![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Tvrtko and Lazar together eliminated Nikola Altomanović, lord of western Serbia. They were supported by Hungarian troops. Lazar was never vassal of Murad I.
Hi. I do not agree with the use of the name Stefan. It should be Stjepan. All Bosnian bans have been using that name since Stjepan I Kotromanic. Yet you seem to ignore that fact and choose to state that he took name Stefan to bear resamblance to serbian kings. It is obvious to me that the use of the name Stefan has one sole purpose and that is making bosnian history look more "serbian". I do intend to change name back to Stjepan. Please if you do not agree answer here. Regards -- EmirA 18:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi again,
You are a bit contradictory. Firstly, you agree with me on that all rulers of Bosnia have been using name Stjepan ("...There is no doubt that all Bosnian rulers bearing the name Stephen....") than you state that it is not okay to replace Stefan ("Feel free to add it into the article (not replace)...").
As I already mentioned as all other members of his family he was named Stephen (Stjepan) so at his coronation he was already named Stephen and thus couldn't take that name to resemble Nemanjic family. So his proper name, Stjepan should be used here.
Altough I think you have overally done good job on this article I think there are several big problems in the article. Because of these I think that the neutrality of the article can be disputed.
"Tvrtko's subjects were Serbs"
What are you basing this assumption on? Serbs are an ethnic group that define themselves on a basis of their common heritage, religion and history. None of these apply for the Bosnia at the Tvrtkos time. Firstly most of the Tvrtko land was inhabited by the catholics and members of bosnian church. Only orthodox people in bosnian teritory were in the Hum region. (Sources: N. Malcolm, Bosnia a Short History, V Skaric, Srpski Pravoslavni u Sarajevu, D. Mandic Etnicka povijest Bosne). Thus religion does not apply.
Lets look at the two other factors I mentioned. Firstly, History. At this point there is no common history between people of Bosnia and Serbia. Yes the ruling families sometimes married eachother but this is not anything exceptional as this was common practice between ruling families in Europe. Serbian kingdom never ruled any parts of Bosnia nor did the Bosnian kingdom rule any parts of Serbia.
Third factor I mentioned is heritage. I guess that we can both agree on that bosniacs, slovenes, croats, serbs etc. are south slavs and thus do have more or less same language. Problem here is that you are automatically assuming that all south slavs are serbs. I could also do the same thing and assume that all south slavs are croats or bosniacs and both of us would be equally right. It is impossible to impose todays concept of nationality on the people of 13th century.
I think that the point that his subjects were serbs can be dismissed. Indeed there are no people in Bosnia who declare themselves as serbs before 19th century (Source: N. Malcolm).
"plans to rebuild the Serbian Realm."
What are you basing this assumption on? Can you please provide any sources? If Tvrtko's aim was to rebuild Dusans empire he would have expanded eastwards. Yet there are no signs of this. His war efforts were mainly in the south of Bosnia proper (against Balsic family, Venice, Hungary...). So imho this is only a speculation on your part.
I have placed "neutrality" on the article untill we resolve this issue.
Regards -- EmirA 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Now, about the second fact - there is no dispute that Tvrtko's subject's were Serbs. I simply evaded to say (number) of his sujects were Serbs, or something similiar, because that is a matter of controversy. However, the notage that some of his subjects (no matter how many) were Serbs and that this was a basis for the crowning is undisputable. For instance, it is known that Orthodox Serbs lived in the Hum region and populated parts of eastern Bosnia - so it is certain to an extent. And one of those you mentioned can apply to Tvrtko's time - religion. -- HolyRomanEmperor 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, basicly, the name that Tvrtko beared was not domestic. That's the main point. It is not OK to replace Stephen. Let's say if you were born as George Imamović. Would you translate your name to Đorđe, Đurađ or Juraj Imamović? The only reason why he was crowned was because of the die-out of the House of Nemanjić dynasty; he was the sole heir to them, and so he claimed their title (Stefan) and added their demesne (Kingdom of Serbia) to his own realm of Bosnia. Stjepan is simply a naturalized version of the name as some contemporary historians translated it.
Now, about the second fact - there is no dispute that Tvrtko's subject's were Serbs. I simply evaded to say (number) of his sujects were Serbs, or something similiar, because that is a matter of controversy. However, the notage that some of his subjects (no matter how many) were Serbs and that this was a basis for the crowning is undisputable. For instance, it is known that Orthodox Serbs lived in the Hum region and populated parts of eastern Bosnia - so it is certain to an extent. And one of those you mentioned can apply to Tvrtko's time - religion
No one decalred as Serbs before the 19th century? But that's not quitte correct. The Serbian Kingdom, true, never ruled parts of Bosnia, except for the Drina area and Herzegovina. However, the Bosnian Kingdom did rule parts of both historical and present-day Serbia.
Now, about the plan to rebuild Nemanjic's Realm. Firstly, he assessed the Nemanyid name (Stefan), rather than using his own (Tvrtko). Secondly, took the crown of Serbia next to his native crown of Bosnia; thirdly, he was involved in one of the most important occasions of the late 14th century - the Battle of Kossovo, where the Christian Europe stood united against the Ottoman Turks. After the battle, it is Tvrtko's Monasteries rang and spread the word of victory to Nothre-Dame, and it is Tvrtko who cherished the victory as his own, as his was the Highest-ranking Liege, despite losing nearly the entire Bosnian force at the battlefield. Next of all, he fought a war against Nikola Altomanović together with Lazar Hrebeljanović in an effort to crush the Drina area that separated Bosnia and Serbia. After that, the House of Lazarević members bowed to him and he was glad that order was restored. In return, Lazar would rule Serbia in Tvrtko's name. The only other involvements with the Serbs that Tvrtko had were conflicts with the House of Balšić and helping Lazar fight his enemies in Serbia.
U manastiru Mileševo kod Prijepolja, Tvrtko I se vjerovatno oktobra 1377 godine okrunio za kralja "Srbljem i Bosne i Primorju i Zapadnim Stranam" te počeo.....
In english:
In the Monastery of Mileševa near Prijepolje, Tvrtko I was probably crowned in October of 1377 as "King of Serbs and Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands", so he beg....
I believe it is OK to remove the Tag now?
1. I provided to you a full-detail explaination and link for the Stefan title from the List of famous Bosniaks. Did you read it?
2. Why do you keep mentioning the 19th century? The subject of the sentence is rulling the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King. So, let us say that Tvrtko's realm was 88% Chinese and had one city that was populated by Serbs - still he ruled the Serbs. I'm just showing that in order to a King of Serbs, you have tu rule some. I suggest that you rephrase that part, if you find it controversal, but it only states that rulling over the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King...
