Culture spheres in Balkans

[Pellaken]

There is only 1 thing separating all of the Yugoslavs, and, Czechoslavs even.

Serbs were ruled by the Turks
Croats were ruled by Hungarians
Slovenia was ruled by Austrians
Montenegro had Venetian influences
Macedonia had Greek and Bulgarian influences
Bosnia went back and forth

Compare to:
The Czech Republic was ruled by Austria
Slovakia was ruled by Hungary

Find me a supporting document written in or before 1820 to back your claim. Modern documents are just people who start with an idea and try to find evidence to back it up.

 

[DanubianCossak]

You're the first that got hurt his eyes by reading a post. Apart from that, have you got any historical facts to bring up for your claims? Or are you here simply for trolling?

Just posting something that supports someone's claim and stating that its a fact, does not make it a fact in actuality. And stating opinion you dont agree with is not trolling in itself.

edit: also Nickjbor covered it pretty well in the second part of his post.

 

[Bezborg]

The ONLY thing you have managed to "prove" by your arbitrary references is that the people form the region of Bosnia have their own local identity. Nothing more. I can (and have) say the same thing about Dalmatia, my native region. We have a completely different local identity then northern Croatians, and, indeed Bosnians (notice the term that has nothing to do with ethnicity). Dalmatians have their own dialect (borderline distinct language, especially in medieval times), their own cuisine, their own musical traditions blabla... I'll wager that south and north Croatia has more differences than Ireland and Scotland.

Does this make Dlamatians a separate national entity? No. A separate cultural entity? Ethnic? No. These terms are used with much more severity and piety than you would have them used. Which, again, is a very modern syndrome.

 

[Sarmatian]

You and I, sir, will hardly get on common grounds simply because I have a feeling you're ignoring some of the facts I've brought up. But either way, I'll give you an answer, once again.

I never said that Bosnians were a special tribe brought up from outer space or anything,

SNIP

I know the last part of my post doesn't have so much to do with Bosnian culture in the medieval age, I was simply pointing out another issue that took place in the Balkans during the 19th century and the creation of national states.

This is unfortunately wishful thinking and a total opposite of how serious scholarly work is done. You presume that because there is no evidence, your theory is correct. That is how most nationalistic theories are created. The blank space is filled with nationalistic rhetoric.

Here, you just filled with a blank space with your own romantic notions. Serious research of history implies finding evidence that support a thesis, not by assuming lack of evidence proves your theory.

And yet you haven't answered who made the census that determined how many Serbs/Croats/Bosnians lived in Bosnia and Hum during the medieval age? Was there some census that I'm not aware of? Please, do share.

Censuses weren't conducted in the middle ages, these are estimates, based on the work of professional historians much more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I.

 

[bosniandragon]

Guys, I can't repeat myself 100 times here, if you truly don't see the texts I've supplied, or if you're truly ignoring them, reading only the parts that suit your personal views on this, I cannot be of further help here. Besides, I believe I've brought more than enough facts to back up my suggestion to Paradox, and I'm not gonna lose any of my precious time here to make some of you denounce their claims. You have all the right in the world to read what suits you, and I'm fine with it.

I don't plan on writing replies about historical events to each of you at a time, so... if you're interested in these texts and events, feel free to use google to find all the info you need.

I will wait for someone from Paradox to give their official opinion on this (if that's possible at all), and if not, then I will simply avoid answering the questions I find intentionally provocative.

To sum it up:

- Oldest Bosnian document, the Charter of Kulin ban, written in Bosančica (Bosnian alphabet) is a first mark of true Bosnian identity. It was written in 1189 AD, where he clearly calls himself a 'Bosnian'.
- The unique monuments, Stećci, another true mark of Bosnian identity, were only found in areas where Bosnian kingdom was spread. No other country or people in the Balkans have these monuments serving as their tombstones.
- Bosnian language and dictionary written in 1632 AD by Muhamed Hevaija Uskufi, far before Serb or Croat dictionaries were written.

