|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 31, 2009 21:45:21 GMT -5
HrvatZagreb - Povelje Kotromaniæa:''Hrvati štokavci i Bošnjaci: Razumite!''
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Sept 1, 2009 5:18:23 GMT -5
I don't have a working computer right now at home, I'm at uni right now and youtube doesn't work, I think this comp must have some java problems, I'll answer when the technician repairs it.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Sept 1, 2009 6:06:43 GMT -5
We eagerly await the esteemed Fazlino's reasoned response.
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Sept 1, 2009 8:28:04 GMT -5
The best thing about this clip was the soundtrack, do you know who it is from??? otherwise it was a complete waste of my time...the guys is asking questions that can never be answered and there's no point to provoke the Bosnians here, they know the truth but will never ever admit it.
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Sept 2, 2009 1:42:43 GMT -5
What exactly do you mean by "they know the truth but will never ever admit it. "
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Sept 2, 2009 10:16:59 GMT -5
^I was probably diverting a little without specifying...I won't change subjects though it is related to this one. Send me a PM if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Sept 3, 2009 9:24:37 GMT -5
Here I am
1:08 - 1333 god Povelja stefana Kotromanic svoj jezik naziva Srpskim...
^ to jos uvijek niti ijedan historican nije uspio da nađe jer zapravo ništa takvo u povelji i ne piše.
Evo ti povelje
Prvo od svega tu se jezik uopće ni ne spominje, nego pismo
"A tomuj su četiri povelje jednako : dvije latinsci i dvi srpsci "
jedino ako hoćeš da me ubjediš da su u Bosni ljudi pričali na latinskom, ali nadam se da nećeš pokušati takvu glupost provaliti.
No, autor videa naravno ni ne piše da je ono što mi danas imamo povelje samo prijepis, a sva ostala četiri originala ne postoje.
Kako znamo da je to prijepis?
jednostavno pročitaj zadnju rečenicu
Znači autor priča u trećem licu, jer nema nikakvog smisla da ban koji je rečenicu prije u prvom licu napisao
odjednom, o sebi, govori "dvije su u bana stefana". To je ono što je prijepisnik napisao.
Dalje,
Povelja Mateja bana ninoslava
“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.”
Prvo od svega ovdje je čak još jasnije da prijepis jer nam autor štoviše to i piše
Ovo je jedan dokument koji niti ijedan ozbiljan historičan sem srpskih ne bi upotrebio da išta dokaže, jer hajde, izostavimo svu raspravu o Bošnjacima i kako su se nazivali, tu on Dubrovčane naziva Vlašima, što nikakvog historijskog smisla nema.
A ako hoćeš da me ubijediš da su, eto, tako nazivali Dubrovčane iz nekih nezamišljivih razloga, mogu ti dokazati da tako nije
u jednom dijelu povelje Stefana Dusana Silnog,a koja datira od 26.oktobra 1345 godine:
znači sami srbi prave jasnu razliku izmedju Dubrovčana,Srba i Vlaha (”ni tr’govcu Dubrov’c'komu, ni Vlahu, ni Sr’binu),te je tvrdnja da su Dubrovčani bili nazivani “Vlašima” oborena i to upravo iz jednog srpskog izvora.
A ako srpska historija uzima kao istinite samo djelove kojoj njoj idu u korist, to me ne čudi, no ne možeš to od mene tražiti.
O povelji Tvrtka iz 1382, kunem se, ne mogu nigdje naći cijeli tekst nigdje na internetu. Ovom prilikom bih ti bio zahvalan da mi daš tekst čitave poveljeako ga imaš.
Sada trebam nakratko izaći, napisaću tačno za sat vremena ostatak odgovora, i naravno, kontra-odgovor gdje ću pokazati kako su Bošnjaci sebe zapravo nazivali, u pravim dokumentima a ne u prijepiscima.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Sept 3, 2009 10:10:22 GMT -5
O povelji Tvrtka iz 1382, kunem se, ne mogu nigdje naći cijeli tekst nigdje na internetu. Ovom prilikom bih ti bio zahvalan da mi daš tekst čitave poveljeako ga imaš. Mislim da sam jednom odavno vidio negde al ni ja nemogu sada naci. Ali od ono sta se moze naci izgleda da su Srbi vise potrudili da to izskanijaru. Za jezika stvarno ti je odgovor glupo kako razlikujes Latinski. LOL. Ako to vjerujes ja samo mogu da se nasmijem. Glupo. Najvise si krenuo na povelja Mateja Ninoslav. Nisi ni tamo ni vamo. Tema je uglavnom o povelje Kotromanica.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Sept 3, 2009 12:07:33 GMT -5
molim? Nisam zaista shvatio smisao rečenice "kako razlikujes Latinski". Ja upravo govorim da ljudi nisu govorili Latinski, i da se latinci kao i dan danas odražava na pismo, a srpscie na čirilicu. Uglavnom, meni izgleda da se nisu ni oni baš nešto potrudili ako je ni ti nemožeš naći, o povelji iz 1382 godine, ne mogu ništa reći ako nemam izvor. Povelju stjepana ostojića iz 1419 godine nisam uspio nikako da nađem na internetu, tako i o tome ne mogu ništa da komentarišem. Nadam se da je ti možeš pokazati, ne tražim čitav tekst, ali barem nekoliko rečenica. NO Iako ne upiješ naći čitave povelje, uopće ti ne vjerujem, naprotiv. Bošnjački kraljevi zapravo i jesu isticali da su imali krvnih veza sa Srpskim kraljevima, i to je zapravo bio najveći razlog zbog kojeg je Tvrtko i mogao da uzme sebi titulu Kralja Srba. Bosna je upravo i postala kraljevstvo radi toga, jer kao što nadam se znaš, nove krune su mogli jedino stvoriti Papa, ili Bizantijski car, a Papine su bile najviše priznate (malo Srba zna da je Srpska kruna upravo od Pape stvorena). I još da spomenem da se Srbljem kao termin odnosi na Srbe je ono što jedino pojedini VelikoSrbi pokušavaju da nametnu no ima i normalnih historičara poput Petara Skoka koji piše u svome "Etimološkom Rječniku"(I-IV,1971-1978), da se odrednice "srbljem","srblji" u srednjovjekovnim spiscima odnose ne samo na narod nego i na zemlju (Srbiju). Tako jedini način da se dobije status Kralja je bio da sebi uzmeš pravo po rodnim vezama nekih drugih kraljeva. Što je ono što je Tvrtko, prvi Bošnjački kralj, uradio, kao što i sam piše: Da