User talk:Evergreen Montenegro1

Welcome!

Hello, Evergreen Montenegro1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Have a geat time editing Wikipedia, fellow Montenegrin. Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk page editing

Hi,

You shouldn't edit other people's comments on Talk pages. It's simply not a good idea. You can comment on anything, you can suggest that old comments are archived, but you must not remove them if they're not yours.

--Joy [shallot] 22:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo! I have checked the web link that I got from user "holy roman emperor" and I have also investigated the matter with other sources. My conclusion is that montenegrins have a separate identity different from the one that serbs have, montenegrins do also speak a language that, for example, resembles more bosnian than serbian. It is most likely that the montenegrins were politicized in to serbdom like the so-called "bosnian serbs" who are actually orthodox bosniaks. I support a montenegrin identity and separate history, good luck to you guys but please don't produce more maniaks like karadzic to this world ;) Damir Mišić 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....keep dreaming son--Jadran 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that you are open to all views, and try to read widely. Keep it up, Ps congradulations on Montengro's recent victory in achieving independence, thankgod it was peacefull and did not result in blood Shame the same cannot be said for the other former yugoslav republics

zivjela nezavisna crna gora!--Jadran 04:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

I've heard of Bog i Hrvati before - but Joy himself informed me that it was only mumbo-jumbo - and not a motto. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia

Hehe, but the claim that all Bosniaks have Croat origin is nothing but Croatian propaganda. I do not deny that some of them have Croat origin, some have Serb, some have none of these two, but such claim that "all of them are Croats by origin" is simply ridiculous. By the way, why you do not ask Bosniaks about their origin? I do not think that they will tell you that they are Croats. They will rather tell you that they are descendants of Slavs who came to Balkans one century before Serbs and Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnians - Bosniaks

How, there! You have a large mixture over there. It seems as if you mix Bosniak with Bosnian. Ofcourse its evident that some Bosnians of are of Serb origin - did you ever hear of the Serb Republic? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Montenegro as it is

...why do you find 98% of it rubbish? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. - you gotta create a user page (it's red). --HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CG Wikipedia

Hey Evergreen Montenegro1, there is currently a vote for a version of Wikipedia in Montenegrin. If you want to vote, go to meta:Requests for new languages. There you can vote. Ask your friends on Wikipedia (if you have any) who haven't voted to vote. Thanks. Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 06:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help

First of all, you don't have to create a user page, if you don't want to. Don't listen to what HRE (HolyRomanEmperor) says. You choose what ypu want to put on Wikipedia. Second of all, you don't need to make another account for the voting page, even though it's another project of the Wikis. all you have to do is put this (copy and paste this on the voting page if you're going to vote) # [[en:User:Evergreen Montenegro1|Evergreen Montenegro1]]
Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 06:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Montenegro1 04:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Voted thanks[reply]

Bosnian origin vs. croatian-serbian-montenegrin

You said that the most common theory on bosnian origin is that they are croats/serbs who took Islam during the turks. This is surely the most common theory among uneducated and brainwashed croatian and serbian hillbillies, it is all croatian and serbian politics as a result of their goal to divide bosnia between them and to exterminate bosnian/bosniak people. I know montenegrin identity is closely related to the serbian one but you can't compare bosnia and bosnians/bosniaks with montenegro and montenegrins, Bosnia is after all pretty much older and so are it's native people Bosnjani. The supposed connection between bosnians and croats do not exist apart from one exception, they speak the same language. Once again the language doesn't have any meaning in mediteranean areas, just look at the frenchmen - whole of France was celtic (land of Galia) with celtic language but after some 200 years of roman rule these celts suddenly disappeared from the area and a new latin speaking people showed up - today's french people. So I ask you now do you think that the Celts simply dissapeared from the surface of the earth OR do you think that the celts addopted latin language from the romans and that today's french people are the very same celts who lived there. Geneticly speaking french people are highly celtic, much more than what they are latin/romance, but no matter this they are classified as a roman people. Furthermore the bulgarians are a turkic people from the very begining but are today a slavic with a slavic language - hmm strange?. The croats and serbs stem from Iranian lands with Iranian language but today they are slavs and speak slavic language - hmm strange?. Now here comes what I wan't to say with this: language is no indicator of how much people are related to each other, especially not in a turbulent area as the balkans. It is all a case of assimilation. The bosnians are not croats the smallest bit - of course there has been mixures - but bosnians do not, in any way or the smallest bit, stem from croats or serbs. Bosnians are originally the same people as the albanians (no wonder these two were the only ones who took islam) - bosnians are descendants of illyrians who were assimilated through centuries and ended up with a slavic language - bosnian. The language does not necessarily have to be serbian or croatian in origin (no evidence). Ever considered all the clues of Illyrianhood in bosnian history? First we have ruler Kulin ban who had an Illyrian-scordesce tribe name: Kulin and not to mention the name bosnia - Bosona meaning in Illyrian language running water after the river Bosna. Serbs and croats try to say that they were the inhabitants of medieval bosnia (No evidence) - there is no serious anthropologist or historian admiting this - instead everyone knows that the inhabitants of bosnia called themselves Bosnjani - Bosnians. Bosnia was also the first feudal state in whole of ex-Yugoslavia - and serbs/croats are trying to say that bosnians descend from them? - pretty screwed up. Damir Mišić

