Talk:Tvrtko I of Bosnia/Archive 1

Untitled
Tvrtko and Lazar together eliminated Nikola Altomanović, lord of western Serbia. They were supported by Hungarian troops. Lazar was never vassal of Murad I.


 * Will correct that. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done --HolyRomanEmperor 19:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Stjepan
Hi. I do not agree with the use of the name Stefan. It should be Stjepan. All Bosnian bans have been using that name since Stjepan I Kotromanic. Yet you seem to ignore that fact and choose to state that he took name Stefan to bear resamblance to serbian kings. It is obvious to me that the use of the name Stefan has one sole purpose and that is making bosnian history look more "serbian". I do intend to change name back to Stjepan. Please if you do not agree answer here. Regards --EmirA 18:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is mo doubt that all Bosnian rulers bearing the name Stehpen were called Stepan, or more acurratly, Stjepan; but Tvrtko's addition was solely as a continuation to another dynasty, the House of Nemanjic, which used the Stefan variant.


 * Therefore, ofcourse I do not object if you note that "Stjepan" is a naturalized version of his title. Feel free to add it into the article (not replace). All the best, my friend! --HolyRomanEmperor 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again,

You are a bit contradictory. Firstly, you agree with me on that all rulers of Bosnia have been using name Stjepan ("...There is no doubt that all Bosnian rulers bearing the name Stephen....") than you state that it is not okay to replace Stefan ("Feel free to add it into the article (not replace)...").

As I already mentioned as all other members of his family he was named Stephen (Stjepan) so at his coronation he was already named Stephen and thus couldn't take that name to resemble Nemanjic family. So his proper name, Stjepan should be used here.

Altough I think you have overally done good job on this article I think there are several big problems in the article. Because of these I think that the neutrality of the article can be disputed.

"Tvrtko's subjects were Serbs"

What are you basing this assumption on? Serbs are an ethnic group that define themselves on a basis of their common heritage, religion and history. None of these apply for the Bosnia at the Tvrtkos time. Firstly most of the Tvrtko land was inhabited by the catholics and members of bosnian church. Only orthodox people in bosnian teritory were in the Hum region. (Sources: N. Malcolm, Bosnia a Short History, V Skaric, Srpski Pravoslavni u Sarajevu, D. Mandic Etnicka povijest Bosne). Thus religion does not apply.

Lets look at the two other factors I mentioned. Firstly, History. At this point there is no common history between people of Bosnia and Serbia. Yes the ruling families sometimes married eachother but this is not anything exceptional as this was common practice between ruling families in Europe. Serbian kingdom never ruled any parts of Bosnia nor did the Bosnian kingdom rule any parts of Serbia.

Third factor I mentioned is heritage. I guess that we can both agree on that bosniacs, slovenes, croats, serbs etc. are south slavs and thus do have more or less same language. Problem here is that you are automatically assuming that all south slavs are serbs. I could also do the same thing and assume that all south slavs are croats or bosniacs and both of us would be equally right. It is impossible to impose todays concept of nationality on the people of 13th century.

I think that the point that his subjects were serbs can be dismissed. Indeed there are no people in Bosnia who declare themselves as serbs before 19th century (Source: N. Malcolm).

"plans to rebuild the Serbian Realm."

What are you basing this assumption on? Can you please provide any sources? If Tvrtko's aim was to rebuild Dusans empire he would have expanded eastwards. Yet there are no signs of this. His war efforts were mainly in the south of Bosnia proper (against Balsic family, Venice, Hungary...). So imho this is only a speculation on your part.

I have placed "neutrality" on the article untill we resolve this issue.

Regards --EmirA 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply

 * Hello again, my friend!


 * Well, basicly, the name that Tvrtko beared was not domestic. That's the main point. It is not OK to replace Stephen. Let's say if you were born as George Imamović. Would you translate your name to Đorđe, Đurađ or Juraj Imamović? The only reason why he was crowned was because of the die-out of the House of Nemanjić dynasty; he was the sole heir to them, and so he claimed their title (Stefan) and added their demesne (Kingdom of Serbia) to his own realm of Bosnia. Stjepan is simply a naturalized version of the name as some contemporary historians translated it.


 * Note also, that I took this from a Bosniak sourse: Najistaknutiji Bošnjaci. In the Bosnian language:


 * U manastiru Mileševo kod Prijepolja, Tvrtko I se vjerovatno oktobra 1377 godine okrunio za kralja "Srbljem i Bosne i Primorju i Zapadnim Stranam" te počeo "s Bogom kraljevati." Istovremeno je svom narodnom imenu, čisto iz državnopravnih razloga, dodao i ime "Stefan", koje su simbolično nosili svi srpski vladari, pa tako i dvostruki vladar Bosne i Srbije. Ime Stefan je značilo "vjenčani," (onaj koji je krunisan). To je i u Bosni postalo tradicijom, pa su ga poslije Tvrtka I svom imenu dodavali svi bosanski kraljevi. Tvrtko se krunisao u Mileševu jer je htjeo da ojača svoj uticaj i na tamošnje Srblje.


 * In the English language:
 * In the Monastery of Mileševa near Prijepolje, Tvrtko I was probably crowned in October of 1377 as "King of Serbs and Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands", so he began to "rule with God". At the same time, to his national name, purely out of political reasons, he added the name Stefan, which was symbolicly worn by all Serbian rulers, and so did the double ruler of Bosnia and Serbia. The name Stefan meant "crowned" (the One who is crowned). That became a tradition in Bosnia, so after Tvrtko I this name was added by all Bosnian Kings. Tvrtko was crowned in Mileševa because he wanted to increase his influence over Serbia.

Now, about the second fact - there is no dispute that Tvrtko's subject's were Serbs. I simply evaded to say (number) of his sujects were Serbs, or something similiar, because that is a matter of controversy. However, the notage that some of his subjects (no matter how many) were Serbs and that this was a basis for the crowning is undisputable. For instance, it is known that Orthodox Serbs lived in the Hum region and populated parts of eastern Bosnia - so it is certain to an extent. And one of those you mentioned can apply to Tvrtko's time - religion. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No one decalred as Serbs before the 19th century? But that's not quitte correct. The Serbian Kingdom, true, never ruled parts of Bosnia, except for the Drina area and Herzegovina. However, the Bosnian Kingdom did rule parts of both historical and present-day Serbia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea what you meant when you said that all South Slavs are Serbs - only if you count the theory that "Serbs" was the common name of all Slavs :)


 * Now, about the plan to rebuild Nemanjic's Realm. Firstly, he assessed the Nemanyid name (Stefan), rather than using his own (Tvrtko). Secondly, took the crown of Serbia next to his native crown of Bosnia; thirdly, he was involved in one of the most important occasions of the late 14th century - the Battle of Kossovo, where the Christian Europe stood united against the Ottoman Turks. After the battle, it is Tvrtko's Monasteries rang and spread the word of victory to Nothre-Dame, and it is Tvrtko who cherished the victory as his own, as his was the Highest-ranking Liege, despite losing nearly the entire Bosnian force at the battlefield. Next of all, he fought a war against Nikola Altomanović together with Lazar Hrebeljanović in an effort to crush the Drina area that separated Bosnia and Serbia. After that, the House of Lazarević members bowed to him and he was glad that order was restored. In return, Lazar would rule Serbia in Tvrtko's name. The only other involvements with the Serbs that Tvrtko had were conflicts with the House of Balšić and helping Lazar fight his enemies in Serbia.


 * Here's a quotation from a book I found written by Andrija Veselinović and Radoš Ljušić - Serbian dynasties:
 * ''In the meantime, after the death of Tsar Uroš in 1371, when the direct line of the Serbian House of Nemanjić was extinct, and the Empire crumbled, Ban Tvrtko perceived an ambition to revive the Serbian Monarchy.