izvedemo najbitnije podatke (o našoj temi) Znači, u ovoj povelji po prvi u historiji Bošnjački vladar govori o njegovim srpskim praroditeljima... naravno, samo kad mu je to potrebno. Što je za primjetiti je da Tvrtko govori da ide U SRPSKU ZEMLJU I idoh v` srbskuju zemlju što ukazuje da Bosna i nije mogla biti Srpska zemlja, ako on iz Bosne ide u Srpsku zemlju... Znači, kao što sam možeš provjeriti, jedino od tog događaja Bošnjački kraljevi se počinju zvati kraljevima Srba. Nikada prije se nije iti ijedan Bošnjački vladar tako zvao, još jednom, možeš i to povjeriti. Da bi bio kralj Srba on je morao da ode u Srpsku zemlju, jer naravno iz Bosne kralj Srba nije mogao ni biti. Najsmiješnije je da Srpski historičari pokušavaju da predtave to kao nekakvu njegovu etničku afirmaciju, kad on sam piše od kada iz zbog čega je postao kralj Srba. Bošnjacima je dosta smiješno da se dičite nekim ko vam je uzeo krunu, no to se ne tiče mene. No to nije sve. Mnogo interesantna je i zadnja rečenica I upomenuše Kraljevstvu mi o svojih zakoneh i uvjeteh i poveljeh,koje su imali s praroditelji Kraljevstva mi,z gospodom Bos`nskom... Gdje on govori o drugoj strani njegovih praroditelja, gospodom Bosanskom... znači termin Srbin (gospoda Srbska) i Bošnjak(gospoda Bosanska) su na istom nivou. No još interesantnije je da Tvrtko 1390 godine odbacuje termin kralj Srbije da bi sebe nazivao Kraljem Raške što dovoljno govori da je termin Srbljem samo sinonim Raške da bi se označila zemlja gdje Srbi žive. A sada, da malo ja pokažem kako su Bošnjački kraljevi nazivali zemljanike zemlje Bosne -POVELJA DUBROVCANIMA BANA STJEPANA II KOTROMANICA IZ 1332 GODINE: “15. avgust 1332.) Ako Bosnjanin bude duzan i pobjegne – da mu nije vjere ni ruke od gospodina Bana. Utvrdi zakon ko je prvi bio medju Bosnom i Dubrovnikom, da zna vsaki chlovjek, koji je zakon bil: Ako ima Dubrovcanin koju pravdu na Bosnjaninu – da ga pozove pred gospodina Bana ili pred njegova vladaoca – roka da mu ne bude odgovoriti.” -POVELJA BOSANSKOGA KNEZA VLADISLAVA STJEPANOVICA IZ 1353 GODINE: “I da ne moze prijeti nitkore u nasem gospodstvje Vlatkova cloveka – ni sam Ban Tvrtko, ni njegov brat Knez Vlk, – bez volje Kneza Vlatka. Na to su mu vjeru dali i prisegli! A tojzi vjeri i prisesi svjedoci – Dobri Bosnjani “ -JELENA KOTROMANIC,1354 GODINE: “V`ono vrijeme,kada pridje gospoja Bana mati s` Ugra i s` svojim sinom i s` Knezom s` Vlkom i kada bi stanak na Milah vse Zemlje Bosne i Dolnjih kraji i Zagorja i Hlmske zemlje,prisegla je gospoja Bana mati i njen sin gospodin Ban Tvrtko dumanadesete Dobri Bosnjane,Knezu Vlatku Vlkoslavicu,a sizi su prisegli…” -POVELJA KRALJA TVRTKA IZ 1366 GODINE: ” I sto ga ne sudi Djed s dva Strojnika s njim. ….. I da ne suzanj nikadar dokle je korijen u Bosne Crkve Bozje. Da o tom ima crkva stati. A tomu svjedoci Dobri Bosnjane : Vojevoda Vlkac, Zupan Crnul, Knez Bogad, Tepcic Belhan, Knez Branko Prinic.” -POVELJA DUBROVCANIMA IZ 1405 GODINE – KRALJ TVRTKO II: “U ovu nepravedni rat, Uchinih s gospodinom Hercegom i po svijetu s vlasteli Bosanscimi i vishe togaj, da je vidomo vsakome: Tko godi je Bosnjanin ali Kraljstva Bosanskoga prije rata bil dlzhan komu godi Dubrovcaninu, volja na viri mu uzeto na gospockoj, a moze Dubrovcanin tozi istinom pokazati – da se ima Dubrovcaninu vratiti i platiti. …Sto sudije odluce nitko ne moze potvoriti. A shto je uzel vojevoda Sandalj i knez Paval Radinovich, volja ini Bosnjanin ljubo Kraljstva Bosanskoga, komu godi Dubrovcaninu dobitak, volja ine richi u siju rat, tomuj uzetju da je sudja knez Vukac Hranich i sh njim vlastelin drugi Bosanski, koga sh njim Kraljevstvu mi poshlje.” -PISMO KRALJA STJEPANA TOMASEVICA PAPI IZ 1461 GODINE “Ja ne istem zlatnih brda, ali bih bio rad da moji neprijatelji kao i ljudi u mojoj zemlji uznaju kako mi tvoja pomoc nece uzmanjkati. Jere, ako Bosnjani budu vidjeli da u ovoj rati nece biti sami i da ce im mnogi ini pomioci – hrabrije ce u rat iti i vojevati, a tagdi i Turachka vojska nece bez straha u moje vladanje naprasno ulisti. Prilazi u moju zemlju su veoma teski, a tvrde na mnogim mjestima nedobitne, tere ne dopustaju da se prodre u moje Kraljevstvo.” -BOSANSKI KRALJEVSKI RODOSLOV IZ 1482 GODINE- PETAR OHMUĆEVIĆ “Petar,istije Ohmućevića,po starini Bosnjanin,a radi nepovoljnog razumirja i pogube Bosanske,priÅ¡ašćah njegovijeh starijeh – sad je DubrovÄanin,koji za milost njegove stare gospode slozi i postavi ovo rodoslovlje,za slavu Bosansku i svakoga vridnoga Bosnjaninadokole Bog dopusti i njegova sveta volja izvrsi.” Jedini ama baš JEDINI dokument koji velikosrpski historičari mogu da daju u korist toga da su Bošnjački vladari svoje podanike zvali Srbima je povelja mateja ninoslava, no tu on naziva i Dubrovčane Vlašima, i štoviše fino piše da je napisao prepisatelj, što dovoljno govori o autentičnosti izvora. Svi ostali dokumenti, baš svi, nazivaju Bošnjake Bošnjacima. A zadnji, dosta smiješni srpski argument da "ma joj ma nisu oni to baš to tako mislili, oni su sebe smatrali Srbima!!" smatram smiješnom uobičajenom Srpskom mitologijom koja pada u vodu kada se suočava sa pravim dokumentima. DOBRO OBRATI PAŽNJU NA OVOPOVELJA DUBROVCANIMA 1405 “U ovu nepravedni rat, Uchinih s gospodinom Hercegom i po svijetu s vlasteli Bosanscimi i vishe togaj, da je vidomo vsakome: Tko godi je Bosnjanin ali Kraljstva Bosanskoga prije rata bil dlzhan komu godi Dubrovcaninu, volja na viri mu uzeto na gospockoj, a moze Dubrovcanin tozi istinom pokazati – da se ima Dubrovcaninu vratiti i platiti. Nedvosmisleno, jednom riječju Tvrtko obara svu Srpsku mitologiju o tome da je Bošnjanin regionalni termin da bi ukazivao nekoga iz Bosanskoga Kraljevstva, jer pravi jasnu razliku Tko godi je Bosnjanin ali Kraljstva Bosanskoga Znači možeš da budeš Bošnjanin, a da nisi iz Bosanskog Kraljevstva, što jedino narodi a ne regionalni termini mogu da budu.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Sept 6, 2009 1:08:02 GMT -5
