User talk:Bbik/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Any further discussions should go on the article's talk page.

Golubac translations/clarifications

Translation (Stari Grad Golubac)

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)

Part of the translation

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)

Because of current responsibilities at college, and because I'm not very motivated, I haven't made this site the way it ought to be and the way I expect it to be. So, if you want to help, tell me about it. Thanks for understanding. --VKokielov 03:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

sentence

"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)

Yes, it doesn't make sense indeed; some part is either missing, or the author forgot how the sentence began when he was about to complete it ([1]). (And, btw, conjoined spelling of "ne može" and split spelling of "ne zapaženi" later in the text are usually signs of low literacy skills :-( ). Duja► 12:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been questioning the reliability/accuracy of that page for a while... There are some other parts that don't really make sense either, though because of date/location conflicts rather than wording -- the whole pariski letter paragraph, for one (Is it really referring to Kotor/Gulf of Kotor getting tithes, as far away as it is? Or is there another similarly named place a bit closer, which I can't find mention of anywhere?). I've been trying to find confirmation in other places for the information I'm taking from it, but with so little out there (at least, so little that I can find), it's difficult, and it covers an almost entirely separate timeframe as the other pages, too. It's quite impressive how much semi-related Serbian history I've been learning while trying to sort it all out. And I thought adding a bit more information to the article would be quick and easy! -Bbik 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's definitively the Bay of Kotor/Diocese of Kotor, which has been a strong cultural and trading centre during much of the history, and the site of Catholic bishopry (along with Archdiocese of Bar/Tivari). It's possible that its influence reached so far north at the time, but I wouldn't trust that page either... Duja► 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Golubac (Serbian Wiki)

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)

Must be your lucky day... I just got that text transliterated from Cyrillic into Latin. Working on a translation now... might be a while though... few hours at least. -- xompanthy 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... I started working on this. You can find what I translated so far at the subpage User:Xompanthy/golubac. It's past 11 PM here in Croatia, so I don't have time to do it all today. I'll probably add a bit more today though. Barring anything suddenly popping up, it will be done tomorrow. But I'm not guaranteeing anything. It will take more than a few hours to do this right, and I need to find the time. I should have the five-hours-or-so tomorrow, but anything can happen.

On a side note, the Serbian (Croatian too) language isn't all that English-friendly. Not to mention that that article isn't one of the best written ones or the fact I REALLY don't have time to make this a professional translation. So expect some errors, slightly strange sentences and whatnot.

Cheers. -- xompanthy 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I can't believe it. A Latinica tab? Great... Goes to show how a lot of code can be replaced with just using common sense...

Anyway, I just read through the entire Golubac article on the Serbian Wikipedia, and frankly, I doubt a lot of it will do you any good. Don't get me wrong, I can translate it, that's not the problem. It's just that the vast majority of text is "wall xyz connects towers # and #. It has a gate that leads to xyz2. Stairs can be found at xyz3, and they lead up wall xyz. etc..." Why would anyone put 10 paragraphs of THAT into an encyclopedia is beyond me. Actually, I believe it was taken out of a tour guide. The text goes with the numbered map, so people can explore the fortress. For now, I'll translate the "History" part, the "Golubac today" and the "Towers" section, and I'll do the other "wall from # to #" stuff if you say you need it.

OK? 'Cause I just don't see the point of the other stuff. Could be just me though... -- xompanthy 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The copyright status says the picture is in the public domain. I find that very strange, but hey, if it says so, it says so. And BTW, I can edit that picture in Photoshop and replace the Cyrillic with English if you need it. -- xompanthy 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The translation is now complete. -- xompanthy 12:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... the last two sections have no information that's not already present in the Serbian wiki. The Babakaj stone... Now, that "stone" is the best translation I could come up with, but it's more like "rock face", but that's not entirely accurate. You see, the original word, "stijena" does not have an equivalent in English. Here's how I understand it: there's a cliff on the opposite side of the ravine they called Babakaj, and they had a chain connected to it to control traffic. I have no idea how that was supposed to work though. I'm just telling you how I'm reading it. :)