 * Also, you ough to check out Želko Frajić's book: Kotromanići. Especially take a look at the sections on Tvtko (here and here).


 * All the best wishes! I believe it is OK to remove the Tag now? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply (2)

 * Hi HRE. I've written your comments and then my below them

Well, basicly, the name that Tvrtko beared was not domestic. That's the main point. It is not OK to replace Stephen. Let's say if you were born as George Imamović. Would you translate your name to Đorđe, Đurađ or Juraj Imamović? The only reason why he was crowned was because of the die-out of the House of Nemanjić dynasty; he was the sole heir to them, and so he claimed their title (Stefan) and added their demesne (Kingdom of Serbia) to his own realm of Bosnia. Stjepan is simply a naturalized version of the name as some contemporary historians translated it.


 * I am not trying to replace Stephen. What I object to is using of Stefan version. I believe that it should be Stjepan. Yet we are probably not going to agree on this so I suggest compromise as I see was reached on other articles on Kotromanic family where english name Stephen was used. Offcourse there should be note that Serbian historians interpret this name as Stefan while Bosnian and Croatian as Stjepan.

Now, about the second fact - there is no dispute that Tvrtko's subject's were Serbs. I simply evaded to say (number) of his sujects were Serbs, or something similiar, because that is a matter of controversy. However, the notage that some of his subjects (no matter how many) were Serbs and that this was a basis for the crowning is undisputable. For instance, it is known that Orthodox Serbs lived in the Hum region and populated parts of eastern Bosnia - so it is certain to an extent. And one of those you mentioned can apply to Tvrtko's time - religion


 * That's exactly the problem. You know that the question of nationality of his subjects is controversial yet you ignore this and state Tvrtko's subjects were Serbs. This implies that all of his subjects were serbs.


 * Second problem here (which actually doesn't matter in this discussion) is that you are applying 19th century concept of nationality on 14th century. However I do agree that population of Hum were orthodox slavs. Anyway this doesn't matter here.


 * I think that the statement Tvrtko's subjects were serbs needs to be reworded and there needs to be explanation that this issue is HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL and explanation on why it is controversial.

No one decalred as Serbs before the 19th century? But that's not quitte correct. The Serbian Kingdom, true, never ruled parts of Bosnia, except for the Drina area and Herzegovina. However, the Bosnian Kingdom did rule parts of both historical and present-day Serbia.


 * I was talking about modern day Bosnia. We should probably not start this discussion here as it is not important for this article.

Now, about the plan to rebuild Nemanjic's Realm. Firstly, he assessed the Nemanyid name (Stefan), rather than using his own (Tvrtko). Secondly, took the crown of Serbia next to his native crown of Bosnia; thirdly, he was involved in one of the most important occasions of the late 14th century - the Battle of Kossovo, where the Christian Europe stood united against the Ottoman Turks. After the battle, it is Tvrtko's Monasteries rang and spread the word of victory to Nothre-Dame, and it is Tvrtko who cherished the victory as his own, as his was the Highest-ranking Liege, despite losing nearly the entire Bosnian force at the battlefield. Next of all, he fought a war against Nikola Altomanović together with Lazar Hrebeljanović in an effort to crush the Drina area that separated Bosnia and Serbia. After that, the House of Lazarević members bowed to him and he was glad that order was restored. In return, Lazar would rule Serbia in Tvrtko's name. The only other involvements with the Serbs that Tvrtko had were conflicts with the House of Balšić and helping Lazar fight his enemies in Serbia.


 * I really don't see how assessing Nemanyid name has anything to do with trying to restore Serbian empire. It was common practice for european monarchs to claim as many titles as they could. For example one of the official titles of ottoman sultan was sultan y romi (probably wrong spelling) which is Roman emporer. Another example is hungarian kings started using title King of Bosnia after Bosnia fell to Ottomans.


 * When it comes to Battle of Kosovo there is perfectly natural explanation on why Bosnia was involved. Bosnia was raided by Ottomans since early 14th century. Also if Serbia fell Bosnia would be next target. Some historians even claim that Bosnia was the main objective for Ottomans because of the highly productive silver mines in Srebrenica area. Thus bosnian involvment should strictly be viewed as geopolitical decision and not will for restoration of Serbian empire.


 * You can not view Altamanovics teritories as less Serbia than Hrebljenovics, Balsics or Brankovic territories. All of these feudal lords got these territories thanks to the collapse of Serbian empire. Bosnia bordered to Balsics and Altamanovics territories and were in war with these. Tvrtko was naturally allied with Hrebljenovic as he was the natural enemy of other serbian families. Thus Tvrtko crushing Altamanovic is simple war for territories and not war for restoration of Serbian Empire. Also Hrebljenovic did not care for Tvrtko because he was preoccupied with Ottomans. Even the link you provided states that:


 * "Pragmatični knez Lazar je očekivao sukobe sa Turcima, pa mu je sa te strane trebala Tvrtkova pomoć i stoga nije želeo da zateže odnose zarad titule, koja u svojoj suštini, barem u odnosu na Srbiju, ne znači skoro ništa." (Pragmatic Lord Lazar was waiting for battles against Turks and needed Tvrtko's help and did not want to worsen their ties because of the title that when it came to Serbia didn't mean anything)

U manastiru Mileševo kod Prijepolja, Tvrtko I se vjerovatno oktobra 1377 godine okrunio za kralja "Srbljem i Bosne i Primorju i Zapadnim Stranam" te počeo.....

In english:

In the Monastery of Mileševa near Prijepolje, Tvrtko I was probably crowned in October of 1377 as "King of Serbs and Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands", so he beg....


 * Your translation is faulty. It says "King of Serbia..." not "King of Serbs..". This is another error in article. Translation of "Srblje" has been highly controversial. Latin version of the same edict says "“rex Rasciae, Bossinae,…”- not “Rascianorum” or “Serborum”. Also Srblje has been highly debated among yugoslav historians and conclusion has been reached that it is not ethnic designation. I have noticed that you have been involved in this discussion on other article about Bosnia so you are quite aware of this issue. Yet you have nowhere in this article explained that this is controversial issue and that only serbians historians today think that Srbljem means Serb.

I believe it is OK to remove the Tag now?


 * Sorry but it is not okay to remove neutrality tag. We need to resolve these issues first. I hope that we can work out these issues as fast as possible as I believe that we both want good article. Regards --EmirA 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I provided to you a full-detail explaination and link for the Stefan title from the List of famous Bosniaks. Did you read it?

2. Why do you keep mentioning the 19th century? The subject of the sentence is rulling the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King. So, let us say that Tvrtko's realm was 88% Chinese and had one city that was populated by Serbs - still he ruled the Serbs. I'm just showing that in order to a King of Serbs, you have tu rule some. I suggest that you rephrase that part, if you find it controversal, but it only states that rulling over the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King...


 * As I said before we seem to agree. Only problem I have is phrasing. Thus I will rephrase it and paste it here before changing the article. So we both can agree on it.

3. Everything about this was political. If you were the sole heir to a powerful German Emperor, please tell me that you wouldn't attempt to claim the title. Tvrtko just did it, because he could do it and was entitled to do it. However, I disagree that Bosnia was raided by the Ottomans since the beginning of the 14th century - they only just got to the Balkan peninsular. How could they reach Bosnia? In shorter notice, the factual ruler of Serbia was Prince Lazar, but the supreme ruler was none other (in paper or other way), Tvrtko. As I stated the sole reason was to connect Bosnia and Serbia - to crush the brigde connected by Nikola Altomanovic. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the supreme ruler was Tvrtko but as you yourself stated he was only supreme ruler on paper. Now you also agree that he was not fighting other rulers and that he never had any political power nor that he did try to exercise political power.. How can you then claim that he was trying to restore serbian empire? Claiming title is one thing. It is something else to start war and try to create new "serbian empire".


