Talk:Bošnjani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there some way we can work around this problem by rephrasing the sentence? The exact number of historians propagating one side or the other of the issue is impossible to determine, but there obviously isn't a consensus and this has to be indicated. Live Forever 18:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No a consensus does not exist and even if it would have existed that wouldn't necessarily have ment correctnes. It is impossible to decide on which side the majority of the historians are orientated, but according to wellknown books written and studies done it definitly seems, to me at least, that the majority is for the national side of the matter and not the regional. Since there are no signs what so ever that parts of the population of preottoman Bosnia in any sense had developed serbian or croatian national senses, not even in a medieval sense of way. This is said in Noel Malcom's studies meaning that some national sense must have been present among the population and since there are no signs of serbian or croatian, Bosnjani must have been the national name and sense of the inhabitants before ottoman era and the order of religious nationality. Damir Mišić 19:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

According to well known books written and studies done I read, the majority is for the regional side of the matter and not the national. I have never read an argumented proof that the word has national sense of the meaning. You saying that "there are no signs what so ever that parts of the population of preottoman Bosnia in any sense had developed serbian or croatian national senses" is ridiculous - there are a lot signs pointing to that. Malcolm is a journalist and doesn't write studies. Nikola 16:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes perhaps he is, but malcolm is accepted as one of the most influencial writers in the subject.

He is, but in negative sense of the word. Nikola 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicola I don't know what books you have read but the regional explaination is not widely accepted, and no I don't agree with you, give me one proof of where the population of preottoman Bosnia are calling themselves serbs or croats!. Parts of Bosnia's population started first to recognize themselves as serbs and croats in the 19th century depending on what religion they had when croatia and serbia started their national movements, before that all people in Bosnia called themselves either Bosniaks or Bosnjani. Just the moslem Bosniaks continued to be recognized as Bosniaks, the catholic and orthodox bosniaks started to call themselves croats and serbs due to the national movements in croatia and serbia and their plan to infiltrate Bosnia. Damir Mišić

There are a lot of proofs. The oldes documents (DAI in particular) claim that Serbs settled in what is today Bosnia, archeological excavations found typically Serbian graves all over Bosnia, a number of charters of Bosnian rulers are signed with Ban/King of Serbs, mention Serbs, Serbian ancestry, state their language as Serbian and so on. Nikola 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said for Croats. It is perposterous to claim things like that, Damir! --HolyRomanEmperor 14:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the DAI this is not reliable since the DAI also mentiones traditional croat lands as inhabited by serbs when they in fact are croatian, this can only mean that DAI was rather geopolitical in its explaination than ethnical. As I said previoulsy, of course kings of bosnia also called themselves kings of serbia since royal houses mixed with eachother very much like they do today, kings from one country married queens from another resulting in that their children are of both nationalities and therefore kings of both countries, that is logical and does not have much value as evidence in this discussion. No where are the inhabitants of Bosnia mentioned by domestic sources as serbs or croats but as Bosnjani. Damir Mišić

Well these lands aren't traditionally Croat if they were inhabited by Serbs, right? Kings of Bosnia did not call themselves kings of Serbia but of Serbs. And there was no ruler of Bosnia who was also a ruler of Serbia. And, these charters are domestic sources, and some of them do mention inhabitants of Bosnia as Serbs and their language as Serbian. Nikola 09:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nikola let us keep to facts now, ok? First of these lands were never inhabited by serbs but by Croats and Bosnians, the DAI did not put any attention into registering ethnic gropus in the regions but only who had control of the lands, this means; yes the lands were perhaps ruled by serbs a long time ago but croats and bosnians lived there all of the time under serbian occupation and therefore are the "ethnic definitions" made by the DAI treachorous. And secondly, The kings did not call themselves "kings of serbs" but "kings of serbia", But I don't see the point in it serbs/serbia actually indicates the same thing; serbianhood, the same goes for "king for bosnia" which indicates kingdom over Bosnian land and Bosnians by other words Bosnianhood. Damir Mišić

"Some mention them as serbs speaking serbian language"? so what!, many of those charters are contradicitve, some kings wrote at one point that their language is serbian but then wrote in another charter that it is croatian. Don't put in too great faith in proving your personal point of view by bringing up some contradicitve charters that have no real value as "evidence". Nikola Of course some Bosnian kings were kings of serbia as well, you know that Damir Mišić

You again repeat you statements, and they are wrong again. Nikola 07:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nikola you are really convincing, I guess you believe that all it takes to win an argumentation is to say the other is wrong, something like "you are wrong". So naive one can be. Damir Mišić 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damir

Note what De Administrando Imperio, a work gathered in the middle of the 10th century by a Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor says. It doesn't refer to who ruled there, but who inhabited. It states Bosnia (what is now Bosnia proper) as inhabited by Serbs in the first half of the 7th century.

Additionally, the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja from the 1170s-1196 (12th century) written by a Roman Catholic Christian Archbishop of Bar, Serbia and Montenegro and Primate of Serbia writes that Bosnia is one of the two constituent entities (the other being Rascia) of Serbia. Although this is not an ethnic explaination like DAI and it only refers to rulership, it is noted that Bosnia is a root Serbian territory.

Now, please note that Tvrtko, Dabiša, Ostoja, Ostojić, Tvrtko II, Tomaš, Tomašević or Jelena Gruba. All Kings of Serbs or Queens of Serbs; and they noted that in the first place. There were all examples of Bosnian monarchs to the end. Stepan II Kotromanić was proud of his Serbian mother Princess, as he noted in his charter. King Stefan Tomaš claimed when he implaced his son as Despot of Serbia on 1 April 1456 in Smederevo that he conducted that with the will of all Serbs from both Bosnia and Serbia.

But the actual key event is Ban Matej Ninoslav (13th century) that openly refered to his people being none other than Serbs.

Now Damir, how can you claim after this that the people of Medieval Bosnia didn't have at least a small Serbian feeling? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)