Alternative history: Yugoslavia

I'm not up too speed on the former Yugoslavia, so what does 'putvjernika' mean? Based on the way it is used I'm guessing I'd rather not have it in my search history.

 

I suppose it is this site: http://www.putvjernika.com/

I cannot read anything there, but i suspect it is some sort of muslim-centered Bosnian forum (?)

 

Its a jihadist website thats really really bad. Mr.Srdjan is trying to imply im a Wahabbi nationalist Bosniak, so so far from the truth.

 

Really. Good for You, if You are not. Even thought I am not sure for nationalistic Bosniak. Even more when I read Your thoughts about the co citizens in Republic of Srpska. I bet that You think that they fate are on tractors.
Anyway, that movement doesn't have any future. Nor this nice pseudo historic text which You have written few posts above.

You know You Bosniak internet warriors are very funny. When someone even mention Bosnia, you almost instantly post a long post with pseudo history which nobody heard of. Of course then You start to write about genocide, 200k dead etc.
Even more funnier/sad is when You see Bosniak/Muslim forums. Somehow, I always conclude that Mr. Obama, Ms. Merkel or else of them are in fact almost get illness from worrying about Bosniaks.

 

Okay this is getting awful.

1. Your english is kind of bad (no offense) I truly dont understand the fate are on tractors part.
2. Im no "internet warrior"....I'm just having a nice conversation, I have many (the majority) non Bosnian linked conversations on this nice forum
3. My post wasn't that long
4. You started the history debate...you think anyone heard of Karadzic? Our history is rather "minor" compared to that of other nations [the minor meaning that less attention is payed to it in academia rather than its less valuable]
5. Its not pseudo history. You can check all of the facts. I used a Serbian credible author. I dont know how to make it seem more credible. As I see it you have no credible response so you are backing down by calling me a Wahabbi.
6. I never mentioned any genocide in my conversation with you
7. Implying everyone from Bosnia visits one forum or that all are the same.
8. Putin cares about Serbs...right. Its all about interest nobody real cares about anyone.

 

It was my impression that the majority of the inhabitants of Bosnia at this time were Orthodox, with a minority being Bogomilists and that the Bogomilists were routinely driven to the hills and other more obscure areas by the Catholics/Orthodox.

 

Common misconception [Thank you Paradox]. No Bosnian king/ban was Orthodox. Bosnian kings were either Bogumil (majority) or Catholic (during the end of the Kingdoms lifespan). There aren't any orthodox churches in Bosnia proper, only Bogomil or Catholic churches. Crusades were launched on Bosnia because of the large number of bogomils. Stecaks (tombstones specific to the bogumil faith) can be found all over Bosnia. There were orthodox followers but they were a minority. The majority usually moved around Catholic-Bogumil...depending on the time frame. Bosnias most important royal cities (Bobovac, Jajce, Visoko, Fojnica...) all contain bogomil churches so saying that it was in the obscure areas is pretty false. Once again I quote Simo Cirković in saying that the Orthodox faith was in the border areas of Bosnia or the newly conquered lands while Catholicism and Bogomilism were in Bosnia proper and fluctuated depending on the circumstances and rulers.

 

@ to all. Sorry for my bad english. It is not my native.
@innonimatu sorry for topic hijacking it was not my intention


Nedim. In that time, religion was a political matter and it was not so rare to see conversion from Orthodox into Catholic or vise versa. For instance. The founder of the Nemanjic dynasty was baptized as Catholic. Later he converted into Orthodox. Almost 200 years later tsar Dusan negotiated with Pope about conversion of whole Serbia into Catholicism. Bosnia was a mess. Bosnia rulers was relatives of the feudal families in Serbia and Croatia. Depending of political circumstances, in some occasions they recognized Pope as supreme, in other they are close with Byzantine or they were more independent regarding religion.
As for Bogumils. They were a sect originally from Bulgaria. During the XII century they spread into Serbia also. When Sava Nemanjic become a head of Orthodox church in Serbia, state policy was to expel them. Some of them, in my opinion minority converted into Orthodox, but the majority had flee into Bosnia.
Claim that there is no Orthodox churches in Bosnia proper is simply false. As for Bosnia king, You know that first Bosnia king Tvrtko is crowned in Mileseva monastery. Of course this was from political reasons. Tvrtko desire was actually crown of Nemanjic dynasty, since he was in a lineage for succession by mothers side.