molim? Nisam zaista shvatio smisao rečenice "kako razlikujes Latinski". Ja upravo govorim da ljudi nisu govorili Latinski, i da se latinci kao i dan danas odražava na pismo, a srpscie na čirilicu. And do you think latin meant the Bosnian language then? Do you think it meant Bosancica? The point is the local language was Serbian. Knowhere does it say Bosancica. Only Serbian. You're excuse sux, and that's what it is - an excuse. The language in use was Serbian because that's what it says. If it was Bosancica they would have said latinica & Bosancica. For crying out loud. The language was Serbian and that's what is says. The language spoken in medieval Bosnia Stokavian was considered Serbian because that is what it says in ink from a Bosnian king. Language is obviously a very important part of ethnicity & if you couldn't call your language Bosnian or Bosancica then it's really saying a lot about your claim that Bosnjanin was an ethnicity. SHow me anywhere were teh language is called Bosancica. You simply can't. The only documented name of languages at that time was Serbian & Croatian and that's what we have here. Well they did have it on a Serb site somewhere. Here they are anyway. Good luck reading it. Yes & this is a very important point thank you. Religion & ethnicity were not 100% correlated with ethnicity as they are today or should I say as of when Islam arrived. You said that the Serbian crown was first taken from the Pope - exactly. In that sense we were just as Catholic as anyone else. jedino pojedini - only haha Lazes! Cisti takticki laz od Fazlinho. Is it the only thing we are discussing here? No. You know very well it's not the only thing. We aren't even discussing external sources. And when all these things like language & titles & family orientation & external sources are put together as a whole then it's even more clearly Serbian. The Bosnian tactic is to address one thing at a time & ignore the entire picture. And your analogy about the title "King of Serbs..." is wrong anyway - completely. As it's known he changed his title and removed King of Serbs when he was no longer just king of Serbs. Clearly Serbs lived in more than one place and the main place he ruled was Bosnia. He didn't rule all Serbian lands. If you think the pretention was on Serbian lands for putting in King of Serbs then really it speaks even more clearly of the prevailing Serbian ethnicity in Bosnia. So you're saying that in order to get the status of King he needed to descend from nobility & that's why he referred to his family as "roditelja mojih gospode srpske?" Why didn't he just refer to his descent from the Nemanjici instead? Why does he have to mention that his herritage is Serbian? One way or another he says he is of Serbian descent, not Croatian or Bosnjanin. He says he is of Serbian descent ffs. Tvrtko Kotromanic in his charter says he is of Serbian descent and not Croatian and not Bosnjanin. What else do yo uwant him to do? Get 4C tattooed on his forehead? I don't really understand what you are talking about. Smijesno my arse. They only ever said they spoke Serbian, not Croatian or Bosancica. They referred to their genealogy as Serbian. They were king of Serbs. They defended Europe against Islam. It's not hilarious but it's sad that Bosniaks think they have anything to do with the ethnicity of the predesessors of their people who were not Muslim. What's funny is when you say that we are all Bosnians who think we are Serb. That is infinately more ludicrous. A yeah kao da si mi bas nesto dokazao. No bzzzzzzz wrong, because in his title he was also king of Croatia! Try for another excuse. I believe that Bosnjanin is more akin to a citizen be they of whatever ethnicity - Serbian, Croatian mixed or something else. It's like saying Bosanac today. Will we turn around in the future and say that Bosanac was an ethnicity? Clearly not. Don't forget that the original Bosnia was named after a geographic term and it was much smaller than what it is today. If Bosnjanin was an ethnicity then this is the only people it can be referring to since we know that the people outside this area were definately Serbs & Croats. Compare the Bosnian people to Serbs who are mentioned as a people long before there was a single Serbian state. Serbs had states under various names but the people were referred to internally & externally as Serbs. Serb is mentioned as an ethnicity numerous times before there was a single Serbian state. This was the wider ethnicity of the people. You're small state which grew under the Serbian nobility (because that's what he said him self) of King Tvrtko Kotromanic who spoke the Serbian Stokavian language, must have been majority Serbian because he said that he was King of Serbs.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Sept 6, 2009 13:49:31 GMT -5
Do you even understand what I wrote? I see, it's better to speak in English with you...
No, I never ever said Latin means Bosnian. I wrote this
In case you didn't know, the ending "ca" reffers to alphabets, way of writing, and ski to languages, in every slavic language, but most importantly in B/C/S .
Do you understand in Serbian the difference between "Latinica" and "Latinski"? It's like that nowadays too. I hope you do.
I CHALLENGE ANY SERB TO PROVE ME WRONG
Now look at your charter.
"A tomuj su četiri povelje jednako : dvije latinsci i dvi srpsci"
endings with ca never ever meant languages, it's absurd even reading that. And I repeat: if you are trying to claim that Srpsci means language (which is absurd simply because srpsci can not mean language, it'd have to end with "ski" not "ca), than are you also claiming that Latinsci is Latin? So in Bosnia people spoke Latin and Serbian? I hope you aren't suggesting that.
Again, Serbian is nowhere mentioned as a language.
