Myths of „Serbian Bosnia“

When talking with Serbs one must notice that their sense of history is very perverted.

For long, Bosnians were quiet so Serbian pseudo-historians were able to spread their lies without any control. That time is luckily behind us and Bosnia is not quiet anymore.

We will show that their claim about Bosnia being a Serbian land is absolutely false. They say that Serbs settled the area of Bosnia but THEY DON’T HAVE ANY PROOF AT ALL!

THEY DON’T HAVE A SINGLE SCRIPT OR A TEXT SAYING THAT SERBS EVER SETTLED IN THIS SIDE OF DRINA RIVER but still they try to fool themselves and the whole world. But there are (or there were) a few normal people who knew the truth and said it. For example Serbian historian Relja Novakovic said:

“ It seems that Zeta ( now Montenegro) ,like BOSNIA as well , was a unique land from the very beginning.“

But who settled in Bosnia? If Bosniaks are Slavs and Serbs (or Croats for that matter) never settled in Bosnia...who did? The answer is very simple...when we compare Slavs with Germans for example;we notice that Slavs stayed a homogenous group longer than Germans which means that different peoples separated themselves with their own tribal names from the rest of the Slavs later than Germanic tribes did from the rest of the Germans.

ONLY SMALL PERCENT OF SLAVS BELONGED TO SPECIFIC TRIBES THAT WERE VERY WELL DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE SLAVIC MASS. OTHERS (THE MAJORITY) WERE UNDER NUMEROUS SMALL SLAVIC TRIBES AND CLANS WITH SLAVICHOOD AS THEIR ONLY IDENTIFICATION.

And also those who were differentiated had names and tribal structures from non-Slavic tribes. For example, Croats and Bulgars were originally non-Slavic but than they mixed with Slavs and gave them their names.

John V.A Fine suggested this : "Large parts of what was to become Yugoslavia remained outside the rule of these two dominant tribes,presumably simply under units of the original Slavs.These areas included Bosnia and Duklja(Montenegro). "

This map of Balkans in year 700. shows that situation:

We can clearly see the first settlements of Balcanic Croats and Serbs and also we can see that almost all territory of present-day Bosnia is marked "blank" which means that population was unknown or consisted of Slavs without tribal definition.

Another stupid claim from the Serbian side is that Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenetus mentions Bosnia as a part of Serbia in 958. Well, lets see what did he said:

"IN BAPTISED SERBIA ARE THE INHABITED CITIES OF DESTIKON [etc.]….AND IN THE TERRITORY OF BOSONA, KATERA AND DESNIK”....

So, emperor listed cities in baptised Serbia and in the end he just mentioned two cities " in the territory of Bosona". He did not wrote special chapter about Bosnia because territory of Bosnia was not under Byzantine rule; Croatia, Serbia, Neretva etc. were under rule of Constantinople and that is why they found their place in emperors book called " DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO" what means "On the governance of the Empire" !

Historian Noel Malcolm wrote this: " It occurs in the politico-geographical handbook written in 958 by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenetus.In the section of his handbook devoted to the Serbian prince`s lands he wrote:’IN BAPTISED SERBIA ARE THE INHABITED CITIES OF DESTIKON [etc.]….AND IN THE TERRITORY OF BOSONA,KATERA AND DESNIK”

„This makes it clear that Bosnia was considered a seperate territory."

The only part of Bosnia which was directly under Serbian rule was territory of city Soli but only for a small part of time because man who took it in a military campaign - Časlav Klonimirović died apr. two years after Constantine Porphyrogenetus wrote his famous handbook.

Now lets see their next so-called proof...

In 1187. Pope wrote a letter to Dubrovnik with this famous line: "regnum Servilie,quod est Bosna" or " Serbian kingdom, which is Bosnia". Even amateur historians know what this is about, only fake Serbian historians have trouble figuring it out.

First we need to note that letters from Pope are religious or church documents and that they are mentioning CHURCH AREAS and not states.With that in mind, it is not hard to conclude that "regnum Servilie,quod est Bosna" is a religious expression.

