|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 11, 2009 19:54:05 GMT -5
Srbobran usually has an agenda to make Serbs as less slavic as possible & as much Thracian, Greek & as similar to Bulgarians as possible so I don't even know what he's dissagreeing with there. It's weird. Maybe he's a Torlak. Sejtani's comment was fair if only even as a theory. Torlak is weird. It's grammar is Bulgarian though that doesn't mean it's speakers are necessarilly ethnically Bulgarian in the sense of their cultural practices, religious affiliation & self identification.
|
|
|
Post by shejtani on Aug 12, 2009 1:10:36 GMT -5
I was not talking about the ethnic afiliation. For me, the answer is simple: you feel Serb, you are Serb.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Aug 12, 2009 8:13:35 GMT -5
Actually, it's not just Srbobran. It seems to be the idea and popularity of being Slavs has faded, and now many of your kin like to claim a non-Slav ancestry. Perhaps AAdmin, who've created these forums, is the best example. He argues that Serbs and Montenegrins aren't Slavs but locals who adopted Slavic speech ... and that these locals were really Hellenes, since to him the Illyrians were Hellenes, and consequently all Serbs hail from the glorious ancient Greeks, descendants of historians, philosophers, scientists and all ... he is an extreme case, since most who distance themselves from Slavs are far more modest.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Aug 12, 2009 13:06:03 GMT -5
Arsenjie, Serbs did absorb a large Vlach population, its common knowledge and fact. I was disputing the claim that Bulgarian is "more Balkanic" than Serbian because it just doesn't make sense. And no, I'm not a Torlak; paternally I'm from Kosovo (as well as certain parts of northern Vardarska if you go further back) and maternally, I'm from Zupa which was settled exclusively by Montenegrin Serbs.
And I don't have an agenda for fvck's sake.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Aug 12, 2009 17:13:59 GMT -5
80 % of the words in Bulgarian and Serbian have one and the same root. Period. The rest is interpretation. Either that of Novi, claiming that 2/3 of Bulgarians are Serbs or a sensible one, based on common sense that we are very much the same.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Aug 12, 2009 18:12:33 GMT -5
None is claiming that Bulgarian isn't a Slavic language. It's pretty evident that it is, take a look at the Indoeuropean family tree of languages and you'll see Bulgarian right up there with Serbian, Russian and all other Slavic languages. What we're talking about is something else, namely a substratum, meaning that Bulgarian has been significiantly influenced by "some" other language than a Slavic one ... not so much words, which might be a more superficial influence (I don't doubt that a vaste majority of Bulgarian vocabulary is of Slavic origin) but rather the grammar which is untypically Slavic and typically "Balkanian".
What is this "Balkan sprachbund"? Its a set of features shared by Albanian, Romanian, Bulgarian & Greek. These include, among others, a reduced number of cases, often replaced with prepositions, the absence of the infinitive, a definitie article postfixed to the noun and so on. All of these aren't shared by all above mentioned languages; some have more of these, others less. For instance, the reduction of cases is more profound in Bulgarian, while Albanian has retained it much more. The definite article postfixed to a noun is smth present in both languages. The absence of the infinitive for instance is true of Tosk and standard Albanian, but not in the Geg (northern dialect) where you still say me punue (work), me vrapue (to run), me lexue (to read) etc.
