Talk:Tvrtko I of Bosnia/Archive 2

Solt
In the "King" section of this wiki the world "solt" is mentioned twice... i'm not sure if that's a typo (salt) orrr?? --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of sources
Some sources that imply that medieval bosnians were serbs are coming from a partial view. For example i checked out this writer from one source ″Povijest Bosne i Hercegovine: od najstarijih vremena do godine 1463″ and found this

″''Draganović was a controversial and mysterious figure, who is central to many allegations involving the Vatican Bank, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Nazi Party. Declassified CIA documents confirm that Draganović was a member of the Ustaše, a far-right Nazi-affiliated Croatian fascist organisation that was given control of Croatia by the Axis powers in 1941 which was responsible for the deaths of between 330,000 and 390,000 orthodox Serbs and about 32,000 Jews. Draganović has been accused of laundering the Ustaše's treasure of jewelry and other items stolen from war victims in Croatia.''″

I mean come on we cant just refer sources from anyone. I could claim that ancient aliens had built the ″pyramids″ in Bosnia and put a ridiculous source but it wouldnt be true of course.

And the two other sources are serbian ones that write the history how it fits them.Tarmet (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , we've had this discussion before, and there was no clear consensus to remove Draganović en masse: Talk:Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia. Please bring it up at WP:RSN so that we can build a clearer consensus. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Small question on title
Hi Surtsicna,

firstly thank you for an extensive and knowledgeable contribution to the article! I have a small question, however. By what factuality is Tvrtko's use of the traditionally widespread honorific Stephen to be considered by definition a derivation from the Nemanjićs? Currently, there is the article Stephen (honorific) which is little else than a blatant Content/POV fork employed to hijack the honorific in a showcase of historiographical Serbian megalomania. As it stands, the honorific Stephen was used by members of the Kotromanić dynasty prior to Tvrtko I, namely by his paternal grandfather Stephen I, Ban of Bosnia. I would appreciate a proper explanation.

My other reflection would be the sentence wherein it is explained that Tvrtko I rejected the imperial style of title used by Dušan. Do you mean "Emperor and Autocrat of.."? In such case, I would suggest that you make clear the distinction by adding "Tvrtko decided to assume the royal title of his great-grandfather rather than continue Dušan's unpopular claim to imperial style of Emperor and Autocrat.

Once again, my compliments on the great work. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 19:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Tvrtko is Bosniak
Tvrtko is Bosnian(Bošnjani)

"During the Ottoman era the preferred term for an inhabitant of Bosnia came to be Bošnjak, with the suffix "-iak" replacing the traditional "-anin".

So, he is Bošnjak(bosniak) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strickrsss (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Name
It`s not Stjepan but Stipan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.251.218 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you’re talking about the name in the original inscriptions, it was variously written as, , and , so either one is accurate. If you’re talking about the modern language, then it depends on which reflex of ѣ your dialect has, so once again either one is accurate. —Vorziblix (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Candidate for semi-protection?
I am not sure how tough criteria are, but I believe that there is enough reasons to propose this page (and maybe couple of other GA on subject of medieval Bosnian history, too) for WP:SEMI level of protection. This "Good article" wouldn't last a month without one particular editor who is continually (for months and months) forced into clean up's, reverting and undoing, while dealing with "unregistered editors", and editors with single-purpose accounts without Userpage, who frowardly engaging in edit warring with clearly disruptive edits, but also possibly in "IP hopping" (using different computers, obtaining new addresses by using dynamic IP allocation), or other address-changing schemes such as IP "address spoofing".-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

