|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 7, 2011 7:11:31 GMT -5
buh bye pyrros , thanks for not contributing anything.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 7, 2011 9:05:13 GMT -5
Even Bosniak nationalists look at Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs differently. While they despise both of us they almost always claim that the Bosnian Croats are *really* Bosniaks who were brainwashed by Zagreb while the Bosnian Serbs are not only brainwashed by Belgrade but are of foreign origin. They have an argument against Bos Serbs being native to Bosnia but they can pose none against Bosnian Croats hence they claim us as theirs. wow!!!! if this is coming from the Bosniak nationalists then i rest my case. lol then how did e.g. the mrnjavcevici "landed" in bosnia in 1350?? by plane, by spaceship or some other means??? were they from serbia proper? or some exotic planet? LMAO
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 7, 2011 10:59:51 GMT -5
^^The slavs that became Serbs occupied some parts of modern Bosnia , mostly the eastern borderlands with the old and true Serbian state of Raska. It doesn't change the fact that the Orthodox Bosnians were virtually non existent before the Turks and came with the Vlach settler. Just about any academic source that doesn't have a nationalistic agenda confirms this. Sorry it bothers you so much. Maybe you can go to Vlasic , RS , BiH and figure out why it got that name .
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 7, 2011 12:58:47 GMT -5
Priso's cause is a legitimate one and we should feel for him.
|
|
|
Post by odel on Sept 7, 2011 15:34:37 GMT -5
Speaking of Vlachs in Bosnia: www.farsarotul.org/nl16_1.htm " As early as 1530, when the Habsburg official Benedict Kuripe?ic travelled through Bosnia, he was able to report that the country was inhabited by three peoples, One was the Turks, who ruled "with great tyranny" over the Christians. Another was "the old Bosnians, who are of the Roman Catholic faith." And the third were "Serbs, who call themselves Vlachs . . . They came from Smederovo and Belgrade." So important was the Vlach element in the creation of this Bosnian Orthodox population that, three centuries later, the term "Vlach" was still being used in Bosnia to mean "member of the Orthodox Church." I copy pasted this particular passage as Priso mentioned the very same thing and also because Pyrros wouldn't bother to read it otherwise. As for Vlach linguistic influence: " Since this northern Albanian and southern Serbian region was the original heartland of the Vlachs, it is not surprising that they should have spread out into the nearby uplands of Hercegovina from an early period.
From there they moved northwards through the mountainous Dalmatian hinterland, where they are found tending flocks (and bringing them down to the coastal lands in the winter) as early as the twelfth century.
There are many references to them in the records of Ragusa and Zadar from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. Some of these pastoral Vlachs also penetrated as far as central Bosnia, where medieval place-names in the regions of Sarajevo and Travnik indicate their presence: Vlahinja, Vlaskovo, Vlasic. And many Vlach words connected with pastoral life were absorbed into Bosnian dialects of Serbo-Croat: trze, a late-born lamb, from the Vlach tirdziu, for example, or zarica, a type of cheese, from the Vlach zara.
This last word is in fact a version of the Albanian word dhalle, "buttermilk" -- one of many details pointing to the pastoral symbiosis between Vlachs and Albanians, which continued to operate over a long period." While Vlach influence is strong amongst Serbs everywhere, basically the place where the Vlach influence is the strongest is amongst Bosnian Serbs, probably Montenegrins as well. Bosnian Serbs should embrace their at least part-Vlach ancestry and be thankful that the Vlachs improved their gene pool radically.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 2:19:22 GMT -5
^^The slavs that became Serbs occupied some parts of modern Bosnia , mostly the eastern borderlands with the old and true Serbian state of Raska. It doesn't change the fact that the Orthodox Bosnians were virtually non existent before the Turks and came with the Vlach settler. Just about any academic source that doesn't have a nationalistic agenda confirms this. Sorry it bothers you so much. Maybe you can go to Vlasic , RS , BiH and figure out why it got that name . man, your logic has about 4 huge errors, do you want to try and find them out by yourself? or do you want me to tell you the correct answer as ready-made food (like croats are used to receive)? anyway, i know you are incompetent so i'll start with this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maritsaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Mrnjav%C4%8Devi%C4%87en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuka%C5%A1in_Mrnjav%C4%8Devi%C4%87So i guess IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The western-powered anti-serb in Bosnia tried to push out the LOCAL SERB NOBILITY. Even Marko Kraljevic, as is proved, belonging to the same family was from Bosnia as well. cheers.... ps i guess this bulgar chentovist might feel a little "insecure" that all this natinal heros were SERBS FROM BOSNIA .... HA HA HA Only Milos Obilic was from the very south (Epiros), the rest of the nobility were from Bosnia.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 2:35:34 GMT -5
funnily, in romania, the majority of pastoral lexicon used to be serbian. ;D also there is a conceptual problem with your theory : you say 1) turks were tyrrants against the christians 2) "local" slavs were catholic 3) slavo-phone vlahs were newcomers and brought by the turks (and as we know) 4) the "locals" start and become mudjahedins, while serbs retain their faith <--- WHY WOULD THE TURKS BRING FROM SERBIA THEIR GREATEST ENEMIES??? This is hilarious. This theory is blatantly flawed. in every aspect, there is an oxymoron. this is trivial really. no intelligent person should waste a minute with this.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 8, 2011 3:29:31 GMT -5
And again , you have this common Cetnik habit of pointing out others' flaws without bothering to check out your own backyard. I mean you're the same Cetniks that claim Macedonian and Torlakian as 'Serbian' yet that 'dialect' is much closer related to another language , Bulgarian. It diverges off the path of west South Slavic so much that it forms its own branch of east south slavic. It's more different than Kaj, Sto, and Ca are to eachother which basically 3 ways of saying what yet the grammer is more or less still uniform in all three dialects. Neo Serbian ( Neo Stokavian) and 'old Serbian' ( Macedonian , Torlakian) make no sense in terms of being evolved from eachother. THE TRUTH!!!!