First fuedal state? Tomislav Trpimirović and Mihailjo Vojislavljević ring a bell? Probably not, considering your claims. Bosniaks took up islam because both the Western Church was not strong there, and the Eastern Church was even weaker. Thus heretics were able to form, these heretics did not have a very strong loyalty to there religions, and thus it was easy to choose the benifits of converting to islam over staying Christian(wether it be Catholic, Orthodox, Heretical Bosnian church, Bogomilism) Thus Bosniaks lost there attachment to the Croatian and Serbian nnations through the change in religion, after 500 years of a privelged position in Bosnian Nobile Society, why would they want to give that up and join there mother Countries( croatia serbia (christian))? and became Peasants like the Bosnian Croats and Serbs. Again BIH borders are artificial, citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina who reside in places like Neum do not look different to citizens of Croatia who reside in the nearby klek or Peljesac( near Dubrovnik)

Bosniaks are not illyrians, as they look identical to Croats( eg above example. Alabanians are dark mediteran people, and bosniaks are as white as snow. SO the 5% or so mixing with indigenous tribes such as the illyrians and vlahs and romans does not justify claims to be decendants from them.

Croat tribes probably also mixed with indigenous tribes of the balkans. Explains Ban kulins(so called illyrian blood)

Also if Bosniaks were a nation, why was there no recorded evdidence of the people rising up against the "invading croats" and fighting for a "independent Bosnia" free from the rule of croatia? Accept it, illyrians are illyrians, and they have no loyalty to a Bosniak nation, their loyalty lies with a illyrian Kingdom! beats me how they can just turn around on that and proclaim a new nation "bosniak"! By the way, if you say there was a bosnian nation during the Bosnian Kingdom(which btw began after the croatian and serbian kingdoms) i assume that you believe this is the time of Bosniak National Emancipation? Well then guess what, you cannot claim to be the succesor to the illyrian kingdom and thus succussor to the indigenouness to bosnia, and thus claim it to be exclusvly Bosniak land. Why? Because only alabania is "a succesor state to the ilyirian kingdom", and thus croats and serbs have more claim to bosnia as they were a self conscious of their ethnicity and a defined nation before the emergence of a Bosnian kingodom( and its socalled Bosniak emancipation away from illyrian nation within it).(which in all respect is not the kingdom of Bosniaks, but Croatian and serbian kings of bosnia(geographic).

Sure!

I totally agree with you. :) However, there is no point in altering things today, is there? For instance, did you ever read the Mountain Wreath? Do you think that it's forged.

Also, you haven't answered me about the "Bog I Hrvati" part. P. S. Are you a Montenegrin Croat? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are a Croat from Montenegro if you can put it that way, a Catholic Montenegrin, but all these others, Orthodox people of Montenegro, what nation are they? Just asking your point of view... Nexm0d

"For example, the number of Croats in Kotor dropped from 69% in 1910 to 7% in 1991; in Herceg-Novi from 70% to 2%; in Tivat from 95% to 23%." - ...

Mountain Wreath...

also known as Горскій віенацъ: историческо событіє при свршетку XVII віека. It was written by Petar II Petrović Njegoš of Cetinje. It is the greatest litterary Montenegrin work in the history of linguistics - and among the most famous Serbian. You could also take a look at There, over there!. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I will ask my dad about these books..Evergreen Montenegro1 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see - there are several problems there. For instance, members of one man's family were Serbian nationalists for centuries - and a decendent comes and claims how he's a Montenegrin - and how he's not a Serb. Surely he's going to claim that his ancestors weren't as well. This is why, I would much rather prefer written words & documented information - for instance, the actual sight of the Montenegrin Constitution from the 19th century - or Montenegro's Code of Laws... etc. That's why I think you should provide sources as well - I would like to believe you - but I haven't heard/seen nothing about it yet - and thus, I cannot put it on wiki. My friend (an exile from Croatia) says that his grandfather told him that Serbs settled Krajina - and that Croats came only later. The thing that you're saying is the same as this.