These features are absent in other Slavic languages/dialects, minus Torlakian, which is why most linguists believe that these features in Bulgarian were inherited through the influence of a local language ... possible Vlach, since this element ought to have been pretty important in Bulgaria throughout the Middle Age. Infact, many are those who consider the Vlachs to be autochtonous in the lands south of the Danube (not a popular theory among Romanians) and that only later did they come to demographically take over ancient Dacia, modern Romania, by absorbing and assimilating the various ethnic elements that were previously settled there, including Slavs, Hungarians, Cumans, Pechenegs and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 12, 2009 21:03:37 GMT -5
Actually, it's not just Srbobran. It seems to be the idea and popularity of being Slavs has faded, and now many of your kin like to claim a non-Slav ancestry. Perhaps AAdmin, who've created these forums, is the best example. He argues that Serbs and Montenegrins aren't Slavs but locals who adopted Slavic speech ... and that these locals were really Hellenes, since to him the Illyrians were Hellenes, and consequently all Serbs hail from the glorious ancient Greeks, descendants of historians, philosophers, scientists and all ... he is an extreme case, since most who distance themselves from Slavs are far more modest. You are right since Serbs have always been proud slavs but I think it's mainly on this website as a knee jerk reaction to the Albanian idea that you have ultimate rights to Kosovo if Serbs migrated as slavs to the Balkans... which I completely disagree with. I think Serbs did come to the Balkans as slavs but Kosovo was by no means densly inhabited with Albanians. Going by earliest records you were way under 10% & in fact there were more Vlachs & in any case slavs lived side by side with Arbanasi. This was the civilization that existed before the Turks came & it's nice that you guys don't like the Turks but you do have them to thank the most for becoming the majority. & Admin is a bit of a weirdo.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Aug 13, 2009 2:39:05 GMT -5
None is claiming that Bulgarian isn't a Slavic language. It's pretty evident that it is, take a look at the Indoeuropean family tree of languages and you'll see Bulgarian right up there with Serbian, Russian and all other Slavic languages. What we're talking about is something else, namely a substratum, meaning that Bulgarian has been significiantly influenced by "some" other language than a Slavic one ... not so much words, which might be a more superficial influence (I don't doubt that a vaste majority of Bulgarian vocabulary is of Slavic origin) but rather the grammar which is untypically Slavic and typically "Balkanian". What is this "Balkan sprachbund"? Its a set of features shared by Albanian, Romanian, Bulgarian & Greek. These include, among others, a reduced number of cases, often replaced with prepositions, the absence of the infinitive, a definitie article postfixed to the noun and so on. All of these aren't shared by all above mentioned languages; some have more of these, others less. For instance, the reduction of cases is more profound in Bulgarian, while Albanian has retained it much more. The definite article postfixed to a noun is smth present in both languages. The absence of the infinitive for instance is true of Tosk and standard Albanian, but not in the Geg (northern dialect) where you still say me punue (work), me vrapue (to run), me lexue (to read) etc. These features are absent in other Slavic languages/dialects, minus Torlakian, which is why most linguists believe that these features in Bulgarian were inherited through the influence of a local language ... possible Vlach, since this element ought to have been pretty important in Bulgaria throughout the Middle Age. Infact, many are those who consider the Vlachs to be autochtonous in the lands south of the Danube (not a popular theory among Romanians) and that only later did they come to demographically take over ancient Dacia, modern Romania, by absorbing and assimilating the various ethnic elements that were previously settled there, including Slavs, Hungarians, Cumans, Pechenegs and so forth. I agree with this. Seems the most logical. That could explain also some genetic researches, which point the fact Bulgarians are mainly Mediteraneans. Also the close racial kindship of Bulgarians and Romanians. I think probably in the middle ages the people above and beyond the Danube were pretty much the same (todays Bulgarian and Romanian teritories were both in the borders of the first Bulgarian empire). The difference is the state was stronger and mightier on the south part and thus the official state and religious Slavic language prevailed in the south. The Romanized Thracians and the other Thracians that were speaking their language (like the Bessies) were slavicized. So did the Bulgars. On the north, the state was not that strong, lots of mountains were opsticle for the populace to get slavized and the more numerous previous populace romanized the slavs, the bulgars and other groups that settled there. The close ties between Bulgarians and Romanians are evident by the fact Bulgarian remained state/church official language centures after Bulgaria fell under the Ottomans. But I also think the native Balkan populace was very influencial in the formation of the Serbian ethnicity. However it is strange the Serbian is not part of the Balkan linguistic union.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Aug 13, 2009 11:49:52 GMT -5
