![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hi. How can I help? -- VKokielov 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
wery good ;)
I'll translate and send the translation, and I'll try before Sunday. -- VKokielov 05:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Translation fix - parohije. -- VKokielov 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is part of the translation of the web page (not the wiki article)
I have two more paragraphs to finish.
The old town of Golubac
(captions in reading order)
View from the Danube
The old town during winter
Sunset
Trajan's stone
(text)
A little bit about how Golubac came to be
Golubac is first mentioned in historical sources in 1335, and made out to be a fortress with a Hungarian military crew. Of course, the town was founded before then, but we can't say when it was built, nor can we guess who built it.
Inscriptions from Roman times were found, and this is evidence that there was an ancient settlement where Golubac is, but that settlement has not been identified. Neither can we say reliably whether the settlement and fortress existed before the ninth century or was built only when between Hungary and Serbia [sic], begun after the death of Dragutin, fed by the ample ascent and territorial aspirations of both countries, and finished only when the Turks came to be a dangerous mutual enemy.
When Golubac first appears in sources -- the same year -- there was a war between the Hungarian king Robert I and King Dushan. A military conflict was apparently in Machva; the Hungarians withdrew across the Sava, but Golubac never changed hands. In 1337 again a Hungarian crew was there. In the wars which followed in 1338 and 1344-5 there was once more no change.
From a (pariski) letter to the Hungarian king Ludovik 1 of Anzuja written in the beginning of 1346 we know that Machva, Belgrade, and Golubac belonged to the Hungarians. The bishop of Kotorska at that time claimed rights to gather the church (tax?) in those towns. Because the Kotorska diocese wielded Catholic parishes in the Serbian state, we must presume that its spreading-out to the Sava and Danube came at a time when the regions abreast the Drina were under Serbian control, and that was only when Dragutin was king (1284-1316 and 1347). Golubac is in Hungarian hands, its castellan is Toma, the Transylvanian voivoda.
Golubac saw the passing of tsar Dushan when it was a Hungarian fort. Meanwhile, the territories around Golubac were in Serbian hands. On these after the death of tsar Dushana the powerful family Rastislalich rose to influence and won independence. The last feudal lord from this family, Radic Brankovich, was evicted (according to the letters of Serbian chroniclers?) by knez Lazar in 1379. Through all this time nothing is said of Golubac. Knez Lazar as lord of the nearby territories gave outlying villages as gifts to monasteries in Wallachia, but Golubac did not belong to him.
-- VKokielov 17:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Isto tako se nemože pouzdano reći da li je naselje i utvrđenje postojalo pre XIV veka ili je izgrađeno tek kada je između Ugarske i Srbije, započeto posle Dragutinove smrti, pothranjivano snažnim usponom i teritorijalnim aspiracijama obe drzave, a završeno tek pojavom Turaka kao opasnog zajedničkog neprijatelja."
I translated this word for word. It doesn't seem to make sense. That little word je is hanging in vacuum, and so is the "kada when" before it. I suspect that our author forgot a sentence or two after the comma. -- VKokielov 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah damn. I would be more than happy to help. I really would. But that page is written in Cyrillic. Now, you have to understand, Croatian and Serbian are VERY much alike (think British and American English), but Serbs use both the Latin and the Cyrillic alphabet for writing. Croatians only use the Latin alphabet. And sadly, my Cyrillic is only slightly better than your's :).
But I do have an idea... I'm looking for a Cyrillic-to-Latin converter. It should be pretty easy, it's a straight character-for-character conversion. If I can't find one, I'll code one myself. Hold on. I might just be able to help.
I'll get back to you soon... -- xompanthy 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
OK... first off, stop apologizing :). I'm happy to help. If you need anything, just say so. Now, that first sentence is of no use. The paragraph though, made me laugh my ass off. :) Here's a translation:
“ | Across from the Golubac fortress, the stone Babakaj sticks out from the water, like a guard before the gates of Đerdap. Legend has it the Turks took a beautiful young girl onto this stone and blackmailed her grandmother for one hundred dukats (cash in those days) for her release. The grandmother didn't have the money, so the Turks started to torture the girl. In agony she screamed: ' Granny (baba), repent (pokaj se) '. This is why the stone was later named the Babakaj stone. | ” |
That's it. The problem here is with the Serbian/Croatian word stijena, which could mean both stone, rock and cliff (even mountain in some contexts). It seems it actually is a rock. I apologize for my misinterpretation, the Serbian wiki actually states (as a complete side note, in parenthesis) it's in the middle of the Danube, and that Golubac was connected to it with "a heavy chain", again, for controlling traffic.
