Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 12, 2008 1:45:26 GMT -5
^Just like some say Croats are "katholicized serbs" or idiocy like that you never seen one arvaniti so STFU
|
|
|
Post by fukara on Sept 12, 2008 1:46:18 GMT -5
Nikolich
areyou Serb..??
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 12, 2008 1:55:00 GMT -5
Greek married to Bosnian Serb woman who does not care about politics.
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Sept 12, 2008 2:52:30 GMT -5
^ She doesn't care, so you make up for it ehh?
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 12, 2008 3:33:19 GMT -5
Welcome back Pyrros ;D
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 12, 2008 3:38:18 GMT -5
is that revelation YOUR WORK? i mean dude you are amazing!
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Sept 12, 2008 5:28:29 GMT -5
there is no "rule" wtf is this, Seselj and balkanska historije? ALRIGHT! Lets not use logic and just say that we are all descended from Bosniaks and that the world started 300 years ago. bosnia was catholic before the ottomans took us over... most of us are not serbs.. some were... so what? Bosnia was under the Eastern Roman Empire so it was Orthodox (though what is now Bihac was under the WRE.) Whats wrong with Vinjak? He's more closer to Novi pazer and Shonic then Deacon And what category am I in exactly?
|
|
tyson
Amicus
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by tyson on Sept 12, 2008 11:39:28 GMT -5
^ actually the border between the eastern and western roman empire was on the drina river, but the eastern roman empire controlled up to the northern adriatic before the avar invasion
yes some parts of bosnia shifted back and forth under byzantine rule, during the kingdom of croatia, and the kingdom of bosnia, but that doesnt mean that the populace were of the greek-rite church.
split was a byzantine city, and the populace was of the western-rite church.
duklja was of the western-rite church before nemanja, even though it was a byzantine vassal state. northern albania was all of the western-rite church , and that was under byzantine rule.
so just because byzantine empire ruled certain parts, does not necessarily mean that the populace there is all of the eastern-rite church.
|
|
|
Post by ccccnjegoscccc on Sept 12, 2008 11:46:49 GMT -5
^^ Nor does it mean that if the local populace was Catholic back then, or under Western Influence.....they were Croats?
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Sept 12, 2008 11:54:55 GMT -5
^^ Nor does it mean that if the local populace was Catholic back then, or under Western Influence.....they were Croats? I find it funny how Croats claim that because even though Bogomilism and the Bosnian heretic Church were the main religions of Bosnia that it means Bosnia was Croatian because there was more of a Catholic presence then an Orthodox one. Especially since they often say, "Look at the historical records, they say that the Orthodox were Morlachs and Vlachs in Dalmatia, Bosnia and Croatia -- to try to claim that the population there isn't truly Serb."
|
|
Zvone
Amicus
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Posts: 525
|
Post by Zvone on Sept 12, 2008 13:10:44 GMT -5
^So, what were they according to you?
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Sept 12, 2008 13:50:44 GMT -5
^So, what were they according to you? Not Croats, not Serbs.
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Sept 12, 2008 14:15:44 GMT -5
A quote from Noel Malcolm`s book Bosnia: a short history p.10 As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia. But tell that to the Asiatic barbarians < Lmao A quote from a book "Putnams Home Cyclopedia" p116 written in 1851 The Edinburgh GazetteerOr Geographical Dictionary p 564 written in 1822 it is ahistorical to try to create a picture of ethnic composition in medieval Bosnian polity by selectively referencing modern national or ethnic name that pops up now and then in various documents or historical works that describe periods in Bosnian history. One can tally ethnic traits of medieval Bosnian rulers and find either Croat or Serb characteristics in the list. However, such simplistic approach is dated and discarded: there is no sign that population of pre-Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina, whichever social stratum, had developed Croatian or Serbian ethnic consciousness even in a medieval sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Sept 12, 2008 14:23:01 GMT -5
A quote from Noel Malcolm`s book Bosnia: a short history p.10 As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia. But tell that to the Asiatic barbarians < Lmao A quote from a book "Putnams Home Cyclopedia" p116 written in 1851 The Edinburgh GazetteerOr Geographical Dictionary p 564 written in 1822 And to claim that these sources talk of a Bosniak ethniticity is reidicoulous. Given that Bosniak has historically been a term sued to refer to any inhabitant of Bosnia that until recently was for the must part an archaism.
