi o crkvenim oblastima,a ne drzavnim!!Isto tako,izraz “regnum Servilie,quod est Bosna” nije drzavni nego crkveni izraz,ne za drzavne,nego za katolicke crkvene oblasti,sa kojima su Dubrovcani manipulisali preko pape,odnosno,radilo se,u stvari, o teznjama za prosirenje Dubrovacke nadbiskupije koju do 1187 godine sacinjavaju tri pokrajine,i to kraljevstvo Zahumlje,kraljevstvo Srbija i kraljevstvo Travunija.Ovdje je termin “kraljevstvo” samo crkvenog karaktera,odnosno tako papa naziva sve pokrajine/biskupije koje ulaze u sastav nadbiskupije,bez obzira sto mnoge nisu ni drzave,a kamoli kraljevstva u drustveno-politickom pogledu.
Od prvog poznatog papinog pisma Dubrovackom nadbiskupu 1022 godine,pa do te 1187,uvijek se spominjalo “kraljevstvo Srbija” i to samo formalno,(jer srpska biskupija jos od 1020 godine pripada Ohridskoj arhiepiskopiji)ali uz to nigdje nije dodavan umetak “quod est Bosna”,jer je Bosna kao crkveno podrucje,odnosno biskupija,pripadala Splitskoj nadbiskupiji i nije imala apsolutno nikakve veze sa Dubrovackom nadbiskupijom.
Dubrovacka nadbiskupija je tokom vremena izgubila Bar,koji je promovisan u nadbiskupiju,a takodjer gubi i Kotor koji se takodjer oteo jurisdikciji Dubrovnika,kao i gubljenjem citave srpske biskupije,koja se otrgla od Dubrovnika jos 1020 godine,kada ju je Car Vasil II otrgao od Dubrovacke nadbiskupije i podvrgao Ohridskoj arhiepiskopiji,te je izraz “regnum Servilie” (kraljevstvo Srbija),bilo samo mrtvo slovo na papiru,jer u stvarnosti Dubrovacka nadbiskupija od 1020 godine nema nikakvu jurisdikciju nad “kraljevstvom Srbijom”,ali je i dalje navodi,jedino eventualno kao pretenziju,a nikako kao stvarno cinjenicno stanje.Dubrovackoj nadbiskupiji je jedino ostala Trebinjska biskupija.U pitanje je dakle bio dosao i sam opstanak Dubrovacke nadbiskupije zbog manjka podloznih biskupija.
U takvoj situaciji Dubrovacki nadbiskup Tribun je morao naci nacina da prosiri svoju nadbiskupiju te onda pokusava pridobiti prostranu Bosansku biskupiju koja je u to vrijeme pripadala Splitskoj nadbiskupiji od koje se zeljela otrgnuti,jer su vrlo cesto Splitskim nadbiskupima bili Ugari,na koje se u Bosni gledalo kao predstavnicima neprijateljske Ugarske,kao konstantne prijetnje nezavisnosti Bosanske drzave.Ovdje je vrlo bitno zapaziti sljedece:Prije 1187 godine u papinim bulama Dubrovackoj nadbiskupiji postoji izraz “regnum Servilie”,(kraljevstvo Srbija),I BOSNA SE NE PODRAZUMIJEVA POD TIME JER PRIPADA CIJELO TO VRIJEME SPLITSKOJ NADBISKUPIJI.,a onda odjednom uz umetak”quod est Bosna”,Bosna se kao da podrazumijeva pod tim pojmom,i da pripada Dubrovackoj nadbiskupiji??!O cemu se ovdje zapravo radilo? Bosanski kler je sklopio dogovor sa Dubrovackim nadbiskupom,da se Bosanska nadbiskupija prikljuci Dubrovackoj i napusti Splitsku,sto je nekako moralo biti ozvaniceno pred papom,te Dubrovacki izaslanici uspijevaju “uvjeriti” Rimsku kuriju,da je Bosanska biskupija oduvijek bila dio Dubrovacke nadbiskupije,samo sto se to podrazumijevalo pod “regnum Servilie” i da bi se to pojasnilo da se uz “regnum Servilie” doda i umetak “quod est Bosna”,sto je jednostavno bilo falsificiranje stvarnog stanja,a sve u cilju prosirenja Dubrovacke nadbiskupije,kao i otcjepljenja Bosanske biskupije od Splita.I Bosanska biskupija i Dubrovacka nadbiskupija su time ostvarili sto su zeljeli,a sve to su uredili da izgleda sasvim legalno pred papom,iako je cijela stvar bila daleko od icega legalnog.O tom ” diplomatskom ” uspjehu Dubrovcana Kr. Draganovic primjecuje ovo: ” Papinska kancelarija, koja je znala nasjesti i drugim ocitijim povjesnim zabludama glede njoj slabo poznatog i uvijek nemirnog Balkana, nasjela je i ovom `neduznom’ tumacenju spretnih Dubrovcana i dala ga uvrstiti na tako neobican nacin i u samu papinsku bulu ed g. 1187. Kad je jednom formula prodrla u papinsku povelju, ona ce se neko vrijeme zadrzati u bulama jos dvojice Dubrovniku sklonih papa, usprkos toga, da je u opreci i s povjesnim cinjenicama i s fakticnim stanjem u tadasnjoj Bosni “(Draganovic,Kat.crkva,732) Bosanska se biskupija nije mogla smatrati srpskom iz vrlo prostog razloga sto su i Bosna i Srbija od starina imale svaka svoju biskupiju (Bosna jos od vremena Rimljana).Sjediste Bosanske biskupije je bilo u gradu Vrhbosni,dok je srpska biskupija bila u gradu Rasu.Provinciale vetus iz godine 1080 i bula Klementa III iz 1089 godine spominju i Bosansku i srpsku biskupiju JASNO RAZLIKUJUCI JEDNU OD DRUGE.