What is it all about? Its about expanding archdiocese of Dubrovnik and now it is going to be explained.

Archdiocese of Dubrovnik was consisting of three units: "regnum" Zahumlje ( now Herzegovina), "regnum" Serbia and "regnum" Travunija ( town Trebinje) and that was till year 1187.

We can clearly see that term " regnum" means church area or Diocese and not "kingdom" because obviously in that time none of these three areas had a status of a kingdom ( two of them did not even had a status of a state) !

From 1022 up to 1187 in all letters only "regnum Servilie" was mentioned and it had nothing to do with Bosnia cause Bosnian area was under Archdiocese of Split.

Why it was changed? Lets see....

Archdiocese of Dubrovnik lost Diocese of Bar in the meantime which was promoted to Archdiocese and also it lost Kotor and Serbia ( it had jurisdiction over it formally but Serbia from the first part of the 11. century was under Ohrid Archbishopric) so we can see that Dubrovnik was in a very bad situation...it could lose status of Archdiocese because it had lack of Dioceses.

Archbishop of Dubrovnik had to find a way to expand his area of jurisdiction...Bosnian diocese was a perfect target cause it was pretty big and also Bosnian bishop had to find a way to release Bosnian diocese from jurisdiction of Split cause Hungarians had a big influence there and they were a threat to the independence of Bosnia. So, by adding " quod est Bosna" to " Regnum Servilie" Dubrovnik succesfully played a trick on

Vatican by showing that regnum of Serbia also included Bosnia. In that way Dubrovnik tried to show that Bosnia was always under its Archdiocese but it was listed under "regnum Servilie". Clearly it was a successful forgery from Dubrovnik and the funny thing is that more similar cases were recorded during the middle ages.

Of course, Bosnia could not have been religiously under Serbia cause Bosnia and Serbia had different and separated dioceses; Bosnia had its own diocese from early medieval period. its interesting that there were actually church documents that clearly separated Bosnian and Serbian dioceses like it is case with Provinciale Vetus from 1080.

Ninoslav's charter

Matej Ninoslav was a Bosnian ruler from 1232.- 1253. One of his charters to Dubrovnik became a subject of controversy because Serbian pseudo-historians tried to show that Ninoslav mentiones Serbs as people of Bosnia and Vlachs as people of Dubrovnik. This is not true and we will show that.

So,actually Serbs are trying to convince others that two sides were mentioned in this charter but it is WRONG in many ways.

First, we just need to view the WHOLE CHARTER were "Dubrovčani" ( people of Dubrovnik) were mentioned beside Serbs and Vlachs.

Now lets see what else is wrong with this charter.

It must be noted that Bosnians never called people of Dubrovnik with name "Vlachs" but only with "Dubrovčani" - their true name. Even

Bosnian "Ban" Kulin who is mentioned by Ninoslav in charter used the name "Dubrovčani" and not "Vlachs"!

This is a part from the Kulin's charter from 1189. where he mentions "Dubrovčane", NOT VLACHS:

"U ime oca i sina i svetog duha. Ja, ban bosanski Kulin, obećavam Tebi kneže Krvašu i svim građanima Dubrovčanima pravim Vam prijateljem biti od sada i dovijeka. I pravicu držati sa Vama i pravo povjerenje, dokle budem živ."

There are even sources from Serbia where "Dubrovčani", Vlachs and Serbs are very well differentiated like in one charter from Serbian emperor Stefan Dušan from 1345:

"...da ne uzima Dabiziv' Dubrov'canom ni carine; da nikoega dohodka ni tr'govcu Dubrov'c'komu, ni Vlahu, ni sr'binu, da nikomu; i kto gred u Dubrovnik i (i)z Dubrov'nika i vsaci vlasteli koi te stajati po Dabizive, da ne uzme carine do veka veku..."