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Sept 12, 2008 14:28:12 GMT -5
A quote from Noel Malcolm`s book Bosnia: a short history p.10 As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia. But tell that to the Asiatic barbarians < Lmao A quote from a book "Putnams Home Cyclopedia" p116 written in 1851 The Edinburgh GazetteerOr Geographical Dictionary p 564 written in 1822 And to claim that these sources talk of a Bosniak ethniticity is reidicoulous. Given that Bosniak has historically been a term sued to refer to any inhabitant of Bosnia that until recently was for the must part an archaism. You kind of ...just helped MY point there. That they all called themsevles bosniaks or before tha tbosnjani. Nobody was running aroudn IMA SERB IMA SERB LETS JOIN SERBIA! Well maybe a few nutjobs. That Bosnian Serbs is more or less a modern invention cuz of religous ties. You're the ones that switched and started dickrding the country next to you, simply cuz of faith. You don't even match geneticly in the slightest. Serbians are closer to Bulgarians. heres some more Milovan Đilaš svjedoči o bošnjacima iz Sandžačkog kraja, za vrijeme bivše Jugoslavije: Taj naziv… je tradicionalan vec od srednjeg vijeka: muslimani koje sam ja poznavo u Bijelom Polju i družio se sa njima uvijek su govorili da su Bošnjaci. U mojoj porodici je bio sluga musliman, Bešir Zulević iz okoline Rožaja. Bio je nepismen – ja sam ga naucio pismenosti – što nije bilo teško, jer je bio veoma bistar…uvijek je govorio da je Bošnjak. A i Vuk Karadžic je upotrebljavao taj termin – Bošnjaci. (Milovan Ðilaš i Nadežda Gaco: Bošnjak Adil Zulfikarpašic; isto vidi: Polje, br. 36) Prof. Dr. Darko Tanasković, najpriznatiji jugoslovenski orijentalist, o bošnjaštvu kao nazivu kojim se označava etnopolitička koncepcija, kaže da je “suština u stavu da u staroj istorijskoj zemlji Bosni, starijoj i od Srbije i od Hrvatske, kao njeno autohtono stanovništvo, s neprekinutim etničkim, kulturnim, psihičkim, pa i državotvornim kontinuitetom od ranog srednjeg vijeka do danas, žive Bošnjaci i da je to jedino njima odgovarajuće narodno i nacionalno ime.” (Polje, br. 36). And I've still to hear what is wrong by an ancient population identifying itself by its homeland, culture and everyhting else tied to that geographical spot. THIS IS HOW CIVILIZATIONS ARE CREATED WTF lmao And IF WE ARE just mixed mutts of croats and serbs and illyrians and turks and whatever else...what could possibly make more sense then to simply be a Bosniak and Bosnian. then a Bosniak identity IS that. a mix of all it's previous history. bosnian serbs can stay calling themselves serbs nobody cares, we're not trying to take their shit, you're trying to take OURS and our history. its like youre all fanatics bent on it.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Sept 12, 2008 14:35:32 GMT -5
That doesn't change the fact that under the Ottoman empire the Pec Patriarchate, i.e. Serbian church, was the only legitimate Orthodox authority in Bosnia.
Or that under the Austrians it was the Pec Patriarchate and later the self-styled Serbian ORthox Church in the Habsburg Lands who had jurisdiction in the area.
This was a tacit recognition by the Ottomans and Bosnians that they considered the Orthodox Vlachs in these areas are Serbs or at least felt some commonality with Serbs.
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Sept 12, 2008 14:45:19 GMT -5
That doesn't change the fact that under the Ottoman empire the Pec Patriarchate, i.e. Serbian church, was the only legitimate Orthodox authority in Bosnia. Or that under the Austrians it was the Pec Patriarchate and later the self-styled Serbian ORthox Church in the Habsburg Lands who had jurisdiction in the area. This was a tacit recognition by the Ottomans and Bosnians that they considered the Orthodox Vlachs in these areas are Serbs or at least felt some commonality with Serbs. Ya now you're really trying. You just basicly said they followed the Serbian Orthodox church and out of that evolved the rest. plus you said vlachs..so ..not serbs So their whole identity is religion based? ;D
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Sept 12, 2008 14:52:56 GMT -5
But yo...lets all be real for a second and put aside the inat. None of this medieval s**t and what people thought of themsevles then, or a 2000 years ago or anything else, matters in the world today, and in todays political situation. We're all beating a dead horse over and over and over. Nobody is going to convince any nation to change anything, not me, not you. And I don't want to.
Insted we need to face today's reality and try to work with that for something better for our own people (for you Serbs, for me Bosniaks, or whoever else anyone identifies with) and maybe in the future even for us all as Balkan people.
Because honestly how many times have these arguments happend? Who is what, who is a traitor, who's land that is, who land this is etc. It's never going to end and nobody is going to win. Dictating to people what they're allowed to be or should be is f**kin' gay. And above all pointless.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Sept 12, 2008 15:19:34 GMT -5
That doesn't change the fact that under the Ottoman empire the Pec Patriarchate, i.e. Serbian church, was the only legitimate Orthodox authority in Bosnia. Or that under the Austrians it was the Pec Patriarchate and later the self-styled Serbian ORthox Church in the Habsburg Lands who had jurisdiction in the area. This was a tacit recognition by the Ottomans and Bosnians that they considered the Orthodox Vlachs in these areas are Serbs or at least felt some commonality with Serbs. Ya now you're really trying. You just basicly said they followed the Serbian Orthodox church and out of that evolved the rest. plus you said vlachs..so ..not serbs So their whole identity is religion based? ;D The vlachs followed the Serbian Church, more specifically it's precursor -- the Pec PAtriarch. Followers of the Patriarch evolved into modern day Serbs relatively recently. No matter what you say the symbol fact is Bosnia's Vlachs are now Bosnia's Serbs. This is due to the commonality of the two nations and the fact that Vlachs were a significant presence in Tsar Dushan's Serbia.
|
|
|
Post by kapetan on Sept 12, 2008 15:25:34 GMT -5
Ya now you're really trying. You just basicly said they followed the Serbian Orthodox church and out of that evolved the rest. plus you said vlachs..so ..not serbs So their whole identity is religion based? ;D The vlachs followed the Serbian Church, more specifically it's precursor -- the Pec PAtriarch. Followers of the Patriarch evolved into modern day Serbs relatively recently. No matter what you say the symbol fact is Bosnia's Vlachs are now Bosnia's Serbs. This is due to the commonality of the two nations and the fact that Vlachs were a significant presence in Tsar Dushan's Serbia. EXACTLY my point. See the hipocrisy? You s**t on our national identity because according to you we were originaly Serbs or Croats (by blood not by self identification), but according to your theory on Vlachs just now that doesn't matter. In fact the evolution from Vlach to Serb is way more recent too. So weather the people saying we weren't Serbs or the one saying they were are right, makes no difference, either way you just proved our point. And I agree, they are now erbs nobody is going to change that unless they control reality. Like I said in my post above.
|
|