But that must have been one really big stone if the Turks, the girl, and the grandma were all standing on it. Here's a picture I found [2], you can see the stone in the middle. It's obviously Golubac, you can see it to the left. As always, I'm happy to help.
Cheers. -- xompanthy 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm... remember that first sentence, "Stena je sa Rumunske strane Dunava pre ulaska u klisuru"? Now that I look at it, it might be useful. It says the rock is on the Romanian side of the Danube before the entrance to the gorge. Hence the guard analogy earlier. -- xompanthy 20:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
“ | One source that until recently went unnoticed says that count Lazar tried to conquer the fort sometime between 1382. and 1389. That is the report from kaštelan (something like land owner, but not :)) Domonik bany Severinske banovine, but is written in such poor and vague Latin that barely anything can be concluded from it about Lazar's siege.
It is known that Lazar's men attacked the fort with siege devices, that they hit the upper and the lower parts of the fort, although they didn't storm the gate, but attacked from the Danube with ships. It is not known how the siege ended, but from the fact that Lazar made peace with king Ingmund in February of 1389. (so Ingmund stopped his march on Serbia), we can conclude that Lazar couldn't subdue this Hungarian fort to his will. |
” |
Hi, I just discovered this nice undertaking of yours ( Golubac fortress); thanks. On the other hand, it was extremely difficult to follow the discussion spread accross multiple talk-pages :-). So please, reply here if you wish.
As for "Kočina krajina", it means "Koča's krajina", and refers to a short-lived free territory held by Serbs during the Austro-Turkish war 1788- 1791 (no en-wiki article :-( ). Koča Anđelković (no en-wiki article :-( ), aka "Captain Koča") was the leader of the uprising. Duja ► 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm reading it like this: the contract was written in 1426 (with the clause and all), and Stefan died the next year. The next sentence says how commander Jeremija handed the fort over to the Turks for unknown reasons. So it's a bit ambiguous, yeah. It could be that he handed it over in 1417. Could go either way, though the sentence "feels" less strange if the author meant to say that this transpired exactly following Jeremija's death. I'm wondering how Duja would interpret it, though. -- xompanthy 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue of throne succession wasn't raised just in Bosnia, but in Serbia as well. Despot Stefan was being sickly, and, having no children, he had to take care about his successor. His choice had fallen long time ago to George Branković, who was his closest relative as a nephew, and who had also wholy accepted his politics since (their?) reconciliation and loyally cooperated. George showed considerable energy, and as a good soldier he distinguished himself in several hard moments. In Serbia that succession, as pronounced by Stefan on the state council in Srebrenica, (That Srebrenica? I'm not sure, but there's no modern village of such name in Serbia) wasn't only accepted without protest, but considered completely natural. He solved the issue with king Sigismund on a meeting in Tata in May 1426, but not without problems though. Sigismund agreed to accept George, but he requested that after Stefan's death, Belgrade and Mačva are to be returned to him, as it was ceded as a personal leno (dunno what it is). Sigismund pretended that he has no trust in George and also requested ceding of Golubac, the main Serbia's fortress on the Danube side. In this way, he would hold not only under supervision, but under real control all main cities on Sava and Danube on the Serbian side, and firmly secure Hungary.
Stephen certainly knew that those concessions to Hungarian would have caused suspicions and counter-measures with Ottomans. Or did he, with his politics of leaning on Hungary, think that it was the price worth paying?
