ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 8, 2009 10:30:50 GMT -5
So I m not aware of this: are there documents where the Bosnian kings or people have stated their nationality before becomming muslims? I know the Bosnian church was Bogomilian - so was it still more orthodox than catholic (bogomilism was a heresy of orthodoxy I think). And if they were more orthodox were they Serbs? Can someone shed light on this controversial matter? Are they now considered muslim Serbs or muslim Croats? Did they consider themselves Bosnians before islam etc...?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 8, 2009 10:32:08 GMT -5
p.s. vote what nationality they were preislam - your personal oppinion.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 8, 2009 10:38:52 GMT -5
im gonna go out on a limb and say they were in fact serbs...
|
|
|
Post by majmun on Oct 8, 2009 11:07:16 GMT -5
Sima Cirkovic, Istorija srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave, Beograd 1964. This was the religion in Bosnia before the turks, so unless you are saying all stokavski speakers are Serbs I do not see how most where. Now I doubt anyone back then had a strong sense of "ethnicity"
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Oct 8, 2009 14:46:58 GMT -5
I think that ethnically they are Serbs. The consciousness is a different matter. And as it seems, that is what matters.
|
|
rex362
Senior Moderator
Pellazg
PELASGIANILLYROALBANIAN
Posts: 19,058
|
Post by rex362 on Oct 8, 2009 15:34:24 GMT -5
I would have to agree that they were and are serbians by blood
|
|
gavrilo
Amicus
Vi ste svi banane
Posts: 840
|
Post by gavrilo on Oct 8, 2009 22:42:11 GMT -5
100% srbi........im reading a book involving all of the balkaans and im intrepretation of it is that bosnians are serbs.
ps rex you may be an albanian racist sarcastic dush but your wit is very amusing. as a serb i have to laugh at some of the things you write/do.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Oct 8, 2009 23:38:08 GMT -5
Rexy is the best Albanian.
|
|
|
Post by Username on Oct 8, 2009 23:40:06 GMT -5
I know the answer isnt Bosnian.
And I thought Orthodoxy and Catholicism are practically the same religions?
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Oct 8, 2009 23:55:09 GMT -5
And I thought Orthodoxy and Catholicism are practically the same religions? When Serbs became Orthodox it wasn't like overnight hey we are Orthodox send an email out to everyone we have a new church. Serbia was actually at the crossroads spiritually between east and west and at times we were actually aligned with the pope. I think Saint Sava's quote probably realistically reflects the consciousness of the Serbian people of teh time. At first we were confused. The East thought that we were West, while the West considered us to be East. Some of us misunderstood our place in the clash of currents, so they cried that we belong to neither side, and others that we belong exlusively to one side or the other. But I tell you, Ireneus, we are doomed by fate to be the East in the West and the West in the East, to acknowledge only heavenly Jerusalem beyond us, and here on earth--no one St. Sava to Ireneus, 13th century
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 9, 2009 0:14:16 GMT -5
kind of a 'GREY' area. There is only two nations in the region of Bosnia:
1) Croats & 2) Serbs
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 9, 2009 0:38:31 GMT -5
I would say 'Bosnians.' Why? Because very rarely were ethnic groups mentioned in the entire region. Often times people were associated with whatever political designation the chunk of land they lived on was. We must consider the question at the core? What is an ethnic group? Besides the OP asked what nationality where they but probably meant ethnic group. Nationality wise , the ancestors of all people in Bosnia were various things ( Croatian , Hungarian, Ottoman , etc). In the realm of science and genetics ethnic groups in terms of being influenced by political nationality and religion are meaningless. Which means of course , all ethnic groups in the area are arbitrary according to whatever political/religious current was dominate at whatever time in history. If we were to look at it from a scientific perspective , we're all ultimately Africans ( Eastern Ethiopians) and that's exactly the conclusion you would reach if you took ethnicity to its logical extreme. Given that , most historians , foreign ( to the region) academics have identified medieval Bosnia as closest associated with Croatian culture since there is pretty much a seem less transition from the extinct Croatian kingdom into the young Bosnian kingdom. Ethnic or tribal groups are only mentioned a couple times in some scattered