Also, you miserably fail in connecting that sentence to the ban, because of the last phrase where the writer speaks of the ban in 3rd person.
What? maybe it's better if I say it in English.
First of all I'm happy you admitted what Serbs try to do is just generalizing instead of analyzing facts one by one as we do - again thank you for that indeed, that is how we study something important as history.
Than, in case you didn't know, Lazar Hrebeljanović was another monarch who had such a title "King of Serbs/Serbia". Crown titles go with the crown, it's a title you have, you can't have the crown and not have the title (like there is any reason why one should drop a title).
Stefan crowned himself "King of the Serbs and Greeks" but somehow you don't claim he also felt an ethnic Greek. The one and only title of Albert I of Habsburg in the 13th century had only one title "King of the Romans", but I doubt anyone would say he felt an ethnic Roman. I can give you many more examples.
That was not to diverge from the topic, just to show how "ethnic" names in a crown, do not have anything to do with ethnicity, they are hereditary titles which go with the crown. Do we agree on this? good.
Now let's get back to Tvrtko's case. What does Tvrtko tell us.
And the Lord blessed me making me inherit my ancestor's throne, Serbian lords (again I confirm, he had some Serbian ancestors)
And I went into Serbian land, a very interesting quote
and I wanted to take my ancestors throne.
So that's exactly what he deed. He took the Serbian crown. Which HAS in itself the title of King of Serbs/Serbia.
(Again, why am I saying Serbs/Serbia? because it means the same thing, if it doesn't please you as a Serb tell me how the hell in that time was Serbia called).
You can't have one without having the other. It' hereditary. You can't have the Serbian crown without that title.
Please tell me, was also Emeric of Hungary, King of Serbia/Serbs, a Serb? He had that title, I swear. Check by yourself. Really astonishing, yet he didn't feel as a Serb. Or maybe he did?
Lol about he changed the title when he was no longer the king of Serbs... In the whole history of mankind there is no single example of a king that changed his "ethnic" title because he conquered a new land. Not one. What we do know is that he used the term Raska and Serbljem exactly as synonims, which doesn't surprise, as it meant the very same thing. When we don't read Serbljem we see Raska, when we don't see Raska we see Serbljem. Surprising, isn't it? Not really, as it's the same thing.
No, I'm saying that in order to be the King of Serbia, he had to have one Serbian line. And that's what he had.
Now let's play your game, on equal levels.
mojih prjeroditelj`,gospode srbske,
By this you say he is a 100% Serb who'd be a great chetnik today. Ok let's agree on it...
now can you explain me this little detail that Serb historians don't really like?
the very same words, praroditelji, z gospodom Bosnskom!!
So we see the same term on the same level as Srbske, but I guess Serb history teaches that gospode Srbske means 100% an ethnic term, while gospodom Bosnskom no.
As you don't have any proofs to prove it let's move on.
mm not even 1 charter where they call their language Serbian, (plus seeing you put Bosancica as a language is hilarious which makes me understand how much you know about cases), they referred to their genealogy as Bosniak too, they were King of Serbs as much as they were kings of Raska... the rest is not funny, it's how it is.
First of all here you admit that there were Croats in Bosnia, yet if that is true your whole theory about Tvrtko dropping the title for Raska makes no sense if, in your view, he became king of Raska when he for the first time incorporated Croats... but if Croats were already here, it makes no sense.
And yeah sure there was such a great concept of citizenship back in the day... what you can not explain is this, I'll write it again
The translation "Whoever is Bosniak but of the Bosnian kingdom"
HOW exactly can Bosniak mean exactly "someone of the Bosnian kingdom" IF you can be Bosniak and NOT from the Bosnian kingdom? That's what Tvrtko wrote not me.
Not nowadays, no.
These are all theories, about the name. But even if it came from the river originally, like it changes anything. Like ethnicities existed since the beginning of time. Ethnicities are not created by blood, but by consciousness.
Not really, we know there were Slavs mostly, how well was their ethnic consciousness developed testify the fact that people went to be incorporated into Slavs with no problems... the concept of ethnicity back than was far less developed than today.
Like I ever claimed Bosnian as a term is older than Serb, I don't quite get what you tried to prove.
I can get you quotes where the people are called Bosniaks, ONLY Bosniaks, I can prove how he had that title only when he first stepped in Raska (as many other rulers who called themselves like that), nowhere in the whole Bosnian medieval history does it say how he the language was Serbian... and we are the ones in denial?
I have posted up there how for centuries Bosniak rulers called their subjects Bosniaks, there it is for everyone to see, not one charter, many many more. The best you can do is say "but no look they REALLY meant inside that they were Serbs". For centuries those "true Serbs" never ever wrote, ONE TIME, how Serbs live in Bosnia, not one time for centuries. I could believe you if Bosniak bans, or kings called ONCE just ONCE their people Serbs. I quoted how TvrtkothebigSerb wrote himself "if any Bosniak BUT from the Bosnian Kingdom" which blows every "Bošnjanin = someone who lives in the Bosnian kingdom" theory away. And yet Serb historians will try to prove to the world how they were all in the denial, that it was a regional term and that even if they felt Serbs for centuries they didn't write a word about it.
I explained, making examples, quoting charters, why he had that title. It's up to you to try to prove to everyone how they were Serbs, basing on that title only (and that they felt Serbs they just didn't feel the need to write it).