Actually, it's not just Srbobran. It seems to be the idea and popularity of being Slavs has faded, and now many of your kin like to claim a non-Slav ancestry. Perhaps AAdmin, who've created these forums, is the best example. He argues that Serbs and Montenegrins aren't Slavs but locals who adopted Slavic speech ... and that these locals were really Hellenes, since to him the Illyrians were Hellenes, and consequently all Serbs hail from the glorious ancient Greeks, descendants of historians, philosophers, scientists and all ... he is an extreme case, since most who distance themselves from Slavs are far more modest. You are right since Serbs have always been proud slavs but I think it's mainly on this website as a knee jerk reaction to the Albanian idea that you have ultimate rights to Kosovo if Serbs migrated as slavs to the Balkans... which I completely disagree with. I think Serbs did come to the Balkans as slavs but Kosovo was by no means densly inhabited with Albanians. Going by earliest records you were way under 10% & in fact there were more Vlachs & in any case slavs lived side by side with Arbanasi. This was the civilization that existed before the Turks came & it's nice that you guys don't like the Turks but you do have them to thank the most for becoming the majority. & Admin is a bit of a weirdo. 1) If this is the main reason for all of these claims, I find it ironic, because you adjust your thinking and identity as well as history around the claims of my people whom you perpetually call your physical and intellectual inferiors. 2) I never said the Serbs encountered a densely populated Albanian population in Dardania, but obviously, we beat you to the region and most people seem to agree that prior to their linguistic shift to Vulgar Latin, the ancestors of the Romanians/Vlachs spoke a language related or identical to the proto-Albanians ... which accounts for the similiarities between our languages that aren't explained through Latin, Greek or Slavic. Meaning that the population of Dardania probably spoke some proto-Albanian dialect before the Romans came. And when the Romans came, the Romanization process wasn't completed or definite, since references to "Dardanian bandits" and frequent watch towers and garrisons suggests the province was never fully under control. Not to mention that there are references to the Dardanian cheese, suggesting the presence of a pastoral population that wasn't as open to Latinization. This also explains the onomastic evidence which suggests an Albanian intermediary in the phonetic shift from ancient Naissus, Scardona and Scupi to modern Nish, Shar and Shkupi. 3) Who said "we" don't like Turks? There are those who dislike Turks on a historical basis. But on a state-level, our relations are quite cordial and the people, overall, usually sympathize with each other. Usually; you've probably encountered those who dislike Turks, but far from all do. And if we're to thank the Turks for "giving" us Kosova, you should be equally grateful for them giving you Bosnia. Afterall, the Turks encouraged the settlement of Orthodox colonists in Bosnia and Krajina as a buffert zone against the Habsburg empire. Some, or very many of these Orthodox "martolosi" were Vlach, other Slavs. But they were all to identify with Serbia in the 20th century and through this expansion the Serbian nation gained much new territory which was previously held by Catholic and Muslim Slavs (Croats and Bosniaks if you like).
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Aug 13, 2009 13:02:33 GMT -5
Always? I highly doubt it. For example, in a Serb village in Istrian peninsula in 1593 the villagers rioted demanding that a priest be sent to preform church services "who knows the Illyrian language and script, and can sing in Slavonic." When Vuk Karadzic was chronicling the Bosnian Serbs, he also noted many of them refered to themselves as "Illyrians".
This whole obsession with being Slavs was likely an attempt in gaining the support of Russia in our struggle with the Turks even though from the 8th century to the 19th, empires, historians, travelers, and institutions all recognized Serbs and Croats as the "Illyrian peoples".
Being proud of belonging to a linguistic category is stupid. Do Italians and Frenchmen have a "Romance" brotherhood? No. If you were to take all of the Slavic speaking peoples and and observe them, you would see that they are probably the most diverse group of peoples on the planet so describing them as an ethnic group is absurd. Bottom line is, Serbs should be proud to be Serbs, not Slavs, not Europeans, not anything else, just Serbs.
See, but we DON'T KNOW the language related or identical to the Proto-Albanians because the first time Albanians were even mentioned on the Balkans peninsula (let alone their langauge examined) was in the late 11th century, so everything is pure speculation on your end.
They may have "encouraged" Orthodox settlement, but Serbs were already present in very large numbers in these lands and they have been there since far before the Ottoman yoke in the region. In Kosovo, the population was pretty much exclusively Serb and it was because of them that the Albanians became a majority.