 * About raiding. Sorry my mistake. Bosnia was raided for the first time in 1388 when ottomans entered Hum but they were defeated by bosnian forces under Vlatko Vukovics command. Anyway Tvrtko must have been aware of battle of Marica and Ottoman advancement in Balkans.

You said Srblje. Didn't you mean Srbljem? This is, I believe, the Instrumental (kim?čim) od zbirne imenice Srblji. However, the Latin version of his title doesn't really exist... It was actual a whole different title. The King of Serbs has nothing to do with ethnic conotations. This is long before the 19th century age of romantic nationalism and cannot be applied to the same. Anyone that mentions that as some sort of a proof that Bosnia was ethnicly Serbian, is claiming a POV fact - and probably essentially false. The King of Serbs title was used by the Nemanjic dynasty rulers since 1217. The only problem was that the bosnian title was "of Bosnia" and serbian "of Serbs", which made some Serbian historians consider that he was actually refering to Bosnia as a Serbian Kingdom - a historical concotion. However, the title "King of Serbia" was first used in 1882. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Latin version does exist. Anyway on everything else I do agree with you. Yet the problem here is that:
 * 1) "of Serbs" is not explained. You explained it quite well above yet there is no explanation of this in the article.
 * 2) It should be mentioned that "of serbs" is disputed and that "of serbs" is one of the two interpretations.


 * I'm going to be absent from wikipedia for a week but as soon as I return I am going to rework controversial parts of the article and present it here for you. If you find it acceptable we can change the article. If not we can use it as a starting point. I hope that this is acceptable for you. Regards --EmirA 21:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad that I can agree with you. :D I'll leave you to re-phrase that part - although don't forget that it's a pre-requisite for crowning. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Title
I guess that the "King of Serbs" controversy can be noted. Just - let me here place the info to source/explain it. The problem is that a "Kingdom of Serbia" didn't exist back then - and the only designation of the Nemanyid Monarch was "King of Serbs", or, if we speak which territories he ruled, "King of Rascia, Doclea/Zeta, Travunia, Zahumlje and Dalmatia". I haven't seen the Latin version, and would be glad if you could supply it to me. However, if they ever interpreted it that way, there is a good explaination - it's not the only example. In tha Latin scrypts (like those to the Republic of Ragusa), Tsar Stefan Dusan is reffered to as Imperator Romaniae et Rasciae - a concotion compared to his domestic title Emperor of Greeks and Serbs. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Damir's edits
I apologize, but I have rv your edits Damir; here are the rasons:

1. You removed the link to Jelena Šubić

2. You removed Tvrtko's title. The title is this way presented by most neutral and primary sources - some Serb nationalists have connected this as to they claim Bosnia's ethnicity (Serbian) - highly incorrect. This, sadly, met a responce of many biased Croatian & Bosniak historians who claim this "Serbia" instead of "Serbs" - a fabrication, I must say. It cannot and I won't allow it - to change according to some modern historical interpretations - Tvrtko's title has to be as he had it. Additionally, the "Kralj Srbljem" is translated to English most correctly as "King to the Serbs", but, as the latter part of his title - King to Bosnia would have the same meaning as King of Bosnia, it's correct as well to leave it as "of". For those who need sources, please review this entire talk page and Talk:Serbs_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

3. You removed the land of his Serbian forefathers. There is nothing POV here - but those are exactly Tvrtko's quoted words. Here's an exerpt:


 * Also me too, my slave (correct translation: God's servant), for the mercy of my divinity giftedth me with divinity youth implanted in kin mine and giveth me with the double crown to both realms rule, first from the first in the God-given land of Bosnia, and then - when Lord God bestowed me the heritage over the throne of my forefathers, Serbian Lords, because those were my forefathers in the Earthal Empire reigned and to the Kingdom of Heaven crossed - I see the land of the forefathers of mine after them lefted and not having their own shepherd. And I went to the Serbian Land, wishing and willing to acceed the throne of my forefathers. And there leftedth I crowned was by the God-given Crown of the Kingdom of my forefathers, to be in Jesus Christ's name faithful and God-imlaced Stephen, King of Serbs and Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands

4. You changed Muslims to Turks. Why? It's highly likely that Turks were only one of the largest contigents of the Sultan's Army? That Battle was grand - and clear. To decide the fight one way or the other. Islam vs Christianity.

5. "independent south slavic territories" instead of Christian Europe? How, when Pope bestowed Tvrtko what he is - the Defender of the Christian world against the comming, ehm, "infidel", as Tvrtko liked to call them - Muslims.

6. The fact that Vlatko Vukovic and Sankvics were considered Bosnian Serbian nobility isn't disputed - that's what historians from Tvrtko's time tell (please see the sources to the bottom) as well as the fact that the Sankvocis were Orthodox Serbs. :)

7. As for the "fact" parts - well, just skim up the sources to the bottom. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Back
Hi, HRE, I will be editing article as I indicated above and will present it here on discussion page. Sorry for the delay. --EmirA 13:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again,

I reviewed our whole discussion and read the article several times. I even read your discussion with Damir above. Here are my suggestions on how we need to rework this article. I would like to know if you agree.

1) Firstly, one remark about your discussion above with Damir. Imo this is not that important but it would improve article. Word "muslims" when talking about ottomans should be changed into ottomans unless it is a direct quote. Ottoman is more correct for an encylopedia. I know that people at the time probably called Ottomans turks or muslims but that is unimportant as Ottoman is the most correct name.

2) Secondly, we talked about whole Stjepan vs. Stefan issue. My conclusion is that the easiest way to solve this issue is to use english name - Stephen. This is nothing unusual, most of the european monarch names are usually localised - e.g. french Louis becomes Ludvig in german language, english Henry becomes Henrik in swedish and so on. Here is my suggestion on how it can be done:

After he became the King he added the title Stephanos (Stefan, the crowned one), and Miroslav or Mircea.

should be changed into following:

After he became the King, he added the title Stephanos (bs: Stjepan, sr. Stefan) and Miroslav or Mircea.

Later on all occurances of Stefan and Stjepan should be changed into Stephen.

3) Third issue in the article was "king of serbs". We concluded following in our discussion:


 * This question is highly controversial. Serbian historians think that the correct translation is "of serbs" while it seems that the general conclusion among historians in former Yugoslavia was that it meant "of Serbia". Also todays bosnian and croatian historians do not agree with "of serbs" translation.


 * King of Serbs is not what it might seem to be. Your quote:

"The King of Serbs has nothing to do with ethnic conotations. This is long before the 19th century age of romantic nationalism and cannot be applied to the same. Anyone that mentions that as some sort of a proof that Bosnia was ethnicly Serbian, is claiming a POV fact - and probably essentially false."

Thus imo solution to this issue is quite simple. We should present both views and let the reader decide what is right and what is wrong.

My suggesition is:

Tvrtko's title was "King of Serbs and Bosnia".

should be changed into:

Tvrtko's title was according to some historians "King of Serbs and Bosnia" and according to other historians "King of Serbia and Bosnia". This translation disrepancy has to do with the different interpretation of the old slavonic word "srbljem". Anyway it is commonly agreed that if the "King of Serbs" is right translation it has nothing to do with ethnic canotation. It is simply the title used by the rulers of Serbia.

4) Fourth issue, which even Damir touched briefly, was mentioning of Vlatko Vukovic as serb. I have to admit that I haven't checked your reference list but it seems to me very wierd that Vukovic is referenced as a serb. Are you sure you are not using outdated (national romantic) litterature? Concept of nationality wasn't even developed that early. But as I said I haven't checked your litterature list so I wont be making an issue out of this.

