Talk:House of Balšić

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the House of Balšić article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] The Balšić/Balshaj clearly come from a French dynasty, the Baux

I have a book from the author François Lenormant which is the biggest proof of this. Lenormant explains in it how a member of a French dynasty from the south of France came to Albania during the Middle Age, how his descendants became slavicized and came to power after the death of the Serbian ruler Stefan Dusan. The book is called 'Deux dynasties françaises chez les Slaves méridionaux aux quatorzième et douzième siècles', François Lenormant, 1861. A translation of this somewhat long title could be 'Two french dynasties within the Southern Slavs during the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries' (I'm really sorry for my English). I could develop the article on the House of Balsic using the material provided by this book, unfortunately my English is too bad to do that. But I will eventually do it for the French article (which doesn't exist yet). So, Balša/Balsha is absolutely not of Balkan origin, neither Serbian nor Albanian. Oh, and Balša III built a coastal residence near Herceg-Novi during the fifteenth century. The place became known as Baošići and it's now a small Montenegrin village bearing the same old name. Knowing that the French surname "Baux" was pronounced "bao" and considering Lenormant's work, I think we don't need to look further. Knowledge can be lost, all the false theories surrounding the origin of the name Balšić/Balshaj considering that a French historian knew its real origin 150 years before is a clear evidence of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.60.25 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahm actually, no. We know that. There were countless theories on the Balsics' origin, found in the French, Provencal, Italian and other dynasties - all just guessings. However, we're certain that they're not of Serbian origin, nor Albanian. The modern most accepted school (and most logical) is that they're of Vlach origin, although this comes with reserve as well. --PaxEquilibrium 11:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
So you don't know anything about the Balšić's origin, particulary if you say they are of Vlach origin without any proof of that and especially because you are saying that there are countless theories about their French/Provencal/Italian origin. Why? Because the only source for these countless theories is Lenormant's work, which was used by many scholars after him, often without referring to him. The book I mentioned is clearly documented about the relations between the Balšić and the Baux. Lenormant used a lot, I mean A LOT of material to write his book. In fact, the Baux where a French family from Provence. They moved to the Italian territories dominated by the Anjou, who where also a French family. The Anjou had a Kingdom in Albania at that time (during the 13th century). Many French noblemen settled there too, and Bertrand de Baux was one of them. From him came all the Balšić, but some time later so the link between Bertrand de Baux and his descendants was lost. However the Balšić used primarily the same coat of arms as the Baux, which was a star before it became a wolf. There are so many other informations in this book... The problem is that it was never translated in English neither in Serbian nor Albanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.60.25 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes it was, in Serbo-Croat. I've read it and numerous other theories on the Balsics' origins. Their totally unknown origin made all kinds of historians to search at the Western nobility their origin, the one you mentioned isn't the only one. But this is all that which it is - guessing, because their origin is unknown. I don't understand why you mention Albanian so much?
Even according to a Montenegrin Novak Adzic (here) "Najnovija naučna istraživanja govore da porijeklo Balšića jeste od slaviziranih Vlaha (Iliro - Romana)" or in English: "Most recent scientific research tells that the origin of the Balsics is of slavicized Vlachs (Illyro - Romans)". The same thing is claimed by Serbian historian Andrija Veselinovic in his book on Serb dynasties. The "History of the Serb People" encyclopedia, they're most probably of Vlach origin. The Historical lexicon of Montenegro writes about one of the many (unproven) theories of the family's origin - precisely the one which you claim. From 1272 to 1280 is dated the alleged move of the Baux family from France, and then connecting it with the Mate Balsic from May of 1304. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If this particular book was translated in Serbo-Croatian, and if you read it as you said, please tell me what was his title in Serbo-Croatian. And as you read it, you can tell me which was the other family who was from a French origin according to Lenormant. Why I mention Albania so much? It is because the history of the Balšić is linked with Albania as well as Montenegro and Serbia. If you read this book, you should know that. All the authors you mention don't give any proof of the Vlach ascendance of the Balšić family. They juste say that "the Balšić are probably of Vlach origin". Probably, yes, probably, that's so scientific, and so balkanic. People in the Balkans are so centered on their small nations that they can't imagine that a "glorious noble family" could have an origin other than theirs. And if they can imagine that, it is often to say they are ...ized Vlach and that's all. The fact that pseudo-historians say that the Balšić were of a Vlach origin is first because most of the time they didn't read Lenormant, wich is understandable, and second because they don't want to say they were Albanian (which, in fact, they were not). Oh and what the "Historical lexicon to Montenegro" says about the Baux directly comes from Lenormant's book, written in 1861. Lenormant was indeed the first to find the link between the Baux and the Balšić. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.60.25 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I said that didn't I? ;)
You shouldn't insult these historians just because they claim something with which you do not agree. This would make most modern researchers "pseudo-historians".
All I'm saying is that there are numerous theories. If you refer to this article itself, you should notice that the theory on the French/Provencal origin already is in the article, just like the other theories I mentioned, e.g. Italian/Neapolitan origin ("del Balzo"). Finally a current argues Gothic origins. It's all very known to me, so I do not understand what is your point. All theories should be pointed out, as they are right now.
BTW I do not understand what you are trying to say "People in the Balkans are so centered on their small nations that they can't imagine that a "glorious noble family" could have an origin other than theirs. And if they can imagine that, it is often to say they are ...ized Vlach and that's all., since that is what they are doing exactly - acknowledging their most probably Vlach origin. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with him, I read the French book he mentioned which is fortunately available on Google books in pdf format. Actually, the Italian/Neapolitan and the French/Provencal theories are the same. In fact, del Balzo is just the italianized de Baux name. From what I read in the book, a guy called Bertrand de Baux settled in Durazzo (modern Durrës) when the Kindgom of Albania was dominated by the French dynasty of the Angevins. It is clear for Lenormant that the Balsic were his descendants, for many reasons: they beared a coat of arms very similar to that of the Baux; at a moment the Pope sent a letter to one of the leader of the Balsic calling him del Balzo; the Balsic had strong links with Helena of Anjou. I think Lenormant is right, but as you said PaxEquilibrium, we should keep in mind that this is still a theory, for the simple reason that the link between Bertrand de Baux and the Balsic is still uncleared. For the Vlach theory however, there are no arguments. Moreover, the root Balsh doesn't mean anything in the Vlach language. So I really think this guy, or I should say Lenormant because in fact he's the one who discovered the supposed link between the Balsic and the Baux, is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.115.177.41 (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegrin or Serbian