...on the voice of the Despot's death, Sigismund got hurried to fulfill the clauses from the Tata contract. From Sep 17 to Nov 19 he was in Belgrade, which was formally handed over to him.(...) George simultaneously returned northern Mačva, but, certainly with the King's permission, kept its southern and western part with Valjevo, Krupanj and Zajača. However, the commander of city of Golubac, vojvoda Jeremija, didn't want to carry out the command and cede the city to Hungarians without 12,000 ducats of compensation. When he didn't receive the required sum, he ceded Golubac to the Turks
Duja ► 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)As expected, the Sultan did not peacefully accept this change of control in Serbia. Hungarian influence was stronger than he might have allowed. So, he immediately directed the army to Serbia, which seized Niš and Kruševac and besieged Novo Brdo. To ensure his prestige in Serbia, which suffered for its connections with him, Sigismunt sent his help and his army to the Despot. Joined Serbs and Hungarians defeated a large Turkish squad at Ravanica; the King especially commended hungarian vojvoda Nikola Bocska. The second Turkish squad from Golubac attacked nearby Serbian and Hungarian places, especially the Braničevo area. In vain the Despot personally arrived at Golubac, promising forgiveness to Jeremija, and urged him to return the city by all possible means. Vojvoda not only didn't give in to demands, but attacked the Despot when he tried to enter the city walls with his escort. In 1428, new Hungarian army besieged Golubac from the land and from Danube. The importance of the city can best be shown by the fact that Sigismund personally arrived beyond the city walls. But, sultan Murad also carried a lot to encourage and support his people on the acquired positions. In the late May, after Sigismund, he also arrived to the Braničevo area. Reluctant to accept the battle with superior Turks, Sigismund hurried to conclude a treaty. When Hungarians started the retreat in early June, the Turkish commander Sinan-bey treacherously attacked their rear, where Sigismund was located. With selfless self-sacrifice Marko de Szentlaszlo saved the Hungarians of a catastrophe. During these figts, entire southern and eastern Serbie heavily suffered, including the Monastery of Daljša near Golubac, which had developed nicely in the recent years. In an extensive memoir of a monk from that place, Sigismund was first recorded as "our Emperor", in contrast to the Turkish "emperor jezičeski (something archaic I don't quite get)"
OK... the towers part, I have no idea :). The map in the original Serbian article should help you out though. But I think I know what is confusing you. There are 3 parts of the fort. The foward, back, and the upper city. The forward city is comprised of TWO parts, the upper and the lower. This "upper" part of the forward city is NOT the upper city. Here:
That's how I'm reading it, and I'm pretty sure I'm right. And if you look at the map, tower 1 is in the upper city, and it's what the word 'citadel' is referring to. Now the moat... in the Serbian article, the present tense is used ("jer je povezan sa Dunavom"), so the moat is still connected, BUT the Danube is not filling it with water now ("koji ga je verovatno punio", trns. "which probably filled it with water"). -- xompanthy 19:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly that page isn't in Romanian. I suspect is in Hungarian. MihaiC 08:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
It is indeed Hungarian; the shorter text says the Babakaj rock is about 50 m high, the longer one basically repeats the story which is already in the article, with slight modifications (the girl is given a name – Milena –, the story is set during the Ottoman occupation, she is not the bride of a rich merchant but a lady in a pasha's harem, but she is killed the same way when she tries to escape with her lover). It doesn't say anything of importance about the fortress itself, it's only a passing mention that the girl's lover is a soldier there. Regards, – Alensha talk 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just saw VKokielov's post here. In case it's needed in the article, the Hungarian kings VKokielov mentioned (Robert I and "Ludovik 1 of Anzuja") are Charles I of Hungary and his son Louis I of Hungary. – Alensha talk 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Bei Ursprungsdatei meinst du die Quelle, (die) Quelle wie Source auf Englisch. Ich habe den Autor der serbischen Wiki für Golubac kontaktet und ihn um Quellen gebeten; er möge diese mir oder gleich dir zusenden. Ansonsten kann ich dir eine Quelle angeben, und zwar: Istorija srpskog naroda (u šest knjiga), druga knjiga; Srpska književna zadruga, drugo izdanje, Beograd 1994 (History of the Serbs (in six books), second book; Serbian authors society, second edition, Belgrade 1994). Beste Grüße – Carski 21:10, 15 March 2007 (CET)
Sorry for long wait for reply,but internet has been down lately.