How can you think Serbs lived in Bosnia without one single Bosnian document attesting this (on the contrary, naming only Bosniaks) is incomprehensible to me.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Sept 7, 2009 1:13:24 GMT -5
It’s too much to go through & start quoting you again so I’ll just address what you wrote without quoting. Your first point is that Srpsci does not refer to language but rather to alphabet? Fine I’ll go with that. So ban Stefan Kotromanic decided to use the Serbian alphabet. I mean this is not helping your cause much. He decided to use the Serbian alphabet to write in the Bosnian language & you think this supports Bosnian ethnicity? Nowhere at all is the Bosnian language or Bosancica mentioned. Why the hell would they use the Serbian alphabet if the language was not Serbian? In any case the only connection to language we have is to a Serbian language because that’s the alphabet they used. We have other documents of the time that specifically refer to the Serbian & Croatian languages so we can say that these definitely exist as languages, whereas there is nothing at all that refers to Bosancica or a Bosnian language at all. Only the Serbian alphabet was referred to in an official documentation. Next thing you’re addressing is the Title King of Serbs. You’re trying to use an example that Stefan Dusan was “King of Serbs & Greeks” & then say that he wasn’t Greek. Well Tvrtko Kotromanic wasn’t the “King of Serbs & Bosnians…” rather Serbs is the only ethnic designation in his title at any time. Come on man some of these are ridiculous examples. Do you really expect me to fall for that? I’m not going to keep playing these games and go around in a circle. He was "King of Serbs..."and what do you want me to believe that there were no Serbs in Bosnia? Seriously after all of this information you expect us to believe in a Bosnian ethnicity? I’m really trying to paint an honest picture here & I can not see a strong Bosnian identity in anything. What do Bosniaks actually want us to believe? That Bosnjanin was a strong Illyrian ethnicity and all the areas that Kotromanic ruled were of Bosnian ethnicity or loyal to a Bosnian state and that we just think we are Serbs & Croats. Come on man. Do you actually believe that? A lot of those areas that the current Bosnian state encompasses were inhabited by Serbs before they even became a part of Bosnia. The ethnicity of Raska was Serbian. That can’t be denied & that took up much of Bosnia. Most of Krajina & north West Bosnia was populated from Raska where most people were Serbs & then you also want to turn around and say well no they were Vlachs as though there was some magic hiding place that ethnic Vlachs kept being pulled out of Serbian land. Do you seriously expect me to believe that if Kotromanic wasn’t Serb, he just referred to his Serbian ancestry to gain Serbian land & had the title King of Serbs but there were no Serbs in Bosnia??? If that was the case then you can just give those lands back to Serbia & stay in your little banovina. I mean what was the ethnicity of the people. What did it mean to be Bosnjanin? It could not have possibly been much more than just a general Slavic identity. I mean if I was a Bosnjanin called say Vuk with such a separate identity to Serbs why would I bother to have gone to fight with Vlatko at the Battle of Kosovo? Why would I think that someone with a name like Vlatko was of a separate Bosnjanin identity to someone like Lazar Hrebeljanovic who joined forces to fight in Kosovo? And now you expect me to be a Bosnian & say no I am different to the people across the Drina and that I shared an ethnic identity with Muslims. Why would someone with a name like Vlatko living in medieval Bosnia think that someone called Mirza is not an Ottoman Turkish Islamic sellout? Why would he identify with someone like that rather than someone across teh Drina called Milos. Even if we were Bosnian, we could still turn around and say well you are Poturice and we stayed true to our King Tvrtko Kotromanic who was the King of Serbs because well I’m a Serb. The guy that you know joined the Christian army to defend Europe against Islam. You seriously think that someone called Vlatko living west of the Drina actually felt some sort of Bosnian ethnicity and felt closer to someone who changed his name from Ilija to Alija just because he’s on the left side of the Drina? You think Vlatko was going yeah whatever to the other Serbs across a river and thinking yeah this sultan is cool. Glorious Bosnia. Go Bosnian Pashaluk! Vlatko the seljak would have heard plenty of stories about the Turks, he probably would have heard about the Turks ravaging some little city called Novo Brdo but yeah he’s thinking no they’re cool these Turks. Go the Bosnian pasaluk! Go Islam! Tvrtko King of Serbs, Sveti Sava, meh... nah I'm a Bosnjanin. You think Vlatko never would have heard the story of Katarina Kosaca having her kids taken and converted to Islam and gone yeah go the Bosnian Pashaluk. I’m a Bosniak! You people are seriously nuts if you think we are Bosnians because that is simply not an ethnicity. If we weren’t Serbs we are staying true to medieval Bosnjanin identity by being Serbs because Islamic Bosnians are a betrayal to anyone who may have been an ethnic Bosnjanin. But you know what, we are Serbs because there always were Serbs in Bosnia! One million percent. We are the true ethnicity of Bosnia without a label because we are most similar to what Bosnjani would have been regardless of labels. We are the people who didn’t change their names, religion & culture. Tvrtko Kotromanic would be looking down now and he would take the side of the Serbs. Your ethnicity is simply an Ottoman Islamic creation which Serbs will never feel a part of. Your country is a joke for wanting to keep Serbs a part of your Ottoman state. Tvrtko Kotromanic - "King of Serbs..." because there were always Serbs in Bosnia and because there were mostly Serbs in Bosnia, and because we were always Serbs in Bosnia!
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Sept 7, 2009 10:02:50 GMT -5
It's not really about going with that, it's linguistics.
First, I didn't try to prove how that document "proves" Bosnian as a name reffered to a language, nowhere in my post can you read that, I merely pointed out how no Bosniak ruler EVER in any charter calls his language Serbian. Never.
Than, in case you didn't understand, but I can't believe it as it really does seem obvious, srpsca is cyrrilic. that's why he says "two in latin alphabet, two in srpsca".
Third, and the most important of it all, it's not the ban who is speaking, it's the writer. Because that IS a copy and it's not really me make a quick research on google, that charter is just a copy, we do not have the original (as a matter of fact the writer tells us where the 4 originals were). I hope you aren't suggesting that in one phrase he uses the first person, and suddenly in the very last sentence, when he speaks about technical details like where it was written, in which alphabets etc, he suddenly speaks in 3rd person. So, the ban didn't even call his way of writing "Serbian".
LOL wait.
So Tvrtko was a Serb because he had 1 title only... but if he had 2 he wouldn't be a Serb anymore. Interesting really.
Ok IF having 1 ethnic designation (which you use as a synonimous for Raska) in your crown means... you are from that ethnicity, are you suggesting me that Emeric was a Serb? He had that title.
Are you suggesting that Adolf I was a Roman?
Your argument is that who has 1 ethnic name must be that. So was Adolf I a roman??
Why on earth to be king of Serbs did Tvrtko have to speak about his Serbian ancestors and couldn't he speak about the Bosniak ones? If it was the same thing, why does he have to make connections to the Nemanjics, OUTSIDERS of Bosnia to be the king of Serbs? Why couldn't he become the king of Serbs making references to his Bosniak ancestors only? Why does Tvrtko use Raska and Serbljem as synoninms? Did he stop being a Serb?
Next, you are really putting words in my mouth. Bosniak back than was a mixture of illyrian and slavic elements, not illyrian only.
I never said that there were no Serbs in Bosnia obviously the conquered parts of Raska had to be Serb inhabited but how many there were is an answer no one can answer simply because we do not have such an cenzus.
LOL INDEED I do expect that. The one and only document where he even gives a s**t to speak about his serb blood line is the document where he becomes the king of Serbljej. To everyone else it's crystal clear.