3. Everything about this was political. If you were the sole heir to a powerful German Emperor, please tell me that you wouldn't attempt to claim the title. Tvrtko just did it, because he could do it and was entitled to do it. However, I disagree that Bosnia was raided by the Ottomans since the beginning of the 14th century - they only just got to the Balkan peninsular. How could they reach Bosnia? In shorter notice, the factual ruler of Serbia was Prince Lazar, but the supreme ruler was none other (in paper or other way), Tvrtko. As I stated the sole reason was to connect Bosnia and Serbia - to crush the brigde connected by Nikola Altomanovic. --
HolyRomanEmperor
22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You said Srblje. Didn't you mean Srbljem? This is, I believe, the Instrumental (kim?čim) od zbirne imenice Srblji. However, the Latin version of his title doesn't really exist... It was actual a whole different title. The King of Serbs has nothing to do with ethnic conotations. This is long before the 19th century age of romantic nationalism and cannot be applied to the same. Anyone that mentions that as some sort of a proof that Bosnia was ethnicly Serbian, is claiming a POV fact - and probably essentially false. The King of Serbs title was used by the Nemanjic dynasty rulers since 1217. The only problem was that the bosnian title was "of Bosnia" and serbian "of Serbs", which made some Serbian historians consider that he was actually refering to Bosnia as a Serbian Kingdom - a historical concotion. However, the title "King of Serbia" was first used in 1882. --
HolyRomanEmperor
23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess that the "King of Serbs" controversy can be noted. Just - let me here place the info to source/explain it. The problem is that a "Kingdom of Serbia" didn't exist back then - and the only designation of the Nemanyid Monarch was "King of Serbs", or, if we speak which territories he ruled, "King of Rascia, Doclea/ Zeta, Travunia, Zahumlje and Dalmatia". I haven't seen the Latin version, and would be glad if you could supply it to me. However, if they ever interpreted it that way, there is a good explaination - it's not the only example. In tha Latin scrypts (like those to the Republic of Ragusa), Tsar Stefan Dusan is reffered to as Imperator Romaniae et Rasciae - a concotion compared to his domestic title Emperor of Greeks and Serbs. -- HolyRomanEmperor 12:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, but I have rv your edits Damir; here are the rasons:
1. You removed the link to Jelena Šubić
2. You removed Tvrtko's title. The title is this way presented by most neutral and primary sources - some Serb nationalists have connected this as to they claim Bosnia's ethnicity (Serbian) - highly incorrect. This, sadly, met a responce of many biased Croatian & Bosniak historians who claim this "Serbia" instead of "Serbs" - a fabrication, I must say. It cannot and I won't allow it - to change according to some modern historical interpretations - Tvrtko's title has to be as he had it. Additionally, the "Kralj Srbljem" is translated to English most correctly as "King to the Serbs", but, as the latter part of his title - King to Bosnia would have the same meaning as King of Bosnia, it's correct as well to leave it as "of". For those who need sources, please review this entire talk page and Talk:Serbs_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
3. You removed the land of his Serbian forefathers. There is nothing POV here - but those are exactly Tvrtko's quoted words. Here's an exerpt:
4. You changed Muslims to Turks. Why? It's highly likely that Turks were only one of the largest contigents of the Sultan's Army? That Battle was grand - and clear. To decide the fight one way or the other. Islam vs Christianity.
5. "independent south slavic territories" instead of Christian Europe? How, when Pope bestowed Tvrtko what he is - the Defender of the Christian world against the comming, ehm, "infidel", as Tvrtko liked to call them - Muslims.
6. The fact that Vlatko Vukovic and Sankvics were considered Bosnian Serbian nobility isn't disputed - that's what historians from Tvrtko's time tell (please see the sources to the bottom) as well as the fact that the Sankvocis were Orthodox Serbs. :)
7. As for the "fact" parts - well, just skim up the sources to the bottom. -- HolyRomanEmperor 08:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, HRE, I will be editing article as I indicated above and will present it here on discussion page. Sorry for the delay. -- EmirA 13:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi again,
I reviewed our whole discussion and read the article several times. I even read your discussion with Damir above. Here are my suggestions on how we need to rework this article. I would like to know if you agree.
1) Firstly, one remark about your discussion above with Damir. Imo this is not that important but it would improve article. Word "muslims" when talking about ottomans should be changed into ottomans unless it is a direct quote. Ottoman is more correct for an encylopedia. I know that people at the time probably called Ottomans turks or muslims but that is unimportant as Ottoman is the most correct name.
2) Secondly, we talked about whole Stjepan vs. Stefan issue. My conclusion is that the easiest way to solve this issue is to use english name - Stephen. This is nothing unusual, most of the european monarch names are usually localised - e.g. french Louis becomes Ludvig in german language, english Henry becomes Henrik in swedish and so on. Here is my suggestion on how it can be done:
After he became the King he added the title Stephanos (Stefan, the crowned one), and Miroslav or Mircea.
should be changed into following:
After he became the King, he added the title Stephanos (bs: Stjepan, sr. Stefan) and Miroslav or Mircea.
Later on all occurances of Stefan and Stjepan should be changed into Stephen.
3) Third issue in the article was "king of serbs". We concluded following in our discussion:
"The King of Serbs has nothing to do with ethnic conotations. This is long before the 19th century age of romantic nationalism and cannot be applied to the same. Anyone that mentions that as some sort of a proof that Bosnia was ethnicly Serbian, is claiming a POV fact - and probably essentially false."
Thus imo solution to this issue is quite simple. We should present both views and let the reader decide what is right and what is wrong.
My suggesition is:
Tvrtko's title was "King of Serbs and Bosnia".
should be changed into:
Tvrtko's title was according to some historians "King of Serbs and Bosnia" and according to other historians "King of Serbia and Bosnia". This translation disrepancy has to do with the different interpretation of the old slavonic word "srbljem". Anyway it is commonly agreed that if the "King of Serbs" is right translation it has nothing to do with ethnic canotation. It is simply the title used by the rulers of Serbia.
4) Fourth issue, which even Damir touched briefly, was mentioning of Vlatko Vukovic as serb. I have to admit that I haven't checked your reference list but it seems to me very wierd that Vukovic is referenced as a serb. Are you sure you are not using outdated (national romantic) litterature? Concept of nationality wasn't even developed that early. But as I said I haven't checked your litterature list so I wont be making an issue out of this.
5) Fifth issue was our discussion on "rebuilding of the serbian realm". Basicaly I had two problems with this part of the article. Firstly formulation that he was trying to rebuild serbian realm. As can be understood from our discussion above you think that assessing Nemanjid name is supporting this formulation while I disagree because I think that "collecting" crowns was common european practice at the time. Second problem was usage of following wording "His subjects were serbs". Condensed discussion from above (Mine comments are inlined):
Now, about the second fact - there is no dispute that Tvrtko's subject's were Serbs. I simply evaded to say (number) of his sujects were Serbs, or something similiar, because that is a matter of controversy. However, the notage that some of his subjects (no matter how many) were Serbs and that this was a basis for the crowning is undisputable. For instance, it is known that Orthodox Serbs lived in the Hum region and populated parts of eastern Bosnia - so it is certain to an extent. And one of those you mentioned can apply to Tvrtko's time - religion
The subject of the sentence is rulling the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King. So, let us say that Tvrtko's realm was 88% Chinese and had one city that was populated by Serbs - still he ruled the Serbs. I'm just showing that in order to a King of Serbs, you have tu rule some. I suggest that you rephrase that part, if you find it controversal, but it only states that rulling over the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King
Here is my suggestion on how we need to rephrase this part. From:
Tvrtko had, parallel with Prince Lazar, plans to rebuild the Serbian Realm. He fulfilled three key conditions to become the Serbian ruler
To:
By assuming the title as King of Serbia / King of serbs, Tvrtko hoped according to some serbian historians (citation needed), parallel with Prince Lazar, to lay claim on all serbian lands. According to the same historians his claim was based on following
So what do you think of my suggestion. Please notify me on my talk page when you are finished. Regards Emir
--
EmirA
13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Regards. -- HRE 11:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1) Hi, I think that most bosniacs do not find this issue offendive at all (at least those who have a clue about history). Anyway, as you explained you are using direct quotes from Dubrovnik archive and in that case I don't see any need in changing your wording.
2) I changed all occurences to Stephen (as agreed).
3) It doesn't matter if it is contreversial to you - it is controversial issue to the rest of community as you yourself have noted. Thus there needs to be a better explanation. Adding footing is not enough as most of the readers are going to miss it. And I really dont find it satisfying that one point of view should be in the article while the other point of view should be in the footing.
