Map Thread X
- Thread starter metastasis_d
- Start date
- Status
Stephen Uroš IV tried to annex parts of Bosnia but actually, I sympathize with Serbia on Bosnia but not on Kosovo or Timoc.
Nor there is a proof that the Slavs in Bosnia were Croats..
Last edited:
I have. It mentions Bosnia being variously under Serbian and Croat governors, not that it was a Serbian or Croatian land. There is also the infamous translation error (or possibly intentional typo) where Bosnia is listed as "part" of Serbia when in fact it read "lies next to".
BTW have you read Ottoman census from that time? Have you studied the archeological record of Bosnia and Herzegovina? The first orthodox monastaries in Bosnia were built in the 17th century. Before that, the only one was Mileseva monastery in what is now Prijepolje, Serbia, where Tvrtko I of Bosnia was allegedly crowned.
Exactly. I believe Marko will agree with me when I say to append the demonym Croat and Serb to 8th century populations in the modern sense is at at best anachronistic and at worst stupid. There was no clear-cut all-encompassing established Croat or Serb identity back then. They were subjects of Serb and Croat kings, sure, but what did they call themselves, we will likely never know until we invent time travel and go back and ask them personally.
What is known is that many related South Slavic groups eventually assimilated into these two macroethnos, forming modern Serbs and Croats.
I haven't made a map since November, and I like the original concept of your map, so I made you this. :V
Apologies for not replying sooner - missed this among the miscellania of world maps.
Very gorgeous indeed.
I now have to come up with alternate provincial flags
The Poles, Sorbs, Slovaks and Czechs dp have a clear cut split but this did not happen in Serbia and Croatia which caused disputes...
Alex Richards
Donor
Cross posting my MotF entry
1422: Charles VI of France dies leaving the throne of France to his recently enforced heir Henry V of England, who is soon crowned Henry II of France. Within a few years the Dauphin has been captured and joined the Dukes of Orleans and Angloueme in prison. The Duke of Burgundy is greatly rewarded for his aid, and the Valois-Angevins are too busy in Naples to do anything more than consolidate in Provence. Most of the other duchies slip into independence.
15 years later Henry V and II dies, leaving the throne to his teenaged son, Henry VI and III, though his brothers Edward and John gain the Duchies of Aquitane and Toulouse which have been seperated from the main lands around Paris due to the need for closer supervision to prevent rebellion. Henry VI has inherited more than a crown from his maternal grandfather though, and after a bout of insanity in 1452, is declared incapable. Edward, Duke of Aquitane takes up the regency after a brief power struggle with the younger, but arguably more capable, John of Toulouse. In the meantime the lords of Aqutiane begin to assert more independnece with their Duke in London. Henry's son Edward will is crowned Edward IV and I in 1475 after his father's forced abdication, while Aquitane passes on soon afterwards, leaving behind an heir every bit as mad as the late King. Quite without intention the Duchies of Aqutiane and Toulouse are now every bit as independent as the other French duchies, and with several weak kings in succssion, the Duke of York seeks to assert his claims to the thrones on the death of Edward IV/I and accession of his underage son Henry VII/IV under the regency of the Duke of Toulouse. Gathering support in England, he is able to sweep south and take London, crowning himself Edward V/II, but Henry retains control of the Royal Demense around Paris for now, though his title of 'King of France' is rapidly becoming as nominal as that of the Holy Roman Emperor next door.
And here's a somewhat different map from my usual style.
Very nice.
In the turmoil I could see a future (Grand) Duke of Burgundy pushing his luck to regain France from the English
Not trying to fan the flames, but I'm curious: my New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History records the existence of a state of Bosnia in the 1200s, briefly reemerging in the 1400s before the Ottoman conquest. Would the locals have been Catholic, Orthodox, or a mix?
Bruce
Considering Serbia controlled the area at various points for several centuries I doubt they were absent of the area until then.
Also, given the extent of the medieval Kingdom of Serbia, their were very likely atleast some small populations in the south of what's now BiH.
There were small populations, probably a couple villages and smaller settlements, but any evidence of a large settlement, such as orthodox churches, monasteries or marked graves/tombs are absent.
In fact all there is over historical Herzegovina, including Old Herzegovina now in Montenegro are the stećci, which are part of the Bosnian Church's tradition. Even later when most members of the Bosnian Church converted to Catholicism, they kept using the stećci as grave markers. This puts the idea that these lands were orthodox Serbian in question. There is simply no evidence for the claim.
Also, those are broad assumptions by earlier (19th century) historians on the state of affairs. It was most likely the feudal lords of Zachlumia and Travunia being vassals to Serbian Dukes of Dioclea/Duklja, probably with a great deal of autonomy. Just because they're all uniformly colored in the same color doesn't infer a centralized state of affairs.
A mix of Catholic and members of the heretical Bosnian Chruch, often erroneously called Bogomils (they actually had little to do with Bogomil and his sect, this, along with "Patarenes" was a pejorative term used by their opponents in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. They actually called themselves "Krstjani" meaning, literally, Christians.
The BC reached its zenith at around the early-mid 13th century, after pressures from the Pope and threats of crusade by the Hungarian king forced most of the Bosnian nobility to convert to Catholicism. The Bosnian Chruch remained longer in Herzegovina, where they were under the protection of the powerful Kosaca family.
Bosnia was a Hungarian vassal until Tvrtko I proclaimed an independent kingdom and conquered most of Dalmatia except Ragusa/Dubrovnik and what is today the Sanjak region/Rascia in Serbia. Bosnia enjoyed a relatively comfortable existence as a premier Balkan power until internal conflict and several Ottoman incursions caused its power to wane. Powerful landowners like the Kosaca and Hrvatinic faimilies began openly disobeying the king and warring among themselves. By the time sultan Mehmet II came calling, Bosnia was on the ropes and king Stjepan Tomasevic had no-one to rely on. The Pope and the Venetians abandoned him despite promising aid, and he was even betrayed by his uncle and handed over to the Ottomans. The kingdom lasted from 1377 when Tvrtko I was crowned to 1463 when Mehmet II beheaded the last king, Stjepan Tomasevic. A truncated vassal kingdom was put up by the Ottomans using various figureheads that lasted another 20 years, but wasn't recognized by anyone. Herzegovina remained independent under the Kosacas, until it too fell to the Ottomans in 1482.
King Tvrtko I even sent a fairly large contigent under Duke/Herzeg Vlatko Vukovic Kosaca to aid the Serbian king at the Battle of Kosovo, but you won't find that in the Serbian epics.
Last edited:
I like this very much. One thing: make Rio Grande one state, instead of three.
EDIT - And your northern Sweden-Norway border is too straight. I'd take the border like on this map: http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/_...tlas/images/0/0c/Swedish_Empire-1560-1815.png
It's in three parts to keep it from being too big.
Also, the red in France is my French communist (or quartary Communist faction in ATLs) color.
Don't really know. Was more for the fun rather than a thought-out backstory...
- Status