As for Mr. Simo Cirković, yes he was a respected historian and member of SANU. However, some of his claims are not generally accepted. Especially his claims that Balsic family and Crnojevic family originates from France or were Illyrian. As for religion mater on Bosnia and spread of Orthodox church there, basically he was right. Just You forget to mention that border areas of medieval Bosnia and present day Bosnia are not nearly the same.

As for me, this discussion about religion is over. In my opinion if futile and does not prove anything.
Oh yes. Regarding tractors. I think that You know very well what is about. But if You need clarification please PM me.

 

1. I agree relations and dynasties were important in medieval times. Religion was a political tool. You can find the full list of rulers and you'll see only Bogomils and Catholics.
2. Bosnia took bogomil refugees not just from Serbia but from various other places (including the place the originated, Bulgaria)
3. There were no churches in Bosnia proper. Bosnia proper was essentially the flow of the Bosna river with the rivers Spreca and Usora. None from medieval times have been found there. The only ones that have been found were in Eastern Bosnia (Drina River) and Sout Eastern Bosnia (Zahumlje and further into Sandzak and Zeta).
4. Yes Tvrtko was related to Serbian royalty and inherited the crown. There is a debate among historians whether it was actually in Mileševa or Mile (Near Visoko). The date and place of the crowning doesn't come from direct church records but from a political document. It says Mile monastery, at that time Mileševa had been the only known site with a similar name and it was located in Serbia so everyone went along with it. But Mile near Visoko was dug up and it was realized that it was the location of the royal tombs and all of Tvrtkos closer family (that died before or during his rule are buried there) It was also a Catholic monastery, so the chances are it could've been the location of the crowning. Thats open to debate and the answer wont change much we can agree everything was done for pure politics.
5. If I get the time I'll scan and upload his map (from 1998) of all of the medieval religious institutions in Bosnia. Medieval Bosnia had its stages like any kingdom. Bosnia proper is as I said before the flow of the Bosnia river, Usora, Spreca....to the east to the Drina river and to the west Vrbas and Sana rivers (Donji krajevi). Basically Bosnia during the reign of Ban Kulin.
6. I agree talking about Medieval religions and trying to link them with a modern Nationalist idea leads to nothing.
7. I'm hinting its linked to Oluja. Since whenever I hear that I think of Serbs fleeing on tractors (the videos of such).

 

Sorry for once coming back to this OT, but... :

I could not resist to post this:


Link to video.

 

what a

what really happened was this
serbs felt cheated because yugoslavia wasn't great serbia, and the first issue at hand was vojvodina and kosovo autonomies (considering which, serbs did have valid arguments in place... for example, vojvodina representatives enacting laws in serbia, and at the same time those laws not applying in vojvodina)

during 70s and especially 80s there was a struggle between moderates and extremes in communist party of serbia on the question how to reintegrate vojvodina and kosovo (notice how, not if)
extremist won once miloshevich became their leader

vojvodina and kosovo were forced into union with serbia, new serbian constitution was put in place in 1990 which made serbia an independent nation - yugoslav constitution and institutions were no longer > local serbian, tarifs were imposed on slovenia etc.

so, yugoslavia fell apart by serbian secession in 1990., and all that remained to bee seen is how will army react
army (bunch of hard core communists) joined miloshevich in the end, because he was still a communist, even thou he was now a national communist

and because extremist won in 1980s serbia, it was nothing strange they wanted more than just vojvodina and kosovo

 

mutual interest, croats and slovene need help with italy, serb need to back up their claims for what is today central/northern vojvodina against hungarians etc.
it seem like a good idea for a year or two

what are you smoking?

also, they called themselves Muslim at the time

he composed a grammar, and had nothing to do with alphabet
also, he composed a grammar based on a croatian dialect, using older croatian grammars and croatian literal works