King of Serbs and Bosnia and coastal and west sides
According to Royal charter issued by Tvrtko I he is King of ""Срблнємь и Боснě и Поморих и Западнимь Странамь". or in English: "King of Serbs and Bosnia and coastal and west sides". It is wrong to state otherwise and is not supported by historical documents. Loesorion (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's usual to leave off new additions that are contested until consensus can be reached on the talk page, per WP:BRD, etc. The charter was issued to a particular town and the titles used might be limited in use to certain charters to certain areas. The English translation isn't good: "west sides" would read better as "Western Lands"; "Pomorikh" (which seems a better transliteration; you have "Pomorje" in the article) might be better translated as "the Coast" or as part of "and Coastal and Western Lands" (there's also apt to be confusion with the Bulgarian town of Pomorie). Dhtwiki (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And Henry VIII called himself king of England and France but we use the conventional title in the lead, not whatever tickled his fancy centuries ago. The full title is elsewhere in the article. The lead is not the place for a full title, and this article as a whole is not the place for promoting nationalist rubbish. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

First nothing is usual as you can see from other sections of this Talk page no need to go further or anywhere else but we could. And if something is not in accordance WP:BRD and Reverting then it is reverts done to my editing for sake and I quote: Instead of trying - for example - to improve my editing if something is not prefect with my edits or by opening a section on a talk page here by editor to ask any question that are not clear from source reverts are done - and I am here as you can see while I was not obliged to open Talk page for such reverts that amounts to vandalism and I could explained anything if it was not clear before someone is reverting page if anything needs to be explained about my edits.
 * "No, thank you. Save that stuff for sr.wikipedia."


 * But we have reverts for sake of reverts - why?

Reverting for sake of arguments like: "No thank you" is not a valid reason to revert somebody else edits in first place as and I quote: "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits" and my edits are none of mentioned - are we clear about that - I hope we are.

Instead of citing rules which are obviously now as it seems to me some not obliged to follow in Wikipedia and in same time are tried to be implied only to me(while I am not breaking any rule) instead to be implemented to ones who clearly break rules in first place. Maybe parties in this discussion should try to follow same rules before trying to force them to others - one of my personal motto. And please keep "rubbish" "nationalist" and other similar "arguments" away from me and for sake of constructive discussion here present some source for arguments or give more rational and better arguments if you have one.

I am not responsible for content of a source presented here so maybe we should all tell Tvrtko I if we have any grievances about him and his charter before we jump to throats of other editors - I have something what I would like to tell him but he does not asks me :( and in same time I am not attacking anybody here for others people's doings. I don't blame anyone here for Tvrtko I charter. It is as it is - my grievances is not helping to change it.

If we are done with rules that applies to us all and not just one side and as I think we are all here in first place to improve Wikipedia lets proceeds with some real question here in Talk in order to improve article...I introduced source - Royal charter dated 1378 issued by Tvrtko I written in old medieval Serbian Church Slavonic language in this article within document that tells as a lot about Tvrtko I title among many other things so lets stick to source and facts here in discussion.

It is not important to who is charter issued as all issued formal royal charters could have some pre-clause or signature with titles or other descriptions that would be same or similar or different and in same time they all tell us something about issuer. If they are descriptive as this one, they tell us more about who is issuing charter so we should not mix grandma's and frogs here and relate issuer of charter with reader or user of charter. King Tvrto I here in this charter clearly trough his notary states who he is and what are his titles and he describes whom and what land he rules and that has nothing to do with anybody who is going to read this charter in a sense that reader or user of charter can change his title or anything else given in charter.

Now lets start digging more into a source and how to get correct translation and use of his title in English language. Pomorje is word best translated as "coastal" or "coastland" or "maritime" or "littoral" area or land next to Adriatic sea - seaside - in this case - as a part of Kingdom we are discussing here. Similar words to "pomorje" - as a land next so sea - in Serbian are "pomorska oblast" and "priobalno podrucje" with same meaning as "pomorje" - I give examples in order to better understand word "pomorje". It is not "west lands" because lands would implies using of word "Zemlja" in original wording of charter to translate it in that way and that word is not used. In charter it is used word "Странамь" in modern Serbian language same word is still used and that is word "stranama" and that's translates to "sides" or eventually "parts" but "parts" is out of context here and in broader language in some cases and in some sentences with other meaning eventually could be translated as a "countries". Countries as mentioned in broader sense would be wrong to use here as translation in this case because King Tvrtko I is obviously not ruling some other countries in west but rules land next to sea and rules the land in west sides of his main domain(province or we could say "zupa" where he is proclaimed as King and he considers a center of his land) - so as sides here he considers lands in west sides of geographical Bosnia - and that west sides are going up to to coast of Adriatic sea - so we have here some geographical descriptions to point us where are lands he rules.