Omg... I can't believe you wrote something like this... omg... we are speaking about medieval kings and rulers, when prestige land and titles was everything and you ask me something like that? Why did he have to even start acquiring new lands? Because he was a king ffs.
Yeah that's why we hear that name for centuries while not one single time Serbs, only Serbljej in an acquired crown... seriously all your assertions are "it couldn't possibly be like this" "it has to be like this" "c'mon it can't be that way" which flush down the toilet, this is history with documents we are talking about. You wanted the charters of Bosniak kings? here you have them, and they speak about Bosniaks as a people only. The rest is usual Serb mithology.
Maybe because... the Turks were slowly conquering every Balkan state? Maybe because it was fighting against the infidels? Never thought about that?
I hope I don't really have to comment to something like this which is more about sociology and psychology than history. I'll say 2 things only.
The first thing is I never expected any single thing from you. Nowadays you are Serbs as much as Serbs from Serbia. And that's all that has to be said.
The second thing is, you must be really out of yourself if you think Bosniaks and Tvrtko would have felt Serb seeing what Serbdom has done to Bosnia. Around 100000 died, cities destroyed, ethnic cleansing of your "brothers", rapes, inhumanity in the 90's century, spitting on every single thing that is connected to Bosnia, not giving a single f**k about the country, it's cultural heritage, about it's name and you really, working as much as you could on marginalizing it's name in history and you really think they'd feel Serb? Not really.
I can safely say Katarina would have had a heart attack if she saw her sons were muslims nowadays. But that doesn't change facts. People who called themselves Bosniaks existed, people who loved all of Bosnia existed, people who worked to make Bosnia great existed and that's all I need to know.
Again when you'll prove me once how any Bosniak ruler in CENTURIES wrote of his subjects as being Serbs in a charter, I'll believe you. Not only me, the rest of the world too. I already proved how Bosniak was an ethnicity from the very mouth of Tvrtko, how the king of Bosnia DID NOT use Bosnjanin as meaning "someone from Bosnia" and you really want the world to believe you it wasn't like that simply because you don't want to accept it and continue saying "it just can't be like that, it can't!!!" ?
As usual from the Serbian side, I see claims only, not one single proof. You can judge how credible is what you say by seeing how many neutral outsiders agree with you. As of now you didn't do a great job.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Sept 7, 2009 23:38:09 GMT -5
It's not really about going with that, it's linguistics. First, I didn't try to prove how that document "proves" Bosnian as a name reffered to a language, nowhere in my post can you read that, I merely pointed out how no Bosniak ruler EVER in any charter calls his language Serbian. Never. Two can play at that game so here I'll point out that no Bosnian ruler EVER in any charter calls his language Bosnian. Never. Dude so you are saying that the Serbian alphabet is cyrillic then. That's what I said before. So the Cyrillic alphabet was used so if your going to make a link to any language then it can only be Serbian.
|
|
|
Post by vinjak on Sept 8, 2009 0:01:01 GMT -5
We aren't just Serbs nowadays, we were always Serbs because there were always Serbs in Bosnia
I think you are just straight out lying. It's not only one aquired crown, it's the crown of many Kotromanici. And it's not just the title, it's also the reference to family & alphabet and name of title (Stefan) and where he was crowned and the joint actions with Serbs and all the other things here. You fvcked up people want us to believe we are not Serbs when even if we were some kind of Bosnian ethnicity we had the same name as Serbs, had the same ideals, participated in the same battles, both looked to Sveti Sava and you think we had some mystical Bosnian identity seperate to the Serbian one. I don't think so.
Bravo Arsenije
Personally Boli mene where the Bosniaks claim to be from how they got there or even if they all just got droped off by martians but it is really sad how they are scheming and bullshiting about the SERBIAN population keep drawing your fantasy knights etc but leave the Serbs alone.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Sept 8, 2009 3:50:27 GMT -5
You continue either to ignore what I said or to twist what I said. I really don't get why. You continue to ask me things I already answered. wtf? if I write in cyrillic alphabet it means I'm speaking Serbian? Are Russians and Bulgars Serbs? I bet you don't, as it destroys your theories. Here it is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeric_of_HungaryHe had the title "king of Serbia/Serbs" was he a Serb?? Adolf was an example of such a title, we have many more like Conrad III he had the title "king of the Romans" Was he a Roman? As far as everyone else is concerned, if someone has to make allusions about a foreigner ruling lineage to get a crown with such a name and says he goes in Serbian lands to get that crown, it means he can't do it from his Bosniak side, which confirms there couldn't be Serbs in Bosnia, but you figure Serb logic. But he didn't try to acquire the Croat crown. He spoke of his Serb line to show he had the RIGHT to the Serb crown. Because in 1390 we "magically" don't see anywhere Serbljej but "Kralj Raske,Bosne,Dalmacije,Hrvatske i Primorja" Did he make some new military moves and acquired Raska? So what is he doing, is he lying? How come there's no Serbljej but there IS Raska? No, it's because Serbljej and Raska mean the very same thing. He never said he was king of Serbs, it was his TITLE. Why doesn't he speak of Serbs anywhere else but mentions it ONLY when he writes his title? And I don't want to convince you about anything, he did have Serb blood, as Bosniak one (I wrote you up there how he writes about his Bosniak ancestors as well but somehow that isn't an ethnicty LOL) Certain customs that remained in Bosnia well untill the 19th century suggest that. Ok arsenije I'll say it for the last time as you obviously do not want to understand. Follow this very logical step: Crowns have titles ===> You get a crown you get a title the Serbian crown had that title =====> You get the crown you get the title. So he acquired that title, he didn't invent it. As a matter of fact it's first mentioned when he says he ACQUIRED the Serb crown. So if you want to tell me again that unhistorical BUL LSHIT because that's what it is, that he "chose" that title, we are already done because that's simply not how things went in medieval times. And it's not me saying it, it's Tvrtko. I proved it here by Tvrtko's words Tko godi je Bosnjanin ali Kraljstva Bosanskoga To me the topic is done. Tvrtko himself said Bosnjanin does not mean a citizen of Bosnia. Don't expect that yours "it must be like that" mean more than Tvrtko's words. Obviously, they had that title... First of all Tvrtko is a pure Bosniak name like many others that did never exist in Serbian lands, so there never existed a Tvrtko on the eastern side of the Drina. You can believe what you want, I'm just