 

to sum it up, crucial period is 1980s belgrade
in order for yugoslavia to survive, you need:
a) a victory of the moderates in the communist party of serbia
b) strong enough communist part to win the free elections without becoming extremist serbian communist party

the trick is, you can have one, bot not both

to sum the war(s)
albanian independence - somewhat legitimate goals, somewhat legitimate methods
serbian great serbia - unlegitimate goals, unlegitimate methods
muslim dominated bosnia - unlegitimate goals, despicable methods
serbian movement in bosnia - mostly legitimate goals, despicable methods
croatian movement in bosnia - legitimate goals, mostly legitimate methods
serbian rebelion in croatia - somewhat legitimate goals, despicable methods
croatian war - legitimate goals, legitimate methods
slovenian independence - legitimate goals, legitimate methods

to sum it even more up, you people don't have a clue

 

^I noticed that whenever Croatia is mentioned, it is soon followed at least once by the term "legitimate".

 

>Bosnia has a referendum in which 98% vote yes (UN and EU monitors) for an independent Bosnia of equal ethnicities (many in the Bosnian army and government were not muslim, in fact most important commanders and politicians, its a pure lie and fabrication to say that Bosnian independence was only a Muslim struggle)
>Despicible methods, illegitimate goals (a Republic with equal citizens)
>Croat movement in Bosnia, armed rebellion to "liberate" catholic parts of Bosnia into greater Croatia
>Legitimate methods (armed rebellion), legitimate goals (occupying a part of a UN member state and then annexing it into another state)
>Serb movement in Bosnia, armed rebellion to "liberate" orthodox parts of Bosnia into greater Serbia
>Legitimate methods (armed rebellion), legitimate goals (occupying a part of a UN member state and then annexing it into another state)
>Greater Serbia not legitimate.....but Serb revolt fueled by such ideology and goal legit

I lol'd so hard. Do you see your logical fallacy? Also implying Yugoslavia could've survived.

EDIT; I forgot - Bosnian Army; despicable methods but the lowest number of members indicted by the Hague tribunal.

 

So, a Serb, a Bosnian, and a Croat walk into a thread...

 

yeah...
bosnian muslims never really had the concept of equality of others, they were/are all in for the muslim state (notice muslim in muslim state) and they were/are continuously rejecting even rather pathetic suggestions of autonomy at the local level and decentralization

also, I honestly don't care if something is internationally recognized state, UN member nation or whatever

both Serbs and Croats in Bosnia had legitimate right for armed rebelion and/or dissolution of BIH

if you notice thou mosty merged with Serbian in BIH, they had no legitimate right to take... almost everything

 

truth hurts?

 

I hate it when people distort the truth on every side. Seriously, such thinking makes us look like a bunch of animals wrestling in the mud because of crumbs. I think we can all agree, that it would've been much much better if every republic got its independence, held its original constitution and did not experience revolts or war. Anyone who says opposite is just plain wrong. Any aggressor on any UN memberstate (those being The Republic of Slovenia, The Republic of Croatia, Republic of Bosnia and the FRY) be it the quasi states of Srpska Krajina, Herceg-Bosna, Republika Srpska and etc, cannot be justified. Neither can the aggression of one UN memberstate on another.

 

Oh gawd...why.
Please explain this, a defenition of a muslim state:

That means the following:
1. Implemention of sharia - The Republic of Bosnia had complete civil law during its existence.
2. Every senior government member is a sunni muslim - Bosnian general staff: Jovan Divljak (Orthodox) and Stjepan Šiber (Catholic)
3. If you are implying a Muslim state in the sense the state would push some islamization agenda....you are insane.
4. Grouping Bosnian muslims as a hivemind....lol
5. The autonomy principle is a lie. The regional and municipality system would remain absolutely the same as it was in the SFRJ. There was no gerrymandering. The government was willing to discuss the problem in parliament but the Serb parties withdrew and setup enclaves.
5. You are exhibiting another fallacy. You wish not to recognize the real situation and the UN verdict yet you seem competent to claim the legitimacy of certain nations and groups. I see no better way to exhibit the legitimacy of a country/government than a seat in the UN
6. See above. Armed rebellions against a newly accepted fully democratic member of the UN is never legitimate
7. I do not understand the last statement.