Ova formula “regnum Servilie,quad est Bosna”,zadrzala se izvjesno vrijeme u papinskim bulama,sve do 1252 godine i to od strane onih papa koji su bili naklonjeni Dubroniku,i to Klementa II u buli od 21.juna 1188 godine,te u dvije bule Grgura IX i to od 24.jula 1227 godine i 26.marta 1238 godine.Da bi,pslije sirenja bogumilstva po Bosni i jacanja bogumilske Bosanske Crkve, Rimska kurija otrgla Bosansku biskupiju od Dubrovacke nadbiskupije 26.avgusta 1247 godine i pripojila je Kalockom nadbiskupu u Ugarskoj.Dubrovacki nadbiskup Ivan je ,vodeci parnicu sa Barskim nadbiskupom o granicama izmedju njihovih nadbiskupija,pokusao je da ponovo da polozi pravo na ovu formulu,ali nije uspio da Bosansku biskupiju vrati Dubrovackoj nadbiskupiji,te je to bio zadnji put da se ovaj izraz “regnum Servilie,quod est Bosna” ikada vise pojavi u bilo kakvim papinim sluzbenim dokumentima,a koristiti ga kao neki dokaz o “srpstvu” Bosne,je vec odavno naucno odbaceno kao apsolutno neutemeljen argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
About that povelja of Ban Ninoslav
Povelja bosanskoga bana Ninoslava Dubrovcanima, iz 1232-1235:
Na osnovu prijepisa jednog manjeg dijela Povelje Bosanskoga Bana Ninoslava od tacno neutvrdjenog datuma nastanka (pretpostavlja se da je nastala izmedju 1232 i 1235 godine,jer se u njoj spominje Dubrovacki Knez Zan Dandulo,koji je vladao do aprila 1235 godine):
"Az rab Bozji Matej, a odmjelom Ninoslav, Ban Bos'nski Veliki, kle se Knezu Dubrov'ckomu Zan Dandolu i vsej opcine Dubrov'ckoj. Takom s'm se kletv'ju klel, kakom se je Ban Kulin klel: Da hode Vlasi svobodno, ih dobit'k, tako kako su u Bana Kulina hodili, bez vse habe i zledi. A ja kudje oblada, tudje si hodite prostrano i zdravo, a ja prijati kako-re sam sebje, i nauk dati od vse zledi. A se pisah, imenom Desoje, gramatig Bana Ninoslava, velijega Bos'nskoga, tako vjerno kako-re u prvih. A se jeste: ako vjeruje srbljin Vlaha, da se pri pred knezem; ako vjeruje Vlah srbljina, da se pri pred Banom, a inomu Vlahu da ne bude izma. Boze-re ti daj zdravije."
,srpski historicari su pokusavali da ustvrde,kako u toj "povelji" Bosanski Ban Ninoslav narod u Bosni zove srbljima,a Dubrovcane Vlasima,sto je naucno dokazano kao potpuno neistinito. Ovu "povelja" je vrlo malih dimenzija,a u njoj pisar,inace iz Srbije, koji se zvao Desoje i bio zaposlen od Dubrovnika) navodi da je prije ove bila napisana glavna (prva) povelja,kada kaze"A se pisah, imenom Desoje, gramatig Bana Ninoslava, velijega Bos'nskoga, tako vjerno kako-re u prvih."