basing on facts, not on allusions. Of course it is the crown of many Kotromanics, I myself am proud that we even had the Serbian crown but go to any historian, ask him if the title of an acquired crown says anything about ethnicity and you'll see. The reference to his family clearly mentiones his Bosniak side but obviously Serb history pretends this never happened. The reference to the Alphabet was made by a writer on a copy. Later on in history Bosniak rulers cooperated with Hungarians, with Croats, even with Turks but somehow Serb history ignore all of that as proving they felt Hungarians, Croats or Turks. Religion was changed by Bosnian rulers like socks so again even that connection fades. I have every single reason and proof to show they didn't have any Serb identity. If it wasn't for the words of the rulers of those times, sure, it might have even been like that. Too bad we have historical documents, isn't it? Lol seriously... you can't ask me to 1) believe the DAI which was the amateur work of an Emperor who never stepped in Bosnia 2) trust outside sources more than the words of Bosniak rulers. You just can't. Our historical perspective is made from analization, not generalizations like yours is, and I hope it will stay that way. If only those fantasy knights weren't true rulers that spoke about their subjects being Bosniaks and never of Serbs
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Sept 8, 2009 4:38:03 GMT -5
You are full of it. Convoluting & ignoring everything & hoping I wont reply. Now you say you are proud of a Christian King who fought against the Turks for having the Serbian Crown when you are a Muslim! That could not possibly be more ironic!!! Seriously how twisted are you? Is Mirza, Mohamad & Halil pure Bosniak names like Tvrtko as well? Tvrtko is a slav name and it is used by Serbs and Croats to this day. Someone called Mirza or Halil or whatever stupid Muslim names like that you have has absolutely zippo zilch nothing zero nula in common with any possible Bosnjanin identity from the middle ages. You are a betrayal to that identity & can not speak for it. A Bosnjanin that fought side by side with Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo. A Bosnjanin would be a Serbs closest brother if he was an ethnic Bosnjanin. You are the exact and utter opposite of those people you are trying to paint as an ethnicity you derive from. You keep playing around with the title “King of Serbs…” jumping from one analogy to another which doesn’t work. First it was about Stefan Dusan being King of “Serbs & Greeks” & I told you that Tvrtko was not King of “Serbs & Bosnians…” rather Serb is the only ethnic designation. Now you are trying out another angle about how he removed “King of Serbs…” from his title and put Raska in there. But the thing is he also had Croatia in his title so a far far far better explanation of why he did that is because he was no longer King of just or mostly Serbs but also a King of Croats! How retarded can these examples be & you keep bringing them up! And while I’m at it that discards your excuse referring to his Serbian nobility in order to just gain Serbian land since why doesn’t he do that when he took over Croatia as well? Your excuses are pathetic. And now you are like whatever to the DAI which I agree can not be taken as fact but it is verry very useful in understanding a numbe of concepts such as the fact that Serbs exist as an ethnicity without a state. Serbs weren't even close to having their own single state when this was written. Take away from it as much as you can but it has fundamental truths. De-Administrando-Imperio (948-952) 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 he mentions Bosnia, specifically two inhabited cities, Kotor and Desnik, both of which are in an unidentified geographic position. “In baptized Serbia are the inhabited cities of Destinikon, Tzernabouskei, Megyretous, Dresneik, Lesnik, Salines; and in the territory of Bosona, Katera and Desnik.” So way way way back in the mid 10th century!!! in retrospect! we have someone talking about Bosnia being inhabited by Serbs!!!! Where the hell are the Bosnjani? Nowhere. This is under the title "On the Serbs and the lands in which they live." Clearly Serbs were an ethnicity without a single state and they were obviously the main ethnicity in the region along with Croats as they are today. Man, this was written even before the Great Schism! There was no Sveti Sava, no Orthodoxy & certainly no Serbian church excuses you can use here. There was no single Serbian state or great leadership. Just have a look at how small Bosnia was at this time & that's when it was said it was inhabited by Serbs; How could you possibly think that people living outside this area who are already identified as Serbs & Croats be ethnic Bosnians when Bosnians borders expanded?There are other maps like this. Look at the little purple dot. This document is saying that Serbs lived in that dot at that time. And around it are only described Serbs & Croats. Serbs lived through Dubrovnik & through Raska and you expect me to believe that when this dot enlarged itself it represented a Bosnian ethnicity when we know that Serbs and Croats already lived there. In that case a lot of people must have changed there identity from Serbian to Bosnian for your belief that we were ethnic Bosnjani to be true. But it’s not true & you can’t even come up with a good story for it.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Sept 8, 2009 12:34:14 GMT -5
? I think there are 3 of us debating in this topic, me, you and your ego. LOL seriously the "hoping I won't reply" deserves to be sigged, I think you overestimate yourself too much. I replied to every single point of yours in case you didn't notice.
How exactly is it ironic? He was a Bosniak king, I'm a Bosniak, I'm proud of it, I'd be less proud if he didn't fight against them wtf... I really don't get it.
No, those are foreign names but you just added another bs to your big list by saying Tvrtko is used by Serbs and Croats to this days. I never ever heard of any Tvrtko among Croats and Serbs, but I do know of Tvrtko Kulenovic (a member of the Bosniak institute)
Lol whatever makes you sleep better at night.
Yeah I'm sure a Bosnjanin would LOVE the people that costantly tried to fuck Bosnia and Bosniaks in the last 100 years...ne seri, if any Bosniak revived again the first people he'd hate would be Serbs
Which doesn't prove shit, you still haven't told me if the emperor Conrad III was an ethnic Roman in the XIII century, by your logic he was, by anyone's else logic it's clear those are titles.
That's an explanation? wtf if ANYTHING if he was such a great Serb he'd have kept king of Serbljej and added of Croats too, there is no single time in history never ever when a ruler puts out a title because he conquered a new land, just NEVER. You can't really expect me to believe that a king put down a title to...please some newcomers? Do you know anything of medieval history?
When I see that I'm not the only one who judges your examples as being retarded I can see whose examples are more retarded.
Because there was no vacuum of power in the Croat crown as there was in the Serbian one. When he took the crown, Serbia was in a shithole so he took the opportunity. That was not the case for the Croatian one, as one can see in any history book.