Eventually instead "coastal" - lands or area - we could use "coastland" - "King of Serbs and Bosnia and Coastland and west sides" or we could use "maritime" and get "King of Serbs and Bosnia and Maritime and west sides" or "littoral" to get "King of Serbs and Bosnia and Littoral and west sides". But littoral was used with title as translation of other Serbian rulers at time and could be confusing as it was used for large part of Adriatic coast more in south and larger than actual coast Tvrtko I ruled and word "maritime" could be interpreted as he had some maritime force which could be also wrong or not.

Using partly translated and partly untranslated title as "King of Serbs and Bosnia and Pomorje and west sides" where only word "Pomorje" is not translated and all others words are translated in same title or sentence, beats me to purpose of translating all other words and leaving only one word as in original. Original of course could and should be mentioned in article besides translation. So I agree that just word "Pomorje" is not good word to be left untranslated.

And when talking about lead of this article there is not obligation to use only one of mentioned - full or shorter title - and articles differ about that, but in infobox of most of articles about medieval or feudal lords stands as a style whole title. First title of Tvrtko I is "King of Serbs" (as word Bosnia comes a second word in his official title) and is not a proper to use "King of Bosnia" in shorter version while it is in some newer but not original sources used. Instead "Tvrtko I of Bosnia" it is proper according to original source from 1378 using "Tvrtko I of Serbs" if we want to use shorter version without mentioning others parts of title - that's how is right to use it - using same principle as Louis Philippe I was King of the French and not King of France - short version - and many other rulers are often described without full title but still a proper title with first part of title is almost mentioned always. More example of using nation and not country name in title: Emperor of the French - Empereur des Français - not Emepror of France, King of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - not King of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia, etc.

If we break in parts title of King Tvrtko I as written in his own Royal charter he was King in following order:
 * 1.King of Serbs
 * 2 King of Bosnia
 * 3 King of Coastal or King of Maritime or King of Coastland - chose translation
 * 4 King of west sides.

He - Tvrtko I considered himself King off all Serbs as in title in similar way as Emperor Dusan was Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks and Bulgarians(later in life full title "Emperor and Autocrat of the Serbs and Greeks, the Bulgarians and Albanians") and that was in short "Emperor of the Serbs" not "Emperor of Serbia". Tvrtko I in a way tried to succeed as King in a period after last Nemanjic dynasty ruler of all Serbs died but this time obviously not as Emperor but as a King of Serbs.

I must notice also there was no Serbia at time in today more modern sense and as previous Empire of the Serbs and Greeks, the Bulgarians and Albanians disintegrated in 1371 existed many smaller areas with their own separate lords and lands with their own titles. Serbs or Serbs lands is most common words used in titles at time by many rulers and lords and not Serbia as in modern sense. Some foreign sources at time may have also used other wording for Serbs and or different Serb lands but that cannot change original title that is here supported by original document issued by ruler that we should be happy it is existing and was preserved over times. About use of title as lord of Serbs For we have example in Realm of Prince Lazar that was even a ruler in same time as Tvrtko I was - Lazar used as Prince title "Господин всем Србљем и Поморију деспот Стефан" translated as "Lord of all Serbs and Coastal(Marititme) despot Stefan" - here we also have word "Pomorje" and do not have word Serbia.

