Post by stickinthemud on Apr 2, 2008 14:58:08 GMT -5
I agree, that was the case in the Balkans as well, actually in Bosnia, nationalities were first introduced in the mid 19-th century.
Nationalism, more acutely in Western Europe was flirted with from the 16th century and on. This is demonstrable by the institution of Mercantilism in Great Britain for example. Actually, on the British isles early notions of nationalism made themselves evident as early as the 13th century in decrees such as the Magna Carta which addressed the 'rights of Englishmen.' Actually even that stressed more the socio-economic status of landowning Englanders in relation to the King rather than nationalism in the modern sense.
And you are correct, the first real notions of nationalism, in the modern sense, arrived in the Balkans during the 19th century.
THERE WAS NO SERBIAN OR CROATIAN national awareness not even in a medieval sense of the word .
I'd agree for the most part since ideologies of modern nationalism came only centuries after. Besides, W.European feudalism was a decentralized system which could rarely act as an incubator for nationalism ( the Church was much more successful in contributing to national unity down the road.) I wouldn't go as far to say that nothing Serbian or Croatian didn't exist in the medieval period.
Croatia formed a kingdom that lasted the better part of 200 years but in reality it was probably more of a confederation loosely aligned states with a King as a figurehead. The Croatian Kingdom had no real capital city, a considerable portion of its population wasn't even Slavic speaking in most of the coastal cities and the non-Slavs were the majority of the literate population, and during its duration its broke apart and then came back together again several times. It should come as no shocker that the northern barons in the Slavonia/Northern Bosnia regions of Croatia broke ties with their Dalmatian counterparts and accepted Hungarian sovereignty. If strong ideas of nationalism existed back then the northern Croatians would have been more likely to stay with their southern brethren.
The Serbs didn't establish their own independent state until a century after the incorporation of the Croatian kingdom within the Hungarian kingdom. Much of the same scenario plays out with the rise and fall of the Serbian medieval state except the Serb state was overtaken by the Ottomans.
To equate catholics and orthodox christians with Serbs and Croats is stupid, to call people living in Bosnia anything else but Bosniaks is ridiculous since they have no connection with those wild savage tribes that ceme in the 7-th century(if they came in that time period at all), only the name, they don`t know for certain where Serbs and Croats came from, they don`t know for sure how they looked, what language they spoke, what God or Gods they believed in.
All we know for certain is that they were not Slavs, all linguists confirm that, according to D.A.I the term Serb is the name for a slave, a Croat simply means "one who owns much land".
All we know for certain is that they were not Slavs, all linguists confirm that, according to D.A.I the term Serb is the name for a slave, a Croat simply means "one who owns much land".
I don't think its really an absurd notion for Catholics and Orthodox peoples respectively in Bosnia to declare themselves Croats and Serbs. The precedent of ethno-nationalism is already set in Bosnia and even the Muslims have adopted a specifically Bosnian ethno-nationalist identity called Bosniak. I am sure you're aware of Bosniaks in regions outside of Bosnia declaring themselves ethnically Bosniaks as well. Its even a more ridiculous notion for one to deny another person's freedom and liberty to declare himself what he wants.
As far as the history goes and the 'savagery' of the medieval Croats and Serbs I would question that deeply. I concede that the majority of historians ( including myself) believe that the Croat and Serb names are not Slavic in origin. There is also compelling evidence to link the Croat and Serb name to the ancient Persian civilization but in the end I think its really unimportant. I also don't believe that being 'Turkic' or Asiatic implies savagery necessarily. Certainly the Western Europeans considered non Christian 'newcomers' barbarians but that doesn't imply that they were in the pejorative sense of the word. Heck, by the 7th century, Europe was unofficially divided between the Western Church and the Eastern Byzantine rite and both sides considered the other uncivilized.
The Western Roman Empire first referred to the Germanic peoples as 'Barbarians at the gates' but the truth in that is questionable. The Germanics became Christianized by the Western Church but also introduced another phase in European history. The Germanics brought with them their own legal order which was quite civilized compared to the authoritative and marshal customs of the Eastern Roman Empire. That legal order came to be known as Western European Feudalism which was really 'contractual feudalism' which didn't put all the power in the hands of one sovereign but divided the power between the Kings, barons, knights, and various landowners (hence decentralization).
