[HISTORICAL ISSUE] - History Books about the mod period

[Bagatyr]

Here i sagest to post some historical books about the mod time frame

Here is something : Sir James Cochran Stevenson Runciman s book about the fall of Constantinople by the turks http://www.librarything.com/work/154926 but it talks not only about the siege but also the political analyse of period between 1300 and 1500

Bulgarian holy martyrs- a bulgarian novel about the fall of the Empire of Tarnovo in 1393 and the battle of Nikopol http://www.pe-bg.com/?cid=3&pid=36869 the problem is that i still can't find a english version but as i soon as i fined one i will posted it.

Devastation- a book about the rule of the bulgarian emporer Ivan Alexander and the collapse of the Bulgarian empire in the begining of turkish invasion http://www.pe-bg.com/?cid=3&pid=26131

[slavic_crusader]

Seems like a good starting point for secondary resources That possibly can be useful and reliable(depending it is backed by other sources) for the mod.....

[NikeBG]

the problem is that i still can't find a english version but as i soon as i fined one i will posted it.

I doubt you'd be able to find an English translation, considering most Bulgarian novels don't have them, especially the modern ones. Even Anton Donchev has only a few books translated to foreign languages (Vreme Razdelno and maybe 1-2 more) and he's a living classic. It's more or less like with our movies, alas...

[Bosnian_King]

I am reading this book:

"The early medieval balkans -John V.A. Fine Jr." I would recommend this book to everyone who wants to read something serious in the english language. What I found interesting in this book is the fact that John confirms the things which my parents told me; that we Bosnians are just Slavs.

John Fine shows to us that there were two slavic migrations in the western balkans:

1) The first migration happened in the 6. century and those Slavs, in the sources which remained, are just called "Slavs". So those slavs slavanised, according to Fine, the mass of the indiginious Ilirians, Avars etc. Fine also says that it is very possible that the Ilirians retreated towars mountainious and isolated regions such as Bosnia.

2) The second migration of people came a century later/ This were the Serbs and Croats. And John states that those Serbs and Croats were; most likely not Slavs but of Iranian origin. The serbs and Croats were good organised tribes and they were in number much SMALLER (?) than the big mass of Slavs which already lived at the territory of ex-Yugoslavia.

3) With the time passing; the Serbs and Croats managed to take control over the lands of the "Slavs" and they also took their language. (The serbs and Croats spoke with a different language than slavic when they came to the balkans and their names were "non slavic" but Iranian. )
So also the Slavs began to call themelves as "Serbs and Croats" because they began to live in a Croatian and Serbian state.

4) The Croats (which were mostly slavs, Illirians and Croats) spread to Croatia, Dalmatia and Western Bosnia. The Serbs (which were of Slav, Serb and Illirian blood); spread first to Montenegro, southern Serbia, Kosovo and Hercegovina.

5) In between those "serb" and "croats" there was a land which began to call themelves as Bosnian later.

[dabela]

I am reading this book:

"The early medieval balkans -John V.A. Fine Jr." I would recommend this book to everyone who wants to read something serious in the english language. What I found interesting in this book is the fact that John confirms the things which my parents told me; that we Bosnians are just Slavs.

John Fine shows to us that there were two slavic migrations in the western balkans:

1) The first migration happened in the 6. century and those Slavs, in the sources which remained, are just called "Slavs". So those slavs slavanised, according to Fine, the mass of the indiginious Ilirians, Avars etc. Fine also says that it is very possible that the Ilirians retreated towars mountainious and isolated regions such as Bosnia.

2) The second migration of people came a century later/ This were the Serbs and Croats. And John states that those Serbs and Croats were; most likely not Slavs but of Iranian origin. The serbs and Croats were good organised tribes and they were in number much SMALLER (?) than the big mass of Slavs which already lived at the territory of ex-Yugoslavia.

3) With the time passing; the Serbs and Croats managed to take control over the lands of the "Slavs" and they also took their language. (The serbs and Croats spoke with a different language than slavic when they came to the balkans and their names were "non slavic" but Iranian. )
So also the Slavs began to call themelves as "Serbs and Croats" because they began to live in a Croatian and Serbian state.

4) The Croats (which were mostly slavs, Illirians and Croats) spread to Croatia, Dalmatia and Western Bosnia. The Serbs (which were of Slav, Serb and Illirian blood); spread first to Montenegro, southern Serbia, Kosovo and Hercegovina.

5) In between those "serb" and "croats" there was a land which began to call themelves as Bosnian later.

