Quote:
Please Clandestino. You want to play a game with me of the deaf telephones! You admit that Bosnia was not part of Serbia in 1187. You also admit that all the important Serbian historians agree that Bosnia was "less or more on her own"... But you still want to use this sentence:
"Regnium Serviella quoed est Bosna" to suggest something! And that is wrong. I will show you why it is wrong:
Yes, I'm suggesting that in papal letters Serbia and Bosnia
are considered as synonyms for some reasons, not that they are same country. You could try reading what other people are posting for a change. You still keeping arguing with the things I never said.
Quote:
1) In the time of Kulin 1180-1200. the pope sent a delegation of Cardinals to Bosnia. And 10 corespondation documents between Hungaria and the Pope are testifying about this event:
"The Bosnian ruler together with his church leader and thousands of other Bosnians accepted Catholicism at the filed of Bilino Polje in presence of the Pope delegation."
This was the first known mission to Bosnia. So from that time already; in Papal texts the Pope talked about Bosnia as a Vikarijat of Cardinals (Vikar means governor).
Good lord, only a person who doesn't know absolutely nothing about administration and organization of catholic church can say such ridiculous thing. Pope sends cardinal in specific mission in Bosnia from which he returns immediately and that's why Bosnia becomes '' Vicatiate of cardinals '', which is btw absolutely unknown thing in the catholic church? And again your chronology fails, council of Bilino Polje was in
1203, still after 1187
. You can't even invent things logically.
Simple reading of the charter from 1187. shows that mentions of Bosnia has absolutely nothing to do with some imaginary '' vicariat of the cardinals ''. This is the letter in which pope Urban III confirms archbishop of Dubrovnik Tribunus and confirms his rights as well as borders of his archdiocese. Pope says to archbishop of Dubrovnik ( short translation ):
I confirm rights of your churhc to you and to your successors in the place where your church is situated and in all the parishes that by law belong to your church, and those parishes are: region of Zachulmia,
region of Serbia which is Bosnia, region of Travunija, cities of Kotor or Rose, Budva, Bar, Ulcinj, Skadar, Drivast and Pilot with all their abbeys, churches and parishes.
Codex diplomaticus, page 207.
Very clear, Bosnia-Serbia is a region which is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of archbishop of Dubrovnik, just as regions of Zahumlje and Travunija and all the listed cities. It's not some imaginary '' vicariate of cardinals ''just like other listed regions and cities aren't some '' vicariats of cardinals ''. Those are just geographical areas where archbishop of Dubrovnik has its supreme jurisdiction.
Quote:
From 1180 till the 14th century there was a Cardinal in Bosnia. And when the Cardinal was retreated from Bosnia from the side of the pope; in that time the Pope sends Fransciscans. But a Cardinal is much more important than Franciscans! And off course that it is a fact than in ALL CHURCH LETTERS (not only Franciscan letter but also Cardinal letter) with the term Bosnia the vikarijat was meant. And Vikarijat means in latin "governement" a Vikar means governor. In the time of the Cardinal being present in Bosnia; the church government (Vikarijat) was represented by the highest ranked church leader. So before the arrival of the Franciscan mission in 1342. ---> A cardinal formed the Vikarijat.
Really, there were a constantly cardinal in Bosnia during the 200-300 years? Give us the name of these cardinals, give us the sources for these claims. You are just inventing things my friend, pope sent one cardinal to get statement from ban Kulin that he and his people are catholics and from that you constructed that there were cardinals in Bosnia for next two centuries? One can just laugh about that. Again, I ask you where are your sources for these claims and who were these cardinals that no one ever heard?
Quote:
Yes that's what you are trying and I am asking you; why there is no Serbian historian who ever tried that? Why only children on the internet try this while Serbian historians agreed that Bosnia was " a state on her own" from Kulin and Further?
Again I don't know such children on the internet, I know some other children who invent things about vicariates of cardinals but I don't know children who claim that Bosnia was part of Serbia in the time of ban Kulin.
Quote:
And off course that it is a fact than in ALL CHURCH LETTERS (not only Franciscan letter but also Cardinal letter) with the term Bosnia the vikarijat was meant. And Vikarijat means in latin "governement" a Vikar means governor. In the time of the Cardinal being present in Bosnia; the church government (Vikarijat) was represented by the highest ranked church leader. So before the arrival of the Franciscan mission in 1342. ---> A cardinal formed the Vikarijat.