The Avars ( a Turkic people) allied themselves with Slavs and Persians to overthrow the sovereignty of the Byzantine Empire. With the Avars and Slavs sustaining defeats they retreated to the Western Balkans. The Byzantine Emperor formed an agreement with 'White Croats' to help drive out the Avars and control the Slavs in the Northwestern providences. From all accounts I know of it is evident that the White Croats utterly vanquished the Avars and then settled in the land corresponding to modern Croatia and Bosnia. From all accounts the White Croats were also Slavic speaking since they used common Slav titles and formalities. The Serbs are much of the same settling just East of the Croats in land corresponding to modern day Serbia and Macedonia. There exist no historical record I know of recording how many people specifically identified themselves as 'Croats' and 'Serbs' upon their settling of the Balkans but it is commonly assumed that Croats and Serbs were a ruling caste that established their hegemony over the inhabitants (except in the far more cultured and developed Latin and Greek city-states).
Of course thats not where the story ends. Even with a Croat and Serb ruling class in the Balkans, that was fragmented in short time ( if any unity even existed in the first place?). I think this is where the development of Serbs and Croats splits off and takes two separate roads.
There is so much information to explain I'm trying to figure out how to do it with the most ease. I'll do it like this :
7-9th century Croatia: When the people identified as Croats dispatched the Avars there came into existence two territories identified with the word 'Croatian' ( some argue three) in the form of Dalmatian Croatia and Pannonian Croatia. Pannonian Croatia in the north was conquered from the Croats by the Franks just as soon the Croats took it from the Avars. This was probably the single most important event in Croatian history. The Franks made a run for the south ( Dalmatia) but were unable to hold it mainly due to other problems presenting themselves in the Frankish Empire. Dalmatian Croatia remained relatively autonomous but still formally under Byzantine rule. The Dalmatian coastal cities were almost 100% populated with Latins, Greeks, Vlachs and formal citizens of the Empire. The Croats and Slavs were settled around the cities in the Dalmatian hinterland and inwards in Bosnia. Because of Frankish rule and close proximity to Latin cities, two important factors affected Croatia for the rest of its existence. One, the Catholic Church by way of the Roman priests administering to Croats and Slavs the Western Christian faith. The Croats and Slavs under them came into communion with the Western Church. The Frankish rule introduced into Croatia and Slovenia contractual feudalism which would play an important role for the rest of Croatia's existence. The Latin city-states would be monumentally influential.
7th-9th century Bosnia : Bosnia was sparsely populated. The first mention of it is of two Bosnian cities under the rule of the Serbs. Bosnia back then was much smaller than present day Bosnia confined to the banks of the Bosnia river. What we consider most of modern Bosnia came under the dominion of the Croats and Slavs they ruled over particularly in the northwest of Bosnia. Like Croatia, these regions of Bosnia were introduced to Western Christianity and contractual feudalism and operated this way until the conquering by the Ottomans. Most of what is considered Herzegovina today seemed to have shifted ownership between Croats, Serbs, and local Slavs that arrived before either the Croats and Serbs.
7th-9th century Serbia and Montenegro: What is known as Serbia today came under the dominion of Serbs , Slavs, and indigenous inhabitants but was formally under Bulgarian sovereignty. The Serbs even called the state Rascia which was formally acknowledged by both the Bulgarians and Byzantines I think. Serbia was a war zone as the Bulgarians and Byzantines fought it out. The Serbs would maneuver alliances between the Bulgarians and Byzantines but ultimately sided with the Byzantines when the Bulgarians were overthrown later. The Serbs remained vassals to the Byzantines but had some form of nominal independence. Christianity came to the Serbs from Constantinople ( hence Eastern Christianity) and helped shape Serbian culture and customs vastly different from linguistically similar Croats and Slavs to the West. Serbia was not introduced to Western feudalism either and its actually interesting to contrast the monarchies that existed in Croatia and Bosnia as opposed to Serbia because of this difference. The Serbs would later claim their own independent Kingdom with their own Patriarch of the Orthodox Church. Some Serbs were effected by Western European culture and this is evident by their intermingling with other settlers West of Serbia. Particularly the Serb governors of the Herzegovian lands tended to follow the Western customs. Montenegro seemed to have been populated by Catholic Latins on the coast and increasingly Orthodox Slavs ( probably Serbs or under the tutelage of the Serbs) inwards.