"The first official dictionary in the Bosnian language was printed in the early 1630s,[80] while, comparatively, the first dictionary in Serbian was printed only in the mid-19th century. Written evidence and records point to the Bosnian language being the official language of the country since at least the Kingdom of Bosnia, as further corroborated by the declaration of the Charter of Ban Kulin, one of the oldest written state documents in the Balkans and one of the oldest to be written in Bosančica.[81][82]"

- Common South Slavic ancestry intertwined with Illyrian tribes and their customs. Later on, the Ottoman influence enhanced their distinctiveness both from Serbs and Croats even more.

All the info you need can be found in my previous posts, so feel free to click on few previous pages and check my writings out.

 

[bosniandragon]

This is unfortunately wishful thinking and a total opposite of how serious scholarly work is done. You presume that because there is no evidence, your theory is correct. That is how most nationalistic theories are created. The blank space is filled with nationalistic rhetoric.

Here, you just filled with a blank space with your own romantic notions. Serious research of history implies finding evidence that support a thesis, not by assuming lack of evidence proves your theory.



Censuses weren't conducted in the middle ages, these are estimates, based on the work of professional historians much more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I.

Find me the links that provide the work of those professional historians. I'll gladly read those. Besides, I never claimed I'm a historian of any sorts, I'm mostly quoting the sources that I've found due to interest in my country's history. I'm sure that if there was a historian in my place, he'd be able to present these sources in a much more organized and systematic way.

 

[unmerged(143766)]

It's really funny that this guy found a national census of the medieval Bosnian territory but there isn't a national census for modern Bosnia Name me those proffesional historians that estimated the population of medieval Bosnia.You say that the Bosnian medieval culture has nationalistic roots and yet 90% of the people arguing against it are Serbs,Croats and Bosnian orthodoxes.And to those guys who were saying that I want to impose the BOSNIAK nationality on someone , well can you just tell me in which sentence did I say that.I said that they are BOSNIANS not BOSNIAKS.Not all Bosnians are Bosniaks.You can't compare national identities of Vojvodina with the situation in Bosnia neither is it relevant to the Bosnian culture in medieval times so please if you have a valid argument why there shouldn't be a Bosnian culture in the game then tell it.

 

[unmerged(143766)]

Not meaning to be rude here, but who are you to tell someone that they aren't the same race, ethnicity or culture as the rest of their family?

If you don't want to understand why someone born and living somewhere might identify with a different culture or company, perhaps you're in the wrong place.

You don't want to be rude but you are as much as I am so please...If someone is identifying with a nationality he doesn't belong too in my opinion I have the right to tell it.And btw whether I'm in the right or wrong place is non of your concerns

 

[unmerged(143766)]

Find me the links that provide the work of those professional historians. I'll gladly read those. Besides, I never claimed I'm a historian of any sorts, I'm mostly quoting the sources that I've found due to interest in my country's history. I'm sure that if there was a historian in my place, he'd be able to present these sources in a much more organized and systematic way.

You asked the question while I was writing it
I just can't believe that he is discussing with facts found in one of the mods for MTW2.

 

[Bezborg]

Homo Bosniacus.

 

[GregElSho]

That's easy, make them learn English.

Make them learn French, while you're at it.


[Edit : That's a joke. Rest easy, Quebeckers: we love you!]

 

[bosniandragon]

Make them learn French, while you're at it.

*sigh*

Guys, you don't need to bring additional spam together with these spambots... Let's try to stay on course, all of us.

 

[GregElSho]

Sorry for trying to lighten up the mood in a close-minded and sterile debate. I honestly could give my opinion on topic, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it.
Instead I'll disappear this instant and leave everyone at it, having their fun in heated but pointless arguments.
I'm the one sighing. Especially if you forbid me to say anything in your precious and very very serious game-changing topic.

 

[DanubianCossak]

so please if you have a valid argument why there shouldn't be a Bosnian culture in the game then tell it.

Its not our job to prove that something isnt / wasnt (negative facts), but instead its your job to prove that something is / was. The way things were proven this far usually began with "here are the facts *text in italic*" or "ill give you those facts" etc. Just stating that something is fact doesnt make it so.