Here, I'll start a topic for the discussion, then. Figure something out, you two, because this daily reverting is silly. And play nice. --CrnaGora 10:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd gladly discuss over. Personally I thought that presented sources in the article themselves speak enough.
However I don't know to what extent is Critika1's good will. He called 5 times users so far "Chetniks" (racist ethnic slur), including me, ignores all warnings and you well alone know what he's doing at the Montenegrin language article. --PaxEquilibrium 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argument

First off, I want to say that I don't see what precisely makes the Balshics "Montenegrin". Sure, they are a part of Montenegrin history, but they most definitely do not historically belong to that part (perhaps the Crnojevics do, but he does not). I myself do not understand the division of Montenegrins on "real Montenegrins" and "Serbs" and think that the 200,000 Serbs should return themselves to what they were (Montenegrins) before they ticked "Serb" on the 2003 census, to end this troublesome rift amongst the Montenegrin people, but who am I to tell people who/what they are? It's just as so that I cannot see that sometimes, the Serbian identity that is cannot be separated from Montenegrin history is openly denied (nationalist arguments if Montenegrins are "really Serbs" do not speak in support of this - anyone is whatever he wants to be, and I'm convinced that most of us will have Illyrian blood, rather than Slavic!)

To point at the beginning - the Balsics were obviously of non-Slavic origins. The theory on the Vlach origin is perhaps the most true one - in which case the family was Slavicized due to the impressive culture of the Serbian Kingdom/Empire (Vlachs were easily subjected to assimilation).

In the times of dying-out Doclea and the age of Zeta, there were 4 peoples altogether in Montenegro, as testified by King Stefan Milutin, by Jelena Balsic, by Stefan Decanski, by Ivan Crnojevic, by Djuradj Balsic, by princess Milica and by Stefan Uros: Serbs, Albanians, Latins (sometimes called Romans) and Vlachs. Taking to granted the Balsics were Vlachs, then they probably assimilated into Serbs.