My conclusion would be that it is hard to identify who was exactly 'Serb,' 'Croat,' or otherwise because I don't think it was a central issue. The Serbs and Croats seemed to have played some important role in the Early Middle Ages, even lending their name to vast territories in the Western Balkans, but seemed to have played a less significant role in the Late Middle Ages. Writing them off as completely insignificant is not good scholarship to me. The fading of the name 'Serb' and 'Croat' seems to be particularly acute in the case of the Croats. We have several documents mentioning Croats playing some important role in the shaping of the Balkans in the Early Middle Ages but then it breaks off and they are rarely mentioned in the Late Middle Ages. The Serbs , on the contrary, are frequently mentioned much more so than the Croats Late Middle Ages and we also hear regular mention of Bosnian people.
I would like to say my theory to explain this sounds concurrent with the prevailing legal systems of Europe during the time, particularly the difference between Western feudalism and Eastern despotic rule. In the case of the Croats, as I mentioned earlier, the Croats seemed to have formed an independent state ( or a voluntary confederation of states) earlier than the Bosnians or the Serbs. Due to the rise of feudalism in Croatia by way of the Franks and the influence of the Catholic Church I believe the Croats and Slavs associated with them became far more decentralized than the Serbs. I believe this holds true for most of medieval Bosnia as well. This is consistent with the decentralized German peoples in the Middle Ages as well forming their own states and being almost complete strangers to each other and even lacking trust in one and other. As I explained, it should really be no mystery why the Croatian kingdom split so fluently, its easy to do that when its highly decentralized and this was common in all Western European kingdoms and fiefdoms at the time. Contrast this with the rise of Serbia. Serbia at its medieval peak was a highly centralized kingdom ( even an empire) with one king Dushan even declaring himself an Emperor. This seems to jive well with the customs of the Byzantine Empire as it was typical of the Bulgarian state and the Russian state.
There was little decentralization in the Eastern Orthodox countries mainly because contractual feudalism barely existed ( its a Western Germanic custom). Because of this the rulers tended to rule absolutely instead of sharing power with barons through contract ( See Basil , Simeon, Dushan, Moscovite Russia). There was no antagonism between the Church and the State since the Church and the State were one and the same as opposed to the Catholic West which pitted an international Church separate from the rulers of states which often competed for power creating further decentralization. St. Ambrose is a good early example. Pertaining to the Balkans, contrast Dushan's Iron Fist rule with that of most of the Croatian and Bosnian kings who had to share power with the Church and powerful land barons. You know as well I as I do that even at the peak of the Bosnian kingdom it was mostly run by the powerful land barons.
In the Western cultures ( feudalism, international Catholicism/Western Christianity) socio-economic status was far more important than deep religious solidarity ( proto-nationalism) as displayed in the Orthodox countries or the rest of the world for that matter. I back up this West/East analysis with the following facts:
1) In the Balkans,the conversion of Bosnian non-Orthodox Christians to Islam for socio-economic reasons and the contrasting solidarity among the Orthodox communities. Orthodox peoples were usually converted to Islam through the blood tax instead of voluntarily.
2) In Bosnia, like Croatia , a loose confederation in a nominally unified kingdom ultimately ruled by powerful land barons. Herzog Stephen even created his own semi-independent fiefdom taking his GERMAN title. Other powerful nobles ruled Bosnia such as Baron Hrvoje and Bosnia was often looked upon as a territory with different peoples professing regional loyalty rather than specifically Bosnian loyalty.
3) The decentralization allowed the city-states to flourish. Dubrovnik-Ragusa was a self-ruling Republic and had sister cities all over the Adriatic coast and in other parts of Western Europe. You wouldn't find independent city-states in Orthodox countries like Russia or any Asiatic country for that matter until Western contact.
4) In the Balkans, Croatian and Bosnian rulers rarely were interested in destroying any of the prosperous city-states. Croatian king Krasimir built his own commercial town on the coast. Bosnian king Tvartko did the same thing in Montenegro with the construction of Herzog-Novi. In contrast, both the Orthodox Serb and Bulgarian rulers always sought to crush the independence of the city-states.
5) Because of the decentralization, Western Europe was able to prosper economically and was the first touched by the productive power of capitalism first introduced, of course, by the city-states.
And if I think of even more reasons I'll let you know.
Do you think it is more reasonable than for the Catholics and Orthodox christians to identify with some barbarians they don`t know almost nothing about, or with the country they live in?
Bosna=Bosnjaci
Well, I think they have the right to declare themselves whatever they want and I don't see much merit in pledging loyalty to a national government. Remember, I'm an anarchist. ;D