5) Fifth issue was our discussion on "rebuilding of the serbian realm". Basicaly I had two problems with this part of the article. Firstly formulation that he was trying to rebuild serbian realm. As can be understood from our discussion above you think that assessing Nemanjid name is supporting this formulation while I disagree because I think that "collecting" crowns was common european practice at the time. Second problem was usage of following wording "His subjects were serbs". Condensed discussion from above (Mine comments are inlined):

---
 * Tvrtko's subjects were Serbs?? What are you basing this assumption on? Serbs are an ethnic group that define themselves on a basis of their common heritage, religion and history. None of these apply for the Bosnia at the Tvrtkos time. Firstly most of the Tvrtko land was inhabited by the catholics and members of bosnian church. Only orthodox people in bosnian teritory were in the Hum region. (Sources: N. Malcolm, Bosnia a Short History, V Skaric, Srpski Pravoslavni u Sarajevu, D. Mandic Etnicka povijest Bosne). Thus religion does not apply.

Now, about the second fact - there is no dispute that Tvrtko's subject's were Serbs. I simply evaded to say (number) of his sujects were Serbs, or something similiar, because that is a matter of controversy. However, the notage that some of his subjects (no matter how many) were Serbs and that this was a basis for the crowning is undisputable. For instance, it is known that Orthodox Serbs lived in the Hum region and populated parts of eastern Bosnia - so it is certain to an extent. And one of those you mentioned can apply to Tvrtko's time - religion


 * That's exactly the problem. You know that the question of nationality of his subjects is controversial yet you ignore this and state Tvrtko's subjects were Serbs. This implies that all of his subjects were serbs.

The subject of the sentence is rulling the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King. So, let us say that Tvrtko's realm was 88% Chinese and had one city that was populated by Serbs - still he ruled the Serbs. I'm just showing that in order to a King of Serbs, you have tu rule some. I suggest that you rephrase that part, if you find it controversal, but it only states that rulling over the Serbs is a pre-requisite to become a Serbian King

Here is my suggestion on how we need to rephrase this part. From:

Tvrtko had, parallel with Prince Lazar, plans to rebuild the Serbian Realm. He fulfilled three key conditions to become the Serbian ruler
 * Tvrtko was the remaining heir of the sacronist House of Nemanjic
 * Tvrtko's subjects were Serbs
 * Tvrtko ruled numerous lands which were the demesne of the House of Nemanjic

To:

By assuming the title as King of Serbia / King of serbs, Tvrtko hoped according to some serbian historians (citation needed), parallel with Prince Lazar, to lay claim on all serbian lands. According to the same historians his claim was based on following
 * Tvrtko was the remaining heir of the sacronist House of Nemanjic
 * Some of Tvrtko's subjects were Serbs
 * Tvrtko ruled numerous lands which were the demesne of the House of Nemanjic

So what do you think of my suggestion. Please notify me on my talk page when you are finished. Regards Emir --EmirA 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Emir's issues

 * 1) First, you must understand that it's a little hard to talk about it since I understand it might be highly offendive to the Bosniak people - who are all adherents of Islam (Tvrtko is I believe the greatest Bosniak national hero). The reason is that in truth - Tvrtko was fighting to save Christianity from the invading Islam - and nowhere else in the article are the Muslims portrayed as his "sacred" enemies (I know the offensive issue when regarding the Bosniaks, but if you remove the only thing???). Indeed, non-Ottoman Muslims were in the battle (which a sort of a Jihad, like the Crusades of the Europeans throughout the early middle ages). Essentially, I agree with you, you can freely replace it with "Ottomans", however, two notes: 1) You will have to mention it elsewhere and 2) You will negate my source (Dubrovnik Archive) which exactly calls Bosnia's enemy that way (I actually put it there on purpose, to be in correspondence with the source).


 * 2) Both agree (English) and disagree (Stjepan). You make a good point everywhere except on one place (bs:, sr:) Last time I checked, neither the Bosnian nor the Serbian language existed back then. :D And even if it did, you would be wrong, for it would've been "Stefan" in Bosnian as well.


 * 3) This is the heaviest point of my edits. To me - it's not so controversal as it seems (unlike to almost everyone around me). Quote: "Serbian historians think that the correct translation is "of serbs" while it seems that the general conclusion among historians in former Yugoslavia was that it meant "of Serbia"." Depends whome historian you're talking about. This is simply a matter of sources and interpretation, rather than ethnicity. You'll notice that Ivo Andric (a kind of a writer-historian) doesn't negate that fact, nor brilliant national-romantic Croatian historians like Ferdo Sisic. The last noting is that the Serbian sources (and Bosniak and Croatian) sometimes misinterpret "of Serbia". For instance, in the simplyfied history tought in elementary schools mentions "of Serbia", whereas in High School it's "of Serbs", and the College gives a detailed investigation of the title. It's all a matter of accuracy. Regarding that most international and reliable sources (the Britannica Encyclopedia, among others (this one's British, for everyone that doesn't like I've got German and French and other)) consider the title the way I put it, it would be generally falsly to consider it otherwise. However, I think that adding a footnote to note that possible transliteration is a progress.


 * I highly oppose your solution. It adds a controversy part that will AFAIC create controversies, rather than solve them. I believe that most surely we're talking about a fear that many have (mostly Bosniaks, albeit with a reason) of Serbian nationalism; a fear that someone will understand it ethnicly, rather than like a normal person (including me; at least I think so :). Don't try to support the existence of the funny-at-least-to-me "Serbopbobia". What many Bosniak and Croatian historians miss when talking about this, is that they negate that Tvrtko has anything to do with the Serbs - which is altogether a nonsence, since we can easily enough call him a Serb regarding the conditions of his life and also a Bosnian/k, and a German (the way I interpret it in religious socio-linguistics, I claim that there are no clear borders between nations and one simply cannot be only of a single nationality, but hey, that's only me).


 * 4) This really isn't a big matter and you can decide whatever I want. I took it from mostly sources contemporary to the Battle of Kossovo; they always call Vlatko one of the Serbian Dukes (while specificly excluding from the "Serb Dukes" Horvat, the commander of the Croatian volunteers to the battlefield) and the fact that the House of Kosaca deserves to be called a "Serbian dynasty" speaks enough as well. However, it's your choice as I said.


 * 5) I think we have already resolved your first objection.


 * It is hard to speak who were "the most" and why would you want ever to group two instead of mentioning them all seperately. Historicly, Bosnian Christian Bogomils (more) and Orthodox Christians (less) formed the basis of Bosnia's population (especially the latter became a very large - and even troublesome regional majority after Stephen II of Kotroman's conquest of the Hum). As fully & thoroughly explained in each and every Kotromanich article (mostly my creations), Roman Catholic Christians were only a tiny City minority (Bosnia didn't have many and large cities), even though the rulling family (kind of) belonged to it. The Bogomil majority (which was absolute during Kulin's age) started to fade out gradually ever since with some episodes of restoration, but we know that Orthodox (Christian) Serbs lived in the Hum (from Cetina to Upper Drina) and that Orthodox Christians were always a minority in eastern Bosnia (influence of the SPC). If you see the map of Tvrtko's realm (with the additional conquests he made, including in his state almost all root Serbian lands), a great (greatest compared to others, perhaps?) part is inhabited by Serbs. the Roman Catholics became a significant part of the population because of the numerious Crusades of the Papacy and the Hungarian Kingdom on Bosnia (like during Kulin, Mathews Ninoslav and Stephen I Kotroman,...), with some of it's rulers being harsh prosecuters (like Stephen or Tvrtko,...) and the very powerful Franciscan Order that survived to-day and leads the spirituality of the Herzeg-Bosnian Croats (ever since Stephen II of Kotroman). Only Tvrtko's conquest to west and southwest included Catholics vastly. Also, I wouldn't use Dominic Mandic as a source; although he's a good historian, he tends to push Croatian POV by claiming that all Bosniaks/Muslims are of Croat origin, that Montenegrins are Orthodox Croats and Slovenes "semi-Croats". Literaly, he claims all of former Yugoslavia Croatian except for the Rashka region which he calls Serbian (and "Slavic" central Serbia, Kosovo, Metohia and Macedonia - by the way, he also talks of Croats in Macedonia and Albania).