How can you claim that you're of Montenegrin origin? If you draw origin from the Bay of Kotor - and it has never been a part of Montenegro before 1945. :) There were only some attempts in 1813 - but that was only a part of the plan to unify all Serbs... Besides that - the Bay of Kotor even after the Communist boundries that included it in Montenegro - always had a Serb majority and Montenegrin minority. So, where's the logic? Why do you say that you're Montenegrin in the first place? :)

Your mention of Serbinized Croat people Ivo Andric & Rudjer Boskovic is funny to me. ;) I cannot comment the latter one (who was, generally, regarded a Serb by the world until recently - that's where all the arguements like), but Ivo was a Serb nationalist - and he's appearently very hated by the Croats, who "denounced him as a Serb runaway". :))) If you speak that it's right to say for a man whatever nationality he wants - why not let Ivo be a Serb, like he himself wanted? And why call Ruggero a Croat - when he most certainly wasn't? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odgovor

Prvo ne razumem koga si na mojoj strani za razgovor pitao zašto traži informacije, jer ja te informacije nisam tražio već ih je HolyRomanEmperor tražio od mene. Dakle, jel si to pisao njemu ili meni? A što se tiče ostalih stvari, na primer "that Croatia sooner or later would try to claim this region back", pogledaj neki istorijski atlas i videćeš da taj region (Boka) baš nikada u istoriji nije bio deo Hrvatske, a ne razumem kako neko može "to claim this region back" ako mu nikada nije pripadao. I drugo, ako tvrdiš da su u Boki i Bosni živeli većinom Hrvati, kako objašnjavaš činjenicu da je tokom istorije u oba ova regiona bilo više Srba nego Hrvata? Gde je tu logika? Što se tiče eurovizije, ne razumem se u to, više me zanimaju istorija, geografija i politika. PANONIAN (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pazi, granica između Srba i Hrvata u ranom srednjem veku bile su reke Cetina i Vrbas. Dakle, tražiti Hrvate istočno od tih granica u to doba nije naučno utemeljeno. Navedi mi jedan relevantan izvor (osim tvog dede i hrvatskih izvora naravno :)) koji tvrdi da je granica Srba i Hrvata bila na drugom mestu. Podaci srednjovekovnih autora i kasniji popisi stanovništva potvrđuju ovo što ja govorim. Mogu i ja da tvrdim na primer da Kinezi potiču od Marsovaca, ali gde su dokazi za to? Ne ide to tako. :) A što se tiče oblika Hrvatske, to je zato što mnogi Hrvati Slavonije i Dalmacije potiču od pokatoličenih Srba. Da nije tako, granica bi bila mnogo izravnija. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegrin

No, I do not understand. Tell me, what makes you Montenegrin if you do not originate from Montenegro? Also, you tell me to ask the people themselves? I did. Most of the Boka people are Serbs and they told me all about their "Serbian" region of the Bay of Kotor. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro

Well, the book was written by Montenegro's 1830-1851 ruler. And the Montenegrin national There, over there! anthem was written by the only Montenegrin King (in 1860-1914). Why does it depend (and what?)? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo & Rudjer

Essentially - I do not want to argue about these two. If you respect people's self-determination, and not origin - then you will leave Rudjer Boskovic neither Croat nor Serb. Never forget that there is a claim that Rudjer's father was an Eastern Orthodox Christian. You say changing facts. Well, Rudjer was neither of it before the Serbo-Croatian national awakenings. First, he was Serbian (Serbian propaganda was much stronger in southern Dalmatia before Croatia annexed those regions in the mid-20th century). You can see that in the old textbooks, encyclopediae - whatever. You argue about changing/altering facts - and yet he became a Croat in modern ideology (which is fine - Croatian nationalism/propaganda won over Serbian for the Catholics of Dubrovnik with the Bay of Kotor - which were most possibly a distinct people of their own).

As for Ivo - when I came to Croatia once, many people spat at his name, most calling him "traitor" (izrod) that worked for a "Greater Serbia". Even here on wiki some Croatian wikipedians say so. I believe that it was his statements within the League of Nations - he complained greatly about the Croatian seperatism that ruled in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, calling it biased, and the essential problem of the Kingdom. Ivo also called the followers of Stjepan Radic - fools following a blind dog and expressed no mercy even after he was mortally wounded in an assassination atempt. His own CV writes "Serb" in the place of nationality. We all know that he was "ethnicly" a Croat from Bosnia (and yes, he had both Serb and Moslem blood from his mother's side), so why argue about him? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Funny the muscle man ;) I was rather thinking of the name Miso. But to be serious I don't agree with you when you are saying that proper Bosnia is historically Croat inhabited - if it ever would have been, Bosnia would have been called Croatia today; simple as that. Bosnia isn't exactly easy to inhabit for invaders with all her mountains like Albania. So I don't agree with you. But everyone is free to have their oppinion and I won't ever change mine. But you are right on one thing, serbs and montenegrins have a close connection - like the father and his rebellion son Damir Mišić

Why...

won't you answer my post? --HolyRomanEmperor 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take a look at this:

Marco Polo of Croat origin? Rudjer Boskovic Croat? Bosniaks (a nation) are Croats converted to Islam?

Please just re-read those statements of yours. I'm not going to accuse you for anything, but they're words of a (Greater) Croatian nationalist.

OK, I understand - you're a Montenegrin by self-determination (just like I like to call myself a Martian by nationality :)

A very interesting page - I must say, I am dissapointed. I trusted you before. :( --HolyRomanEmperor 10:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you can't read Cyrillic - here:

"A country’s total population, united under a state’s jurisdiction, makes up a people in the political sense, irrespective of whether or not it stems from a common tribe. Thus for example, we say ‘American People’, which implies all citizens of the United States disregarding different ethnic origins. That can also be applied to the French, German, Russian people and so on. Therefore, the concept of a ‘people’, in the political sense, does not overlap with that of ethnicity because the former is far more inclusive that the latter.