Regarding the martelosi, they are an interesting topic (as well as the voynuci and derbedzije which were other Orthodox units in the Ottoman army). Serbs (and Vlachs as you said that quite quicklu assimilated into Serbs) were the main defense mechanism on both the Austrian side (Vojna Krajina) and the Ottoman side (martelosi etc.) so most of the border wars and what not were basically Serbs fighting Serbs. However, martelosi stopped being used after the end of the 16th century (along with the other units) so that basically left the Serbs of the Vojna Krajina.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Aug 13, 2009 14:33:35 GMT -5
Srbobran,
We've been through this a thousand times now. If you insist that we were firstly mentioned in the 11th century, despite evidence confirming the contrary, and that there is no way of studying an ancient language and making deductions of their living descendants without inscriptions, then go ahead. There is little point in insisting with you.
Not true. The Orthodox element was prevalent in Herzegovina, but this isnt true of Bosnia proper and the borderland ("Krajina"). Prior to the Ottoman invasion, Bosnia was mostly a Catholic country with a sizeable "heretic" movement whose influence diminished more and more the closer the time of Ottoman invasion came. The Orthodox element was in the minority, and it is widely known and confirmed that the Orthodox identity has played a key role in forming the Serbian national identity. In other words, it's difficult to be a non-Orthodox Slav in the Western Balkans and be a Serb at the same time. You know this just as good as me. Now you do the math. If the Orthodox element was in the minority during the medieval period, and suddenly starts to increase only to overtake the position as the most numerous element in the 19th century censuses, shouldn't this be attributed to the Ottoman factor which consciously settled the Orthodox martolosi along the deserted borderland to fight the Catholic Habsburgs?
Infact, the Albanian element in Kosova, as revealed by early Turkish defters (censuses) in the 15th & 16th centuries, was more important in Kosova than the Slav Orthodox ("Serb") element was in Bosnia proper (we're excluding the predominantly Orthodox Herzegovina in this discussion).
Either way, I'm sure you'll go back into just ignoring my points, much like you do with the Albanian-Illyrian continuity, in order to sleep well and sound. But deep down I believe you see the similiarities in these two paralell stories. And consequently also the embedded hypocrisy of Serbian nationalism which treats the Albanian presence in Kosova as "illegal" and the result of deliberate Ottoman politics, calling us "parasites" ... while the similiar "introduction" of Serbs into Bosnia proper is seen as smth completely else. If anything, the colonization of Kosova occured to fill the vaccuum and didn't particularly favor any element over another, but in Bosnia and Krajina it was indeed deliberate and consistent since it formed the frontier and was thus of great importance and in need of being populated (the Muslim population, estimated at around seventy per cent in the 16th century, was greatly decimated by the wars).
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Aug 13, 2009 17:00:29 GMT -5
There isn't any concrete evidence, there's just more speculation like "why would the Byzantines feel the need to mention us because of similar religion etc." That isn't evidence my friend, its you hypothesizing but it is NOT legitimate historical evidence. The first time Albanians were mentioned in a medieval document was in the 11th century.
See, I said the Serbian element, you're saying the Orthodox element. And it was inconceivable for there to be Catholic and Orthodox Serbs in the middle ages; the Serbian littoral and much of southern Serbia were identified as Catholic and they later converted to Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church did have a significant role in shaping Serbian identity but this role became much more defined and prominent in in the 16th century during the Serbian patriarchate and not necessarily during late antiquity and the middle ages.
Wait. So you're saying that Serbs occupied less than 2 out of 98 villages in all of Bosnia? That's utterly retarded my friend, utterly retarded.
Didn't favor any element over the other? Seriously? The Serbs were driven from the land and the Albanians were settled. It favored the Ottomans, because you were loyal to them and it favored Albanians because you gained more territory.
