Bosnians/ ethnic groups there

[Gosh]

We can analyse if something is wrong or not, but if it is offensive is rather irrelevant.

A Bosnian Kingdom doesn't constitute a Bosnian Identity. The amount of kingdoms which had nothing to do with seperate identities are too much to list. Moreover, it was a very short lived kingdom.

The worst thing in that story that today's supporters of medieval christian Bosnian kingdom are those who 150 years ago proudly presented themselves as Turks. Even today, many of Slavic Muslims in former Yugoslavia feels Turkey very close to them hearth. The same Turkey which destroyed medieval christian Bosnian kingdom. I simply can't understand that kind of pervert dichotomy at all...

I'm sure that some things presented here by Templar can also be offensive for Bosnian Croats/Serbs but it isn't important for him. The only offensive thing for them is that what he feels offensive. If someone else have the same feeling, he will explain that he only tries to expose some historical facts

 

[Templar]

We can analyse if something is wrong or not, but if it is offensive is rather irrelevant.

It is offensive because it is based on fascist propaganda, whose use led to justification of genocide.

 

[Templar]

The worst thing in that story that today's supporters of medieval christian Bosnian kingdom are those who 150 years ago proudly presented themselves as Turks. Even today, many of Slavic Muslims in former Yugoslavia feels Turkey very close to them hearth. The same Turkey which destroyed medieval christian Bosnian kingdom. I simply can't understand that kind of pervert dichotomy at all...

Actually some Bosnians welcomed them in for political/military support. A majority of Bosnian noblemen converted to Islam and used it to their advantage. Many ended up at the highest positions of power of the most powerful empire in the world (at that time). Religion is just a tool, only the weak-minded don't know this.

 

[Templar]

I'm sure that some things presented here by Templar can also be offensive for Bosnian Croats/Serbs but it isn't important for him. The only offensive thing for them is that what he feels offensive. If someone else have the same feeling, he will explain that he only tries to expose some historical facts

They did not consider themselves Croat/Serb before the 1800s, what part of that don't you understand? Seriously read the book: Bosnia: A Short History

 

[Gosh]

They did not consider themselves Croat/Serb before the 1800s, what part of that don't you understand? Seriously read the book: Bosnia: A Short History

Yes..... you'd better recommend something like Mein Kampf ))))

You'd have to read some books from XV-XVIII century from Italian and Austrian sources which concisely talks about that topic. Or even more, all documents from the beginning of written documents about south Slavs.

for example... words of Austrian clerk from the beginning of XVI century:
"Die inwoner des lannds sein von zwayer nation, das sein Turggen45 und Surffen46, davon vorgemelt ist. "

http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Bosnien_Osmanen

He talks only about Turks and Serbs in medieval Bosnia (this is an old-german transcription).

Unfortunately, you're just another nationalistic tr-oll. Eupedia forum has a very poor level in the means of scientific knowledge but it doesn't lacks from nationalistic fairy-tales.

 

[Templar]

Yes..... you'd better recommend something like Mein Kampf

What? It is a well-researched and unbiased book, written by a British historian. You have serious issues.

He talks only about Turks and Serbs in medieval Bosnia (this is an old-german transcription).

A majority of the population were Catholics who converted to Islam, and the second largest group were Serbs brought by the Turks to guard to Northern border. You lack any credibility to write about this topic.

Unfortunately, you're just another nationalistic tr-oll. Eupedia forum has a very poor level in the means of scientific knowledge but it doesn't lacks from nationalistic fairy-tales.

No, I just think you are extremely biased, and ignorant. You pick and choose information, without looking at the big picture.

 

[sparkey]

Yes..... you'd better recommend something like Mein Kampf ))))

No, I just think you are extremely biased, and ignorant.

Mod warnings for both of you... let's tone it down. Serious, fact-based discussion only, please, without Nazi references and personal attacks.

 

[Gosh]

What? It is a well-researched and unbiased book, written by a British historian. You have serious issues.

As the first, Noel Malcom isn't an historian

As the second, above mentioned book (and the rest of his books) is well known as politically driven work.

As the 3rd, If a source states that there lived Serbs and Turks it is unnecessary to give any kind of 3rd party explanations because the same author in that work cites Serbian language as dominant in medieval Bosnia.