References for facts in serbian article can be found in foloving books by Aleksandar Deroko:
If you have any more question,I`m here.Great job you did with the article.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origmonth=
, |month=
, and |origdate=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hi. How can I help? -- VKokielov 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
wery good ;)
I'll translate and send the translation, and I'll try before Sunday. -- VKokielov 05:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Translation fix - parohije. -- VKokielov 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is part of the translation of the web page (not the wiki article)
I have two more paragraphs to finish.
The old town of Golubac
(captions in reading order)
View from the Danube
The old town during winter
Sunset
Trajan's stone
(text)
A little bit about how Golubac came to be
Golubac is first mentioned in historical sources in 1335, and made out to be a fortress with a Hungarian military crew. Of course, the town was founded before then, but we can't say when it was built, nor can we guess who built it.
Inscriptions from Roman times were found, and this is evidence that there was an ancient settlement where Golubac is, but that settlement has not been identified. Neither can we say reliably whether the settlement and fortress existed before the ninth century or was built only when between Hungary and Serbia [sic], begun after the death of Dragutin, fed by the ample ascent and territorial aspirations of both countries, and finished only when the Turks came to be a dangerous mutual enemy.
When Golubac first appears in sources -- the same year -- there was a war between the Hungarian king Robert I and King Dushan. A military conflict was apparently in Machva; the Hungarians withdrew across the Sava, but Golubac never changed hands. In 1337 again a Hungarian crew was there. In the wars which followed in 1338 and 1344-5 there was once more no change.
From a (pariski) letter to the Hungarian king Ludovik 1 of Anzuja written in the beginning of 1346 we know that Machva, Belgrade, and Golubac belonged to the Hungarians. The bishop of Kotorska at that time claimed rights to gather the church (tax?) in those towns. Because the Kotorska diocese wielded Catholic parishes in the Serbian state, we must presume that its spreading-out to the Sava and Danube came at a time when the regions abreast the Drina were under Serbian control, and that was only when Dragutin was king (1284-1316 and 1347). Golubac is in Hungarian hands, its castellan is Toma, the Transylvanian voivoda.
Golubac saw the passing of tsar Dushan when it was a Hungarian fort. Meanwhile, the territories around Golubac were in Serbian hands. On these after the death of tsar Dushana the powerful family Rastislalich rose to influence and won independence. The last feudal lord from this family, Radic Brankovich, was evicted (according to the letters of Serbian chroniclers?) by knez Lazar in 1379. Through all this time nothing is said of Golubac. Knez Lazar as lord of the nearby territories gave outlying villages as gifts to monasteries in Wallachia, but Golubac did not belong to him.
-- VKokielov 17:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Isto tako se nemože pouzdano reći da li je naselje i utvrđenje postojalo pre XIV veka ili je izgrađeno tek kada je između Ugarske i Srbije, započeto posle Dragutinove smrti, pothranjivano snažnim usponom i teritorijalnim aspiracijama obe drzave, a završeno tek pojavom Turaka kao opasnog zajedničkog neprijatelja."
I translated this word for word. It doesn't seem to make sense. That little word je is hanging in vacuum, and so is the "kada when" before it. I suspect that our author forgot a sentence or two after the comma. -- VKokielov 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah damn. I would be more than happy to help. I really would. But that page is written in Cyrillic. Now, you have to understand, Croatian and Serbian are VERY much alike (think British and American English), but Serbs use both the Latin and the Cyrillic alphabet for writing. Croatians only use the Latin alphabet. And sadly, my Cyrillic is only slightly better than your's :).
But I do have an idea... I'm looking for a Cyrillic-to-Latin converter. It should be pretty easy, it's a straight character-for-character conversion. If I can't find one, I'll code one myself. Hold on. I might just be able to help.
I'll get back to you soon... -- xompanthy 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
OK... first off, stop apologizing :). I'm happy to help. If you need anything, just say so. Now, that first sentence is of no use. The paragraph though, made me laugh my ass off. :) Here's a translation:
“ | Across from the Golubac fortress, the stone Babakaj sticks out from the water, like a guard before the gates of Đerdap. Legend has it the Turks took a beautiful young girl onto this stone and blackmailed her grandmother for one hundred dukats (cash in those days) for her release. The grandmother didn't have the money, so the Turks started to torture the girl. In agony she screamed: ' Granny (baba), repent (pokaj se) '. This is why the stone was later named the Babakaj stone. | ” |
That's it. The problem here is with the Serbian/Croatian word stijena, which could mean both stone, rock and cliff (even mountain in some contexts). It seems it actually is a rock. I apologize for my misinterpretation, the Serbian wiki actually states (as a complete side note, in parenthesis) it's in the middle of the Danube, and that Golubac was connected to it with "a heavy chain", again, for controlling traffic.