4) I'm removing the note as it only creates controversy.
5) I really have problem with your wording. But as you suggested I am going to change wording and to make it non controversial for all sides. I'll try doing this in a few days. Please leave comments about those changes here or on my talk page.
Imo we've solved points 1, 2, 4 and 5. What is left is issue nr. 3. Regards -- EmirA 13:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Emir - let me express that I simply adore your changes. However - I must correct you at several places:
1) Why did you decapitalize every "king" and "emperor"? The first character should large?
2) Why did you delete the "Bosnian Bogumils"? This way we had a BOTH links - to the Bosnian indiginous Church AND to the Bogumils!
3) And Jelisaveta had three sons: Stephen the Bosnian Ban, Ninoslav and Vladislav. Well, you've changed Stephen on one wrong place - this is the direct translation and it should be returned to Stefan
4) You have changed Tvrtko's conquests in Croatia (Livno, Duvno, Glamoc) to something rather weird - Zavrsje, which was conquered a LOONG time ago by Stepan II of the House of Kotroman from Serbia! :S
5) You changed "City" to "city" of Zadar - it was refering to the status of a "City", like Venice; thereby it has to be capitalized (it's not an ordinary "city")
6) "in" changed to "with" - this is somewhat errorous, as I mentioned. Unlike the Serbian allies who came to fight at the field (such as, for instance, the Croats) the Bosnian forces were subjected to Lazar's command and were never essentially a different corps that had to inter-coordinate. That is essentially the sole reason why some modern (and past) Serbian historians never mention "a Bosnian force/ally", merely "Serb from Bosnia reinforced Lazar's army", by the way
7) as in reality Ottomans were the one to benefit most from this battle - this sentence seems like "extra" put into the context and is rather unnecessary - and even disputable. We should remove it
And lastly, the Hungarian Army at Klis surrendered to Tvrtko personally, not just plainly to the Bosnian forces.
P. S. I hope I didn't make a big thing out of it. HRE 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, Sorry for not answering earlier.
1) My error. I started changing those but realised that they should start with capital letters and then I missed changing them back.
2) Reason for deleting bosnian bogumils is that the "bogumil" theory is only one of many theories about bosnian church. Thus by using wording bosnian church we do not take stand on which theory is the right one. We only note that there is something called bosnian church.
3) Imo it should stay as it is but you can return it back if you want. Reason is that words like "bosanski ban" are adopted to english ("bosnian ban") so there is no reason for not adopting even names to english.
4) Towns of Livno, Duvno and Glamoč are located on three fields - Livanjsko, Duvanjsko and Glamočko. Area of this three fields is known as Tropolje or Završje. As far as I know this has never been part of any serbian state. Here are the links about Zavrsje region on bosnian and croatian wiki ( http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropolje http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropolje).
5) Same as nr. 1, my error.
6) I'm currently on vacation so I do not have access to any books right now, yet as far as I remember bosnian forces were distinct corps under whole battle and operated on one of the flanks thus it should be with.
7) You can remove it but imo it should stay as it explains rapid decline of all non-ottoman balkan states after the battle of Kosovo. After the battle of Kosovo Ottomans were able to come in even larger numbers while all other balkan states never menaged to do that. Only reason for Ottoman withdrawal after that battle was that there was no clear succession order in Ottoman state thus Murats son withdrew to Anatolia to secure the crown.
8) I wanted to vary text a bit, thats why I changed to bosnian army. Almost every sentence contained words Stephen Tvrtko. You can change it back if you want.
Regards -- EmirA 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2) I beg to differ - this is yet another thing that is "arguable" over here and official in the world (the west): please see The Bogumils of Bulgaria and Bosnia
3) Hmm, not following you in 'ere, I'm afraid.
4) Well, isn't it more informed the other way? All three fields are noted - and it doesn't mix with the Serbian Zavrsje in the Drina.
6) I apologize, but I have to object - The Dubrovnik Archive (does Mauro Orbini mean anything to you, perhaps?) states that fact clearly. Could I see your counternoture - so that we can put both?
7) As I said - please connect that with Tvrtko. How?
8) Well, you are most welcome to do that :D But it should be returned here, because the gesture of their surrender to Tvrtko himself is a very nice historical moment (this way, we're not sure even if Tvrtko was there at all!) -- HolyRomanEmperor 11:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this should be resolved. Modern arheological and historical reshearch tells and verify that Tvrtko I and Stjepan II were crowned an burried in Mile, near Visoko. Read this - [1] (Bosnian). I will put that fact, but will not wipe out posibility of that Tvrtko was crowned in Mileševa. I thik we should compromise and write that he was crowned in Mile or in Mileševa. Before any reply, please read that article in link that i provided. Just don't start same old story, I provided real facts, arheological artifacts, findings and so on. -- HarisM 22:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Cite from Projekat Rastko:
I didn't know on what this fact is based? On the HB.org it says that he was crowned in Mile, Visoko. And add as follows: ...iako postoji mogucnost da se kasnije okrunio i u Milesevu zbog politickog oportunizma. So what are we going to do? On another point we have so many arheological articrafts, proffs, and remains. I can photograph these if you want, i live close, in fact i have some pictures of Mile Church, ofcourse remains. Here you have another set of pictures, and also a lot of text to be read. -- HarisM 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Noted, understood and will add. His crowning in Milesevo is based on primary sources (global, international encyclopediae), so I shall note that. -- HolyRomanEmperor 08:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I just plainly reverted your edit, I should not have done that (duh, I think that's one of the bad things I picked up from Emir Arven).
Modern archaeological research is just that which it is; modern.
What evidence do you want? You want to see from Encyclopedia Britannica's source? :D People mostly use it as a source, rather. :))
It's silly to consider that there's "no evidence" when that is generally the most known & most accepted information. :) Remember, Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I just want you to proportionally put it as a possibility (next to the traditional view).
According to Wikipedia's sources, we have to respect the majority & reliable ones (over the minority). --
PaxEquilibrium
14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Pax:
The reason Tvrtko crowned himself king of Serbia wasnt because he had plans to take the serbian crown nor because he was serb. The reason was because he wanted to get recognized as the Bosnian king by the Vatican and to get recognized he took not only the serbian crown, he took also the croatian crown, crown of the seaside, usora, and podrinje.
This clearly states that the crowns were not IMPORTANT and also there are clear evidence that Tvrtko later on REJECTED the serbian crown which also testifies of the little importance of this event. And Tvrtko was not a serb, he attacked serbian land and conquered them and made them Bosnian land and he clearly stated in his letters the difference between BOSNIAN and SERBIAN land.
Do you understand now?
And Tvrtko doesnt belong neither to the serbian nor croatian history, the king Tvrtko belongs to BOSNIAN and BOSNIAK history. Alkalada 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"Kralj Srbljem i Bosni i Primorju i Zapadnim Stranam"
— King Tvrtko's title
You said Srblje. Didn't you mean Srbljem? This is, I believe, the Instrumental (kim?čim) od zbirne imenice Srblji.
— HolyRomanEmperor
All of them except Bosni are datives (kome/čemu): Srbljem, Primorju, Zapadnim Stranam ("king to Serbs, to Littoral, to the West Lands"; only the form Bosni is genitive - "the king of Bosnia"). And Srbljem is dative of Srblji (it is not a collective noun - zbirna imenica - but simply the plural form of a common noun). It does mean 'Serbs', not 'Serbia', as dative of Serbia would actually be Srblji not Srbljem. The form Srbljem from the grammatical point of view is pure dative of Srblji, '(the) Serbs'. But again, even though the form in question is the dative form of (the) Serbs, the country of Serbia was also sometimes referred to as "the Serbs", so this could also relate to Serbia as a country and not Serbs as a people (despite that it doesn't mean 'Serbia', but it can refer to it). So this is the point when linguists are done and the historians are about to reveal the further mystery. ;) -- George D. Božović 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No one says he was Serb. And in the end that's all not important. What's important is that his crown was double "Bosnian" and "Serbian" - for the other lands (including Croatia) he only had titles and nothing else.