I think all of this is a bunch of crap... Iranian origin of serbs and croats? This is really the most stupid thing any historian wrote about Serbs and Croats... And another thing: First, you Bosniaks tell that you have illirian origin, and not slavic like Serbs, Croats, etc, and now you are telling me that you are slavs and that we are some iranians? Come on....

How can you explain the people of slavic origin that populated teritory of Germany when first Slavic migrations hapened and they call them selves Luzic Serbs (Luzicki Srbi), if the Serbs came from Iran?

[Bosnian_King]

I think all of this is a bunch of crap... Iranian origin of serbs and croats? This is really the most stupid thing any historian wrote about Serbs and Croats... And another thing: First, you Bosniaks tell that you have illirian origin, and not slavic like Serbs, Croats, etc, and now you are telling me that you are slavs and that we are some iranians? Come on....

How can you explain the people of slavic origin that populated teritory of Germany when first Slavic migrations hapened and they call them selves Luzic Serbs (Luzicki Srbi), if the Serbs came from Iran?

You are just a kid. You don't know anything about history. You also said thjat it was a bunch of crap that the Bosnian kings invited the Saxons to work in the bosnian mines.

Actually 90% of the Croatian historians agree with it that the "real Croats" were of Iranian orgin. Ask matko or someone else here on the forum who know something about history. 5% think that they are of German origin and 5% think that they are slavs.

[dabela]

no i didnt say that that was Napoleonsrb, so carefull with the acusions (here is a link where he said that http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=369733&page=3)... Serbs are slavs, and Croats too... Serbs say they are slavs and i dont know about croats... and one more thing, I am not a kid, and stop insulting anyone who doesnt agree with your silly and inaccuarate posts...

[Bosnian_King]

no i didnt say that that was Napoleonsrb, so carefull with the acusions (here is a link where he said that http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=369733&page=3)... Serbs are slavs, and Croats too... Serbs say they are slavs and i dont know about croats... and one more thing, I am not a kid, and stop insulting anyone who doesnt agree with your silly and inaccuarate posts...

I am talking about those serb tribes; the true serbs. This is something different from the "serb people" which was estabilished by the creation of a serb state. The Serbs ans especially the Croats; they had Non -Slavic names. All the "pure Croat names" which were preserved in the writing from the 7th century were non Slavic but linguistics say that they are Iranian. I do not say that the Croats from the 8. and 9.; 10. 11. etc century were no Slavs; they were ; by blood (for a big part) and by language. But this has nothing to do with the "true serbs and croats".

[Baron Vlad Felix]

I am reading this book:

"The early medieval balkans -John V.A. Fine Jr." I would recommend this book to everyone who wants to read something serious in the english language. What I found interesting in this book is the fact that John confirms the things which my parents told me; that we Bosnians are just Slavs.

John Fine shows to us that there were two slavic migrations in the western balkans:

1) The first migration happened in the 6. century and those Slavs, in the sources which remained, are just called "Slavs". So those slavs slavanised, according to Fine, the mass of the indiginious Ilirians, Avars etc. Fine also says that it is very possible that the Ilirians retreated towars mountainious and isolated regions such as Bosnia.

2) The second migration of people came a century later/ This were the Serbs and Croats. And John states that those Serbs and Croats were; most likely not Slavs but of Iranian origin. The serbs and Croats were good organised tribes and they were in number much SMALLER (?) than the big mass of Slavs which already lived at the territory of ex-Yugoslavia.

3) With the time passing; the Serbs and Croats managed to take control over the lands of the "Slavs" and they also took their language. (The serbs and Croats spoke with a different language than slavic when they came to the balkans and their names were "non slavic" but Iranian. )
So also the Slavs began to call themelves as "Serbs and Croats" because they began to live in a Croatian and Serbian state.

4) The Croats (which were mostly slavs, Illirians and Croats) spread to Croatia, Dalmatia and Western Bosnia. The Serbs (which were of Slav, Serb and Illirian blood); spread first to Montenegro, southern Serbia, Kosovo and Hercegovina.

5) In between those "serb" and "croats" there was a land which began to call themelves as Bosnian later.

[NikeBG]

Agreed. I can't wait to watch a fight between BosnianKing and CarpathianWolf.

P.S. For the Bulgarian readers, I'd recommend this one - it's cheap (2,5 Euro) and it describes all the medieval military campaigns of Bulgaria (after the 10th century) in the greatest of details. It's an absolute must-have.