It would be silly that medieval Bosnians speak Serbian language but they aren't Serbs.

 

[Gosh]

Mod warnings for both of you... let's tone it down. Serious, fact-based discussion only, please, without Nazi references and personal attacks.

I respect your measures, sparkey. As you can see, it was a joke. I'm trying to speak with the language of facts but if someone simply skips historical sources and continue with its own song, how we can talk about normal discussion?

 

[Templar]

As the first, Noel Malcom isn't an historian

"Noel Malcolm is one of the best known historians and writers on Kosovo" he clearly IS a historian.

As the second, above mentioned book (and the rest of his books) is well known as politically driven work.

Maybe that is well known by fascist right-wingers? You have to be careful not to trust everything you read on the internet. Always look at the sources. There are many very biased nationalistic/racist websites that interpret things without truly looking at the facts. This website is very good though, you will find mostly good and enlightened information.

As you can see, it was a joke. I'm trying to speak with the language of facts but if someone simply skips historical sources and continue with its own song, how we can talk about normal discussion?

Dude, I gave you plenty of historical sources, and you started the insults. I merely reflected them back at you. Just because you can't prove your argument, doesn't mean you should stoop down to the level of verbally attacking your opponent. I am just trying to fight ultra-nationalist propaganda: Milosevic's "Greater Serbia" fantasies and such.

As the 3rd, If a source states that there lived Serbs and Turks it is unnecessary to give any kind of 3rd party explanations because the same author in that work cites Serbian language as dominant in medieval Bosnia.

It would be silly that medieval Bosnians speak Serbian language but they aren't Serbs.

Ancient and Medieval sources are often not 100% reliable, you must look at the context and read between the lines. Think of how Romans would often lump many un-related groups of people into one category. Generalization was very common, and most people were very uneducated. Serbians were the biggest Slavic group in the Balkans, therefore they were the most famous. Also many Serbs served as troops for the Austrians, so they were quite well-known. Austrian knowledge of Bosnia would have been very limited, due to Bosnia's culture being supplanted by Ottoman/Turk culture. Muslim Bosnians even began calling themselves Turks, even if they had no admixture.

 

[MOESAN]

"Noel Malcolm is one of the best known historians and writers on Kosovo" he clearly IS a historian.



Maybe that is well known by fascist right-wingers? You have to be careful not to trust everything you read on the internet. Always look at the sources. There are many very biased nationalistic/racist websites that interpret things without truly looking at the facts. This website is very good though, you will find mostly good and enlightened information.





Ancient and Medieval sources are often not 100% reliable, you must look at the context and read between the lines. Think of how Romans would often lump many un-related groups of people into one category. Generalization was very common, and most people were very uneducated. Serbians were the biggest Slavic group in the Balkans, therefore they were the most famous. Also many Serbs served as troops for the Austrians, so they were quite well-known. Austrian knowledge of Bosnia would have been very limited, due to Bosnia's culture being supplanted by Ottoman/Turk culture. Muslim Bosnians even began calling themselves Turks, even if they had no admixture.

and what tell us linguistics ? If there was an ancient enough Bosnian identity(and the corresponding center of life)even slavized as the surrounding populations it would be a kind of linguistic (dialectal) nucleus - have we that for bosniandialects or only a range of isoglosses between western Croatia and Serbia - it is not a total argument but it could help to understand (I have no will to fall down into modern considerations: I respect every ethnic feeling and I know how states frontiers do not respect too often the ethnic groupings: some centuries are enough to legitimate ethnic identities, or to erase them)

 

[Gosh]

Noel Malcolm is one of the best known historians and writers on Kosovo" he clearly IS a historian.

False. Noel Malcom is by his profession mainly journalist. He isn't a professional historian although he has that kind of education. Your argument that he is "the best known historian on Kosovo" is strong enough to explain everything to open-minded people. Imagine a similar situation where I say: "he is the best known historian in Abkhazia and Ossetia". It is obvious that that kind of popularity is nothing but politics. BTW Kosovo isn't a member of UN.

Maybe that is well known by fascist right-wingers? You have to be careful not to trust everything you read on the internet. Always look at the sources. There are many very biased nationalistic/racist websites that interpret things without truly looking at the facts. This website is very good though, you will find mostly good and enlightened informatio

All Serbian historians are right-wings? right?
All anti-serbian historians are symbols of peace and prosperity?