When it comes to the people of our fatherland, we could never utilize the term ‘Montenegrin people’ in an ethnic context because the Montenegrins are ethnic Serbs and a Montenegrin ethnicity does not exist. Aside from that, within Montenegro’s borders reside citizens of non-Serb ethnicity, yet this does not prevent them from belonging to a political Montenegrin people.

Accordingly, in order to avoid a detrimental and often dangerous misunderstanding, one should carefully distinguish an ethnographic people from a political people. For example, the formulation ‘Montenegro is for the Montenegrins’ should be understood as opposing Montenegrins to foreign citizens, with all Montenegrin citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity, remaining equal before the State.

Montenegro’s borders encompass its sovereign territory. That area is but a fraction of what is denoted as the Serb Lands, which are inhabited exclusively or mostly by Serbs yet politically separated among several states. Two present-day independent Serb kingdoms sprung from those Lands: Montenegro and Serbia. The third portion is in Austria-Hungary and a part in Bulgaria."

That's from that Code of Laws from 1914. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

I really do not have time to discuss with you Balkan politics and history. Most of us use Wikipedia to write and improve articles, while you mostly use it like a Forum. If you have any question or suggestion about any specific article, we can discuss that, but I have no time now to discuss about general Balkans politics. PANONIAN (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Pana ..ur right...nor do i want to discuss them with anyone to be honest. All the best Evergreen Montenegro1 03:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Politika

Yeah, yeah - I agree with you. :) Surely there were "Greater Serbia" (Serbia(with Vojvodina and Kosovo)+Macedonia+Montenegro+Bosnia and Herzegovina+Croatia to the line Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag) and a "Greater Croatia" (Croatia+Bosnia and Herzegovina+Bay of Kotor+Srem+western Vojvodina+Sandzak). However, they are far too insignificant when compared to what our nations did together. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 07:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "Slavic tribe" that came before the Serbs. Now, bear with me:

Slavs have migrated an populated the Balkans from the at the northwest Alps to the Black Sea to the east to the Pelopponesian peninsular to the south since as early as the 5th cetntury. In the first half of the 7th century, two large groups (frist Croats, then followed by the Serbs) of possible non-Slavic origin burst into the Balkan peninsular, conquering, inhabiting, invading, assimilating, being assimilated, destroying, builfing, etc. So, in the same manner as Montenegrins aren't of Serb origin - the Serbians aren't of Serb origin - nor are Croats of Croat origin. By the way, why do you think that Serbs & Croats are so similiar? They were closely connected before - it's exactly because of this Slavic origin. ;) --HolyRomanEmperor 08:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop mentioning Andric. He's a Croat from Bosnia, we all know that - and I disagree with all the Croatians who spit on his name, telling that he was a Serbian nationalist (because I agree with his complains regarding the Ustasa movement and the Croat rebellion of Stjepan Radic, although not so fiercely - I am still sad because of Radic). --HolyRomanEmperor 08:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motnenegrin Code of Laws from 1914

Well, ofcourse a Serb wrote it. :) Do you think that the Motnenegrins would've accepted something foreign? Dragovic and Bakic (ministers within the Royal Government of Montenegro) composed it - it was passed by the Serb-Montenegrin National Assembly and approved by King Nichola I Petrovic-Njegos. Well, duh, just like any law, constitution, etc... --HolyRomanEmperor 08:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - even Croatian historians (like those seen on the Herzeg-Bosna website) - even the most biased ones - agree that Croat might have evolved from Serb accross the Iranni "charv". They agree that "Serbs" was a common name for all Slavs - but one group of Slavs changed that name, dialectly. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo

hahha smesno bre hahaha Not my view at all if you look close Re Marco Polo the sources are non Croat....only a Serb would say Boscovich is Serb as they believe all x yugo people are Serbs in origin

ehm, please present me a single non-Croat source claiming that Marco Polo was Croatian.

Hmm, only Serbs consider him Serbian? How about Encyclopedia Britanica (one of the most famous in the world):

"After Gyorgyich the Servian literature of Ragusa and Dalmatia during the 18th century has no great name to show, except that of the mathematician, Ruggiero Boshkovich (see Boscovic). His two brothers and his sister Anitsa Boshkovich were known in their time as poets. But on the whole Servian literature on the Adriatic Coast showed little originality in the 18th century; its writers were content to produce good translations of Latin, Italian and French works."