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 4:07:04 GMT -5
^^^^ By Aziz' definition a total gay gang-bang... funny to see hordes of idiots with only one thing common : hatred for their superiors....
PS
Priso,
CAKAVCICA, KAJKAVICA and STOKAVICA (Real serbian) are mutually UNINTELLIGIBLE...
(even your gay croat-nazi wiki supports so)...
Real Croatian is only KAJKAVICA (spoken in Zagreb).... Cakavica is really strange and alien to anything known in rest of slavic languages... strange sounds, strange endings, .... this is totally bizarre.
And of course the now official croatian (stokavica) is of course the Serbian language.
Zagreb (real croats) and Sofia (ex-Serbs) are maybe the sole two balkan capitals WHERE THE LOCAL IDIOM DIFFERS substantially from the official language.
In Zagreb , the true Kajkavian speakers (and true croats) are forced to speak Serbian, while in Sofia the old Sops (Torlak) speakers (Ekavian) (ex-serbs) are forced to speak official eastern bulgarian (Yakavian)....
|
|
|
Post by odel on Sept 8, 2011 5:08:30 GMT -5
funnily, in romania, the majority of pastoral lexicon used to be serbian. ;D also there is a conceptual problem with your theory : you say 1) turks were tyrrants against the christians 2) "local" slavs were catholic 3) slavo-phone vlahs were newcomers and brought by the turks (and as we know) 4) the "locals" start and become mudjahedins, while serbs retain their faith <--- WHY WOULD THE TURKS BRING FROM SERBIA THEIR GREATEST ENEMIES??? This is hilarious. This theory is blatantly flawed. in every aspect, there is an oxymoron. this is trivial really. no intelligent person should waste a minute with this. No intelligent person would try to brush of what I posted with your arguements, you didn't even adress what I posted, you pulled some strawmanish arguments out. Also, it's not my theory; it's academia's theory. This is the only point of yours that is somewhat relevant: "slavo-phone vlahs were newcomers and brought by the turks (and as we know)." Some of these Vlachs were newcomers, and some were placed in in those specific areas for a reason by the Turks which my source also discusses. Vlachs have had a long withstanding presence in Bosnia, longer than the Slavs, but that isn't even what we're talking about, we're talking about mass-assimilation of Vlachs by Serbs. This was the only somewhat relevant argument, and yet it's a strawman; it shows how irrelevant you are in this discussion and it also shows your niveau.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 5:18:56 GMT -5
my dear, your confusion continues to open new channels of contradiction...
an easy one : "mass-assimilation of Vlachs by Serbs" in a supposed TURKIC land where the TURKIC tyrants now have managed to convert half of the population to islam?
so
" Not only Turks encouraged the migration of Serbs from Serbia to Bosnia, but in addition tried to convert other non-serbs into Serbs "
because that is actually what this bozo-theory says.
again, the flaw is trivial, i won't bother.
whoever has come up with those silly ideas either was targeting an idiotic audience or was an idiot himself.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 5:25:54 GMT -5
funnily, in romania, the majority of pastoral lexicon used to be serbian. ;D also there is a conceptual problem with your theory : you say 1) turks were tyrrants against the christians 2) "local" slavs were catholic 3) slavo-phone vlahs were newcomers and brought by the turks (and as we know) 4) the "locals" start and become mudjahedins, while serbs retain their faith <--- WHY WOULD THE TURKS BRING FROM SERBIA THEIR GREATEST ENEMIES??? This is hilarious. This theory is blatantly flawed. in every aspect, there is an oxymoron. this is trivial really. no intelligent person should waste a minute with this. No intelligent person would try to brush of what I posted with your arguements, you didn't even adress what I posted, you pulled some strawmanish arguments out. Also, it's not my theory; it's academia's theory. This is the only point of yours that is somewhat relevant: "slavo-phone vlahs were newcomers and brought by the turks (and as we know)." Some of these Vlachs were newcomers, and some were placed in in those specific areas for a reason by the Turks which my source also discusses. Vlachs have had a long withstanding presence in Bosnia, longer than the Slavs, but that isn't even what we're talking about, we're talking about mass-assimilation of Vlachs by Serbs. This was the only somewhat relevant argument, and yet it's a strawman; it shows how irrelevant you are in this discussion and it also shows your niveau. for christ (alah) sake 1-4 go in a "package" and this is YOUR package. Do not try to isolate 3, as "my" argument ... pls..... i summed up with your basic argument composed by 4 sentences and i pointed out the flaw in this ATOMIC bundle.. try to think rationally, history is science, it is not a fucking love-novel, got it? of course, one error brings the other, and in the end you'll get drawn in your own sea of contradictions.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 5:29:14 GMT -5
moral of the story : a moron can only make an oxy-moron ;D
|
|
|
Post by odel on Sept 8, 2011 7:27:13 GMT -5
Pyrros, did you even read anything from the link? Because you're on a completely different line.