 * And for other notes, common heritage? Yes, Bosnians and Serbs have had common heritage (even more common than with the Croats in some things). Religion? Ever heard of Orthodox Bosnians? History? Well, do please read my articles. :D


 * This implies that all of his subjects were serbs. How on earth does it? It might imply it that way to either 1. someone pro-Serbian that is most probably a Serbian nationalist or 2. Someone (heh, I know, but I rarely use this word, so let me please, OK? :) Serbo-phobic who actually has a fear that people might speculate it that way. However, I repeat myself - rephrase that bit, please; I am not the owner of this article, nor any other article on wikipedia (even though 95% is my wording, darn ;).


 * I've got to, though, to express several things that I don't really like (hope you don't mind me objectin'). First off, I put numerious sources to the bottom to support the thing which you claimed. Second of all, it's not claimed only by Serbian historians (only if you consider the ancient Ragusians Serbs) but by him himself. I think that you have actually misinterpreted the wording that I put. All I was trying to say was attempting to grasp and rule all Serb Lands and unifying them under one of his two crowns (he actually almost made it). Oh, and let me tell you one thingy: Tvrtko's subjects were Serbs is just a rephrasing of Tvrtko subjected the Serbs. You are free to braggle (did I just invent this word) as much as you'd like about this one; but I think that you failed my original idea. The idea was to actually put the misleading but correct info, so that people can come and view wikipedia open-folded. This way, we can stop both Serbian nationalists that might claim Tvrtko simply a Serb on one hand and Croatian and Bosniak nationalists trying to alienize him from anything Serbian on the other hand. My head is just too full of Balkanization to crack it further on this one.

Regards. --HRE 11:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to HRE
1) Hi, I think that most bosniacs do not find this issue offendive at all (at least those who have a clue about history). Anyway, as you explained you are using direct quotes from Dubrovnik archive and in that case I don't see any need in changing your wording.

2) I changed all occurences to Stephen (as agreed).

3) It doesn't matter if it is contreversial to you - it is controversial issue to the rest of community as you yourself have noted. Thus there needs to be a better explanation. Adding footing is not enough as most of the readers are going to miss it. And I really dont find it satisfying that one point of view should be in the article while the other point of view should be in the footing.

4) I'm removing the note as it only creates controversy.

5) I really have problem with your wording. But as you suggested I am going to change wording and to make it non controversial for all sides. I'll try doing this in a few days. Please leave comments about those changes here or on my talk page.

Imo we've solved points 1, 2, 4 and 5. What is left is issue nr. 3. Regards --EmirA 13:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see we are working in THE right way. --HarisM 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Emir - let me express that I simply adore your changes. However - I must correct you at several places:

1) Why did you decapitalize every "king" and "emperor"? The first character should large?

2) Why did you delete the "Bosnian Bogumils"? This way we had a BOTH links - to the Bosnian indiginous Church AND to the Bogumils!

3) And Jelisaveta had three sons: Stephen the Bosnian Ban, Ninoslav and Vladislav. Well, you've changed Stephen on one wrong place - this is the direct translation and it should be returned to Stefan

4) You have changed Tvrtko's conquests in Croatia (Livno, Duvno, Glamoc) to something rather weird - Zavrsje, which was conquered a LOONG time ago by Stepan II of the House of Kotroman from Serbia! :S

5) You changed "City" to "city" of Zadar - it was refering to the status of a "City", like Venice; thereby it has to be capitalized (it's not an ordinary "city")

6) "in" changed to "with" - this is somewhat errorous, as I mentioned. Unlike the Serbian allies who came to fight at the field (such as, for instance, the Croats) the Bosnian forces were subjected to Lazar's command and were never essentially a different corps that had to inter-coordinate. That is essentially the sole reason why some modern (and past) Serbian historians never mention "a Bosnian force/ally", merely "Serb from Bosnia reinforced Lazar's army", by the way

7) as in reality Ottomans were the one to benefit most from this battle - this sentence seems like "extra" put into the context and is rather unnecessary - and even disputable. We should remove it

And lastly, the Hungarian Army at Klis surrendered to Tvrtko personally, not just plainly to the Bosnian forces.

P. S. I hope I didn't make a big thing out of it. HRE 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Sorry for not answering earlier.

1) My error. I started changing those but realised that they should start with capital letters and then I missed changing them back.

2) Reason for deleting bosnian bogumils is that the "bogumil" theory is only one of many theories about bosnian church. Thus by using wording bosnian church we do not take stand on which theory is the right one. We only note that there is something called bosnian church.

3) Imo it should stay as it is but you can return it back if you want. Reason is that words like "bosanski ban" are adopted to english ("bosnian ban") so there is no reason for not adopting even names to english.

4) Towns of Livno, Duvno and Glamoč are located on three fields - Livanjsko, Duvanjsko and Glamočko. Area of this three fields is known as Tropolje or Završje. As far as I know this has never been part of any serbian state. Here are the links about Zavrsje region on bosnian and croatian wiki (http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropolje http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropolje).

5) Same as nr. 1, my error.

6) I'm currently on vacation so I do not have access to any books right now, yet as far as I remember bosnian forces were distinct corps under whole battle and operated on one of the flanks thus it should be with.

7) You can remove it but imo it should stay as it explains rapid decline of all non-ottoman balkan states after the battle of Kosovo. After the battle of Kosovo Ottomans were able to come in even larger numbers while all other balkan states never menaged to do that. Only reason for Ottoman withdrawal after that battle was that there was no clear succession order in Ottoman state thus Murats son withdrew to Anatolia to secure the crown.

8) I wanted to vary text a bit, thats why I changed to bosnian army. Almost every sentence contained words Stephen Tvrtko. You can change it back if you want.

Regards --EmirA 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

2) I beg to differ - this is yet another thing that is "arguable" over here and official in the world (the west): please see The Bogumils of Bulgaria and Bosnia

3) Hmm, not following you in 'ere, I'm afraid.

4) Well, isn't it more informed the other way? All three fields are noted - and it doesn't mix with the Serbian Zavrsje in the Drina.

6) I apologize, but I have to object - The Dubrovnik Archive (does Mauro Orbini mean anything to you, perhaps?) states that fact clearly. Could I see your counternoture - so that we can put both?

7) As I said - please connect that with Tvrtko. How?

