Talk:Bošnjani

rephrasing

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)

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)

nice, at least provide one source for all these ridiculous claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.59.165 (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Written by Manuel Comnenus’ secretary, the chronicler Kinnamos, (probably in the 1180s): ‘Bosnia does not obey the grand župan of the Serbs; it is a neighboring people with its own customs and government.’ Kinnamos also noted that Bosnia was separated from Serbia by the river Drina.

No one denies the Serbs in Bosnia. The Eastern Bosnian regions were inhabited by Serbs, just like East Herzegovina. Yes, those kings, from Tvrtko on, were also kings of all Serbs, but only because Tvrtko's mother Elisabeth was a Serb princess. Not because the Bosnjani and Serbs were the same people. Elisabeth's mother, Catherine was a Hungarian princess, dauhter of the Hungarian King and a Turkic noblewomen. So Tvrtko was 1/4 part Serbian and was therfore an heir to the serbian crown, and became the king of serbs. That is all correct but does not indicate that only serbs lived in Bosnia. Bosnjani were close to the serbs, but not the same nation. Look at the Fojnica Grbovnik: 'Rodoslovie bosanskoga aliti ilirickoga i sarpskoga vladania zaiedno postavljeno po Stanislavu Rubcicu popu, na slavu Stipana Nemanjica cara Sarbljena i Bosnjana 1340.' It clearly makes a difference between the Bosnians and Serbs. If they were all Serbs why would the mention bothe the Serbs (Sarbljena) and the Bosnians (Bosnjana), all equally and in the same way, not one in an ethnic and the other in a regional way. The Bosnian, Illirian and Serbian rulers are also mentiond. I do not know what 'aliti' stands for. If it stands for 'ali i' then the Bosnian Illirian and Serbian are equal to one other, but if aliti means both, then Bosnian stands for Illirian and Serb. I think aliti is the opposite of niti, and stands for the first. Maybe someone knows the exact meaning of the word. Also noto that the Bosnjaks today are for the largest part descended from the Illyrians, more then the Serbs. You mention Ninoslav, yes he wrote to Dubrovnik, indicating that he was responsible for the trial of Vlahs who harmed Serbs, and Dubrovnik's knez for the trial of Serbs who harmed Vlahs. Ban Ninoslav wrote in his edicts from 1240 and 1249 to Dubrovnik where he mentioned 3 sorts of people: Mi-narod u Bosni -"nasi ljudie",Vi-"Dubrovcani" i Oni-"srblji i Vlasi" He first makes an arangement for his own people, mi- nasi ljudie and makes himself the competent court for his own people (Bosnjani). After that he writes the same words as you mentioned, about the serbs and the vlachs, but as a secondairy part of the agreement. he clearly destinguishes the Bosnjani from the Serbs and the Dubrovcani from the Vlachs. So no one denies the serbs in Bosnia, but next and after the Bosnjani. and Ninoslav also mentions that the Dubrovcani should feel free in Hum, in one of his edicts, so I believe that his edicts on the Vlachs and Serbs, was in the first place meant for the relations of the peoples in Hum, because of the many Serbs, Dubrovcani and Vlachs living there. Ban Kulin had already given such a statement, but without mentioning Serbs and Vlahs. The Serb-being of the Bosnians was not present with Ban Kulin. The distinction between Serbs and Vlachs came from Rascia to Bosnia. I've also read other Bosnian rulers' edicts to Dubrovnik and they also only mention Bosnjani and Dubrovcani as main people of the agreement. Keep in mind that a large portion of the today serb genes are not actually slavic. a lot of non-serbs were serbified and became serbs even thou they were actually romanized balkan inhabitants like Illyrians, Vlachs....So again Ninoslav was referring to his serb inhabitants, because as i mentioned 'serbs' (how much were they real serbs and how much slavinized balkan-peoples?) did live in the eastern parts of Bosnia and eastern and southern (near dubrovnik) parts of Herzegovina. he was mostly referring to those people, near Dubrovnik, and not the Bosnjani from Zenica or the Bosnian mountains, because where would they interact with the Dubrovcani? y es, a kind of serb-feeling must have been present in some bosnian inhabitants, but other clearly lacked the serb-feeling, the serbs were one of the peoples living in Bosnia. Being a Serb thou has a lot to do with the feeling of one. people easily addopt another nationhood, like the balkan peoples who easily became Slavs. the way ones ruler defines himself and you as his inhabitant can have effect as well. rulers are known to switch too, sometimes to the nationality of the people they rule uopn (like the Belgian, Dutch or English royal house) or to a pan-nationhood, a neighbouring country's nationhood, or an ally's nationhood. However one feels, our genes tell us that we are not homogeneous, and that sometimes we're even not genetically who we think and feel we are, as in the case of the balkan slavs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.81.244.165 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Bosnjani's were actually ethnic group at that time

They called themselves Bosnjani because at that time they were under Bosnian kingdom. Before that they were Croats and Serbs, but afterwards they became Bosnjani because of different ruler, also they were most likely Bogomils, as most of historians agree. Being Serb, Bosniak or Croat in Middle Age is completely different than nowadays. People considered themselves as part of kingdom which ruled over them at that time. Most of them were Slavs anyway, the same people just different rulers and ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.19.94 (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Serb ethnonym

The Serb ethnonym was used for Bosnia in Early medieval sources; in the 10th-century De Administrando Imperio, and presumably in the 9th-century Royal Frankish Annals. It should be noted that in the Middle Ages the term Bošnjani was primarily a demonym. Matej Ninoslav indeed used the Serb ethnonym. Although Stjepan II used Bošnjani, he called the language Serbian, and the Serbian emperor "Rascian", as Stjepan II too ruled over Serbs, stressing that he was not subordinate Serbia.--Zoupan 19:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)