Concerning tower 10... I think that that is the image of the Smederevo fort, though I really can't be sure. But if the picture is titled "Smederevo 1940", I think it's a safe bet. Now onto the church thing... the Orthodox church doesn't function like the Catholic church does. It's not unified across countries. Every country with an Orthodox main religion has their "own" orthodox "variation", so to speak. Country specific flavoring I guess you could call it. So a chapel of the Serbian orthodox church built with the fort itself is very solid proof the Serbs built it. And as far as I know, Hungary is Christian (I could very well be wrong, but anyway it doesn't matter).

Happy to help. -- xompanthy 21:33, 4 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)

The Kočina thing... frankly, I don't have a clue what that means. I'm fairly certain that it's a name, and not a general word. And concerning the bullet points, I incorporated any relevant information into the translation. That last italicized bit is just someone's unsourced comment (with weasel words) which I believe to be entirely incorrect. It says Lazar didn't hold the fort, but just the land around it. Don't put that in the article. I'm pretty sure it's wrong. -- xompanthy 12:45, 10 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.

”

There you go, the two paragraphs. I still believe this to be wrong (the fact that Lazar didn't conquer the fort), but now you can decide for yourself whether you will include this information in the article. -- xompanthy 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Wow, wasn't expecting anyone else to even notice all this, much less actually go digging through it. It makes no difference to me where I respond, so if here is easier for you, here it is! I was actually thinking last night that this perhaps should've taken place (or at least mostly) on the article talk page instead, but moving it all over there now seems a bit silly... Perhaps I'll stick something there linking here in case people are curious and want to see where specifically stuff came from.

So, is this Austro-Turkish war the same as the Dubica War (also no page, but linked from at least a few places) that I found mentioned a few times when I was trying to figure out what "Kočina krajina" was/find an internal link? Which is the more accepted name? -Bbik 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a historian, but from what I come by googling is the following:

• The war coincided with Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792), when Austria joined Russian efforts to overwhelm the Ottomans
• Serb volunteer squads played an important role, raising the rebellion (known as Kočina krajina, in northern Serbia) and assisting Austrian troops
• Austria and Serbs also entered Bosnia, weakly defended. Local Muslims tried to repel the invaders, but were defeated at Bosanska Dubica. Thus, only that part of the war was referred to as "Dubica War". A Google Book search result.
• Koča was caught by Turks and impaled 1788. The Austrians apparently weren't really serious in their attempt to overpower the Ottomans, and the war ended by Treaty of Sistova 1791, whereby the Turks preserved control over Serbia, but the road was already paved for the First Serbian Uprising in 1804.

Strangely, the most sources about the War come from Serbian and Bosnian historians; fairly little in English (a few sentences here). Otoh, it suggests that Austrians had problems with Prussians in the West, so they weren't able to fully enagage against the Ottomans. Duja► 09:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Golubac (again :))

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)

I would agree with the contract stuff working like that (in fact, it's about what I was thinking) except that it seems more than a little strange to have an agreement about returning Golubac first pop up 23 years after it was given to Stefan. That's the part that's catching me up.

As for 1417/1427... One of the German pages I found says that some historian (forget his name) puts the change at 1417, while "Hungarian sources" put it at 1427. Considering that everything seems to mention the Hungarian sources saying 1427, I think I'm just going to skip 1417 for now, but figured I'd double check just in case. -Bbik 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi; sorry for late reply: wikibreak, Real Life etc.

FWIW, here's an excerpt from V. Ćorović's "History of Serbs" that says (the paragraph starting with "Pitanje o nasledstvu"):

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?

And, on the next page:

...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

Hope this helps, Duja► 08:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

...and more on Golubac in the next paragraph:

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)"

Duja► 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See also here. Duja► 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WOW. I guess I have something to work on tonight after all! That's a lot of information to add in. And yes, it most definitely helps, for more than just the contract bit... It gives me more spelling variations to work with to see if I can find any sort of mention of names I couldn't find before. Oh and leno, of all things, actually helps me too. It turns up in the online dictionary I managed to find, unlike the German Lehen I came across a while ago (which didn't even show up in the dictionary on my shelf... and just now I realize I should've tried German wiki instead, because it works there). Both apparently mean fiefdom, which makes a lot more sense than the other options I was working with.