Basically: Vlachs populated areas in Bosnia that were depopulated; these Vlachs were Orthodox; they were assimilated into the Serb ethnos. It was Ottoman policy to make sure depopulated areas were populated again; in this case with Vlachs, and they were Orthodox. The Vlachs were easy assimilation targets as they had little sense of ethnic identity and they were assimilated by the Serbs.
And as I said I ignored most of your arguements due to them being irrelevant and logically false.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 7:45:59 GMT -5
Pyrros, did you even read anything from the link? Because you're on a completely different line. lol, now we are on a different line? now what did you ask? if i read the link? but of course, this BS (and the ONLY BS available) by this ultra idiot named "Noel Malcolm", has been overplayed to death, so many times that it very hard for anyone to have missed it. hilarious. Using idiots like "Noel Malcolm", whose sole purpose in life was to help destroy the yugoslav state, economy and market is not what i would call "a neutral source".
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 7:49:36 GMT -5
And as I said I ignored most of your arguements due to them being irrelevant and logically false. you ignored my comments because you are an idiot who cannot follow his own progressions, who cannot understand that any event in history needs two ingredients : TOOLS and MOTIVE, and for this absurd scenario presented by this lunatic named "Noel Malcolm" it seems that Turks had neither the tools nor the motives to do such an operation. plus, we have proved that many of the late Nemanjic nobility (pre-1389) was from Bosnia. pls try to be more substantial in your reply, or you will be royally ignored.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 7:54:58 GMT -5
It was Ottoman policy to make sure depopulated areas were populated again; hmmm and when this depopulation happened exactly? Why would there be any depopulation?? watch your answer, you are risking another humiliation.
|
|
|
Post by odel on Sept 8, 2011 10:56:40 GMT -5
Pyrros, did you even read anything from the link? Because you're on a completely different line. lol, now we are on a different line? now what did you ask? if i read the link? hilarious. Using idiots like "Noel Malcolm", Of course we are on different lines Pyrros, you're not arguing against anything based on what I posted from that link, you just blabber away only knowing what it's about vaguely. I don't actually see anyone disproving Noel Malcolm, his work is very good, the fact that it doesn't fit with your or other wackos ideas doesn't mean it's wrong; you're just not able to accept it. Hahahahaha. Yugoslavia was going down long before Noel Malcolm ever wrote any of his books on either Bosnia or Kosova, and how on earth would he destroy the Yugoslav economy? That he doesn't write anything that supports Serb megalomania doesn't mean that he isn't a neutral source, he is by all means and what he has written is better than most, it's very highly acclaimed but of course that doesn't mean anything to you as you have too much of a tunnel vision. Of course the Turks did have motives to do so, and if you had actually read the damn link you would have understood. How is this important? You're an idiot. Please ignore me, and do it royally, please. Do you really think that I would be bothered the slightest by being ignored by a chithead like you? Depopulation of areas and re-population in the Balkans always were common due to the Balkans and also generally all around the world. Since you won't bother to just simply read a not so long text: " Although there are many recorded cases of Catholics being converted to Orthodoxy in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Bosnia, it is clear that this spread of the Orthodox Church did not happen by conversion alone.
In the areas where Orthodoxy made its most striking gains, especially in northern Bosnia, the same period saw a large influx of settlers from Orthodox lands. It was evidently deliberate policy on the part of the Ottomans to fill up territory which had been depopulated, either by war or by plague.
There are signs in the earliest defters (Turkish tax records) of groups of Christian herdsman, identifiable as Vlachs, being settled in devasted areas of eastern Hercegovinia." Pyrros, no one got humiliated other than you. You talk about things you don't know a chit about and you make silly arguments with no substance while presenting them as if they were the greatest arguments ever. While I'm not exactly humiliated I do feel ashamed, ashamed of actually taking the time arguing with tunnel-visioned lunatics like you.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 8, 2011 12:03:43 GMT -5
moral of the story : a moron can only make an oxy-moron ;D lol! quotable!
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 8, 2011 12:17:39 GMT -5
i never can fully respect the "croats" for making their official standard stokavian aka serbian, instead of kajkavian or chakavian!
i mean if they try so hard to differentiate from us (changing their dictionary, etc) why not just implement their "other" dialect/languages that are already quite unique? instead of trying to market "zracna luka" as the epitome of croat uniqueness
|
|