Tvtko never ever rejected the Serbian crown. The "Bosnian-Serbian Crown" stood up to the very end in 1463. Also, he made alliances with major Serbian dynasties to remove dissidents (Nikola Altomanovic) that did not recognize his rule, in the course of restoring the Serbian realm.
Also Tvrtko belongs by great part to both the Serbian and Croatian history; it's highly fallacious to claim that. How could especially then he belong to the Bosniak history?
Also please stop removing the "Serb" and "Croat" histories, (many of) the Kotromanics considered themselves Serbs and there's also a Croatian version of the story. -- PaxEquilibrium 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's nice that you finally revealed to us that you're probably Emir Kotromanić, alias
User:Emir Arven. ;) Oh and that you descend from them is highly impossible, you don't even pride on your Serbian origins! ;D --
PaxEquilibrium
16:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, sign your posts. Secondly, I am no troll. I protect Wikipedia from trolling. Thirdly, I have reverted your edit because it isn't correct. --
PaxEquilibrium
17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, it's a rule to sign your posts. It has nothing to do with trolling, but with manners rather. And people will respect you more in general, less mistaking you for a simpleton troll or an ordinary vandal (ping: like I just have).
Secondly, please read WP:TROLL to understand the concept of trolling.
Thirdly, I am making no personal history, but plainly reverting your erroneous edit. If you disagree with something, show it here, rather than just saying "it's wrong" and changing to an essentially worse version. Express your arguments here, at the talk page. After all, that's what talk pages are for.
And for last bit, please read WP:NPA. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited in Wikipedia. Comment the content and not the user. Please also read WP:CIVIL. Incivility and personal attacks directed against me a moment ago are not allowed. Usage of them can result in prevention from editing. Cheers. -- PaxEquilibrium 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
My posts are disappearing. I wrote a long explanation why this is happening and somehow its gone. Can somebidy stop this paxequilibrium guy or is it hopeless complaining because he seems to be the boss?
His name wasn't Stephen or Stjepan either. Ha was called Stipan (ikavian version of the name) in all Bosnian documents.-- 78.3.33.176 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting things:
-- Anto ( talk) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand what's interesting and, frankly (don't get offended) I thing you're being a bit far too touchy about me. Everything I put is sourced and (almost) never unchecked.
Tell me honestly, would you object as well if the text were in Croatian?
Btw, here's the edict, you can read yourself the "Стефан" and anything else you'd be interested in. -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The document is hardly readable. Very hard to see the name "Стефан" . And I casn't see Tvrtko at all!
It might be also document of some Serbian king. Where did you find it at all??
From here?
http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-bo/istorija/srednjivek/tkotromanic-dubrovniku_l.html -- Anto ( talk) 19:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would object if it would be in modern Croatia because it simply can not be true. As it can be when it would be false if it writes in modern Chechen or Japanese (using their version of the name Stephen). Anyway it is name Stephen(Stipan / Stefan/Stjepan) is quite frequent! many kings of Serbia used that name.Apart from them Tvtko is famous by name Tvrtko or Stipan/Stefan/Stjepan Tvrtko , certainly not just as Stipan/Stefan/Stjepan
Btw, usage of name Stefan would make sense in a correspondence with Serbia but certainly not in a correspondence with Republic of Dubrovnik. To be the member of Nemanjić dinasty would give him a prestige and authority in Serbia. But, people from Dubrovnik had no such impression for sure. -- Anto ( talk) 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For me this is OK: Stephen Tvrtko I (Stjepan, Serbian: Стефан)
If there is question why first Stjepan and then Стефан answer is Stjepan is his birth name. Your thinking ?-- Rjecina ( talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is full of nationalistic crap and one would have thought that statements that are not tainted by nationalism are reliable, but then one reads: "All House of Kotroman siblings, Tvrtko and Elizabeta in particular, were very close, calling themselves, even in official documents, as my beloved brother and my beloved sister, respectively." Is there a reliable source for this claim? Tvrtko is known to have supported rebelions against Elizabeth during her regency and he even provided shelter for the man who ordered her murder. The statement is either false or Tvrtko was a hardcore hypocrit. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Bogumili-tvrtka1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
He centralized the state and conquered parts of medieval Serbia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Hum, Kotor, Zeta, and the territory of present-day Sandžak.
One cannot say Tvrtko I, or any Kotromanić or Tomašević after him conquered the Serb lands, or the Serbs or anything related to the Serbs, since he inherited the Serbian royal crown by blood as he states in the charter (the bolded part). He was the rightful heir, not by any means a conqueror, like Hungarians or Ottomans were. This has to be changed since it implies foreign occupation, which was not the case. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.23.90.115 (
talk)
23:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
But he DID fight Nikola Altamovic mainly for territorial gains. And in his "povelja" he clearly says that he is "going to the serb land" since he did not see Bosnia as a serb land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.1.33 ( talk) 19:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Quite frankly I think you are the one tainted by politics in this case; because after all, what does Tvrtko's political ambitions have do with any supposed "Serb" culture in medieval Bosnia? Any Serb culture would have to be tied with the orthodox church, however, as Noel Malcolm writes, Orthodox Christianity was barely existent in Bosnia prior to the Ottomans. It was perfectly regular for royal families to intermarry and at the end of the day Tvrtko was merely 1/8 of a Serb 'by blood' through his paternal grandmother (ironically, he was more "Croat" through his blood link to the Subasic house, but above all simply a native Bosnian). The Serbian emperor Dushan crowned himself 'Car Grkljem' (Emperor of Greeks) but you wouldn't call him an ethnic Greek. The attempts frequently carried out in Serb historiography are to gravely overemphasize Tvrtko's perfectly commonplace ties to foreign nobility (in this case Serbian) as to lay invalid "ethnic" claims on medieval Bosnia, which in fact was a distinct entity with its own separate identity and course of history. Also, Tvrtko hails from the wider house of Kotromanic which was established as a ruling family of bans more than a century prior to Tvrtko's birth; the house of Kotromanic, as its ambitious descendant Tvrtko I, was first and foremost Bosnian. Praxis Icosahedron ( talk) 21:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I strongly insist on never replying to your baseless ranting on this talk page emanating from the wicked delusion that the international community and scholarship is in a sort of conspiracy against the glorious Serb nation; a nation which in fact only gained adherents in Bosnia during the 19th century through the aligning of religion with ethnicity. As such the Serbian and Croat "name" (or identity if you like) was never prevalent in Bosnia up until the nationalization of its three religious communities in the 19th century, instead the population solely identified as Bosnians (Bosnjani/Bosnjaci); to quote the leading Balkan medievalist John Fine (another historian I am sure you will tarnish as being 'payed by the extremist Muslim government in Sarajevo'):
Yet another corrupted pro-Muslim Western historian, Robert Donia, writes:
In fact Noel Malcolm (who possesses a PhD in history from Eaton and Cambridge) defines the orthodox (Serb) community in contemporary Bosnia as largely descended from Vlach immigrants during the Ottoman era who would later acquire Serb identities based on religious affiliation. Good riddance! Praxis Icosahedron ( talk) 00:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Tvrtko and Lazar together eliminated Nikola Altomanović, lord of western Serbia. They were supported by Hungarian troops. Lazar was never vassal of Murad I.