8) Well, you are most welcome to do that :D But it should be returned here, because the gesture of their surrender to Tvrtko himself is a very nice historical moment (this way, we're not sure even if Tvrtko was there at all!) --HolyRomanEmperor 11:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mileševa or Mile (Visoko)
Ok, this should be resolved. Modern arheological and historical reshearch tells and verify that Tvrtko I and Stjepan II were crowned an burried in Mile, near Visoko. Read this - (Bosnian). I will put that fact, but will not wipe out posibility of that Tvrtko was crowned in Mileševa. I thik we should compromise and write that he was crowned in Mile or in Mileševa. Before any reply, please read that article in link that i provided. Just don't start same old story, I provided real facts, arheological artifacts, findings and so on. --HarisM 22:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite from Projekat Rastko:
 * Opet, oni su znali da je ta titula "prazna" u odnosu na Srbiju i da Tvrtko nikada neće ni pokušati da ih stavi pod svoju vlast. Osim toga, samo krunisanje je prošlo relativno nezapaženo (danas ne zna ni da li je krunisanje stvarno obavljeno u Mileševu ili na nekom drugom mestu) pa je veliko pitanje kada su u Srbiji saznali za njega i kako su ga stvarno shvatali

I didn't know on what this fact is based? On the HB.org it says that he was crowned in Mile, Visoko. And add as follows: ...iako postoji mogucnost da se kasnije okrunio i u Milesevu zbog politickog oportunizma. So what are we going to do? On another point we have so many arheological articrafts, proffs, and remains. I can photograph these if you want, i live close, in fact i have some pictures of Mile Church, ofcourse remains. Here you have another set of pictures, and also a lot of text to be read. --HarisM 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted, understood and will add. His crowning in Milesevo is based on primary sources (global, international encyclopediae), so I shall note that. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will accept this compromise for now. When i find more proofs (Anđelić's book and many others) i will add them and make it primary source. I mean, even Serbian site that speaks about Tvrko said: Today it is not known if the crowning even happend in Mileševa or someone else. I think it's only propaganda to make things somehow Serbian all-around, but i will not add more POV for this article, first i will find documentation, citatios and more material in global. Cheers! --HarisM 15:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Haris, primary sources are more important (for example, Encyclopedia Britannica, LaRousse, Brockhaus and all other say it was in Milesheva). I admit that there's a certain amount of possibility that he was crowned elsewhere (and then re-crowned in Milesheva), but as long as its new research it must stay in that context. So, I'll change the other way around. Not quite sure what you meant when you pointed "even Serbian site" nor which. Regards. --PaxEquilibrium 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. You just don't get it? Show me what evidence does Enxyclopedia Britannica and other sources uses? You will not remove my source, you will not. Source is provided, you didn't read it. Photos, evidences, artifacts, evrything is presented, and not by sme blogger or something. Please, I BEG YOU, be reasonable and real. Why you want to make complications out of everything and make edit wars?! You are not competent to remove official sources as Zemaljski Muzej that has over 100 years experience... you are just NOT. If you remove this source again, be sure that i will contact administrator for removing it, because that is verifiable source and comes from institution that is older than any wikipedian here. --HarisM 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Last but not least. Why are you ignoring my sources and evidences? Why are you ignoring modern archaeological excavations? Why are you ignoring the fact that says: There is no evidence that Tvrto was crowned in Milesheva?! --HarisM 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just plainly reverted your edit, I should not have done that (duh, I think that's one of the bad things I picked up from Emir Arven). Modern archaeological research is just that which it is; modern. What evidence do you want? You want to see from Encyclopedia Britannica's source? :D People mostly use it as a source, rather. :)) It's silly to consider that there's "no evidence" when that is generally the most known & most accepted information. :) Remember, Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I just want you to proportionally put it as a possibility (next to the traditional view). According to Wikipedia's sources, we have to respect the majority & reliable ones (over the minority). --PaxEquilibrium 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read sources I provided. --HarisM 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pax:

The reason Tvrtko crowned himself king of Serbia wasnt because he had plans to take the serbian crown nor because he was serb. The reason was because he wanted to get recognized as the Bosnian king by the Vatican and to get recognized he took not only the serbian crown, he took also the croatian crown, crown of the seaside, usora, and podrinje.

This clearly states that the crowns were not IMPORTANT and also there are clear evidence that Tvrtko later on REJECTED the serbian crown which also testifies of the little importance of this event. And Tvrtko was not a serb, he attacked serbian land and conquered them and made them Bosnian land and he clearly stated in his letters the difference between BOSNIAN and SERBIAN land.

Do you understand now?

And Tvrtko doesnt belong neither to the serbian nor croatian history, the king Tvrtko belongs to BOSNIAN and BOSNIAK history. Alkalada 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tvrtko's title
""Kralj Srbljem i Bosni i Primorju i Zapadnim Stranam""

- King Tvrtko's title

"You said Srblje. Didn't you mean Srbljem? This is, I believe, the Instrumental (kim?čim) od zbirne imenice Srblji."

- HolyRomanEmperor

All of them except Bosni are datives (kome/čemu): Srbljem, Primorju, Zapadnim Stranam ("king to Serbs, to Littoral, to the West Lands"; only the form Bosni is genitive - "the king of Bosnia"). And Srbljem is dative of Srblji (it is not a collective noun - zbirna imenica - but simply the plural form of a common noun). It does mean 'Serbs', not 'Serbia', as dative of Serbia would actually be Srblji not Srbljem. The form Srbljem from the grammatical point of view is pure dative of Srblji, '(the) Serbs'. But again, even though the form in question is the dative form of (the) Serbs, the country of Serbia was also sometimes referred to as "the Serbs", so this could also relate to Serbia as a country and not Serbs as a people (despite that it doesn't mean 'Serbia', but it can refer to it). So this is the point when linguists are done and the historians are about to reveal the further mystery. ;) --George D. Božović 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Alkalada
No one says he was Serb. And in the end that's all not important. What's important is that his crown was double "Bosnian" and "Serbian" - for the other lands (including Croatia) he only had titles and nothing else.

Tvtko never ever rejected the Serbian crown. The "Bosnian-Serbian Crown" stood up to the very end in 1463. Also, he made alliances with major Serbian dynasties to remove dissidents (Nikola Altomanovic) that did not recognize his rule, in the course of restoring the Serbian realm.

Also Tvrtko belongs by great part to both the Serbian and Croatian history; it's highly fallacious to claim that. How could especially then he belong to the Bosniak history?

Also please stop removing the "Serb" and "Croat" histories, (many of) the Kotromanics considered themselves Serbs and there's also a Croatian version of the story. --PaxEquilibrium 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I cant believe how many lies are written here. It's just simply disgusting to read all of it, taking my family-name and fighting over it for what I am, serb or croat. Fuck you all! To explain: I'm direct offspring from Kotromanic line, and I cannot understand why people try to make us Serb and Croats. The little I know from my past is that I am Bosnian, because we love Bosnia over anything else. I am not trying to make one or the other side feel bad or good. What I really am, and what my parents say I come from I will keep it a secret on this biggot-gathering-page because you all just make me feel sick. Both you x-yugo assholes spreading propaganda and you americans pretending to be objective. Have a nice day, if you ever can —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.121.235 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 May 2007

It's nice that you finally revealed to us that you're probably Emir Kotromanić, alias User:Emir Arven. ;) Oh and that you descend from them is highly impossible, you don't even pride on your Serbian origins! ;D --PaxEquilibrium 16:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont know who Emir Kotromanic is, nor do I care, because I dont have time to care if he is fake or not. However, admins of this site can check that out by the IP and onfirm if I am the same person than him, which I am not. So you are one of those serb trolls online, nice to meet you, baby. Keep rocking, I just hope youre happy with your shithistory when I have DNA to prove it youre wrong ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.121.235 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 May 2007

Firstly, sign your posts. Secondly, I am no troll. I protect Wikipedia from trolling. Thirdly, I have reverted your edit because it isn't correct. --PaxEquilibrium 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, just because people sign their posts it doesn't make them less of a troll. Everyone cam see my IP and see Im not a fake. Secondly, yes you are a troll, by what you typed to me. Thirdly, I will revert what you "corrected" because you are making you history truth which is not


 * Please, can someone stop this obstinate Serb!!!!! Please!!! I dont give flying fuck about serbs or croats and their nationalistic bullshit. Bosnian king was called Stjepan Tvrtko, its a croat name, but it's a bosnian king, please stop this serb from reverting it to serbian name of Stephen Steven Stefan or whatever :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.121.235 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 May 2007

Firstly, it's a rule to sign your posts. It has nothing to do with trolling, but with manners rather. And people will respect you more in general, less mistaking you for a simpleton troll or an ordinary vandal (ping: like I just have).