Ovo je bio,dakle,samo dodatak glavnoj povelji i napisan dosta nemarno kada se usporedi sa ostalim poveljama,ocigledno,posto je napisan poslije dovrsetka glavne povelje,da se radilo o necemu sto je sporedno u odnosu na dvije ugovarajuce strane u povelji :Bosnjake i Dubrovcane.Nazivi "srbljin i Vlah" se spominju u jos dvije povelje Bana Ninoslava (iz 1240 i 1249 godine),a ne spominju se ni prije ni poslije ove tri,jer svi Bosanski Banovi i Kraljevi narod u Bosni,kada mu se eksplicitno obracaju zovu ga Bosnjacima (starinskim nazivom za Bosnjake "Bosnjani") i nikako drugacije,kao sto i narod u Bosni sam sebe zove Bosnjacima,na nadgrobnim spomenicima,u vjerskim bogumilskim knjigama,darovnicama i sl.
Takodjer,tvrdnje da se naziv "Vlasi" odnosi na Dubrovcane ne stoji,jer se nigdje i nikada tako oni sami nazivaju,niti ih iko ikada tako naziva,cak postoje i adekvatni izvori iz srbije koji prave jasnu razliku izmedju Dubrovcana,srblja i Vlaha,kao npr. u jednom dijelu povelje Stefana Dusana Silnog,a koja datira od 26.oktobra 1345 godine:"...da ne uzima Dabiziv' Dubrov'canom ni carine; da nikoega dohodka ni tr'govcu Dubrov'c'komu, ni Vlahu, ni sr'binu, da nikomu; i kto gred u Dubrovnik i (i)z Dubrov'nika i vsaci vlasteli koi te stajati po Dabizive, da ne uzme carine do veka veku..." Ovdje,dakle,sami srbi prave jasnu razliku izmedju Dubrovcana,srba i Vlaha ("ni tr'govcu Dubrov'c'komu, ni Vlahu, ni sr'binu),te je tvrdnja da su Dubrovcani bili nazivani "Vlasima" oborena i to upravo iz jednog srpskog izvora !! A,ako Dubrovcani nisu Vlasi,onda ih ni Ban Ninoslav ne moze tako zvati,pa time pada u vodu i tvrdnja da Ban Ninoslav Bosnjake naziva "srbljima",jer u toj povelji jedno iskljucuje drugo!!
U isto vrijeme kada je nastala povelja Stefana Dusana i u kojoj on jasno razlikuje "srbe,Vlahe i Dubrovcane",kao tri razlicite vrste ljudi,Ban Stjepan II Kotromanic je Ban u Bosni koji u svojim poveljama narod u Bosni zove iskljucivo Bosnjacima,a Dubrovcane Dubrovcanima,nikakvog spomena ni o srbljima ni o Vlasima.
Ali,sam Ban Ninoslav daje konacan odgovor po ovome pitanju i to u poveljama Dubrovcanima iz 1240. i 1249 godine,gdje se spominju tri vrste ljudi,a to su Mi-narod u Bosni -"nasi ljudie",Vi-"Dubrovcani" i Oni-"srblji i Vlasi" Stranke u ugovoru povelje su "Mi" i "Vi",odnosno Bosnjaci i Dubrovcani,a "Oni" - srblji i Vlasi su samo sporedni dio ugovora,a sve ove tri grupe ljudi su razlicite izmedju sebe,sto se jasno vidi iz glavnih dijelova tih povelja,gdje Ban Ninoslav,obracajuci se Dubrovcanima zadrzava sebi pravo sudjenja Bosnjacima ("nasi ljudie"),u slucaju da bi ih tuzili Dubrovcani i zabranjuje "izmu",odnosno vansudsku odmazdu u krivicama ("i ne izma").U posebnom,pak,dodatku tim poveljama,govori se o "srbljima i Vlasima",kao o posebnoj grupi ljudi razlicitoj od stranaka u ugovoru,odnosno od Bosnjaka i Dubrovcana.Kada bi "srblji i Vlasi" bili istovjetni sa Bosnjacima i Dubrovcanima,onda ovaj dodatak poveljama ne bi imao nikakvog smisla,jer je vec u glavnom dijelu povelje Ban Ninoslav zadrzao sebi pravo sudjenja Bosnjacima,koje bi tuzili Dubrovcani,i ne bi imalo nikakvog smisla ponavljati to ponovo!
Na osnovu raspolozivih autenticnih historijskih izvora,jasno se vidi da srbi nisu domaci ljudi ni u Bosni ni u Dubrovniku,nego stranci iz srbije koje su Dubrovcani upotrebljavali najvise za prijenos teske trgovacke robe,a u Zahumlju ih je domaca gospoda upotrebljavala kao najamnike za cuvanje stoke,pa im je i putem medjudrzavnih ugovora izmedju Bosne i Dubrovnika bio zasebno regulisan status pred zakonom.Tokom vremena su potpuno nestali kao pravni subjekt u Srednjovjekovnoj Drzavi Bosni,o cemu nam svjedoce i sve kasnije povelje Bosanskih vladara,koje se inace broje u stotinama!