You must have some serious issues... I never said how Serbs aren't an ethnicity I don't really get what do you want to prove. I never said it, ever. I'm saying Serbs weren't a lot in Bosnia, that's all. When you'll get me an INSIDE source I might be able to trust you, I repeat it, you can not simply can not expect me to take more seriously the words of an outsider who never stepped in Bosnia more than the word of the rulers that have been there
Ethnic consciousness back in the day changed a lot, especially in the balkans that is true, the Balkans are an example of this. We have tons of example of this,between Serbs, Bulgars, Macedonians, Bosniaks... hell if even Albanians could change their identity in certain places that's more true in between Slavs. The fact that no Bosnian charter ever mentiones Serbs doesn't really support your view. The fact that it speaks of Bosniak as an ethnicity and never of Serbs supports mine.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Sept 9, 2009 1:11:32 GMT -5
It's ironic because of what I just said!!! Because IF Bosnjanin was an ethnicity & IF there were no Serbs in Bosnia (which there were) their King was a pious Christian, a descendant of Serbs, a friend of Serbs & a King of Serbs. Because a Bosnjanin would have been a Serbs closest brother because he for the most part shared the same names and language as Serbs across a river. And because he fought with Serbs at the battle of Kosovo while your Bosniak ethnicity worships those very people who took over your country. If anyone shares the ethnicity of the Bosnjani in present day it is the Serbs, not the Bosniaks who's ethnicity is entirely an Ottoman creation. You are Muslims, you don't have the ideals & culture of what would have possibly been a Bosnjanin ethnicity. You are absolutely nothing like those Bosnjani. A Bosnjanin & Bosniak are two opposite things. A Bosnjanin is more like a Serb than a Bosniak. This is very basic stuff but I can see you're not willing to accept the reality. And it is a reality. You're being a complete tripper if you can't see that this is true. I actually find it quite disgusting that a Bosniak would defend Tvrtko & use him against Serbs. I really do. It's disgusting having to hear someone called Mohamad Muslimovic trying to tell me that Vlatko and his men were Bosniaks like him and that we should be Bosniaks. It's disgusting. Bosniaks are not Bosnjani. Well it's not common but it is a slavic name and it is used to this day by Serbs & Croats. Nopes. A Bosniak is not a Bosnjanin. Serbs are closer to the Bosnjanin ethnicity if it existed then Bosniaks are. I've already responded to a why he changed his title & my reason is better. I don't even understand what you're saying here to be honest. My examples? You're the one coming up with stupid examples like King of Greeks & changing his title when he became King of Croats. I'm more than happy with the response I've given to that & anyone who reads it can judge for themselves. Why did he even take the Croatian crown then? You've given your reasons (cough excuses) for the same stuff about his title & I am more than satisfied with my interpretations. Anyone can judge for themselves. You're mainly considering the Bosniak perspective. Bosnia was a small place when it started & it is named after a geographic term rather than an ethnicity which in itself deconstructs support for a Bosnian ethnicity. This is especially so when you compare it to Serbs who were 100% an ethnicity mentioned as living in a number of different states for centuries before there was even a state called Serbia. A number of these regions (Hum, Zahumlje, Dalmatia, Raska) went through Bosnian teritory before they were ever a part of Bosnia so when Bosnia expanded into those areas those people must have been Serbs. They would have had to have changed into being Bosnians. And the north west region of Bosnia was later populated by enlarge from people from these lands as well so they also must have by enlarge been of Serbian ethnicity. That's what we are talking about here. Tvrtko definately said in his charters that he was of Serbian heritage, he definately said he was King of Serbs, the Serbian alphabet was definately used, the Charter of Matej Ninoslav mentions Serbs. External sources say Serbs lived in Bosnia. There were definately Serbs in his Bosnia because it expanded to overtake land where Serbs lived. I'm just going to quote this again becaue it really gives a good perspective. 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 he mentions Bosnia, specifically two inhabited cities, Kotor and Desnik, both of which are in an unidentified geographic position. “In baptized Serbia are the inhabited cities of Destinikon, Tzernabouskei, Megyretous, Dresneik, Lesnik, Salines; and in the territory of Bosona, Katera and Desnik.” So way way way back in the mid 10th century!!! in retrospect! we have someone talking about Bosnia being inhabited by Serbs!!!! Where the hell are the Bosnjani? Nowhere. This is under the title "On the Serbs and the lands in which they live." Clearly Serbs were an ethnicity without a single state and they were obviously the main ethnicity in the region along with Croats as they are today. Man, this was written even before the Great Schism! There was no Sveti Sava, no Orthodoxy & certainly no Serbian church excuses you can use here. There was no single Serbian state or great leadership. Just have a look at how small Bosnia was at this time & that's when it was said it was inhabited by Serbs; How could you possibly think that people living outside this area who are already identified as Serbs & Croats be ethnic Bosnians when Bosnians borders expanded?There are other maps like this. Look at the little purple dot. This document is saying that Serbs lived in that dot at that time. And around it are only described Serbs & Croats. Serbs lived through Dubrovnik & through Raska and you expect me to believe that when this dot enlarged itself it represented a Bosnian ethnicity when we know that Serbs and Croats already lived there. In that case a lot of people must have changed there identity from Serbian to Bosnian for your belief that we were ethnic Bosnjani to be true. But it’s not true & you can’t even come up with a good story for it.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Sept 9, 2009 2:56:03 GMT -5
To me it's definitely ironic people who constantly tried and continue to try on a daily basis to spit on Bosnia's name think Tvrtko could have even liked them. The very same land he gave everything to make great and powerful... I'll never understand twisted Serbian logic. To me is just funny that Serbs draw some parallels with ancient Bosniaks. But I'm happy they do mention that Tvrtko was indeed the king of Serbljej. It's just an unfortunate circumstance that no single person knows of a Serb or Croat that uses it but we do know Bosniaks that use it. Yeah right. The very fact Serbs try to disprove it as an ethnicity while they themselves in charters wrote it tells you how much Serbs have in common with ancient Bosniaks. That a ruler drops a title, to suit some newcomers??? It never happened in medieval history. If anything, he added more titles. He never took the Croatian crown... do you know what you are talking about? I haven't said a word about the king of Greeks because of your theory that if he has one ethnic designation (which he doesn't even have, as it uses it as a synonim for Raska) it means he is of that ethnicity. So PLEASE reply me after 5 times I'm asking you to do it: was Conrad III an ethnic Roman?? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_III_of_GermanyConrad was never crowned emperor and continued to style himself "King of the Romans" until his death. He must have had serious identity issues !! At least half of those land would have to been inhabited by Croats, but as I said, if they than later on felt Bosniaks, it doesn't change much. Tvrtko in the very same charter speaks about his his Bosniak heritage, the ban of Charter Matej Ninoslav speaks about Vlachs in Durbovnik??? so no historian would do what Serbian history does, take only what it suits her out of charters. External sources mention Bosniaks too, external sources mention a Bosnian language too but you choose to disregard that. So on what I rely the most are internal sources, which leave no doubt as to what to think.
|
|