[dabela]

I am talking about those serb tribes; the true serbs. This is something different from the "serb people" which was estabilished by the creation of a serb state. The Serbs ans especially the Croats; they had Non -Slavic names. All the "pure Croat names" which were preserved in the writing from the 7th century were non Slavic but linguistics say that they are Iranian. I do not say that the Croats from the 8. and 9.; 10. 11. etc century were no Slavs; they were ; by blood (for a big part) and by language. But this has nothing to do with the "true serbs and croats".

You only read historians that write what you want to hear... I think you have a big mental problem and that you should get some help... And please stop teaching us about serbs, croats and bosnians... You dont know ... Maybe if you lived here you would know the truth about us...

[Bosnian_King]

Agreed. I can't wait to watch a fight between BosnianKing and CarpathianWolf.

P.S. For the Bulgarian readers, I'd recommend this one - it's cheap (2,5 Euro) and it describes all the medieval military campaigns of Bulgaria (after the 10th century) in the greatest of details. It's an absolute must-have.

NikeBG,

You are a guy who reads about history whole constantly, who visits medieval fortresses and you even got your own You-tube channel for history with a lot of movies. Excuse me if some of us "amateurs" are less educated and developed about balkan history but some of us are just too busy through the year with other things than history. We've got school/university, work and a social life.

And by the way, why do you compare me with Carpathian Wolf? I summarised John Fine; he studied at Harvad a doctorated at the Michigan university. Nothing ideological or "nationalistic" that I found in his work.

But I find it good of you that you did not write something like:"I can wait to watch a fight between..." and then you stopped after a very small typical promotion of Bulgaria Most of your post begin with one word which is not off topic and then you write a whole book about Bulgaria, Bulgaria, Bulgaria in the rest of your post. So it is actually a step forward.

[slavic_crusader]

Bosnian King, According to our "iranian" origin can be controvertional. It is not proven anyway nor any other thoery.
Anyway according to this theory, they say we have similar physical features and language and culture. Ok

I see Iranians or Persians whatever you want to call them everyday... They dont look nothing like us. Secondly with language and names, havent you ever considered that the Turks may have brought it? They were the great ottoman empire, and perhaps elements of culture and so on.
In my opinion, I think turks heavily infuenced the Serbs, Bosnians, Bulgarians and to some extent Croatians(in Bosnia and other parts) significantly. Wouldnt you agree, at least consider?

[NikeBG]

NikeBG,

You are a guy who reads about history whole constantly, who visits medieval fortresses and you even got your own You-tube channel for history with a lot of movies.:

Actually, maybe only half of my channel playlists are history-related. The others are art.

Excuse me if some of us "amateurs" are less educated and developed about balkan history but some of us are just too busy through the year with other things than history. We've got school/university, work and a social life. :laughter

I haven't even implied that you are an "amateur" or that I am not (because I am, if someone thinks I think the opposite). Though, I'm interested, are you implying I have no social life or something?

And by the way, why do you compare me with Carpathian Wolf? I summarised John Fine; he studied at Harvad a doctorated at the Michigan university. Nothing ideological or "nationalistic" that I found in his work.

Because you both have a rather similar behaviour - you both are interested in history, have a quite-above-average knowledge of it and are quite passionate in arguing about it, more often mix history with modernism and both of you can often be seen propagating your country (or your ancestor's) ideals. Btw, don't take my comparison of you and CW as an insult, since it is not.
Edit2: Oh, and since a historian is a foreigner and not a nationalist doesn't mean his theses are right. F.e. I've read a study of one German professor, who was claiming that the Bavarians are of (partial, but strong) Bulgar origin (sorry, my specialty is Bulgarian history and I can't think of a better example that wouldn't "advertise Bulgaria"). Doesn't mean he's right though.

But I find it good of you that you did not write something like:"I can wait to watch a fight between..." and then you stopped after a very small typical promotion of Bulgaria Most of your post begin with one word which is not off topic and then you write a whole book about Bulgaria, Bulgaria, Bulgaria in the rest of your post. So it is actually a step forward.

My link with the book was actually an attempt to stay on-topic, since I realized it's my second-in-row off-topic post in the thread. And, no, it's not an advertisement of Bulgaria since: a) I don't really need to advertise Bulgaria and b) the link leads to a Bulgarian-only site, so the only advertisement could be of the book itself towards the other Bulgarian members here.