Satisfied? :) --HolyRomanEmperor 09:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I know when/where were your parents born exactly, please? --HolyRomanEmperor 09:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Montenegro1... you are really denying the truth. It seems like if you are a revanscist and a slavic nationalist. Some information for you:

Epirotes are not half-Albanians, on the contrary southern Albania is a greek-speaking area (Agya Saranda, Argirokastro, etc) usually called North Epirus.
Slavic tribes reached Balcanic peninsula very recently (from an historical point of view). The cities in Dalmatia were not Slavic culturally, and dalmatians were not croatians until 1940 (people in Slavonski Brod look really different from people in Zara, Spalato and Fiume). Unfortunately during WWII Italian fascists tried to to italianise the slavic countryside (brutally killing thousand people) around Dalmatian/Istrian cities, and in this way they created an anti-italian movement that, after the war, forced 500'000 dalmatians to migrate from their cities to avoid death in a foibe. If you visit Zara, Sebenico or Spalato you will see how many buildings, churches, hospitals were built by families with venetian surnames.

Venice does not exist anymore, but Marco Polo was Venetian, Alexander the Great was Greek.Crengo 10:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Documents

you say that you like to read pre-1991 - but you won't comment the 1914 Montenegro's Code of Laws? Why? By the way, let me present to you the Danil's Code from the 1850s - written by Prince Danilo Petrovic-Njegos of Montenegro:

In English: Although there is no other nationality in this land except Serb nationality and no other religion except Eastern Orthodoxy, each foreigner and each person of different faith can live here and enjoy the same freedom and the same domestic right as Montenegrin or Highlander. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the History of Montenegro from Encyclopedia Britanica:

The history of Montenegro as an independent state begins with the battle of Kossovo (1389), but the country had enjoyed periods of independence or semi-independence at various epochs before that event. It formed a portion of the district of Praevalitana in the Roman province of Illyria, and, lying on the borderland of the empires of the West and East, it alternately shared the fortunes of either till the close of the 5th century. It was then conquered by the Ostrogoths (A.D. 493), but half a century later definitely passed under Byzantine rule, having already acknowledged the ecclesiastical authority of Constantinople, a circumstance which determined the course of its subsequent history. Illyria and Dalmatia succumbed to the great SerboCroat invasion of the 6th and 7th centuries; the Serb race by which Montenegro is now inhabited occupied the country about the middle of the 7th century. A confederacy of Serb states was formed under thu pans, or feudal princes, dependent on the grand zhupan, who was nominally the vassal of the Greek emperor. The Serb principality of the Zeta, or Zenta, originally included the Herzegovina, Cattaro and Scutari, as well as the Montenegro of to-day, and was ruled by a zhupan resident at Doc]ea. The principality, though retaining its zhupans, was practically united with the Servian kingdom between 1159 and 1356 under the Nemanya dynasty, which sprang from Doclea. After the death of the great Servian tsar Dushan in 1356 the feudatory princes of his empire became more or less independent, and the powerful family of Balsha established a dynasty in the Zetfi. eventiiiillv tr~nsferrine ite esnital from flnrlp,, 1-c, Sciitsri After the fatal defeat of Kossovo, which extinguished the independence of Servia for more than four centuries (see SE1tvIA), George Balsha, the ruling prince of the Zeta, withdrew to the mountainous portion of his realm, which became an asylum for many of the Servian nobles and for others who had been outlawed or persecuted by the Turkish conqueror. The principality now owned no suzerain, and the history of its heroic struggle with the Turks began. The long record of warfare is varied by conflicts with the Venetians, who at times allied themselves with the mountaineers, but usually deserted them in the hour of need. The Balsha family became extinct in. 1421, and a new dynasty was founded by Stephan Tzernoyevitch, or Tzernovitch, who fixed his capital at Zhabliak on the north-east side of Lake Scutari, and joined with his relative, the famous Scanderbeg (qv.) in many campaigns against the Turks. After the Turkish conquest of Bosnia in 1463, of the Herzegovina m 1476 and of Albania in 1478, and the surrender of Scutari by the Venetians in 1479, the Montenegrins found themselves surrounded on all sides by the Ottoman power, and the struggle was henceforth for existence. Abandoned by Venice and unable to obtain succour from any Christian state, Ivan the Black, the son and successor of Stephan, set fire to Zhabliak in 1484, and withdrew with his people to the mountain village of Tzetinye (Cettigne) which has ever since been the capital of the little principality. Here he founded the famous monastery and created a bishopric in order to establish the spiritual power at the seat of government. Ivan was one of the greatest heroes of Montenegrin history: according to the national legend, he still sleeps in a cave near his fortress of Obodto awake when the hour arrives for the expulsion of the Turks from Europe.

and here about the people:

The Montenegrins present all the characteristics of a primitive race as yet but little affected by modern civilization. Society National is still in that early stage at which personal valour Character- is regarded as the highest virtue, and warlike prowess istics. constitutes the principal, if not the only, claim to pre-eminence. The chiefs are distinguished by the splendour of their arms and the richness of their costume; women occupy a subject position; the physically infirm often adopt the profession of minstrels and sing the exploits of their countrymen like the bards of the Homeric age. A race of warriors, the Montenegrins are brave, proud, chivalrous and patriotic; on the other hand, they are vain, lazy, cruel and revengeful. They possess the domestic virtues of sobriety, chastity and frugality, and are well-mannered, affable and hospitable, though somewhat contemptuous of strangers. They are endowed in no small degree with the high-flown poetic temperament of the Serb, race, and delight in interminable recitations of their martial deeds, which are sung to the strains of the gItsla, a rudimentary one-stringed fiddle. Dancing is a favorite pastime. Two characteristic forms are the slow and stately ring-dance (kolo) ,1 in which women sometimes participate, though it is usually performed by a circle of men; and the livelier measure for both sexes (oro), in which the couples face one another, leaping high into the air, while each man encourages his partner by rapid revolver-firing. The oro is the traditional dance in the Katunska district. Women chant wild dirges, generally improvised, over the dead; mourners try to excel one another in demonstrations of grief; and funerals are celebrated by an orgy very like an Irish wake. Like most imaginative peoples, the Montenegrins are extremely superstitious, and belief in the vampire, demons and fairies is almost universal. Among the mountains they can converse fluently at astonishing distances. The physical type contrasts with that of the northern Serbs: the features are more pronounced, the hair is darker, and the stature is greater. The men are tall, often exceeding 6 ft. in height, muscular, and wonderfully active, displaying a cat-like elasticity of movement when scaling their native rocks; their bearing is soldier-like and manly, though somewhat theatrical. The women, though frequently beautiful in youth, age rapidly, and are short and stunted, though strong, owing to the drudgery imposed on them from childhood; they work in the fields, carry heavy burdens, and are generally treated as inferior beings. Like the Albanians, the Montenegrins take great pride in personal adornment. The men wear a red waistcoat, embroidered with gold or black braid, over which a long plaid is sometimes thrown in cold weather; a red girdle, in the folds of which pistols and yataghans are placed; loose dark-blue breeches and white stockings, which are generally covered with gaiters. The opanka, a raw-hide sandal, is worn instead of boots; patent leather long boots are sometimes worn by military officers and a few of the wealthier class. The headdress is a small cap (ha pa), black at the sides, in mourning for Kossovo; red at the top, it is said, in token of the blood shed then and afterwards. On the top near the side, five semicircular bars of gold braid, enclosing the kings initials, are supposed to represent the five centuries of Montenegrin liberty. There is little authority, however, for this and other fanciful interpretations of the pattern, which was adopted in the reign of Peter I.; the red fez, from which the kapa probably derives its color, was previously worn. A blue or green mantle is sometimes worn in addition by the chiefs. The poorer mountaineers are often dressed in coarse sacking, but all without exception carry arms. The women, as befits their servile condition, are generally clothed in black, and wear a black head-dress or veil; on Sundays and holidays, however, a white embroidered bodice, silver girdle, and bright silk skirt are worn beneath an open coat. Over this is placed a short, sleeveless jacket of red, blue, or violet velvet, according to the wearers age. Unmarried girls are allowed to wear the red kapa, but without the embroidered badge. The Vasoyevitch tribe retain the Albanian costume, in which white predominates. Turkish dress is often seen at Antivari, Dulcigno and Podgoritza. The dwelling-houses are invariably of stone, except in the eastern districts, where wooden huts are found. As a rule, only the mansions of cattle-owners have a second storey: the ground floor, which is dark and unventilated, is occupied by the animals; the upper chambers, in which the family reside, are reached by a ladder or stone staircase. Chimneys are rare, and the smoke of the fireplace escapes through the windows (if any exist) or the open doorway. The principal food of the people is rye or maize cake, cheese, potatoes and salted scoranze; their drink is water or sour milk; meat is seldom tasted, except on festive occasions, when raki and red wine are also enjoyed. The Montenegrins are great smokers, especially of cigarettes; in the districts which formerly belonged to Turkey the men, whose dignity never permits them to carry burdens, may be seen going to market with the chibi2k, or long pipe, slung across their backs. The mother possesses little influence over her sons, who are trained from their earliest infancy to cultivate warlike pursuits and to despise the weaker sex. Betrothals often take place in early childhood. Young men who are attached to each other are accustomed to swear eternal brotherhood (pobratimstvo); the bond, which receives the sanction of the Church, is never dissolved. Marriages between Montenegrins and converted Turkish girls are a common source of blood-feuds. The zadruga, or house-community, under the rule of a stareshina, or house-father, is found in Montenegro as in other Slavonic lands (see SERVIA). The tribal system still exists, but possesses less significance than in Albania, owing to the centralization of~ authority at Cettigne. The tribe (pleme, ph plemena) is subdivided into clans (bratstva).

And as for your claims that the Bay of Kotor and Bosnia were settled by Croats before Serbs - why aren't there any evidence/proofs of it. Besides, it doesn't go together with what we know of Bosnia today. (It's nothing post-1991) --HolyRomanEmperor 09:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Yes, but when were your parents born?