Hi. I do not agree with the use of the name Stefan. It should be Stjepan. All Bosnian bans have been using that name since Stjepan I Kotromanic. Yet you seem to ignore that fact and choose to state that he took name Stefan to bear resamblance to serbian kings. It is obvious to me that the use of the name Stefan has one sole purpose and that is making bosnian history look more "serbian". I do intend to change name back to Stjepan. Please if you do not agree answer here. Regards -- EmirA 18:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi again,
You are a bit contradictory. Firstly, you agree with me on that all rulers of Bosnia have been using name Stjepan ("...There is no doubt that all Bosnian rulers bearing the name Stephen....") than you state that it is not okay to replace Stefan ("Feel free to add it into the article (not replace)...").
As I already mentioned as all other members of his family he was named Stephen (Stjepan) so at his coronation he was already named Stephen and thus couldn't take that name to resemble Nemanjic family. So his proper name, Stjepan should be used here.
Altough I think you have overally done good job on this article I think there are several big problems in the article. Because of these I think that the neutrality of the article can be disputed.
"Tvrtko's subjects were Serbs"
What are you basing this assumption on? Serbs are an ethnic group that define themselves on a basis of their common heritage, religion and history. None of these apply for the Bosnia at the Tvrtkos time. Firstly most of the Tvrtko land was inhabited by the catholics and members of bosnian church. Only orthodox people in bosnian teritory were in the Hum region. (Sources: N. Malcolm, Bosnia a Short History, V Skaric, Srpski Pravoslavni u Sarajevu, D. Mandic Etnicka povijest Bosne). Thus religion does not apply.
Lets look at the two other factors I mentioned. Firstly, History. At this point there is no common history between people of Bosnia and Serbia. Yes the ruling families sometimes married eachother but this is not anything exceptional as this was common practice between ruling families in Europe. Serbian kingdom never ruled any parts of Bosnia nor did the Bosnian kingdom rule any parts of Serbia.
Third factor I mentioned is heritage. I guess that we can both agree on that bosniacs, slovenes, croats, serbs etc. are south slavs and thus do have more or less same language. Problem here is that you are automatically assuming that all south slavs are serbs. I could also do the same thing and assume that all south slavs are croats or bosniacs and both of us would be equally right. It is impossible to impose todays concept of nationality on the people of 13th century.
I think that the point that his subjects were serbs can be dismissed. Indeed there are no people in Bosnia who declare themselves as serbs before 19th century (Source: N. Malcolm).
"plans to rebuild the Serbian Realm."
What are you basing this assumption on? Can you please provide any sources? If Tvrtko's aim was to rebuild Dusans empire he would have expanded eastwards. Yet there are no signs of this. His war efforts were mainly in the south of Bosnia proper (against Balsic family, Venice, Hungary...). So imho this is only a speculation on your part.
I have placed "neutrality" on the article untill we resolve this issue.
Regards -- EmirA 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Now, about the second fact - there is no dispute that Tvrtko's subject's were Serbs. I simply evaded to say (number) of his sujects were Serbs, or something similiar, because that is a matter of controversy. However, the notage that some of his subjects (no matter how many) were Serbs and that this was a basis for the crowning is undisputable. For instance, it is known that Orthodox Serbs lived in the Hum region and populated parts of eastern Bosnia - so it is certain to an extent. And one of those you mentioned can apply to Tvrtko's time - religion. -- HolyRomanEmperor 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, basicly, the name that Tvrtko beared was not domestic. That's the main point. It is not OK to replace Stephen. Let's say if you were born as George Imamović. Would you translate your name to Đorđe, Đurađ or Juraj Imamović? The only reason why he was crowned was because of the die-out of the House of Nemanjić dynasty; he was the sole heir to them, and so he claimed their title (Stefan) and added their demesne (Kingdom of Serbia) to his own realm of Bosnia. Stjepan is simply a naturalized version of the name as some contemporary historians translated it.
Now, about the second fact - there is no dispute that Tvrtko's subject's were Serbs. I simply evaded to say (number) of his sujects were Serbs, or something similiar, because that is a matter of controversy. However, the notage that some of his subjects (no matter how many) were Serbs and that this was a basis for the crowning is undisputable. For instance, it is known that Orthodox Serbs lived in the Hum region and populated parts of eastern Bosnia - so it is certain to an extent. And one of those you mentioned can apply to Tvrtko's time - religion
No one decalred as Serbs before the 19th century? But that's not quitte correct. The Serbian Kingdom, true, never ruled parts of Bosnia, except for the Drina area and Herzegovina. However, the Bosnian Kingdom did rule parts of both historical and present-day Serbia.
Now, about the plan to rebuild Nemanjic's Realm. Firstly, he assessed the Nemanyid name (Stefan), rather than using his own (Tvrtko). Secondly, took the crown of Serbia next to his native crown of Bosnia; thirdly, he was involved in one of the most important occasions of the late 14th century - the Battle of Kossovo, where the Christian Europe stood united against the Ottoman Turks. After the battle, it is Tvrtko's Monasteries rang and spread the word of victory to Nothre-Dame, and it is Tvrtko who cherished the victory as his own, as his was the Highest-ranking Liege, despite losing nearly the entire Bosnian force at the battlefield. Next of all, he fought a war against Nikola Altomanović together with Lazar Hrebeljanović in an effort to crush the Drina area that separated Bosnia and Serbia. After that, the House of Lazarević members bowed to him and he was glad that order was restored. In return, Lazar would rule Serbia in Tvrtko's name. The only other involvements with the Serbs that Tvrtko had were conflicts with the House of Balšić and helping Lazar fight his enemies in Serbia.
U manastiru Mileševo kod Prijepolja, Tvrtko I se vjerovatno oktobra 1377 godine okrunio za kralja "Srbljem i Bosne i Primorju i Zapadnim Stranam" te počeo.....
In english:
In the Monastery of Mileševa near Prijepolje, Tvrtko I was probably crowned in October of 1377 as "King of Serbs and Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands", so he beg....
I believe it is OK to remove the Tag now?
1. I provided to you a full-detail explaination and link for the Stefan title from the List of famous Bosniaks. Did you read it?
2. Why do you keep mentioning the 19th century? The subject of the sentence is rulling the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King. So, let us say that Tvrtko's realm was 88% Chinese and had one city that was populated by Serbs - still he ruled the Serbs. I'm just showing that in order to a King of Serbs, you have tu rule some. I suggest that you rephrase that part, if you find it controversal, but it only states that rulling over the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King...