 

[bosniandragon]

Its not our job to prove that something isnt / wasnt (negative facts), but instead its your job to prove that something is / was. The way things were proven this far usually began with "here are the facts *text in italic*" or "ill give you those facts" etc. Just stating that something is fact doesnt make it so.

Man, I gave you a few links on the first page of this thread, they were wikipedia articles about Bosnian ban Kulin, and about Bosančica. There is also a nice article on wikipedia about Stećci. It's all presented in Wikipedia for you guys to read, and 90% of my italic quotes came from there. It is your problem that you're lazy enough to read the whole articles, but instead use snippets and intentionally chosen parts of the text, trying to pursue your denouncement of Bosnian culture.

Next time, read the full articles, and you may notice the quotes I used are in those articles.

Another thing, all of you here used only wikipedia and game mods as their data source, and I did not want to play unfair, so I used the same. (not the mods though)

 

[Mrkela]

This argument is going in circles, put it to a rest.

What do you guys think about Macedonia? In mods we have see it have a Serbian culture(especially in times of the Serbian Empire that stretched to Greek lands), Bulgarian, and Macedonian(in those mods where they include all the little cultures), and Greek.

The present day Macedonia has 0 relation to the Greek Macedonia of Alexander the Great and the province of Macedonia in Greece. For culture it would be most fair to have one Serbian province and one Macedonian province. As for cores I believe both should have cores on both provinces.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Man, I gave you a few links on the first page of this thread, they were wikipedia articles about Bosnian ban Kulin, and about Bosančica. There is also a nice article on wikipedia about Stećci. It's all presented in Wikipedia for you guys to read, and 90% of my italic quotes came from there. It is your problem that you're lazy enough to read the whole articles, but instead use snippets and intentionally chosen parts of the text, trying to pursue your denouncement of Bosnian culture.

Next time, read the full articles, and you may notice the quotes I used are in those articles.

Another thing, all of you here used only wikipedia and game mods as their data source, and I did not want to play unfair, so I used the same. (not the mods though)

All 3 links that you gave us on first page (if you mean the last post on that page) lead to things that nobody is disputing. What is being disputed is how youre linking them and making assumptions on, at best, circumstantial evidence.

Kulin Ban - long gone before EU4 time frame, irrelevant. Even if you do dispute his relevance, the fact that this document states "Ja ban' bos'n'ski Kulin'", as you well know could also be written "Ja ban od Bosne", meaning exactly the same thing (ruler of a region). Theres no way of knowing that whoever wrote that document used that specific order of words to indicate his cultural distinctiveness opposed to using it because it stylishly looked better (for example). Ban of Bosnia or Bosnian Ban, in any case gives you no proof whatsoever that this Bosnia represents culture and not geographic location of his title.

Bosnian Church - we have no information as to what percent of population belonged to it, and by the time of EU4, AT BEST (best possible scenario) it was around but was about gone.

The name of Elżbieta Bośniaczka does not indicate her culture in any way, but the place where she comes from. Serbian ruler Stefan Uroš I (en: Stephen Uroš I of Serbia) was married to Helen of Anjou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_of_Anjou), does Anjou in her last name indicate her culture or the place she was from...

 

[bosniandragon]

This argument is going in circles, put it to a rest.

What do you guys think about Macedonia? In mods we have see it have a Serbian culture(especially in times of the Serbian Empire that stretched to Greek lands), Bulgarian, and Macedonian(in those mods where they include all the little cultures), and Greek.

The present day Macedonia has 0 relation to the Greek Macedonia of Alexander the Great and the province of Macedonia in Greece. For culture it would be most fair to have one Serbian province and one Macedonian province. As for cores I believe both should have cores on both provinces.

I'm not familiar with historical background of Macedonia to the extent I can make suggestions, but I firmly support giving all left-out peoples and cultures to be represented in EU IV... After three releases of Europa Universalis, I believe it's time that these neglected cultures get their attention too... After all, I believe that Paradox will include more regions in the Balkans, so why not giving those regions their true identity.