Britannica is one of the best world's sources - and you can't say "...they say...", you have to show me - like I show to you (scanned books, verifiable sources, etc.). Its part of Wikipedia:Verifiability --HolyRomanEmperor 07:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is well-known that Boskovic descends from Italian nobility from his mother's side - and Bosnian from his fathers. So, where's this "poor" theory? :0) --HolyRomanEmperor 07:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a Serb wrote them. Well ofcourse, what do you think, that the Montenegrins would accept something that's foreign for their Law and customs???

You cannot claim claim that that's not new Croat pov and this Serbian pov - as I presented to you sources and verified it. You must present something - or drop that theory.

Re: Andric and Tesla

Well, Tesla wasn't born in Croatia - that's the point. :) While Andric, Andric lived in Belgrade for the most of his life - spoke Serbian for the most of his life, took a Serbian girlfriend and was a harsh endorser of the Greater Serbian ideology that circled those ages. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cyrillics

Ehm - that Latin scrypt was used amongst the Catholic Bosnians, ofcourse, but even they sometimes prefered Cyrillic (Latin was only in religious service, etc). The first appears of large scales of Latin in Bosnia and Herzegovina was in 1878-1908 - during Bosnia and Herzegovina's incorporation into Austro-Hungary. While in Montenegro - Cyrillic has always been predominant, and is predominant - it's just used in Montenegro slightly more than it's used in Serbia (where it's almost equal). --HolyRomanEmperor 08:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer (PANONIAN)

"If Bosnians and Montenegrins are Serbs in origin why do they prefer to use latinica like Croats and not Chirilica like the Serbs???" hehehe But you are wrong, both, Bosniaks and Montenegrins use Cyrillic script, as well as Serbs use Latin script (most of the public signs in Belgrade and Novi Sad are in Latin script, not in Cyrillic). Regarding Ivo Andrić, Ruđer Bošković, etc, I did not contributed to these articles, so you should speak about that with somebody who is interested in question were they Serbs or Croats (I am not much interested in that question). You should ask me about articles that I wrote or contributed to. :) PANONIAN (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croats ethnicity and Montengrin Ethnicity

Ever green if your ever back on wikipedia, this is a bit belated but i just want to give u this article to read, hopefully you would understand my view regarding the matter we spoke about

[1]

read 3. GREATER SERBIAN POLITICS AND BOKA KOTORSKA

Paprika

Paprika je izvedeno iz sr. papar "biber". To je communis opinio u svim etimoloskim prirucnicima, pa tako i u Petar Skok, Etimologijski rjecnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, Zagreb 1971-1974, ali i u ogromnom broju stranih recnika, pa tako u najpoznatijem nemackom etimoloskom recniku KLUGE...

Iz kog su mestan u Boki tvoji? I ja imam veze sa Bokom.

pozz

Welcome back

wb. --PaxEquilibrium 15:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Evergreen. Good to have you back. --CG 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo

Oh it is no problem. I did give up slightly though, it seems we are dealing with people who just don't want to believe something and they won't. I'm talking about that Giovanni or whatever his name is! Evlekis 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn as Croat

Hello Evergreen,

As you can see, I'm not alone in reverting this "Haydn was Croatian" business.

I suggest, urgently, that you learn more about reference sources. The basic point is that because something is posted on line (as all your references were), it's not necessarily a reliable reference source. A nice place to learn more is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

Yours truly, Opus33 01:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Evergreen,

You are correct that Haydn was born in an area containing many ethnic Croats, and he was strongly influenced by Croatian folk music. However, his actual ethnicity has been studied in recent decades; Karl Geiringer was one of those who studied it, and there have been more recent scholars who have as well, such as D. Edge "New Sources for Haydn's Early Biography" (paper given at the American Musicological Society, 1993). These people have established beyond reasonable doubt that his ancestry was not Croatian. Please have a look at the detailed bibliography in the online New Grove, or in the hard copy at a good library.

These issues come up often with composers born in border regions, or indeed in the old Austro-Hungarian empire. Hugo Wolf is another interesting example (was he or was he not Slovene?) I grew up in a neighborhood of Polish immigrants, and heard spoken Polish and Polish folk music growing up, but alas I am not a Pole. Hope this helps, and happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this page Croatian composer Joseph Haydn, by William H_ Hadow, you'll find a bunch of links and references that deal with Croat root of Joseph Haydn.
Greetings, Kubura 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this page quotes a book that is about 100 years old. The book spurred additional scholarly research on the question of Haydn's ethnic origins, research resulting in a consensus that Haydn was not Croatian. You can find the relevant references under Haydn and folk music.