3. Everything about this was political. If you were the sole heir to a powerful German Emperor, please tell me that you wouldn't attempt to claim the title. Tvrtko just did it, because he could do it and was entitled to do it. However, I disagree that Bosnia was raided by the Ottomans since the beginning of the 14th century - they only just got to the Balkan peninsular. How could they reach Bosnia? In shorter notice, the factual ruler of Serbia was Prince Lazar, but the supreme ruler was none other (in paper or other way), Tvrtko. As I stated the sole reason was to connect Bosnia and Serbia - to crush the brigde connected by Nikola Altomanovic. --
HolyRomanEmperor
22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You said Srblje. Didn't you mean Srbljem? This is, I believe, the Instrumental (kim?čim) od zbirne imenice Srblji. However, the Latin version of his title doesn't really exist... It was actual a whole different title. The King of Serbs has nothing to do with ethnic conotations. This is long before the 19th century age of romantic nationalism and cannot be applied to the same. Anyone that mentions that as some sort of a proof that Bosnia was ethnicly Serbian, is claiming a POV fact - and probably essentially false. The King of Serbs title was used by the Nemanjic dynasty rulers since 1217. The only problem was that the bosnian title was "of Bosnia" and serbian "of Serbs", which made some Serbian historians consider that he was actually refering to Bosnia as a Serbian Kingdom - a historical concotion. However, the title "King of Serbia" was first used in 1882. --
HolyRomanEmperor
23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess that the "King of Serbs" controversy can be noted. Just - let me here place the info to source/explain it. The problem is that a "Kingdom of Serbia" didn't exist back then - and the only designation of the Nemanyid Monarch was "King of Serbs", or, if we speak which territories he ruled, "King of Rascia, Doclea/ Zeta, Travunia, Zahumlje and Dalmatia". I haven't seen the Latin version, and would be glad if you could supply it to me. However, if they ever interpreted it that way, there is a good explaination - it's not the only example. In tha Latin scrypts (like those to the Republic of Ragusa), Tsar Stefan Dusan is reffered to as Imperator Romaniae et Rasciae - a concotion compared to his domestic title Emperor of Greeks and Serbs. -- HolyRomanEmperor 12:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, but I have rv your edits Damir; here are the rasons:
1. You removed the link to Jelena Šubić
2. You removed Tvrtko's title. The title is this way presented by most neutral and primary sources - some Serb nationalists have connected this as to they claim Bosnia's ethnicity (Serbian) - highly incorrect. This, sadly, met a responce of many biased Croatian & Bosniak historians who claim this "Serbia" instead of "Serbs" - a fabrication, I must say. It cannot and I won't allow it - to change according to some modern historical interpretations - Tvrtko's title has to be as he had it. Additionally, the "Kralj Srbljem" is translated to English most correctly as "King to the Serbs", but, as the latter part of his title - King to Bosnia would have the same meaning as King of Bosnia, it's correct as well to leave it as "of". For those who need sources, please review this entire talk page and Talk:Serbs_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
3. You removed the land of his Serbian forefathers. There is nothing POV here - but those are exactly Tvrtko's quoted words. Here's an exerpt:
4. You changed Muslims to Turks. Why? It's highly likely that Turks were only one of the largest contigents of the Sultan's Army? That Battle was grand - and clear. To decide the fight one way or the other. Islam vs Christianity.
5. "independent south slavic territories" instead of Christian Europe? How, when Pope bestowed Tvrtko what he is - the Defender of the Christian world against the comming, ehm, "infidel", as Tvrtko liked to call them - Muslims.
6. The fact that Vlatko Vukovic and Sankvics were considered Bosnian Serbian nobility isn't disputed - that's what historians from Tvrtko's time tell (please see the sources to the bottom) as well as the fact that the Sankvocis were Orthodox Serbs. :)
7. As for the "fact" parts - well, just skim up the sources to the bottom. -- HolyRomanEmperor 08:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, HRE, I will be editing article as I indicated above and will present it here on discussion page. Sorry for the delay. -- EmirA 13:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi again,
I reviewed our whole discussion and read the article several times. I even read your discussion with Damir above. Here are my suggestions on how we need to rework this article. I would like to know if you agree.
1) Firstly, one remark about your discussion above with Damir. Imo this is not that important but it would improve article. Word "muslims" when talking about ottomans should be changed into ottomans unless it is a direct quote. Ottoman is more correct for an encylopedia. I know that people at the time probably called Ottomans turks or muslims but that is unimportant as Ottoman is the most correct name.
2) Secondly, we talked about whole Stjepan vs. Stefan issue. My conclusion is that the easiest way to solve this issue is to use english name - Stephen. This is nothing unusual, most of the european monarch names are usually localised - e.g. french Louis becomes Ludvig in german language, english Henry becomes Henrik in swedish and so on. Here is my suggestion on how it can be done:
After he became the King he added the title Stephanos (Stefan, the crowned one), and Miroslav or Mircea.
should be changed into following:
After he became the King, he added the title Stephanos (bs: Stjepan, sr. Stefan) and Miroslav or Mircea.
Later on all occurances of Stefan and Stjepan should be changed into Stephen.
3) Third issue in the article was "king of serbs". We concluded following in our discussion:
"The King of Serbs has nothing to do with ethnic conotations. This is long before the 19th century age of romantic nationalism and cannot be applied to the same. Anyone that mentions that as some sort of a proof that Bosnia was ethnicly Serbian, is claiming a POV fact - and probably essentially false."
Thus imo solution to this issue is quite simple. We should present both views and let the reader decide what is right and what is wrong.
My suggesition is:
Tvrtko's title was "King of Serbs and Bosnia".
should be changed into:
Tvrtko's title was according to some historians "King of Serbs and Bosnia" and according to other historians "King of Serbia and Bosnia". This translation disrepancy has to do with the different interpretation of the old slavonic word "srbljem". Anyway it is commonly agreed that if the "King of Serbs" is right translation it has nothing to do with ethnic canotation. It is simply the title used by the rulers of Serbia.
4) Fourth issue, which even Damir touched briefly, was mentioning of Vlatko Vukovic as serb. I have to admit that I haven't checked your reference list but it seems to me very wierd that Vukovic is referenced as a serb. Are you sure you are not using outdated (national romantic) litterature? Concept of nationality wasn't even developed that early. But as I said I haven't checked your litterature list so I wont be making an issue out of this.
5) Fifth issue was our discussion on "rebuilding of the serbian realm". Basicaly I had two problems with this part of the article. Firstly formulation that he was trying to rebuild serbian realm. As can be understood from our discussion above you think that assessing Nemanjid name is supporting this formulation while I disagree because I think that "collecting" crowns was common european practice at the time. Second problem was usage of following wording "His subjects were serbs". Condensed discussion from above (Mine comments are inlined):
Now, about the second fact - there is no dispute that Tvrtko's subject's were Serbs. I simply evaded to say (number) of his sujects were Serbs, or something similiar, because that is a matter of controversy. However, the notage that some of his subjects (no matter how many) were Serbs and that this was a basis for the crowning is undisputable. For instance, it is known that Orthodox Serbs lived in the Hum region and populated parts of eastern Bosnia - so it is certain to an extent. And one of those you mentioned can apply to Tvrtko's time - religion
The subject of the sentence is rulling the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King. So, let us say that Tvrtko's realm was 88% Chinese and had one city that was populated by Serbs - still he ruled the Serbs. I'm just showing that in order to a King of Serbs, you have tu rule some. I suggest that you rephrase that part, if you find it controversal, but it only states that rulling over the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King
Here is my suggestion on how we need to rephrase this part. From:
Tvrtko had, parallel with Prince Lazar, plans to rebuild the Serbian Realm. He fulfilled three key conditions to become the Serbian ruler
To:
By assuming the title as King of Serbia / King of serbs, Tvrtko hoped according to some serbian historians (citation needed), parallel with Prince Lazar, to lay claim on all serbian lands. According to the same historians his claim was based on following
So what do you think of my suggestion. Please notify me on my talk page when you are finished. Regards Emir
--
EmirA
13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Regards. -- HRE 11:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1) Hi, I think that most bosniacs do not find this issue offendive at all (at least those who have a clue about history). Anyway, as you explained you are using direct quotes from Dubrovnik archive and in that case I don't see any need in changing your wording.
2) I changed all occurences to Stephen (as agreed).
3) It doesn't matter if it is contreversial to you - it is controversial issue to the rest of community as you yourself have noted. Thus there needs to be a better explanation. Adding footing is not enough as most of the readers are going to miss it. And I really dont find it satisfying that one point of view should be in the article while the other point of view should be in the footing.