Next point: Đurađ I of Zeta was the one who convened the Council of the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1375, "disappointed in the lack of organization in the Serbian people".

Critika expressed how they cannot be Serbs because they separated from Serbia - I'll answer with a counter-question: Why did Kosovo under the Brankovics separate Serbia? Why did Moravia under the Lazarevics separate? Why did in the feudal anarchy all that remain remained Macedonia of the Mrnjavcevics?

I'll upload the coins that the Balsics forged (I think I have a photo of one somewhere) and it says "Serb Lords, the Balsics".

In the very end, the Balsics desired a reunification of Serbia and Balša III left Zeta in heritage of the Serbian Despot, whom he saw as the possible re-forger of the lost Serbian realm.

So if nothing, it makes at least insane to remove the categories from the article.

P.S. I do not now what is more weirder, this which is Critika1 doing in here - or User:Nikola Smolenski removing Montenegrin from Nicholas I of Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Encyclopedia Britannica:

Although the Serbs have come to be identified closely with the Eastern Orthodox tradition of Christianity, it is an important indication of the continuing marginality of Zeta that Michael, the first of its rulers to claim the title king, had this honour bestowed on him by Pope Gregory VII in 1077. It was only under the later Nemanjic rulers that the ecclesiastical allegiance of the Serbs to Constantinople was finally confirmed. On the death of Stefan Dusan in 1355, the Nemanjic empire began to crumble, and its holdings were divided among the knez (prince) Lazar Hrebeljanovic, the short-lived Bosnian state of Tvrtko I (reigned 1353-91), and a semi-independent chiefdom of Zeta under the house of Balsa, with its capital at Skadar. Serb disunity coincided fatefully with the arrival in the Balkans of the Ottoman armies, and in 1389 Lazar fell to the forces of Sultan Murad I at the Battle of Kosovo.
After the Balsic dynasty died out in 1421, the focus of Serb resistance shifted northward to Zabljak (south of Podgorica). There a chieftain named Stefan Crnojevic set up his capital. Stefan was succeeded by Ivan the Black, who, in the unlikely setting of this barren and broken landscape and pressed by advancing Ottoman armies, created in his court a remarkable if fragile centre of civilization. Ivan's son Djuradj built a monastery at Cetinje, founding there the see of a bishopric, and imported from Venice a printing press that produced after 1493 some of the earliest books in the Cyrillic script. During the reign of Djuradj, Zeta came to be more widely known as Montenegro (this Venetian form of the Italian Monte Nero is a translation of the Serbian Crna Gora, "Black Mountain"). --PaxEquilibrium 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting information from "History of Montenegro" recorded by the Metropolitan of Cetinje:

Турски изасланици све казаше своме цару Аркану < Оркану > , који изненада по ноћи на Србље удари: кнеза Вука с породицом убише, и изгибе много српске војске, због чега син му Марко побјеже турском цару, а Србљи поставише кнеза Лазара себи за господара. На овом избору била је сва српска господа, осим зетског и црногорског херцега, који је у то вријеме био Баоша син Страцимиров, а војводство је примио послије Јована Првог херцега, који је пак потицао из породице кнеза Вукана, сина Симеона Немање, и звао се Јован Први Црнојевић.

In the very end (taking to granted the Serbian Church and all), it seems perfectly sane to put "Serbian" in the article, even if their ancestors were one day Croats like User:Red Croat claims. --PaxEquilibrium 16:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since User:Bbik criticized me (;), I'm gonna try to translate this:

The Turkish emissaries told everything to their tsar Arkan < Orkhan >, who surprisingly in the night stroke the Servians; knez Vuk with his family murdered, and great part of the serbian army killed, because of which son of him Marko fled to the Turkish czar, and the Servians put knez Lazar for their lord. On this election the entire serb lordship was present, except the zetan and montenegrin herzog, who in that time was Balsha, son of Stracimir, and the Dukedom he received after John the First herzog, who descended from the family of knez Vukan, son of Stefan Nemanja, and his name was John < Ivan > the First Crnojevic. --PaxEquilibrium 16:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


---There was no evidence to suggest they wanted to unite with raskia/serbia, they are not serbs, but zetans/dukljans/montenegrins whatever you want to call us, duklja and zeta as well as montenegro have always had independence for long periods of time, and this is because of the fact that montenegrins are not the same as serbs.