So the same charter you gave me clearly has written that it is a SECOND WRITING by Desoje, who was a Serb. In any ORIGINAL charter does a Bosniak lord call his subjects Serbs but must important does he call A dubrovnicanin a Vlah! those are terms that appear in that second writing of that specific charter. The fact that Ban Kulin never ever says the word Serb as reffering to his subjects clearly says a lot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
about Tvrtko...lol
Tvrtko took the title of King of Serbs after he actually conquered lands where Serbs lived, that is when he did take a piece of Serbia. Before that happened, he never called himself king of Serbs. As a matter of fact the title "king of Serbs" was a title used by the Serbian kings and after his conquers of Serbian land does he take that title to justify his rule. When Dusan claimed the title of Emperor of the Greeks you guys somehow don't claim how he is a greek. When still in 1500 Maximilian II had the title "king of Romans" no sane historician claimed Maximilian felt an ethnic Roman. The fact that Tvrtko never before claimed to be the king of Serbs before actually conquering lands where Serbs lived is all the response you need. As Bosnia was not a kingdom, and you couldn't "Create" crowns, I hope you do know how you got your legitimacy from other crowns.
But let's let Tvrtko talk!!!
Takozhde zhe i meni svojemu rabu za milost’ svojego bozhastva darovi procisti mi odrasli bogosadni va rodi mojem’ i spodobi me sugubim viencem jako oboja vladichastva ispravljati mi pr’vi od isprva bgodarovani nam zemli’ Bosne, potom zhe gospodu mojemu bgu spodobl’shu me nasledovati pr’stol’ mojeh praroditel’ gospode sr’pske zanje bo ti behu moi praroditelje va zemalnem car’stvi car’stvovashe na nebesno car’stvo pr’selishe mene zhe videshtu zemlju praroditel’ mojeh’ po nih ostavshe i nemushtu svojego pastjera i odoh v srpsku zemlju zhelaje i hote ukr’pit prestol’ roditel’ mojeh i tamo poshad (poshavhsi) venchan’ bih bgodarovanemi vincem na kralevstvo praroditel mojeh jako bit mi, o H’ste Ususe, blagover’nomu i bgom postavlenomu Stefanu kralju Sr’blem i Bosne i Pomorju i Zapadnem stranam.
Tvrtko himself says I saw the land of my ancestor empty (as he was linked to the serbian dinasty trough his grandmother) so I go into SERBIAN LAND to occupy that throne. The emphasise on the ethnicity is not really given by the crown, but actually but what they wrote, and in ANY document where a Bosniak lord calls his subjects, he calls them Bosniaks.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Feb 23, 2009 6:38:16 GMT -5
Actually thanks for replying normally fazlinho. On face value these documents are black & white in supporting an extensive Serbian identity in Bosnia. There's always two sides to every story & that's why I posted this. I'm actually interested in the other side. I have seen Smajzers site & a few others and have not found them nearly as impressive as the sites that present this Serbian information & associated documents. I've left out as much interpretation as possible to get your opinions before making any big conclusions.
So, so far I don't think you discredited the documents too well overall going on face value. Some things I don't agree with your interpretation at all, other things I didn't know about or I'm not sure about but there are some things to look into...
|
|
|
Post by karabin on Feb 23, 2009 9:42:37 GMT -5
It is really simple guys. No need for all these theories. Bosnian muslims did not exist until the turks came and some bosnian serbs and bosnian croats converted to islam and hence became bosnian muslims. Bosnian muslims are as old as the USA lol
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Feb 23, 2009 19:39:42 GMT -5
I'll give you this.
Finally, it is necessary to point out that there is little sense today in saying that the Bosnian Serbs are "really" Vlachs. Over the centuries many ordinary members of the Serbian Orthodox Church would have crossed the Drina into Bosnia or moved north from Hercegovina; a Serb merchant class also became important in Bosnian towns in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Not all the people who were sent to populate northern Bosnia in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were Vlach, and since then there have been so many influxes and exoduses in Bosnian history that we cannot possibly calculate precise percentages for the "Vlach" ancestry of the Bosnian Serbs. Nor did the Vlachs contribute only to the Serb population; some (mainly in Croatia) became Catholics, and quite a few were Islamicized in Bosnia.
To call someone a Serb today is to use a concept constructed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries out of a combination of religion, language, history and the person's own sense of identification: modern Bosnian Serbs can properly describe themselves as such, regardless of Vlach ancestry.
You are Serbs now, regardless of past, now is the only thingt hat really matters I've said it a 100 times. We don't care. Great. You win. Bye.
|
|