The point is that the Web is a very incomplete and unreliable source of scholarly information. You should not use it for editing; instead, go the library and check out books. Thank you for your attention and patience, yours sincerely, Opus33 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Haydn

Thank you for the material, Evergreen. But you didn't say where it's from! That is the real point of the matter, as far as I am concerned. Yours truly, Opus33 04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth-based encyclopedia

Hello Evergreen,

You're quite right that people behave like "sheriffs", and for a good reason. We are a truth-based encyclopedia. This means that for purposes of establishing whether Haydn was Croatian, what matters is stuff like the baptismal certificates of his ancestors, which have been located by scholars. There's a real difference between what some people want to be true, and what can be shown to be true by evidence. Yours truly, Opus33 05:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WB

Glad to see You didn't decide to leave at all! --PaxEquilibrium 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn from Croatia? Where did You find it? --PaxEquilibrium 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of people retired, practically all from former Yugoslavia, and as you can see, I'm retiring too. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

I agree what you say. I only lived in Yugoslavia till I was 5, then moved to Australia. So for me, i still think of my heritage as Yugoslav, becuase when i left in 1985, it was one country. What has happened is tragic. As i see it, the people are all kin, with exagerated differences. ALbanians, of course, are another matter.

My interes in particular is about the ethnogenesis of south slavs in the 6th century, and the consequent formation of early Slavic states. I have been doing quite a bit of research, because all the article here on wiki about the early history about Serbia, DUklja , Croatia and Bosnia are very vagues. Not much info is known, and the article reads like folktales. Dare i say, the Macedonians article is probably the most encyclopaedic.

Am i right to say that your view is that Monenegrins are Croat- descended? Hxseek (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we cannot definitively say whether Bosniaks or Montenegrins are Serb or Croats. Originally, 1, 400 years ago, two tribes called Serbs and Croats settled in Illyria. They ruled and mixed in with other slavs ("sclavenoi"), as well as Illyrians, remnants of Roman settlers and few Avars. Thus todays 'Serbs' and 'Croats' are the final product of ths mixture. As for Montenegro, as u probably know, it was called Duklja. De administrando imperio states that Serbs settled the Dalmatian coast from neretva south to scutari (Croats to the north). However, this may not mean that montenegrins were part of original Serb tribes. Maybe another Slav tribe was there, then became ruled by Serbs in 850 and then lost its identity. D.A.I. was written by a byzantine emperor, he wrote it in 9th century, not 600s. So maybe he was just expressing history in terms of the political situation of the time, ie Serbs ruled over Duklja. Another source, the chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, says that it was part of Red Croatia. This view is supported by Croatian and some montenegrin scholars. However, western scholars generally think of its as a poor source- more a folktale narrative. Whatever, the case, they would have been very similar anyway, and even Croats and Serbs , originally , were very similar people. Although Croats especially state that they have some kind of unique ancestry. Same with Bosnians, they were probably Serbs and Croats, mixed with other Slavs and Illyrians. We cannot definitely say

Genetics might help, it is a growing field. So far it confirms the ;mixture ' theory about south slavs. There are few subtle differences, eg between Slovenes, Croats, bulgarians, Serbs, etc. But without more studies, we cannot make any conclusion yet.

If u want to know more- read the south slavs article. I am still in the process of improving it, as i am still learning

Soon i will re-do the Serb, Bosnian and Croat medieval history articles (ie when it was all beginning and forming), because they are poor at the moment Also i will do a genetics of south slavs duscussion. All interesting stuff.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far , we have found that both Serbs and Croats are composed of 4 major haplogroups: E3b, I1b, R1a, R1b . I1b is found only in the western Balkans. It has high frequency in Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, highest of all in Herzegovinans. THis, loosely, has been linked with the Dalmatian-Illyrian culture. It is dated back to the paleolithic, oldest of all. R1a is incorrectly called the Slavic gene, because it is highest in Ukrainians and Poles, etc. However, it is more correctly called the Indo-European gene, spread by the original speakers of indo_europena language (from which Italian, Greek, German, Slavic, Indian, and Iranian, etc developed). See Kurgan hypothesis. In south slavs, it is highest in Slovenes and is lower as you go south to Maco's. THis makes sense as the gene would be diluted as the original indo-european speakers went south and assimilated with 'native' Balkaners. It is dated, c. 15, 000 years ago or so. R1b, is the wesern European gene, or roughly the Celtic gene. It has highest frequency in Basques and Spaniards, then British. SPain served as an ice-age refuge 20, 000 years ago, so people spread back out from there into Europe. It has low frequency in the Balkans. E3b is the 'neolithic farming' gene. It spread from Anatolia (Turkey) to the Balkans. Some beleive these people brough farming into Europe, before which, people were 'hunter-gathers'. This is found highest in Greeks, Maco's, Serbs and Bulgarians (25%), but only 6% in Croats. But this doesn;t mean that Serbs are Turks. (Turkey 30, 000 years ago was inhabited by different people to the Islamic, Arabic-looking Turks of today). This gene represents the "Danube-Morava" river basin cultures, roughly = Thracians and Greeks.

I don;t know where you got the whole Gypsy thing from though (sounds like some anti-Serb propaganda). Gypsies are originally from India, and are found all over Europe, nothing particular to Serbs. So there are a lot of similarities b/w Serbs and Croats, but subtle differences. Does this mean anything? Who knows. These are just one set of results. We need to do many more to get a consistent and generalisable result, then need to interpret it correctly. Cheers bro Hxseek (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]