But please explain the arguments I exposed...
Do not simply revert on a non-regular basis. --PaxEquilibrium 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
4 ethnic groups in duklja, the Dukljans being the "latins" who were slavic-speaking catholics, who were converted by stefan nemanja when he annexed Duklja, i believe todays Montenegrins to be the descendents of these people
The balsici where either albanian or vlach origin, and promoted a independent zeta, you cannot deny this, there is nothing serbian about them, except the fact that they spoke a dialect of it, to me they are a symbol of the present day Montenegrin identity - which is heavily mixed with croatian and albanian cultures(mixing of tribes, croatian names/last names)
All this said I view the Balsici as Montenegrins although in those times they would be "Zetan" or "Dukljan"
First of all it was "Serbs"; or just "Slavs", if you refer to ancient Doclea. Second of all, they weren't all Catholics - a large part of them was Orthodox. Third, Stefan Nemanja did not annex Duklja (what's more he expanded its territories), and he did not convert the Doclean populace to Orthodoxy. And lastly and most importantly - what has this got to do with the Balshichs? BTW, only a small part of present-day Montenegrins descends from the Docleans.
Yes, they are most likely of Vlach origin. However they never created an independent realm - when the concept of a "Serbian Empire" died (in 1395), they very soon annexed their remains to a re-unified Serbian Despotate (in 1427).
However, historiography remembers them as a Serbian dynasty - because that's what they were - as I presented to the up. The Balsics are not a symbol of present-day Montenegrin identity at all; not at all. --PaxEquilibrium 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Duklja was in effect "Red Croatia" not-serb whatsoever, so please get your facts straight, thats why today Montenegrins view themselves seperate from serbs, because in effect they are
Not vlach origin, but Albanian origin, "Balshaj" is a common albanian last name and has meaning in albanian, not to mention vlachs are not found much in Montenegro/Zeta, this theory is much more sound and makes sense considering Montenegro's history
History does not remember them as a serbian dynasty, You do, not history or true Montenegrins, They were Zetan/Dukljan rulers and were descended from Montenegrin-Albanians a.k.a Malsores(in albanian), note im not albanian but Montenegrin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.195.98.160 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
AFAIK, mainstream historiography does as I presented you to the above. That includes the Encyclopedia Britannica (several versions of it), LaRousse Encyclopedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Brockhaus Encyclopedia - including numerous records (a.k.a. all of them) of Montenegrin historiography from the 14th to the 20th century. This has nothing to do with me, because if I did that, I'd be violating WP:NOR, one of Wikipedia's most important rules. No, they're not from Malisoris - the Malisori were clans that have had absolutely nothing to do with medieval ruling dynasties of Montenegro (which were in the 14th century, you've missed for some centuries I'm afraid). On the side note, your edits (especially the unexplained removal of categories) look very much like vandalism, could you please stop it? Also saying that there's no reference - without referring to the sources I exposed to the up - is very naughty too. Thus, I am reverting your changes.
If you disagree with anything, bring up the discussion to here, and source it to back your words, lest they'll end up (like now) down to exactly that which you're accusing me right now - original research. Cheers, and cool off man. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am very interested what do you consider by "true Montenegrins"? Historical governments in Montenegro have used that expression for Montenegrins who are *true Serbian patriots*, but I'm not sure you mean that fallacious opinion... --PaxEquilibrium 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and you're from Irvine, California - so I guess you're neither Albanian nor Montenegrin. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
May I point out that you don't have to be born in Montenegro to be Montenegrin. To be Montenegrin, you have to have Montenegrin ancestry. May I remind you that many Montenegrins live in the USA and are also born there and yet, they still consider themselves to be either Montenegrin or Montenegrin-American. This is also the case in other countries like Germany, France, etc. --CrnaGora 18:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I was only joking (no bad faith intended) on Critika1's account.
Look what he's saying. He's practically saying that medieval Montenegro was a "Croatian state, whose rulers were Albanians". --PaxEquilibrium 21:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)