historical documents such as the De Adminstrando Imperio. ( Look it up). That document states that four areas where 'Croats' settled correspond to roughly 70% or so of modern Bosnia as well as most of what would be considered modern day Croatia. It mentions Serbs settling in areas that would consist of the Drina river basin in Bosnia , Sarajevo , and Eastern Herzegovina. But how much of these people were 'really' Croats are Serbs is open to debate. For one , the meaning of tribe or ethnicity back in those days was different than what is meant by them in these days. Furthermore , many people were assimilated into these groups and were likely descended from local residents. From the middle of the Middle Ages , Bosnia becomes an independent and expanding kingdom, or at least not being subject directly to a foreign crown. Bosnian kings and dukes have scripted documents where they seem to suggest their identity , or the identity of their people/language, is sometimes Croatian , other times Serb, and many times just Bosnian. The Ottomans take over Bosnia and add a third major religious element and for centuries people are only distinguished by their religious affiliation. Lets not forget the massive migrations in and out of Bosnia. Turks at one time call a huge region of Bosnia ( mostly north west , Banja Luka to the Croatian border, 'Turkish Croatia' and Arabic cartographers call the people along the Bosna river Croats , others call them Saxons , and many times they are just called Turks , Latins , Vlachs,and Serbs or Greeks ( probably religious affiliation to the patriarchs of those churches). However, the people have almost always been clustered into a group known as Bosnians. How accurate this is is still open to debate but this is what witnesses of the time concur. I don't think one can make an accurate claim on another and dictate to them what they 'are' or 'should be' since when we fall back on the objectivity of science , all of that is meaningless anyway and such people should be told to piss off .
|
|
tyson
Amicus
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by tyson on Oct 9, 2009 1:54:01 GMT -5
ioan,.....
there wasnt bogumils in medieval bosnia, but there was a christian sect who called themselves "Krstjani" , which just simply means christians. yes, they were a heretic sect, and have often been confused with the bogumils, but the followers of this sect were made up of bosnian catholic dissidents.
at the time of the "krstjani" sect , medieval bosnia was all catholic, besides the krstjani sect follwers. there were no orthodox there, only catholics and the followers of the krstjani sect, who were originally catholics to begin with.
also it is to note that most of the followers of the krstjani sect mostly converted back to catholicism before the arrival of the turks. those that didnt were the first bosnians to convert to islam upon ottoman arrival.
now,..... which tribe did the bosnian peoples belong to?......
they belong to the tribe of croats. the whole region of bosnia (not herzegovina) was part of the croatian kingdom for 400 years before the formation of the kingdom of bosnia. croats settled and ruled bosnia before serbs. serbs at the time were centred around the raska area.
when the kingdom of bosnia formed, it was formed by the inhabitants who were already living there, which were made of catholic locals of the croat tribe. they made their own kingdom in the area of central and eastern bosnia, because the locals didnt want to be under hungarian rule, since a croatian queen married into the hungarian royal family, which therefore caused croatian lands to come under joint hungarian rule, and once she died, direct hungarian rule.
so croats from the area of central and eastern bosnia, formed their own kingdom, because they didnt want to come under hungarian domination, and later their kingdom expanded west and north to aquire more croat populated lands. also the name bosna, came from a river which flowed through the area, and thats why the croat locals at that time called their kingdom as bosna. it wasnt a name for the region before then. before , it was simply just a part of the roman province of dalmatia, which the croat peoples were givwn the right to settle and rule by the byzantines , in reward for defeating the avars.
bosnia = historically croat lands
our famous king tomislav fought with his men, a major battle against bulgarians, and that battleground was in eastern bosnia. the bulgarians were subsequently defeated, and croatian rule was maintained at the time.
serb influence in bosnia came later, well into the time when the bosnian kingdom was already established. they gained influence by serbian nobles and royals from raska, marrying into bosnian royalty and nobility.