4) I'm removing the note as it only creates controversy.
5) I really have problem with your wording. But as you suggested I am going to change wording and to make it non controversial for all sides. I'll try doing this in a few days. Please leave comments about those changes here or on my talk page.
Imo we've solved points 1, 2, 4 and 5. What is left is issue nr. 3. Regards -- EmirA 13:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Emir - let me express that I simply adore your changes. However - I must correct you at several places:
1) Why did you decapitalize every "king" and "emperor"? The first character should large?
2) Why did you delete the "Bosnian Bogumils"? This way we had a BOTH links - to the Bosnian indiginous Church AND to the Bogumils!
3) And Jelisaveta had three sons: Stephen the Bosnian Ban, Ninoslav and Vladislav. Well, you've changed Stephen on one wrong place - this is the direct translation and it should be returned to Stefan
4) You have changed Tvrtko's conquests in Croatia (Livno, Duvno, Glamoc) to something rather weird - Zavrsje, which was conquered a LOONG time ago by Stepan II of the House of Kotroman from Serbia! :S
5) You changed "City" to "city" of Zadar - it was refering to the status of a "City", like Venice; thereby it has to be capitalized (it's not an ordinary "city")
6) "in" changed to "with" - this is somewhat errorous, as I mentioned. Unlike the Serbian allies who came to fight at the field (such as, for instance, the Croats) the Bosnian forces were subjected to Lazar's command and were never essentially a different corps that had to inter-coordinate. That is essentially the sole reason why some modern (and past) Serbian historians never mention "a Bosnian force/ally", merely "Serb from Bosnia reinforced Lazar's army", by the way
7) as in reality Ottomans were the one to benefit most from this battle - this sentence seems like "extra" put into the context and is rather unnecessary - and even disputable. We should remove it
And lastly, the Hungarian Army at Klis surrendered to Tvrtko personally, not just plainly to the Bosnian forces.
P. S. I hope I didn't make a big thing out of it. HRE 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, Sorry for not answering earlier.
1) My error. I started changing those but realised that they should start with capital letters and then I missed changing them back.
2) Reason for deleting bosnian bogumils is that the "bogumil" theory is only one of many theories about bosnian church. Thus by using wording bosnian church we do not take stand on which theory is the right one. We only note that there is something called bosnian church.
3) Imo it should stay as it is but you can return it back if you want. Reason is that words like "bosanski ban" are adopted to english ("bosnian ban") so there is no reason for not adopting even names to english.
4) Towns of Livno, Duvno and Glamoč are located on three fields - Livanjsko, Duvanjsko and Glamočko. Area of this three fields is known as Tropolje or Završje. As far as I know this has never been part of any serbian state. Here are the links about Zavrsje region on bosnian and croatian wiki ( http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropolje http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropolje).
5) Same as nr. 1, my error.
6) I'm currently on vacation so I do not have access to any books right now, yet as far as I remember bosnian forces were distinct corps under whole battle and operated on one of the flanks thus it should be with.
7) You can remove it but imo it should stay as it explains rapid decline of all non-ottoman balkan states after the battle of Kosovo. After the battle of Kosovo Ottomans were able to come in even larger numbers while all other balkan states never menaged to do that. Only reason for Ottoman withdrawal after that battle was that there was no clear succession order in Ottoman state thus Murats son withdrew to Anatolia to secure the crown.
8) I wanted to vary text a bit, thats why I changed to bosnian army. Almost every sentence contained words Stephen Tvrtko. You can change it back if you want.
Regards -- EmirA 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2) I beg to differ - this is yet another thing that is "arguable" over here and official in the world (the west): please see The Bogumils of Bulgaria and Bosnia
3) Hmm, not following you in 'ere, I'm afraid.
4) Well, isn't it more informed the other way? All three fields are noted - and it doesn't mix with the Serbian Zavrsje in the Drina.
6) I apologize, but I have to object - The Dubrovnik Archive (does Mauro Orbini mean anything to you, perhaps?) states that fact clearly. Could I see your counternoture - so that we can put both?
7) As I said - please connect that with Tvrtko. How?
8) Well, you are most welcome to do that :D But it should be returned here, because the gesture of their surrender to Tvrtko himself is a very nice historical moment (this way, we're not sure even if Tvrtko was there at all!) -- HolyRomanEmperor 11:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this should be resolved. Modern arheological and historical reshearch tells and verify that Tvrtko I and Stjepan II were crowned an burried in Mile, near Visoko. Read this - [1] (Bosnian). I will put that fact, but will not wipe out posibility of that Tvrtko was crowned in Mileševa. I thik we should compromise and write that he was crowned in Mile or in Mileševa. Before any reply, please read that article in link that i provided. Just don't start same old story, I provided real facts, arheological artifacts, findings and so on. -- HarisM 22:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Cite from Projekat Rastko:
I didn't know on what this fact is based? On the HB.org it says that he was crowned in Mile, Visoko. And add as follows: ...iako postoji mogucnost da se kasnije okrunio i u Milesevu zbog politickog oportunizma. So what are we going to do? On another point we have so many arheological articrafts, proffs, and remains. I can photograph these if you want, i live close, in fact i have some pictures of Mile Church, ofcourse remains. Here you have another set of pictures, and also a lot of text to be read. -- HarisM 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Noted, understood and will add. His crowning in Milesevo is based on primary sources (global, international encyclopediae), so I shall note that. -- HolyRomanEmperor 08:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I just plainly reverted your edit, I should not have done that (duh, I think that's one of the bad things I picked up from Emir Arven).
Modern archaeological research is just that which it is; modern.
What evidence do you want? You want to see from Encyclopedia Britannica's source? :D People mostly use it as a source, rather. :))
It's silly to consider that there's "no evidence" when that is generally the most known & most accepted information. :) Remember, Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I just want you to proportionally put it as a possibility (next to the traditional view).
According to Wikipedia's sources, we have to respect the majority & reliable ones (over the minority). --
PaxEquilibrium
14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Pax:
The reason Tvrtko crowned himself king of Serbia wasnt because he had plans to take the serbian crown nor because he was serb. The reason was because he wanted to get recognized as the Bosnian king by the Vatican and to get recognized he took not only the serbian crown, he took also the croatian crown, crown of the seaside, usora, and podrinje.
This clearly states that the crowns were not IMPORTANT and also there are clear evidence that Tvrtko later on REJECTED the serbian crown which also testifies of the little importance of this event. And Tvrtko was not a serb, he attacked serbian land and conquered them and made them Bosnian land and he clearly stated in his letters the difference between BOSNIAN and SERBIAN land.
Do you understand now?
And Tvrtko doesnt belong neither to the serbian nor croatian history, the king Tvrtko belongs to BOSNIAN and BOSNIAK history. Alkalada 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"Kralj Srbljem i Bosni i Primorju i Zapadnim Stranam"
— King Tvrtko's title
You said Srblje. Didn't you mean Srbljem? This is, I believe, the Instrumental (kim?čim) od zbirne imenice Srblji.
— HolyRomanEmperor
All of them except Bosni are datives (kome/čemu): Srbljem, Primorju, Zapadnim Stranam ("king to Serbs, to Littoral, to the West Lands"; only the form Bosni is genitive - "the king of Bosnia"). And Srbljem is dative of Srblji (it is not a collective noun - zbirna imenica - but simply the plural form of a common noun). It does mean 'Serbs', not 'Serbia', as dative of Serbia would actually be Srblji not Srbljem. The form Srbljem from the grammatical point of view is pure dative of Srblji, '(the) Serbs'. But again, even though the form in question is the dative form of (the) Serbs, the country of Serbia was also sometimes referred to as "the Serbs", so this could also relate to Serbia as a country and not Serbs as a people (despite that it doesn't mean 'Serbia', but it can refer to it). So this is the point when linguists are done and the historians are about to reveal the further mystery. ;) -- George D. Božović 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No one says he was Serb. And in the end that's all not important. What's important is that his crown was double "Bosnian" and "Serbian" - for the other lands (including Croatia) he only had titles and nothing else.