Secondly, please read WP:TROLL to understand the concept of trolling.

Thirdly, I am making no personal history, but plainly reverting your erroneous edit. If you disagree with something, show it here, rather than just saying "it's wrong" and changing to an essentially worse version. Express your arguments here, at the talk page. After all, that's what talk pages are for.


 * It bears not a Croat, but a Christian Slavic name.

And for last bit, please read WP:NPA. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited in Wikipedia. Comment the content and not the user. Please also read WP:CIVIL. Incivility and personal attacks directed against me a moment ago are not allowed. Usage of them can result in prevention from editing. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your looong post just proves my point. Even a blind person can see why you are doing this and why you are trying to ruin my rep, just read posts above. I am begging for some admin thats not from balkans to come here and rewiev this what user paxexuilibrium is doing to entire subject. I am not asking for anything but to display the real name of bosnian king. Now imagine the freaking comotion if I was to read all of it and try to make it true to historical happenings ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.121.235 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 May 2007

My posts are disappearing. I wrote a long explanation why this is happening and somehow its gone. Can somebidy stop this paxequilibrium guy or is it hopeless complaining because he seems to be the boss?


 * First of all I have nothing to do with disappearance of your posts. Please do not accuse me. I really have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please elaborate? The history shows that you didn't write anything (extra).


 * The real name of the Bosnian-Serbian King is displayed. --PaxEquilibrium 22:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephen/Stjepan
His name wasn't Stephen or Stjepan either. Ha was called Stipan (ikavian version of the name) in all Bosnian documents.--78.3.33.176 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Incorrect - see a Bosnian document. "Ja, Stefan Tvrtko". --PaxEquilibrium 16:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, translated from Latin by Serbians. In all originally Bosnian documents Stipan is the only confirmated version of that name. --78.3.14.197 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, from original Bosnian documents Stefan (Стефан). Of course not in Latin - all Bosnian documents were written in Cyrillic, never in Latin. --PaxEquilibrium 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the text from Tvrtko's edit (I converted to Latin, so most people could read it): Takođe i meni, svojemu rabu, za milost svojega božanstva darova procvetati mi mladici bogosadnoj u rodu mojem i udostoji me dvostrukim vencem da oboja vladičastva upravljam, prvo od isprva u bogodarovanoj nam zemlji Bosni, a potom - kad me je gospod bog udostojio naslediti presto mojih praroditelja, gospode srpske, jer ti behu moji praroditelji u zemaljskom carstvu carstvovali i na nebesno carstvo preselili se - vidim ja zemlju praroditelja mojih posle njih ostavljenu i ne imajući svojega pastira. I idoh u srpsku zemlju, želeći i hoteći ukrepiti presto roditelja mojih. I tamo otišavši venčan bih bogom darovanim vencem na kraljevstvo praroditelja mojih, da budem u Hristu Isusu blagoverni i bogom postavljeni Stefan, kralj Srbima i Bosni i Pomoriju i Zapadnim stranama. --PaxEquilibrium 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jes, taman, četnička politika. Bosanske povelje na ekavici, ma beži tamo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.11.166 (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Translation: Yeah, right. Chetnik policy. Bosnian edicts on ekavian, get out of here.


 * Write in English. All furthers down to transliteration of the "JAT" word - I had no idea if you were an ekavian or ijekavian, but I doubt you do not understand if you're an ijekavian (because so am I). --PaxEquilibrium 17:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 Interesting things: --Anto (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "original Bosnian " document is completely translated into modern Serbian-ekavian. Even if we convert this text into ijekavian it definitely can't be from Tvrtko's time
 * if the text is translated on this way how do you expect that we believe that only yat-reflex  was  changed.?? Sorry, We are not so naive!!

I do not understand what's interesting and, frankly (don't get offended) I thing you're being a bit far too touchy about me. Everything I put is sourced and (almost) never unchecked.

Tell me honestly, would you object as well if the text were in Croatian? Btw, here's the edict, you can read yourself the "Стефан" and anything else you'd be interested in. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The document is hardly readable. Very hard to see the name "Стефан". And I casn't see Tvrtko at all! It might be also document of some Serbian king. Where did you find it at all??

From here?

http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-bo/istorija/srednjivek/tkotromanic-dubrovniku_l.html --Anto (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not my fault if you cannot read Old Slavonic. :) Hard or not, it's there, and as I see three times. The title is King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside at the bottom and it's dated 1382. Of some Serbian King? Obviously. Of Tvrtko? Yes. Why does he enforce "Stefan" rather than his native name? As explained and pointed out before, he drew upon his Nemanyiden legacy, therefore "Stefan" was far important than "Tvrtko".
 * P.S. You didn't answer my question. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would object if it would be in modern Croatia because it simply can not be true. As it can be when it would be false if it writes in modern Chechen or Japanese (using their version of the name Stephen). Anyway it is name Stephen(Stipan / Stefan/Stjepan) is quite frequent! many kings of Serbia used that name.Apart from them Tvtko is famous by name Tvrtko or Stipan/Stefan/Stjepan Tvrtko, certainly not just as '''Stipan/Stefan/Stjepan '''

Btw, usage of name Stefan would make sense in a correspondence with Serbia but certainly not in a correspondence with Republic of Dubrovnik. To be the member of Nemanjić dinasty would give him a prestige and authority in Serbia. But, people from Dubrovnik had no such impression for sure. --Anto (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tvrtko was a Serb King and only the Kotromanics had that title. The year is 1382 and the King is of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside.


 * You're missing the fact that you just saw the edict and that truly "Stefan" became more important than "Tvrtko" (which is actually extremely rare in his edicts). And then again, I don't see what you're objecting about. :D Cheers and goodbye. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * About question Stephen/Stjepan/Stefan situation on this talk page is very clear. We are having 1 editor (HolyRomanEmperor is old name of PaxEquilibrium) against all others because he know best. Similar situation is in few other articles.--Rjecina (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Could you please explain? We have here User:HarisM next to me (so it's 2 of us), and here I only see you and Anto. And what are those few other article, if I may know? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not seen that User:HarisM is supporting your position. After looking his edits my comment is that this editor has become tired of nationalistic edit warring between you and other editors. On other side I know that if you retire during discussion with nationalistic editors, you will retire again in another and another article. In my thinking this is not option !
 * Why in my thinking PaxEquilibrium is in this article POV editor. He is demanding that Tvrtko second name is writen on serbian language but he is reverting is somebody write his croatian version of the name. It is interesting to notice that croatian version of his name (Stjepan) is his birth name, but serbian version (together with Croatin)is used only after crowning for king in 1377 or better to say 14 years before his death.
 * Even if we do not look this historical data we must write Croatian version of his name because he has ruled with great parts of Croatia.
 * For me is not possible to defeat both of this arguments.--Rjecina (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and the other editors include you too. :) After all, you two were edit warring in 'ere.
 * Uh, no. I'm not demanding anything, and I'm most certainly not proposing that - I'm proposing to remove all mentions (or rather, both). 'Stjepan' is not his birth name. His birth name is Tvrtko, he asserted 'Stefan' only as a mark of successorship to the Serbian crown.
 * Why then don't we have in Serbian (Cyrillic) Ante Pavelic or the last few dozen of Croatian Bans, or even some Medieval rulers? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree with both of you. This is one of few articles where we (Balkan editors) could avoid numerous edit wars. I remember, that i contributed to article with sources, and once then it was OK. There was no reverting. Can we make compromise about this topic? --HarisM (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you have on mind? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For me this is OK: Stephen Tvrtko I (Stjepan, Serbian:Стефан)