Even though I replied to pretty much all of your points (except one of your points because I was gone to America for like 12 days and by the time I came back I though replying would be kind of pointless. If I'm ignoring any of your points its certainly no more than you are mine.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 13, 2009 19:51:19 GMT -5
You are right since Serbs have always been proud slavs but I think it's mainly on this website as a knee jerk reaction to the Albanian idea that you have ultimate rights to Kosovo if Serbs migrated as slavs to the Balkans... which I completely disagree with. I think Serbs did come to the Balkans as slavs but Kosovo was by no means densly inhabited with Albanians. Going by earliest records you were way under 10% & in fact there were more Vlachs & in any case slavs lived side by side with Arbanasi. This was the civilization that existed before the Turks came & it's nice that you guys don't like the Turks but you do have them to thank the most for becoming the majority. & Admin is a bit of a weirdo. 1) If this is the main reason for all of these claims, I find it ironic, because you adjust your thinking and identity as well as history around the claims of my people whom you perpetually call your physical and intellectual inferiors. Seriously, I have no idea what you are getting at here. Oh yeah the Dardanian cheese again lol. Well yes I agree here with what you are saying & what I think you are saying is that the Vlachs were Dardanians - a tribe of Illyrians. I apply the same principals here to the Vlachs as to the Albanians anyway in terms of historical claims. I know you guys like them more & more. I’ve seen the pics of Albanians waving Turkish flags during the World Cup and what not. I just get the vibe on this forum that they are mostly disliked which actually puzzles me since I think they are your ideal ally. As for Bosnia, well we were always in Bosnia. Bosnian slavs for the most part were ethnic Serbs anyway. It’s so obvious. Hercegovina was always Serb from day one. This other Bosnia was Catholic or heretic thing is totally missleading & utter crap in terms of portraying the peoples ethnic identity & you know it. North West Bosnia & Krajina we settled later yes you are right about that but we did not kick anyone out to do so. Anyway, now we’ve lost Krajina & Kosovo. If the Turks never came we would at least have Kosovo, and probably most of Bosnia as well.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 14, 2009 1:29:39 GMT -5
I agree with this. Seems the most logical. That could explain also some genetic researches, which point the fact Bulgarians are mainly Mediteraneans. Also the close racial kindship of Bulgarians and Romanians. Are you for real? I think Bulgarians look nothing at all like Romanians. I think Bulgarians mostly look like slavs.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Aug 14, 2009 12:46:55 GMT -5
Srbobran
The first mention was in the 1st century AD, you already know this (Pliny the Elder) and there's also the Arbanitai mentioned by Polybius in 2nd century BC.
Look, it doesn't matter if some Serbs were Catholic in the Middle Age; in Bosnia, those whose ancestors were Catholic and preserved their faith till modern time, call themselves Croats today. Those who converted to Islam view themselves as Bosniaks. What the ancestors of these two communities considered themselves ethnically in the Middle Age is irrelevant; Bosnian Serbs of TODAY descend from the country's Orthodox inhabitants, and these were largely introduced into Bosnia by the Turks. Understand? In this regard, you need to thank the Turks for giving you territory in Bosnia ... otherwise, it's pretty certain most of Bosnia would have been just Croat & Bosniak inhabited.
I have already explained this earlier in previous pages of this thread, no need to repeat.
Loyal? Albanians sided with the Habsburgs as well, and some were also displaced. The displacement of Serbs had to do with them siding with the Empire, and not because they favoured us over you; if anything, they preferred the Orthodox Slav element over the Catholic Albanian element in fear of Catholic west. After 1690, much of the depopulated plains of Kosova were abandoned and were replaced by highland settlers, not all of whom were Albanians but also Montenegrins of the Orthodox faith.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Aug 14, 2009 12:58:28 GMT -5
Arsenije
I am not saying the Vlachs are Dardanians; only that their ancestors were probably comprised by, to some extent, Romanized Dardanians and other Illyrians and Thracians. We Albanians descend from those elements of the Dardanians and other tribes who engaged in animal husbandry and were on the move, which would also explain how we escaped Latinization; a mobile, hard-to-tax pastoral population is less prone to external influence than those living off agriculture or those who live in the cities. The cheese example suggests the presence of a pastoral population, and the many watch-towers and references to "bandits" suggests the presence of an uncontroled segment of the province. Not to mention the onomastic evidence which I also mentioned previously.
Well, this forum isn't always representative of reality. And in the end, people are individuals, and based on what they're taught and experience, feelings towards Turks vary from positive to negative. Overall, however, they're seen as allies and are viewed in a far better light than Greeks or Serbs as you might imagine.