Tvtko never ever rejected the Serbian crown. The "Bosnian-Serbian Crown" stood up to the very end in 1463. Also, he made alliances with major Serbian dynasties to remove dissidents (Nikola Altomanovic) that did not recognize his rule, in the course of restoring the Serbian realm.
Also Tvrtko belongs by great part to both the Serbian and Croatian history; it's highly fallacious to claim that. How could especially then he belong to the Bosniak history?
Also please stop removing the "Serb" and "Croat" histories, (many of) the Kotromanics considered themselves Serbs and there's also a Croatian version of the story. -- PaxEquilibrium 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's nice that you finally revealed to us that you're probably Emir Kotromanić, alias
User:Emir Arven. ;) Oh and that you descend from them is highly impossible, you don't even pride on your Serbian origins! ;D --
PaxEquilibrium
16:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, sign your posts. Secondly, I am no troll. I protect Wikipedia from trolling. Thirdly, I have reverted your edit because it isn't correct. --
PaxEquilibrium
17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, it's a rule to sign your posts. It has nothing to do with trolling, but with manners rather. And people will respect you more in general, less mistaking you for a simpleton troll or an ordinary vandal (ping: like I just have).
Secondly, please read WP:TROLL to understand the concept of trolling.
Thirdly, I am making no personal history, but plainly reverting your erroneous edit. If you disagree with something, show it here, rather than just saying "it's wrong" and changing to an essentially worse version. Express your arguments here, at the talk page. After all, that's what talk pages are for.
And for last bit, please read WP:NPA. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited in Wikipedia. Comment the content and not the user. Please also read WP:CIVIL. Incivility and personal attacks directed against me a moment ago are not allowed. Usage of them can result in prevention from editing. Cheers. -- PaxEquilibrium 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
My posts are disappearing. I wrote a long explanation why this is happening and somehow its gone. Can somebidy stop this paxequilibrium guy or is it hopeless complaining because he seems to be the boss?
His name wasn't Stephen or Stjepan either. Ha was called Stipan (ikavian version of the name) in all Bosnian documents.-- 78.3.33.176 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting things:
-- Anto ( talk) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand what's interesting and, frankly (don't get offended) I thing you're being a bit far too touchy about me. Everything I put is sourced and (almost) never unchecked.
Tell me honestly, would you object as well if the text were in Croatian?
Btw, here's the edict, you can read yourself the "Стефан" and anything else you'd be interested in. -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The document is hardly readable. Very hard to see the name "Стефан" . And I casn't see Tvrtko at all!
It might be also document of some Serbian king. Where did you find it at all??
From here?
http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-bo/istorija/srednjivek/tkotromanic-dubrovniku_l.html -- Anto ( talk) 19:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would object if it would be in modern Croatia because it simply can not be true. As it can be when it would be false if it writes in modern Chechen or Japanese (using their version of the name Stephen). Anyway it is name Stephen(Stipan / Stefan/Stjepan) is quite frequent! many kings of Serbia used that name.Apart from them Tvtko is famous by name Tvrtko or Stipan/Stefan/Stjepan Tvrtko , certainly not just as Stipan/Stefan/Stjepan
Btw, usage of name Stefan would make sense in a correspondence with Serbia but certainly not in a correspondence with Republic of Dubrovnik. To be the member of Nemanjić dinasty would give him a prestige and authority in Serbia. But, people from Dubrovnik had no such impression for sure. -- Anto ( talk) 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For me this is OK: Stephen Tvrtko I (Stjepan, Serbian: Стефан)
If there is question why first Stjepan and then Стефан answer is Stjepan is his birth name. Your thinking ?-- Rjecina ( talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is full of nationalistic crap and one would have thought that statements that are not tainted by nationalism are reliable, but then one reads: "All House of Kotroman siblings, Tvrtko and Elizabeta in particular, were very close, calling themselves, even in official documents, as my beloved brother and my beloved sister, respectively." Is there a reliable source for this claim? Tvrtko is known to have supported rebelions against Elizabeth during her regency and he even provided shelter for the man who ordered her murder. The statement is either false or Tvrtko was a hardcore hypocrit. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Bogumili-tvrtka1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
He centralized the state and conquered parts of medieval Serbia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Hum, Kotor, Zeta, and the territory of present-day Sandžak.
One cannot say Tvrtko I, or any Kotromanić or Tomašević after him conquered the Serb lands, or the Serbs or anything related to the Serbs, since he inherited the Serbian royal crown by blood as he states in the charter (the bolded part). He was the rightful heir, not by any means a conqueror, like Hungarians or Ottomans were. This has to be changed since it implies foreign occupation, which was not the case. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.23.90.115 (
talk)
23:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
But he DID fight Nikola Altamovic mainly for territorial gains. And in his "povelja" he clearly says that he is "going to the serb land" since he did not see Bosnia as a serb land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.1.33 ( talk) 19:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Quite frankly I think you are the one tainted by politics in this case; because after all, what does Tvrtko's political ambitions have do with any supposed "Serb" culture in medieval Bosnia? Any Serb culture would have to be tied with the orthodox church, however, as Noel Malcolm writes, Orthodox Christianity was barely existent in Bosnia prior to the Ottomans. It was perfectly regular for royal families to intermarry and at the end of the day Tvrtko was merely 1/8 of a Serb 'by blood' through his paternal grandmother (ironically, he was more "Croat" through his blood link to the Subasic house, but above all simply a native Bosnian). The Serbian emperor Dushan crowned himself 'Car Grkljem' (Emperor of Greeks) but you wouldn't call him an ethnic Greek. The attempts frequently carried out in Serb historiography are to gravely overemphasize Tvrtko's perfectly commonplace ties to foreign nobility (in this case Serbian) as to lay invalid "ethnic" claims on medieval Bosnia, which in fact was a distinct entity with its own separate identity and course of history. Also, Tvrtko hails from the wider house of Kotromanic which was established as a ruling family of bans more than a century prior to Tvrtko's birth; the house of Kotromanic, as its ambitious descendant Tvrtko I, was first and foremost Bosnian. Praxis Icosahedron ( talk) 21:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I strongly insist on never replying to your baseless ranting on this talk page emanating from the wicked delusion that the international community and scholarship is in a sort of conspiracy against the glorious Serb nation; a nation which in fact only gained adherents in Bosnia during the 19th century through the aligning of religion with ethnicity. As such the Serbian and Croat "name" (or identity if you like) was never prevalent in Bosnia up until the nationalization of its three religious communities in the 19th century, instead the population solely identified as Bosnians (Bosnjani/Bosnjaci); to quote the leading Balkan medievalist John Fine (another historian I am sure you will tarnish as being 'payed by the extremist Muslim government in Sarajevo'):
Yet another corrupted pro-Muslim Western historian, Robert Donia, writes:
In fact Noel Malcolm (who possesses a PhD in history from Eaton and Cambridge) defines the orthodox (Serb) community in contemporary Bosnia as largely descended from Vlach immigrants during the Ottoman era who would later acquire Serb identities based on religious affiliation. Good riddance! Praxis Icosahedron ( talk) 00:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)