As proper and original source for title exists and is available for use as source in Wikipedia there is no reason to use other incorrect titles as they are in use in article now like "King of Bosnia and Serbia". He was never King of Serbia but King of Serbs first and foremost as he partially used title from last Serbian emperor as I previous mentioned. In same time there is no problem to use in article short and common title while full and proper title from existing and most valid source is also mentioned but in same time we should not make titles on our own if historical source with proper and used title by ruler exists. One more source that is using short proper title for Tvrtko I as King of Serbs and Bosnia https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tvrtko-I

Loesorion (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is going to read a ten thousand character wall of text. Surtsicna (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I read enough of it to know that there still has to be a word other than "sides" used to translate the title. "West side" usually denotes a part of a town, rather than a country (e.g., the musical and film title West Side Story): the term "sides" is too local. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki - This is not "west side" but "west sides" and "stranama" is translated just like that - "sides" you cannot compare it with something modern like movies and similar. While side as you indicated in modern time could denote part of town it also should be noted that in USA for example today exists county named - "West side" and I will come to counties later again.

But let as see what are west sides for King Tvrtko I and what in a sense of geography and area he describes with that. For correctly translating a title we must take in consideration specific to the time and place of the titles creation and understand true meaning of these titles because otherwise translation would be bad. It is obvious that Tvrtko I means about west sides as something in west of his current geographical center from his enthronement perspective. He was enthroned in Mileseva monastery and on west side of Misleseva are land that belong to him and in same time that area was not known as Bosnia and had not some specific name thus - west sides. So he addresses in title as lord of Serbs, lord of Bosnia - are most in north, lord on west sides of Bosnia today known as Herzegovina and as lord of coastal land next to sea - area he controls has no specific name at time. Some area on west sides looking from monastery Mileseva was known at later time as "Hercegovina" introduced during Stjepan Vukčić Kosača as "Hercegovina Svetog Save" and much later known as geographical "Herzegovina" (area does not have any clear boundaries).

Tvrtko I maybe instead both titles of "west sides" and "Pomorje" could used in title "Herzegovina" if existed but that was not a case and even if existed he could opted for again for "west sides" as reasons for that could be area outside Herzegovina and some other purposes.

I don't see anything wrong with using his title translation as "west sides" as it clearly describes nation and land he rules according to time he lived in. It just was a way to describe areas at time nothing more and nothing less and it is even used today as we often say for example "on west side from Hungary is Austria" and "Mediterranean biome is sandwiched between deserts and temperate rainforests on west sides of continents". He - Tvrtko I could cited all villages or towns or parish in west side of land he ruled but for title that would be too long and that could change so they opted for short - west sides.

And one more thing part about "west sides" in Tvrtko I title is not something new. "Западнимь Странамь" was also used as a part of title of Emperor Stefan Dusan and King Vukasin and other Serbian rulers.

I will mention one alternative that was used by some writers for translating "Западнимь Странамь" is translating that as "Western Provinces" as in context I told that west sides it was a short instead of telling of all towns, villages and so on on west side of country he ruled, but provinces is incorrect as not all towns and villages where not in provinces and more correctly land was divided in estates, villages, parish(župa) and counties(zemlja) and there was not a strict border between for example counties as one part of county could belong to one ruler and other part to other ruler and even that could change in short time. And those territories weren't fixed and the divide wasn't strictly administrative with some clear borders, ownership of land hugely depended on strength of nobles and who controlled them, marriages where used to obtain land and so on. So there was changes all the time and we should not be surprised by Tvrtko I is using some not so clear geographical or administrative terms in title. It was medieval time without strict definitions. Loesorion (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's obvious that "west sides" refers to extensive areas, and that is why it's inappropriate for reasons I've already given and have been confirmed by a published translation of the phrase as "Western Provinces". Where the idiom is wrong, context matters little. Make it the right English idiom. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Стефан Твртко I Котроманић.jpg