So we see that Serbs ( Serbia) know that people of Dubrovnik are not Vlachs but still Bosnians ( neighbours of Dubrovnik) called them Vlachs? Serbs who are not close to Dubrovnik know their name but Bosnians who share the same border with them dont know how to call them? I dont think so cause I am a normal person.

Lets continue but first we need to see what was shown in the previous post:

IN one charter from Bosnian ruler Matej Ninoslav he confirms some rights to Dubrovnik and mentiones some sides: Serbs and Vlachs. Serbian historians claim that those Vlach are people of Dubrovnik and Serbs are people of Bosnia. But they fail when it is shown that in the same charter a true name for people of Dubrovnik - "Dubrovčani" was listed. So those Vlachs are not people from Dubrovnik same as Serbs are not people of Bosnia. Bosnians never called people from Dubrovnik with "Vlach" name but just with their original name " Dubrovčani".

now continuation...

It is said that "Dubrovčani" were never called Vlachs by Bosnians and here are some good examples :

Bosnian ruler Stjepan II Kotromanić,1332:

„Ako ima Dubrovčanin koju pravdu na Bošnjaninu“,

Bosnian king Tvrtko II, 1405:

„Kto godi je Bošnjanin ali Kraljstva Bosanskoga prije rata bil dlzhan komu godi Dubrovcaninu, volja na viri mu uzeto nagospockoj, a moze Dubrovcanin tozi istinom pokazati - da se ima Dubrovcanin uvratiti i platiti“

Grgur Vukosalić, duke from Zahumlje ( Herzegovina) in 1418:

„ tko godi grede u Ston'ili dubrovčanin' ili vlah' ili sr'blin ili tko ini"

So Vlachs are not Dubrovčani and Bosnians are not Serbs.

One more thing that also must be noted about this charter is that it is not the original one. Its just a transcript from a Serbian writer settled in Dubrovnik called Desoje which is also written in the very same charter. It is also seen in language of the charter: it was written in "ekavian" dialect ( Serbian) while Bosnians used mainly "ikavian" and "stokavian" dialects.

But it seems that this story is useless cause in charters that were issued later than this one Bosnian ruler Matej Ninoslav clearly separated different groups.

IN those from 1240. and 1249. three sides were mentioned : "Mi" ( us) - Bosnians, "vi" ( you) - people of Dubrovnik and "oni" ( they) - Serbs and Vlachs.

What is it all about? it is about settling the issues about trade with Dubrovnik where many Serbs and Vlachs were used and that required a special law.

Charter from 1333 - Stjepan II Kotromanić

Bosnian ruler Stjepan II Kotromanich ruled from 1314.-1353. In 1333. one of his famous charters was issued. Its famous because its one of those which are used by fake Serbian historians for their so-called proofs that Bosnia is Serbian land.

Here is a small part which they use:

"...A tomuj su četiri povelje jednako, dvije latinsci,i dvi srpsci - a sve su pečaćene zlatijemi pečati.Dvije sta povelje u gospodina Bana Stefana,a dvije povelje u Dubrovnici.A to je pisano pod gradom,pod Srebr`nikom"

This small part says that there are four charters of Steven II Kotromanic, two of them are in Latin script and two in Serbian script.

First of all, it is very important to note that all 4 original charters are lost. The only thing we have is this transcript by another Serbian writter who had a job in Dubrovnik.

What the Serbian historians are trying to show is that this charter is talking about languages but it is very wrong. They know this but still they continue to spread bad info. Anyone who has any knowledge about south-Slavic languages can see that this charter mentioned SCRIPTS AND NOT LANGUAGES.

We have a latin script and a CYRILLIC script that was called "serbian" by Serbian writter from Dubrovnik. It must be said that name " Cyrillic" was not used massively until 16. century and by that time that script was called differently in every region it was used.