If there is question why first Stjepan and then Стефан answer is Stjepan is his birth name. Your thinking ?--Rjecina (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I have written to you before, Stjepan is not his birth name, it's the western version of the name he gained in 1377. Tvrtko is his birth name. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Stjepan has been his christian name (Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian language:kršteno ime) ( http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/profesorhk/Kotromanici.html ).--Rjecina (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Truly I hear for this for the first time. I'm convinced it's be a mistake - nowhere else did I see it, and Konstantin Jireček clearly puts that it was a given name, and so do all Croat, Bosniak & Serb historians I've read on Bosnia. Fine claims that too. There is no reason to believe that he held it before 1377, when "Стефан" practically replaced "Твртко". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Tvrtko and Elizabeth - beloved brother and sister
The article is full of nationalistic crap and one would have thought that statements that are not tainted by nationalism are reliable, but then one reads: "All House of Kotroman siblings, Tvrtko and Elizabeta in particular, were very close, calling themselves, even in official documents, as my beloved brother and my beloved sister, respectively." Is there a reliable source for this claim? Tvrtko is known to have supported rebelions against Elizabeth during her regency and he even provided shelter for the man who ordered her murder. The statement is either false or Tvrtko was a hardcore hypocrit. Surtsicna (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

He didn't conquer, but inherited by kinship to the royal dynasty
He centralized the state and conquered parts of medieval Serbia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Hum, Kotor, Zeta, and the territory of present-day Sandžak.


 * POVELJA DUBROVČANIMA IZ 1378 GODINE -KRALJ TVRTKO


 * 10.aprila 1378


 * Potom,že Gospodu mojemu Bogu spodobl`šu me nasljedovati prjestol mojih prjeroditelj`,gospode srbske,za nje bo ti bjehu moji prjeroditeljije,v` zemlj`njem carstvje carstvovaše,i na nebesnoje carstvo preselili se.Mene že videštu zemlju prjeroditelj` mojih po njih ostavl`šu i ne imuštu svojego pastira.I idoh v` srbskuju zemlju,željaje i hote ukrjepiti prjestol roditelj` mojih.I tamo š`dšu mi,vjenčan bih Bogom darovanim mi vjencem na Kraljevstvo prjeroditelj mojih jako biti mi o Hriste Isuse blagovjernomu i Bogom postavljenomu Stefanu,Kralju Srbljem i Bosne i Pomoriju i Zapadnim stranam.I.potom,načeh s` Bogom kraljevati i praviti prestol srbskije zemlje,željaje padšaja sa v`zdvignuti i razoršaja se ukrjepiti.

One cannot say Tvrtko I, or any Kotromanić or Tomašević after him conquered the Serb lands, or the Serbs or anything related to the Serbs, since he inherited the Serbian royal crown by blood as he states in the charter (the bolded part). He was the rightful heir, not by any means a conqueror, like Hungarians or Ottomans were. This has to be changed since it implies foreign occupation, which was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.90.115 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There was indeed a contemporary Serb nobility which aspired the Serbian crown themselves and did not recognize Tvrtko's jurisdiction over Serbia through his coronation which was largely symbolic for the reminder of the house of Kotromanic.Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There was a Serb nobility, of which he himself was a part of as stated 'nasljedovati prjestol mojih prjeroditelj`,gospode srbske'. He aspired the Serbian imperial crown (the one of the Nemanjic) as much as everyone else, that had the same claim of kinship. Serbia is a false claim, since Serbia as a state entity didn't exist in that period, only realms under various rule of the Serbian noble caste, namely the 'vlastela'. He didn't conquer Serbia, the entity was non-existent, he however claimed territory which by right of inheritence was his, Serbia is nowhere mentioned, only the folk Serbs (old Church Slavonic Srbljem) is. The other nobility however on the contrary didn't object it, but ignored it, since he was seen as a weak ruler, which was nothing new, since even the last Serbian tsar, Uros 'the Weak', was seen the same by the 'vlastela'. The most powerful Serb ruler of that time Knez Lazar of the Hrebeljanovic, however acknowledged him as a succesor to the Serbian throne, be it out of political will or not, is up to self-interpretation. It is invalid to proclaim a valid descendant to the Nemanjic dynasty and a succesor to the Serbian throne, as a conquerer of the land that by right of kinship belonged to him. He established rule in the territory of his valid claim, but a Serbian king (as he himself proclaims in the intitulation 'Kralj Srbljem'), that rules over the Serbs, is in no way a conqueror, but a valid succesor of the throne.


 * I am fully aware that this article is a product of politics in order to deny the existence of Serbian medieval culture in Bosnia, however please go by the facts, and let history be history, and politics be politics. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.58.217 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

But he DID fight Nikola Altamovic mainly for territorial gains. And in his "povelja" he clearly says that he is "going to the serb land" since he did not see Bosnia as a serb land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.1.33 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly I think you are the one tainted by politics in this case; because after all, what does Tvrtko's political ambitions have do with any supposed "Serb" culture in medieval Bosnia? Any Serb culture would have to be tied with the orthodox church, however, as Noel Malcolm writes, Orthodox Christianity was barely existent in Bosnia prior to the Ottomans. It was perfectly regular for royal families to intermarry and at the end of the day Tvrtko was merely 1/8 of a Serb 'by blood' through his paternal grandmother (ironically, he was more "Croat" through his blood link to the Subasic house, but above all simply a native Bosnian). The Serbian emperor Dushan crowned himself 'Car Grkljem' (Emperor of Greeks) but you wouldn't call him an ethnic Greek. The attempts frequently carried out in Serb historiography are to gravely overemphasize Tvrtko's perfectly commonplace ties to foreign nobility (in this case Serbian) as to lay invalid "ethnic" claims on medieval Bosnia, which in fact was a distinct entity with its own separate identity and course of history. Also, Tvrtko hails from the wider house of Kotromanic which was established as a ruling family of bans more than a century prior to Tvrtko's birth; the house of Kotromanic, as its ambitious descendant Tvrtko I, was first and foremost Bosnian.Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.200.113 (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...removed because of a WP:BLP violation against Noel Malcolm. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly insist on never replying to your baseless ranting on this talk page emanating from the wicked delusion that the international community and scholarship is in a sort of conspiracy against the glorious Serb nation; a nation which in fact only gained adherents in Bosnia during the 19th century through the aligning of religion with ethnicity. As such the Serbian and Croat "name" (or identity if you like) was never prevalent in Bosnia up until the nationalization of its three religious communities in the 19th century, instead the population solely identified as Bosnians (Bosnjani/Bosnjaci); to quote the leading Balkan medievalist John Fine (another historian I am sure you will tarnish as being 'payed by the extremist Muslim government in Sarajevo'):
 * The names Serb and Croat, though occasionally appearing in peripheral areas, were not used in Bosnia proper - London Review of Books (What is a Bosnian, 1994)

Yet another corrupted pro-Muslim Western historian, Robert Donia, writes:
 * A Bosnian's identity as a Bosnian - even if it originally referred to his geographical homeland or state membership - has roots going back many centuries, whereas the classification of any Christian Bosnian as a Serb or a Croat goes back barely a century. - Robert Donia (2005). "Bosnia and Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed". Columbia University Press. Retrieved 30 October 2012., p. 73, 1995.

In fact Noel Malcolm (who possesses a PhD in history from Eaton and Cambridge) defines the orthodox (Serb) community in contemporary Bosnia as largely descended from Vlach immigrants during the Ottoman era who would later acquire Serb identities based on religious affiliation. Good riddance! Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)