Well, here's a work of "Serbian right-wing historian" which explain everything about Mr. Malcom and his work.

http://www.kosovo.net/nmalk.html

Dude, I gave you plenty of historical sources, and you started the insults. I merely reflected them back at you. Just because you can't prove your argument, doesn't mean you should stoop down to the level of verbally attacking your opponent. I am just trying to fight ultra-nationalist propaganda: Milosevic's "Greater Serbia" fantasies and such.

it is a really interesting way to fight ultra-nationalist propaganda with another ultra-nationalist propaganda.

Ancient and Medieval sources are often not 100% reliable, you must look at the context and read between the lines. Think of how Romans would often lump many un-related groups of people into one category. Generalization was very common, and most people were very uneducated. Serbians were the biggest Slavic group in the Balkans, therefore they were the most famous. Also many Serbs served as troops for the Austrians, so they were quite well-known. Austrian knowledge of Bosnia would have been very limited, due to Bosnia's culture being supplanted by Ottoman/Turk culture. Muslim Bosnians even began calling themselves Turks, even if they had no admixture.

Medieval sources aren't 100% reliable when they are talking about your believes and they are absolute true in the opposite case. O.K. I know that.....

Therefore, we'll move forward at the beginning of XX century to read some facts from Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02694a.htm

The most interesting things are those which you'll never read in books of politically driven authors:

Population

According to the census of 22 April 1895, Bosnia has 1,361,868 inhabitants and Herzegovina 229,168, giving a total population of 1,591,036. The number of persons to the square mile is small (about 80), less than that in any of the other Austrian crown provinces excepting Salzburg (about 70). This average does not vary much in the six districts (five in Bosnia, one in Herzegovina). The number of persons to the square mile in these districts is as follows: Doljna Tuzla, 106; Banjaluka, 96; Bihac, 91; Serajevo, 73, Mostar (Herzegovina), 65, Travnik, 62. There are 5,388 settlements, of which only 11 have more than 5,000 inhabitants, while 4,689 contain less 500 persons. Excluding some 30,000 Albanians living in the south-east, the Jews who emigrated in earlier times from Spain, a few Osmanli Turks, the merchants, officials. and Austrian troops, the rest of the population (about 98 per cent) belong to the southern Slavonic people, the Serbs. Although one in race, the people form in religious beliefs three sharply separated divisions: the Mohammedans, about 550,000 persons (35 per cent), Greek Schismatics, about 674,000 persons (43 per cent), and Catholics, about 334,000 persons (21.3 per cent). The last mentioned are chiefly peasants. The Mohammedans form the mass of the population in the region called the Krajina in the north-west, in the district of Serajevo and in the south-eastern part of the territory; the Greek Schismatics preponderate in the district of Banjaluka. The Catholics of the Latin Rite exceed the other two denominations only in the district of Travnik and in northern Herzegovina. There are in addition 8,000 Jews and 4,000 Protestants. Divided according to occupation 85 per cent of the population are farmers or wine-cultivators (1,385,291). There are 5,833 large estates, the owners of which are chiefly Mohammedans, 88,970 cultivators of land not their own (kmeten), 88,867 free peasants who own the land they till, and 22,625 peasants who own farming-land and also cultivate the land of others. The population of the towns is small.

Whatta crazy encyclopedia... they states that: "the rest of the population (about 98 per cent) belong to the southern Slavonic people, the Serbs. Although one in race, the people form in religious beliefs three sharply separated divisions: the Mohammedans, about 550,000 persons (35 per cent), Greek Schismatics, about 674,000 persons (43 per cent), and Catholics, about 334,000 persons (21.3 per cent)"

I've expected Milosevich among right-wing Serbian authors at the bottom but I was surprised to see that there's no any Serb in the list of references.

I'm impatient to hear explanation how this source is also not 100% reliable ))))))

It is easy to check that all of these data shown here are not false. In the period of the beginning of XX century there were 8% more orthodox citizens in Bosnia than Muslims. After two WW and demographic explosion of Muslim population we today have a completely opposite picture there.

Smart people will understand everything without my comments.