Slow response, wikibreak, RL, not a problem -- I have no complaints about waiting when it gets me a response like that. I'm glad you found this discussion in the first place, the extra bits you've found have been incredibly useful! Thanks! -Bbik 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Those two Rastko links aren't part of 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), are they? I can't quite tell if they're close enough as to be the same or not. -Bbik 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

They are indeed. This seems to be another edition (Glas Srpski, Banja Luka/Ars Libri, Belgrade, 1997); apparently the Internet edition is official, thus not a copyvio. Duja► 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Any chance that history says whether Jeremija got the 12,000 ducats from the Turks instead, or whether he gave it to them just to spite Sigismund not paying him? -Bbik 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems I didn't try all the spelling variations when I was googling the first time around. I've just found something saying that Hungary took Golubac in 1458, which would fit with the earlier history, but I'm not quite sure how it would work into the later history (though, that's ambiguous enough already that it's entirely possible). Any chance Rastko happens to mention anything around 1456/58-1481/82?

And while we're at it, any idea when specifically the peace of Szeged was signed and/or the Despotate was restored? Serbian Despotate mentions June 12, 1444, but I think I remember seeing a slightly different date somewhere else in wiki (though since I didn't note it, perhaps not). Is that date right, or should I just stick to the general year? -Bbik 01:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, one more thing. Is there anything else to be filled out for the reference? I'm getting better at picking out bits and pieces of things by now, but... This is a bit beyond me! :) It'll work fine as it is, but if there's more, completeness is always good, right? -Bbik 04:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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:

• Forward city (the lowest, X axis)
  • Upper part (higher, Z axis)
  • Lower part (lower, Z axis)
• Back city (higher than forward, X axis)
• Upper city (higher, completely at the back, X axis)

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)

Okay... so I'm guessing you didn't get the axis thing :). Have a look at Cartesian coordinate system (in particular this picture here [3]), you will probably figure out what I was trying to say. Anyway, your picture is EXACTLY as I'm guessing the city is divided. So we're on the same page. Again, I apologize for the axis analogy, it seems I have been doing way too much math in my life... -- xompanthy 14:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The wall part -- yes, past tense
• Second wall -- yes, present tense
• Barracks -- exactly as I wrote it, there IS a building that probably WAS a barracks.
• Balcony -- yes, it's still there. But it's a terrace, not a balcony. Sorry, I don't know how I mistranslated that one.
• The buildings -- I don't know, it doesn't say. I'd say it never had them in the first place.
• Upper city/part -- the original text says city, not part, but I would say that's a typo. It doesn't make sense if it's not...
• Tower 10 -- city as in Golubac
• Port/harbor -- Croatian/Serbian does not differentiate between the two (at least the word luka doesn't). So I honestly wouldn't know.
• Ditch -- you're understanding it correctly. That's practically a word-for-word translation. I don't know why they did it, it just says they did. :)
• Tower 8 -- always used in the present. Does say it's somewhat lower than the other towers though.
• Moat -- you could be right. I honestly think the whole moat is below the waterline.

Hope that helps. -- xompanthy 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Caption: "Layout of Golubac fort, made by Aleksandar Deroko." I really like the article BTW. And no, sadly I don't know the answers to those questions. Keep up the good work. -- xompanthy 21:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Golubac fortress

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)

Greetings from Vienna

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)

Golubac (references)

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:

• Aleksandar Deroko, „Средњевековни градови у Србији,Црној Гори и Македонији“, Belgrade 1950 (Serbian)
• Aleksandar Deroko, „Medieval Castles on the Danube“, Belgrade 1964 (in English)

If you have any more question,I`m here.Great job you did with the article.

CrniBombarder!!! (†) 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)