also in the later stages of the bosnian kingdom, it became such a strong entity in the region that it aquired lands in duklja/zeta, hercegovina and raska, which were previously under serb control. so because of this, alot of lands where serbs settled, or had been assimilated into serbdom or orthodoxy were now a part of the bosnian kingdom's territory. so that is where the serb equation comes into bosnia.
also to mention, hercegovina and central&southern montenegro were originally catholic croat lands, which was made up of local dukedoms called: 1.) travunija 2.) zahumlije 3.) duklja 4.) paganija or land of the neretljani/narentines or narentania
this lands were known as "crvena hrvatska" or "red croatia"
all of them were catholic , but the neretljani stayed keeping pagan slavic religion for a long time, but eventually accepted catholicism. thats why that land was called paganija, moreso by others than themselves. they just simply called themselves neretljani, named after the neretva river.
so these lands eventually were conquered by raska later, and then there was a subsequent forced conversion to serbian orthodox church and assimilation of the locals. serbs didnt even migrate to these lands, rather they assimilated the croat locals by force to make them become part of serbdom after conquering these lands.
so with that being said, the serbs real homeland was raska, and central& southern serbia, and parts of macedonia (fyrom)
bosnia was originally croat lands, and the medieval bosnians were catholic and of the croat tribe.
now nationality is a different thing. i would say that the nationality of bosnians was bosnian, since they were subjects of the bosnian kingdom, that was their nationality, and what they were identied as to differentiate between croats who lived outside the kingdom's borders. so it wasnt an ethnic identity, but rather a nationality.
it was only made into an ethnic identity today from the muslims of bosnia.
i guess since the muslims accepted ottoman rule and converted to their religion, they did not associate with the other locals who were christians who despised ottoman rule. so the muslims of bosnia felt close only with their masters , the turks, and once the ottoman empire fell, they did not feel like part of the bosnian croat community there, even though they were the same people, nor did they fell part of the serb community in bosnia, so they rather just opted to call themselves bosnians, based on their history and connection with the land.
contrary to what bosnian muslims would like to believe, there was no bosniak tribe/ethnicity that existed. neither slavic, nor illyrian. nor was there any type of identity with bosnia before the bosnian kingdom. the name was just simply a name of a river that flowed through there and nothing else, which was used by the catholic croat locals to name their kingdom. that is all.
ethnic bosniak identity was only made up in the 20th century
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 9, 2009 2:16:56 GMT -5
i see, interesting...
|
|
tyson
Amicus
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by tyson on Oct 9, 2009 2:32:19 GMT -5
also , alot of the serbs in bosnia today are made up of serbs who migrated from central serbia, but moreso vlachs who came from central serbia, who were orthodox, and placed under the serbian orthdox church, and subsequently assimilated into serbs, and intermarried with the serb community that existed in ottoman bosnia. also alot of serbs in bosnia are mixed with ancestry that were originally croats who converted from catholicism to orthodox christianity, during ottoman bosnia, as orthodox were given more priveleges, and it was a better option than to convert to islam, and lose christian faith altogether. again, those people came under the serbian orthodox church, and were eventually assimilated into serbs, and intermarried with serbs in ottoman bosnia
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Oct 9, 2009 4:07:00 GMT -5
I started to agree with the start of what Tyson wrote, but important things were missing and then some things are plain wrong. Travunija, Zahumlje, Duklja & Paganija are regarded as being Serbian land and that is what is explicitly written in the DAI about these areas and subsequently they have always been majority Serbian land. Red Croatia is a very poor theory & if it were true in the way he claims it would actually mean that there is pretty much no such thing as Serbs or Albanians if its extents were to be taken as ethnicity since it pretty much covers the whole Balkans. Red Croatia is simply bulls**t & just represents Croat or more likely Catholic expansionist intentions. There is other stuff the guy has not even attempted to back himself up with. Catholics converting to Orthodoxy lol. Realistically there are a lot of ways to look at this question. One way - the