But that must have been one really big stone if the Turks, the girl, and the grandma were all standing on it. Here's a picture I found [2], you can see the stone in the middle. It's obviously Golubac, you can see it to the left. As always, I'm happy to help.
Cheers. -- xompanthy 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm... remember that first sentence, "Stena je sa Rumunske strane Dunava pre ulaska u klisuru"? Now that I look at it, it might be useful. It says the rock is on the Romanian side of the Danube before the entrance to the gorge. Hence the guard analogy earlier. -- xompanthy 20:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
“ | One source that until recently went unnoticed says that count Lazar tried to conquer the fort sometime between 1382. and 1389. That is the report from kaštelan (something like land owner, but not :)) Domonik bany Severinske banovine, but is written in such poor and vague Latin that barely anything can be concluded from it about Lazar's siege.
It is known that Lazar's men attacked the fort with siege devices, that they hit the upper and the lower parts of the fort, although they didn't storm the gate, but attacked from the Danube with ships. It is not known how the siege ended, but from the fact that Lazar made peace with king Ingmund in February of 1389. (so Ingmund stopped his march on Serbia), we can conclude that Lazar couldn't subdue this Hungarian fort to his will. |
” |
Hi, I just discovered this nice undertaking of yours ( Golubac fortress); thanks. On the other hand, it was extremely difficult to follow the discussion spread accross multiple talk-pages :-). So please, reply here if you wish.
As for "Kočina krajina", it means "Koča's krajina", and refers to a short-lived free territory held by Serbs during the Austro-Turkish war 1788- 1791 (no en-wiki article :-( ). Koča Anđelković (no en-wiki article :-( ), aka "Captain Koča") was the leader of the uprising. Duja ► 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm reading it like this: the contract was written in 1426 (with the clause and all), and Stefan died the next year. The next sentence says how commander Jeremija handed the fort over to the Turks for unknown reasons. So it's a bit ambiguous, yeah. It could be that he handed it over in 1417. Could go either way, though the sentence "feels" less strange if the author meant to say that this transpired exactly following Jeremija's death. I'm wondering how Duja would interpret it, though. -- xompanthy 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue of throne succession wasn't raised just in Bosnia, but in Serbia as well. Despot Stefan was being sickly, and, having no children, he had to take care about his successor. His choice had fallen long time ago to George Branković, who was his closest relative as a nephew, and who had also wholy accepted his politics since (their?) reconciliation and loyally cooperated. George showed considerable energy, and as a good soldier he distinguished himself in several hard moments. In Serbia that succession, as pronounced by Stefan on the state council in Srebrenica, (That Srebrenica? I'm not sure, but there's no modern village of such name in Serbia) wasn't only accepted without protest, but considered completely natural. He solved the issue with king Sigismund on a meeting in Tata in May 1426, but not without problems though. Sigismund agreed to accept George, but he requested that after Stefan's death, Belgrade and Mačva are to be returned to him, as it was ceded as a personal leno (dunno what it is). Sigismund pretended that he has no trust in George and also requested ceding of Golubac, the main Serbia's fortress on the Danube side. In this way, he would hold not only under supervision, but under real control all main cities on Sava and Danube on the Serbian side, and firmly secure Hungary.
Stephen certainly knew that those concessions to Hungarian would have caused suspicions and counter-measures with Ottomans. Or did he, with his politics of leaning on Hungary, think that it was the price worth paying?