 

[zanipolo]

according to John Fine's book
bosnia was recognised as a independent state in 1167 after the battle of Zemun. Hum ( formerly Zahumlje and now hercegovina) was seperated from bosnia and was mostly Romanian Vlachs. Hum was ruled by the serbians.

in 1192 the hungarian king succeded in persuading the pope to split bosnia away from croatia in dynastic ruling and also in the juristiction of croation bishops.

In summary the Bosnians where a mix of croats, avars and huns

 

[Gosh]

according to John Fine's book
bosnia was recognised as a independent state in 1167 after the battle of Zemun. Hum ( formerly Zahumlje and now hercegovina) was seperated from bosnia and was mostly Romanian Vlachs. Hum was ruled by the serbians.

It is true that Bosnia got some kind of independence in 1167 but it was much smaller than modern Bosnia. Does it means that if some ruler establish independence on some territory automatically change ethnic origins of population?

I'll start to believe that Bosnia was settled with Romanian Vlachs when you show me ANY y-chromosome data which will show presence of Din-S in Romania (and even among Vlachs in Serbia). All of them are Din-N and that's the argument which beats your theory.

The highest percentage of Din-S is exactly in old Helmus which was ruled by the Serbs (not Serbians, there's a big difference in that). In today's Bosnia, Din-S is much-much more presented than Din-N.

in 1192 the hungarian king succeded in persuading the pope to split bosnia away from croatia in dynastic ruling and also in the juristiction of croation bishops.

This is far away from truth... They weren't Croatian Bishops but Catholic one. In the past, there were much Serbs- Catholics which are turned into Croats not so many years ago.

In summary the Bosnians where a mix of croats, avars and huns

Yes...... and this is very easy to check by genetics. Avars, old Croats and Huns are well known as ethnic groups with a high amount of Din-S. No Serbs there at all.
I appreciate this kind of conclusions very much.

 

[Templar]

According to the census of 22 April 1895

Exactly, that was after a huge amount of Bosniaks migrated out of Bosnia. Muslims in other former parts of the Ottoman empire were being forcefully converted and also killed, they fled to avoid such a fate.

 

[Gosh]

Exactly, that was after a huge amount of Bosniaks migrated out of Bosnia. Muslims in other former parts of the Ottoman empire were being forcefully converted and also killed, they fled to avoid such a fate.

Isn't that another proof that they felt themselves as Turks?
Who and where was killed in former Yugoslavia?

BTW, you skipped the main thing. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 98% of population in Bosnia were Serbs. There's no Bosnians, there's no Croats.... strange, isn't it? And that's thing which isn't hard to check on many maps from XIX century.

It is completely different from your writings here.

 

[zanipolo]

It is true that Bosnia got some kind of independence in 1167 but it was much smaller than modern Bosnia. Does it means that if some ruler establish independence on some territory automatically change ethnic origins of population?

I'll start to believe that Bosnia was settled with Romanian Vlachs when you show me ANY y-chromosome data which will show presence of Din-S in Romania (and even among Vlachs in Serbia). All of them are Din-N and that's the argument which beats your theory.

The highest percentage of Din-S is exactly in old Helmus which was ruled by the Serbs (not Serbians, there's a big difference in that). In today's Bosnia, Din-S is much-much more presented than Din-N.




This is far away from truth... They weren't Croatian Bishops but Catholic one. In the past, there were much Serbs- Catholics which are turned into Croats not so many years ago.




Yes...... and this is very easy to check by genetics. Avars, old Croats and Huns are well known as ethnic groups with a high amount of Din-S. No Serbs there at all.
I appreciate this kind of conclusions very much.

you did not read my post properly. The vlachs only settled in HUM and not bosnia.
The diocese was split from catholic croatian lands to catholic bosnian lands

 

[Gosh]

you did not read my post properly. The vlachs only settled in HUM and not bosnia.
The diocese was split from catholic croatian lands to catholic bosnian lands

Your HUM is ancient Helmus, right?
That's the region with a very high level of I2a1b1b, right?

 

[zanipolo]

Your HUM is ancient Helmus, right?
That's the region with a very high level of I2a1b1b, right?

[h=1]Herzegovina was called HUM until 1462[/h]

 

[Gosh]

Herzegovina was called HUM until 1462

As far as I know, before arrival of Slavs it was Helmus.

I've asked you a question and you didn't answer on that.

I'll repeat: is that the region with the highest level of I2a1-Din-S in the world?