Title
It is said in article "In 1377, he had himself crowned king of Bosnia and of Serbia". This is so wrong. No king ever crowned himself as "king of Serbia" back then. Tvrtko crowned himself with title "King of Serbs of Bosnia, and of Sealands, and of Western Lands". Which is in line with the title of the kings of Nemanjic dynasty, since they also never got crowned and used title "King of Serbia", rather "King of Serbian lands, of this, of that etc." We got his title from a primary source which is Tvrtko's royal Charter to the Dubrovnik which he issued 1378. where it states:

"Такође затим и мени, своме робу, за милост свога Божанства, дарова да ми процвјета изданак племенито укоријењени у роду мојему и удостоји ме двоструким вијенцем како бих обима господствима управљао, прво испрва у богомданој нам земљи Босни, потом пак господ мој Бог ме почастио да наслиједим пријестол прародитеља мојих, господе српске, зато јер ти моји прародитељи, у земаљском царству царствовавши, и на небеско царство преселили се бише. Ја, пак, видјевши земљу својих предака остављену након њих и да нема својег пастира, идох у српску земљу, желећи и хтијући оснажити пријестол родитеља мојих. И тамо ишавши окруњен бјех од Бога дарованом ми круном на краљевство прародитеља мојих, да будем у Христу Исусу побожан и од Бога постављени Стефан, краљ Србима и Босни и Поморју и Западним странама. И потом почех с Богом краљевати и правити пријестол српске земље, желећи што је пало уздигнути и што се разорило оснажити."Aryanprince (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You made wrong translation of the mentioned text, it would mean King of Serbs (Serbia) and Bosnia and Sealands (Dalmatia) and Western regions (Western Bosnia). There's no "Serbs of Bosnia...".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Tvrtko was ortodox
Tvrtko was ortodox, not Roman Catolic. Please correct your mistake. 87.116.165.208 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * He wansnt orthodox both his mother and father were catholic croats! How can he then be a orthodox 78.0.55.150 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Both his parents were Catholic, yes, but his father was not a Croat as he was born in Jajce. His father Stephen I was also born in Bosnia. Bosnia was catholic/Bosnian Church before Islam and Orthodoxy became established. His mother was likely a Croat though as the Subic family were Croatian nobles. Before a nationalist like you 2 foreigners from Serbia and Croatia say "Bosnian Croat/Bosnian Serb", that was not a thing back then. Only until the Ottomans fucked everything up did that eventually become a thing through conversions, migration, etc.
 * The book "The Late Medieval Balkans" by John V. A. Fine Jr. states Vladislav was likely born in Jajce around 1430.
 * An academic paper titled "The system of confidental relationships in the state of King Vladislav of Bosnia" by Ante Birin also puts his probable birth in Jajce in 1430.
 * The Bosnian Institute's biography of Vladislav likewise lists Jajce circa 1430 as his presumed birth city and year.
 * A historical text on 15th century Bosnia called "The Land Between" by William Miller indicates Jajce was the capital under Vladislav's father, implying it was his birthplace. Poggers6969420 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Mistake
was held in the fall of 1377 (probably 26 October, the feast day of Saint Demetrius)

this is bad translation, please check serbian version

26.10.1377 on Mitrovdan i monestry Milesevo its correc 87.116.165.208 (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Tvrtko Kotromanic
I would like to add the details of Tvrtkos Croatian origins! His father was the son of Prijezda I founder of the Kotromanici dynasty! judging by his parents ethnicity he was Croat! He also used the title of Ban! Which is only used in Croatia 78.0.55.150 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Tvrtko's coin
The coin depicting the coat of arms with the fleur-de-lys needs a source. The picture in question comes from a series of (relatively speaking) newly struck coins, modeled after a coronation ducat allegedly found in Mileseva in 1935. However, I have not personally been able to find any image of said original, and the coronation ducats and coins of the Kotromanic dynasty that are preserved look vastly different. This image is, most likely, a modern reimagining, and I have not found any basis for it in contemporary sources. I will put a "citation needed" remark under the image, and if anyone has any literature on the subject (or even better, access to either the monastery or any relevant museum) some extra info would be great. Vampsvamp (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)