...on the voice of the Despot's death, Sigismund got hurried to fulfill the clauses from the Tata contract. From Sep 17 to Nov 19 he was in Belgrade, which was formally handed over to him.(...) George simultaneously returned northern Mačva, but, certainly with the King's permission, kept its southern and western part with Valjevo, Krupanj and Zajača. However, the commander of city of Golubac, vojvoda Jeremija, didn't want to carry out the command and cede the city to Hungarians without 12,000 ducats of compensation. When he didn't receive the required sum, he ceded Golubac to the Turks
Duja ► 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)As expected, the Sultan did not peacefully accept this change of control in Serbia. Hungarian influence was stronger than he might have allowed. So, he immediately directed the army to Serbia, which seized Niš and Kruševac and besieged Novo Brdo. To ensure his prestige in Serbia, which suffered for its connections with him, Sigismunt sent his help and his army to the Despot. Joined Serbs and Hungarians defeated a large Turkish squad at Ravanica; the King especially commended hungarian vojvoda Nikola Bocska. The second Turkish squad from Golubac attacked nearby Serbian and Hungarian places, especially the Braničevo area. In vain the Despot personally arrived at Golubac, promising forgiveness to Jeremija, and urged him to return the city by all possible means. Vojvoda not only didn't give in to demands, but attacked the Despot when he tried to enter the city walls with his escort. In 1428, new Hungarian army besieged Golubac from the land and from Danube. The importance of the city can best be shown by the fact that Sigismund personally arrived beyond the city walls. But, sultan Murad also carried a lot to encourage and support his people on the acquired positions. In the late May, after Sigismund, he also arrived to the Braničevo area. Reluctant to accept the battle with superior Turks, Sigismund hurried to conclude a treaty. When Hungarians started the retreat in early June, the Turkish commander Sinan-bey treacherously attacked their rear, where Sigismund was located. With selfless self-sacrifice Marko de Szentlaszlo saved the Hungarians of a catastrophe. During these figts, entire southern and eastern Serbie heavily suffered, including the Monastery of Daljša near Golubac, which had developed nicely in the recent years. In an extensive memoir of a monk from that place, Sigismund was first recorded as "our Emperor", in contrast to the Turkish "emperor jezičeski (something archaic I don't quite get)"
OK... the towers part, I have no idea :). The map in the original Serbian article should help you out though. But I think I know what is confusing you. There are 3 parts of the fort. The foward, back, and the upper city. The forward city is comprised of TWO parts, the upper and the lower. This "upper" part of the forward city is NOT the upper city. Here:
That's how I'm reading it, and I'm pretty sure I'm right. And if you look at the map, tower 1 is in the upper city, and it's what the word 'citadel' is referring to. Now the moat... in the Serbian article, the present tense is used ("jer je povezan sa Dunavom"), so the moat is still connected, BUT the Danube is not filling it with water now ("koji ga je verovatno punio", trns. "which probably filled it with water"). -- xompanthy 19:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly that page isn't in Romanian. I suspect is in Hungarian. MihaiC 08:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
It is indeed Hungarian; the shorter text says the Babakaj rock is about 50 m high, the longer one basically repeats the story which is already in the article, with slight modifications (the girl is given a name – Milena –, the story is set during the Ottoman occupation, she is not the bride of a rich merchant but a lady in a pasha's harem, but she is killed the same way when she tries to escape with her lover). It doesn't say anything of importance about the fortress itself, it's only a passing mention that the girl's lover is a soldier there. Regards, – Alensha talk 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just saw VKokielov's post here. In case it's needed in the article, the Hungarian kings VKokielov mentioned (Robert I and "Ludovik 1 of Anzuja") are Charles I of Hungary and his son Louis I of Hungary. – Alensha talk 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Bei Ursprungsdatei meinst du die Quelle, (die) Quelle wie Source auf Englisch. Ich habe den Autor der serbischen Wiki für Golubac kontaktet und ihn um Quellen gebeten; er möge diese mir oder gleich dir zusenden. Ansonsten kann ich dir eine Quelle angeben, und zwar: Istorija srpskog naroda (u šest knjiga), druga knjiga; Srpska književna zadruga, drugo izdanje, Beograd 1994 (History of the Serbs (in six books), second book; Serbian authors society, second edition, Belgrade 1994). Beste Grüße – Carski 21:10, 15 March 2007 (CET)
Sorry for long wait for reply,but internet has been down lately.
References for facts in serbian article can be found in foloving books by Aleksandar Deroko:
If you have any more question,I`m here.Great job you did with the article.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origmonth=
, |month=
, and |origdate=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)