So Serbs called it Serbian just like other names appeared in different regions...it was also called Bosnian cyrillic.Croatian cyrillic etc. So, for Serbian writter from Dubrovnik it was Serbian script and he put it in this transcript but Bosnian ban Stjepan II Kotromanić never said so,NOT ONCE. Also his name was written as " STEFAN" and that detail also helps us to see that this is not original charter cause in Bosnian language

name "Steven" was written always as "STEPAN" OR "STJEPAN" AND NOT "STEFAN" ( except when it was used as a title).

Lets see again the controversial part:

"...A tomuj su četiri povelje jednako, dvije latinsci,i dvi srpsci - a sve su pečaćene zlatijemi pečati.Dvije sta povelje u gospodina Bana Stefana,a dvije povelje u Dubrovnici.A to je pisano pod gradom,pod Srebr`nikom"

This what I am going to say is so obvious and it explains how I can be certain that Bosnian ruler never said anything about Serbian and Latin language or scripts with this charter included - THIS PART OF THE CHARTER SHOWS TECHNICAL DETAILS AND IT WAS WRITTEN ONLY BY SERBIAN WRITTER! Ruler had nothing to do with this part even in the original charter, nor in the transcript because , obviously, it is not his job cause he is not the writter. So, writter gives us technical details about the charter , how it was sealed, how many copies there are and where they are...what Bosnian ruler had to say stopped before this part!

The last sentence finishes this story.

"A to je pisano pod gradom,pod Srebr`nikom"

It means: " THAT WAS written in Srebrenik" ( translation is aproximately given) and we have another proof which says that this is just a transcript made by foreign writter. If this was a original charter it would said :" THIS IS written..." but that is not the case.

This is not strange, Serbian writter from Dubrovnik was just doing his job.

Now that we have successfully killed all their lies about so-called Serbian character of medieval Bosnia it is time to start with some facts about Serbian history which will reveal more of their lies.

BATTLE OF NICOPOLIS

Battle of Nicopolis is considered to be the last large-scale crusade in Europe. It took place on 25 September 1396 and was fought between Ottoman empire and Christian alliance of Europe near the fortress of Nicopolis on Danube in modern Bulgaria.

It was one of the biggest battles for Christendom cause eventual victory would stop the Ottoman army from spreading further into Europe.

Christian side:

-KINGDOM OF HUNGARY

-KNIGHTS HOSPITALLER

-REPUBLIC OF VENICE

-WALLACHIA

-UNITS FROM HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

-UNITS FROM POLAND

-UNITS FROM NAVARRE

-UNITS FROM BOHEMIA

-UNITS FROM TRANSYLVANIA

-UNITS FROM SPAIN

The most prominent figure among Crusaders was Sigismund, Holy Roman emperor.

Ottoman army was made of regular soldiers and 1,500 SERBIAN KNIGHTS UNDER STEFAN LAZAREVIĆ who fought side by side with Ottoman sultan Bayezid I.

BATTLE OF NICOPOLIS - continuation

The battle was waged between equal opponents with losses on both sides UNTIL STEFAN LAZAREVIĆ MARCHED IN WITH HIS 1,500 SERBIAN KNIGHTS AND DESTROYED CHRISTIAN ARMY . Ottomans were victorius and Stefan Lazarević gave them the victory. This battle was much more important than battle of Kosovo that happened earlier ( 1389) because it decided the faith of the Balkans for the next 400-500 years. Significance of this Ottoman/Serbian victory is very visible in the fact that new Christian coalition was gathered AFTER 40 years when Turks were already established as leading force in this part of Europe.

This totally destroys the myth about Serbians as defenders of Christendom because they directly opened the way to Europe to the Ottomans and sealed their power in the Balkans. This battle is not the only proof but it is very important to understand what really did happened in this area. More proofs will be presented later in this thread.

Now lets see some data about Stefan Lazarević. He was not just vassal of Turkish Sultan, he was also his brother -in-law because Stefans sister Olivera was married to Sultan Bayezid.

As a ruler of Serbia, Stefan Lazarević also participated in three more battles side by side with the Turks :

Battle of Karanovasa in 1394, the Battle of Rovine in 1395 and in the Battle of Ankara in 1402.