Edit:

Bosnian King, According to our "iranian" origin can be controvertional. It is not proven anyway nor any other thoery.
Anyway according to this theory, they say we have similar physical features and language and culture. Ok

I see Iranians or Persians whatever you want to call them everyday... They dont look nothing like us. Secondly with language and names, havent you ever considered that the Turks may have brought it? They were the great ottoman empire, and perhaps elements of culture and so on.
In my opinion, I think turks heavily infuenced the Serbs, Bosnians, Bulgarians and to some extent Croatians(in Bosnia and other parts) significantly. Wouldnt you agree, at least consider?

SC, while I'm not a big fan of Pan-Slavism and Pan-Turkism and am rather a fan of the Iranic theory of the origins of the Bulgars (at least in its mixed Western-Iranic form), there seems to be a growing trend of Pan-Iranism as well. And while the Iranic theory for the Bulgars at least is a theory indeed (although not a too stable one yet), the ones for the Serbs and Croats is still entirely a hypothesis (although it would be interesting if it gets enough evidences as well).
And, yes, you're right in that most historians and linguists consider the Persian elements in the South-Slavic languages as borrowings from Turkish times (Persian was the language of art and literature then, while Arabic was the religious language).

[Hrobatos]

I am reading this book:

"The early medieval balkans -John V.A. Fine Jr." I would recommend this book to everyone who wants to read something serious in the english language. What I found interesting in this book is the fact that John confirms the things which my parents told me; that we Bosnians are just Slavs.

John Fine shows to us that there were two slavic migrations in the western balkans:

1) The first migration happened in the 6. century and those Slavs, in the sources which remained, are just called "Slavs". So those slavs slavanised, according to Fine, the mass of the indiginious Ilirians, Avars etc. Fine also says that it is very possible that the Ilirians retreated towars mountainious and isolated regions such as Bosnia.

2) The second migration of people came a century later/ This were the Serbs and Croats. And John states that those Serbs and Croats were; most likely not Slavs but of Iranian origin. The serbs and Croats were good organised tribes and they were in number much SMALLER (?) than the big mass of Slavs which already lived at the territory of ex-Yugoslavia.

3) With the time passing; the Serbs and Croats managed to take control over the lands of the "Slavs" and they also took their language. (The serbs and Croats spoke with a different language than slavic when they came to the balkans and their names were "non slavic" but Iranian. )
So also the Slavs began to call themelves as "Serbs and Croats" because they began to live in a Croatian and Serbian state.

4) The Croats (which were mostly slavs, Illirians and Croats) spread to Croatia, Dalmatia and Western Bosnia. The Serbs (which were of Slav, Serb and Illirian blood); spread first to Montenegro, southern Serbia, Kosovo and Hercegovina.

5) In between those "serb" and "croats" there was a land which began to call themelves as Bosnian later.

thats not far from what I believe...

[dabela]

You can say whatever you want, there is no way any serbs came from iran... There are more than enough evidence that serbs are slavs and that they dont have anything to do with those iranians Bosnian_King mentioned...
edit: that iranian thing is only a theory without evidence, so please dont post things that havent been proven...

[NikeBG]

Why should a modernly Slavic nation not have partial Iranic roots? Heck, even the Ukrainians have strong Iranic (Scythian) roots and they don't exactly hide it (though I don't think they promote it too much either). And just like the old Bulgars (be they Turkic, Iranic, Turko-Iranic or whatever) were not Slavs, while the modern Bulgarians are Slavs, so it could be with the Serbs and Croats (or it might be not, that's another matter).
Btw, a "theory without evidence" is called a hypothesis. If it has evidence, it's a theory (and if it has substantial evidence and is conclusively proven and accepted by the academical community, it's a law, but that's mostly for the precise sciences, not history).

[Hrobatos]

You can say whatever you want, there is no way any serbs came from iran... There are more than enough evidence that serbs are slavs and that they dont have anything to do with those iranians Bosnian_King mentioned...
edit: that iranian thing is only a theory without evidence, so please dont post things that havent been proven...

you see world as very simple thingie dont you?...but its way more complex... are you familiar with term "ethnogenesis"?

[dabela]

you see word as very simple thingie dont you?...but its way more complex... are you familiar with term "ethnogenesis"?

Dude, i dont even want to discuss this... There is no evidence to back up this theory... When you find serious, evidence let me know... until then it is an insult to and many other serbs...

[Hrobatos]

Dude, i dont even want to discuss this... There is no evidence to back up this theory... When you find serious, evidence let me know... until then it is an insult to and many other serbs...

i suppose that means no.