 

[bosniandragon]

All 3 links that you gave us on first page (if you mean the last post on that page) lead to things that nobody is disputing. What is being disputed is how youre linking them and making assumptions on, at best, circumstantial evidence.

Kulin Ban - long gone before EU4 time frame, irrelevant. Even if you do dispute his relevance, the fact that this document states "Ja ban' bos'n'ski Kulin'", as you well know could also be written "Ja ban od Bosne", meaning exactly the same thing (ruler of a region). Theres no way of knowing that whoever wrote that document used that specific order of words to indicate his cultural distinctiveness opposed to using it because it stylishly looked better (for example). Ban of Bosnia or Bosnian Ban, in any case gives you no proof whatsoever that this Bosnia represents culture and not geographic location of his title.

Bosnian Church - we have no information as to what percent of population belonged to it, and by the time of EU4, AT BEST (best possible scenario) it was around but was about gone.

The name of Elżbieta Bośniaczka does not indicate her culture in any way, but the place where she comes from. Serbian ruler Stefan Uroš I (en: Stephen Uroš I of Serbia) was married to Helen of Anjou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_of_Anjou), does Anjou in her last name indicate her culture or the place she was from...

And yet again you ignore Stećci... Is it the fourth time you ignored these unique monuments of Bosnian people? Why?

Kulin ban is long gone before the timeframe of EU3, but he wrote his charter in Bosančica, which gives the Bosnians their identity 200 years before the EU timeframe... And yet some of you claim that Bosnians never existed as a cultural group. You keep repeating the same questions, and I keep giving you the same answers, and Mrkela is right, we're going in circles here.

Unless you have some new questions to ask, I'll skip answering the same answers again.

FYI, we have no information about the number of followers of any church in the Western Balkans...

 

[Sarmatian]

Find me the links that provide the work of those professional historians. I'll gladly read those. Besides, I never claimed I'm a historian of any sorts, I'm mostly quoting the sources that I've found due to interest in my country's history. I'm sure that if there was a historian in my place, he'd be able to present these sources in a much more organized and systematic way.

Oh, the joy of youth. There aren't any links, at least that I know of. I'm talking about books. Don't try to learn history from the internet, you'll get a very distorted vision of reality. Kind of like learning about archeology by watching Indiana Jones movies. Oh, and the first censuses in the Balkans were conducted by the Ottomans in mid-16th century, and even that far back catholic and orthodox population of Bosnia identified themselves as Croats and Serbs, so the modern nationalist tendencies of Bosnian ruling elite that there are Catholic or Orthodox Bosnians (or Bosniaks however you want to call them) are just that - nationalistic tendencies. In the end, everyone decide for themselves what nationality they feel they belong to (if any).

Now, about the sources:
Nada Klaić: Srednjovjekovna Bosna: politički položaj bosanskih vladara do Tvrtkove krunidbe, 1377. g.
Krunislav Dragonović: Katolička Crkva u srednjovjećnoj Bosni
Marko Perojević: Stjepan II Kotromanić
Ćiro Truhelka- Bosanska narodna crkva
Opća enciklopedija jugoslavenskog leksikografskog zavoda
Ć. Truhelka- Državno i sudbeno ustrojstvo Bosne u srednjem vijeku
- Srednjovječni stećci u Bosne i Hercegovine

That should keep you busy for a few months.

EDIT: I don't really want to argue anymore. My reason for thinking that Bosnian culture is not needed is mainly about balance and the fact that there are hundreds of similar cases and EU is too grand in scope for each of them. Whether a distinct Bosnian culture existed in the middle ages is debatable, but even if we assume that it did, it certainly wasn't widespread enough. It was concentrated in the "core" Bosnian territory in 12th century, and all the later conquest/acquisitions were mainly populated by Serbs or Croats. In the end, when EU IV starts, only about 10% of the territory of Bosnia can be considered to be populated by Bosnians. In other territories and provinces, Bosnians or Krstjani were a minority. So, unless we decide that everyone who lives in Bosnia is automatically of Bosnian culture, it makes sense about as much as making culture English in the provinces England owns in France at the beginning of EU 3.

You can knock yourself out now