most popular theory is that Serbs, Croats & other heterogeneous slav tribes migrated to populate the Balkans. Of course there must have been people already living there. Knowing how many is just a guess. Genetics could help but it really has not given us a good answer with quite opposite interpretations. A quite dominant haplogroup (I2a) was initially claimed as Illyrian but there is fvck all evidence to support this & the exact opposite theory has also emerged since it also has another hot spot in the Carpathians. Bosnians also do not represent any particularly distinct divergence from Serbs or Croats in their genetics anyway. Now, Bosnia takes its name from a river & it also represented a much smaller geographic area in its earliest years so it's absurd to really claim that this represented an ethnicity, and hence especially to the areas it expanded to. In massive contrast to this, the Serbs represented an ethnicity that called themselves Serbs when their state was not even called Serbia. They also referred to themselves in documents as living in separate lands or states. The way I see it, there were definitely always Serbs in todays Bosnia (even the original small one - DAI) then its borders expanded over Serbian land... then there were definitely always Croats since it also expanded over Croat territory. It’s leaders are testified as having both Serbian & Croat geneology. They especially explicitly referred to their Serbian genealogy. The rest who protruded from the original small geographic Bosnia may well have been ethnic Bosniaks & the Kristijani are a strong support of this but they also would have known it was a multi ethnic state. I see no imaginable cause for a single ethnic identity in Bosnia at any time. Bosnia never represented a single ethnicity. The answer specifically to this question is realistically that all three were ethnicities in Bosnia at all times so it's more realistic to argue about percentages and that may well be impossible but I think Serbs were because other than when the Kings ruled over Croat lands they mostly said they were King of Serbs and they certainly didn't even come close to ruling all Serb land. Also here is a very good Serbian document describing the Serbian perspective on Bosnian identity. It’s simple with great scans and clear non-obscure language. Worth a read… cafehome.tripod.com/serbdom-eng.htm
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 9, 2009 5:18:53 GMT -5
Overall this is really a fruitless discussion. It sparks meaningless and pointless Croat vs Serb claims over the history of Bosnia as well as a Bosniak perspective that disagrees with both. The only history you can really rely on is natural history since political history is inherently subjective.
|
|
|
Post by maksimir on Oct 9, 2009 5:27:05 GMT -5
Also here is a very good Serbian document describing the Serbian perspective on Bosnian identity. It’s simple with great scans and clear non-obscure language. Worth a read… cafehome.tripod.com/serbdom-eng.htmYou call that worth a read? This is what it says on top of the page: The text which speaks that Bosnia, according to the following Bosnian ruler, is inhabited only by Serbs and Vlachs People should stop reading after that sentence. This however is worth a read www.croatianhistory.net/etf/et02.html
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Oct 9, 2009 5:31:25 GMT -5
Overall this is really a fruitless discussion. It sparks meaningless and pointless Croat vs Serb claims over the history of Bosnia as well as a Bosniak perspective that disagrees with both. The only history you can really rely on is natural history since political history is inherently subjective. Yes, its fruitless...but at the same time its good to recognise reality and historical facts. Or else you have " ethnic " splinter groups like fyromians that are delusional and in a current state of nation and ethnic building. Its time to call a spade a spade, and if ppl feel a certain way than that is fine but to say something completely false just to be politically correct is dangerous. Espescially in the balkans...
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Oct 9, 2009 5:45:50 GMT -5
Also here is a very good Serbian document describing the Serbian perspective on Bosnian identity. It’s simple with great scans and clear non-obscure language. Worth a read… cafehome.tripod.com/serbdom-eng.htmYou call that worth a read? This is what it says on top of the page: The text which speaks that Bosnia, according to the following Bosnian ruler, is inhabited only by Serbs and Vlachs People should stop reading after that sentence. This however is worth a read www.croatianhistory.net/etf/et02.htmlMy link is way better since it's straight to the point by the point with exact quotations of authentic documents. Your link is a long story of wishy washy interpretation.
|
|