Obvious to who? Bosnia was simply Slavic, and since the predominant religion was Catholicism, there's good reason to believe that had this not been disrupted by Ottoman conquest, Bosnians would've been closer with Croats than Serbs. Bosnian Catholics today considering themselves Croats ethnically prove this much.
We didn't kick anyone out either. We filled a void, much like you.
Bosnia was mostly Catholic as I already said. There is no particular reason to believe they viewed themselves as 'Serbs' during the medieval period ... and there's even less reason to believe they would have done so at the dawn of nationalism, since they would have had much more in common with Catholic Croatia than Orthodox Serbia.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Aug 14, 2009 14:43:59 GMT -5
As Donnie said, the place where Albanians spread from (northern-central Albania) was mentioned by Pliny as "Albanopolis" in the 2nd century. The argument that medieval docs dont mention Albs is, in fact, one of the dumbest ones naive and pseudo-internet scholars make. For one thing, most sources of that time come directly from Constantinople from men (and one woman) who never really left the city. The Byzantine Empire was, like its Roman predecessor, an urban based empire. Meaning the rural populations, especially pre-existing ones, were rarely mentioned unless absolutely necessary. The main groups the Byzantines seem to be interested in are the Slavs of that period because they are the ones causing all the roccus. Other people, like the Kurds, are also sparsely mentioned (some speculate Isaurians were a Kurdish group, which is very likely so). In all, semi-nomadic, rural mountain people would not have been of significant interest to the Byzantines. If Albanians did move into the region out of nowhere, best believe that they would have mentioned this. The reason why Albs begin to be mentioned in the 11th century is because the group are clearly moving. They are now a significant urban element within the region (so much so Albanians had begun to infiltrate Byzantine military hierarchy, the Komiscortes of Dyrrachion was a "one of the Arbanitai".
Secondly, the 11th century was a period of cultural revival in the Byzantine realm following the re-establishment of security in the empire. Before this period, especially in the 5-9th century time, we have next to no sources on what is going on. The Byzantines seem to lose control of extensive amounts of land, particularly to Slavs, and many of those territories go completely dark. In some places, like the Morea, we dont even have coinage from that period. Incidentally, this is also the time when illyrians and Thracians are pretty much going extinct as a people.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Aug 15, 2009 1:28:46 GMT -5
What do you mean by this? They didn't go dark, it was a different country that ruled over them. And do you think the life of peasants changed dramatically?
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Aug 15, 2009 1:37:23 GMT -5
Meaning we do not know what is going on inside these territories. And yes, the life of the peasant did in fact change. There was a number of problems for the locals in this period. Numerous invasions, wars, high taxation...
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 16, 2009 21:32:18 GMT -5
Obvious to who? Bosnia was simply Slavic, and since the predominant religion was Catholicism, there's good reason to believe that had this not been disrupted by Ottoman conquest, Bosnians would've been closer with Croats than Serbs. Bosnian Catholics today considering themselves Croats ethnically prove this much. No no no. You are applying todays definitions and ethnic associations of catholicism to a period when it was different. There is plenty of reason to believe they were Serb during the medieval period. The Serbian identity is correlated with Orthodoxy from the time of Saint Sava gaining an independent Serbian church but especially moreso once Islam began to spread. Prior to this however it was obviously not the case unless you want to say there were no Serbs prior to Orthodoxy. Serbian ethnicity did exist both before Christianity and statehood. There were undoubtedly Serb identifying slavs in Bosnia from day one. They were not just slavs as you say. Firstly much of Bosnia was in the first Serbian state of Raska prior to any great need for identification with Orthodoxy. Second of all De Administrando Imperio makes several references to unbaptized Serbs within present day Bosnia signifying that the identity was not based on this religious association. Third of all if the people were just slavs they had far far far more in common with Serbdom then with Croats from geneology of their leaders, language, etiquette & names. The people of BiH became Orthodox because they were Serb. As for Orthodox re-settlements these were to north Western Bosnia & much of this was also from Hercegovina anyways. If you want some testimony to Serbian presence & ethnicity in early Bosnia see here. cafehome.tripod.com/serbdom-eng.htm
|
|