Nope, pope is referring to geographical area of ''Serbia which is Bosnia'' which is under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Dubrovnik. In 1187. there wasn't any cardinal in Bosnia, only cardinal that went to Bosnia went there in 1203, attended a church council and went to Rome, where cardinals usually live. Latter there were no cardinals in Bosnia cause cardinals live in Rome or in their dioceses, in the church organization we have archbishoprics and bishoprics, there is no such thing as vicariate of cardinals. Bosnia had it's own bishop which was under the archbishop of Dubrovnik, no place for some imaginary vicariate there. Only vicariate ( actually province ) that existed in Bosnia was Franciscan province of Bosnia in the 14th century.
Otherwise I presume that you can give us bunch of sources about ''vicariate of cardinals'' and cardinals living in Bosnia?
Quote:
I painted the route where those documents write about: the route between Bosnia and Dubrovnik. I don't know if the route went exactly like that (most probably not - it's likely that the route went through a river Valey) but in any case the route had to go through Serbia to reach Bosnia.
And it is obvious that Ninoslav guarantees the republik of Dubrovnik a free trade with Bosnia. Because without this free trade Bosnia would not be able to exist--> All the exports of silver and gold from Bosnia went through the port of Dubrovnik over this trade route.
And it is no coincidense that Ninoslav guarantees the Ragusans that they will be protected at this route. Because it is obvious that they will be protected in Bosnia. But Ninoslav wants to make something clear and that's why this document was written:
"On this trade route I will protect you from the Serbs with all your goods if a war breaks out" That is what Ninoslav says in all the 3 documents' only with different words. He guarantees the republik of Dubrovnik a free trade. And this guarantee he makes by defining the worse case scenario:
"If you are betrayed on your way to Bosnia" or "If war breaks out with Serbia/Raska" ----> "I will take the responsibility for this trade route"
And that's exactly why Bosnia conquered this part from Raska/Serbia some times later by killing and expelling the Serb nobles from the territory of this trade route and annexating this territory some decades later:
Listen mate, I gave you three different people who say that in the charters of ban Ninoslav ''Serb'' refers to inhabitant of Bosnia. We have Foretić, Rački, Ćirković and I will add Jireček as well ( Kulturna istorija Srba ) saying this:
Now on one hand we have 4 respected authors who wrote hundreds of works about medieval history of Serbia, Dubrovnik, Bosnia and Croatia that say one thing and on the other we have you saying other and completely confused and illogical thing. Are you better expert then those people?
Further more you intentionally keep mixing documents and references. You keep saying about war between Serbia and Dubrovnik blah blah however there is no mention about any war in the first charter.
The earliest charter of ban Matej Ninoslav, the one from
1234-1235 says, from word to word ,in full translation:
Quote:
In the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost amen.
I , slave of God, Matej called Ninoslav, great bosnian ban,
I swear to you , knez of Dubrovnik, John Dandolo and to whole
community of the Dubrovnik with the same oath as the ban Kulin sworn before me:
Vlachs can move free with their goods just as they did in the time of ban Kulin,
without any harm and damage. And where I rule you can move where ever you want freely
and will protect you from any harm.
This was written by the Desoe, scribe of the great Bosnian ban Vladislav, loyal as he was from the first.
One more thing: if Serb sues Vlach over debt then the knez of Dubrovnik will be a judge,
if Vlach sues Serb over debt then the ban will be a judge. And there will be no reprisals on Vlachs.
God give us health.
Very clear,
no mention of protecting a trade route with Dubrovnik,
no mentions of war with Serbia,
no mention of protection of Raguzans from the Serbs and all other things that you invented.
As we see, the trade agreement says that Raguzans are free to trade in ban's country and that he will protect them from any harm ( robbers, illegal taxes and customs etc, illegal imprisonment, seizure of their goods and all other things that could happen to a foreign trader ). In the end ban says that in the case of the litigation of the Raguzan merchant and local people over debts ban will have jurisdiction if the sued part is Serb while if sued part is Vlach then the jurisdiction will belong to the knez of Dubrovnik. Also ban guarantees that Vlach/Ragusans won't be arrested for debts or retaliated in some other way.
Just to point:
that this isn't my personal interpretation here I again give the
explanation of Vinko Foretić, Croatian historian, long time head of the historical archive of Dubrovnik, writer of hundreds of works about history of medieval Dubrovnik etc:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
English translation:
Quote:
From the ethnic aspect it's important that ban Matej Ninoslav calls Raguzans-Vlachs which means that there was still Romance majority in Dubrovnik. The inhabitant of Bosnia, which in that time encompassed Usora, Soli and part of Donji kraji along with original small Bosnia, is called Serb which is understanding, because that Bosnia with those borders was ethnically Serbian land, while western from it , in present day western Bosnia, was Croatia with Croatian population. New specific article which we don't find on the charter of ban Kulin, requires that in the case of the law suit over a debt Serb-Bosnian sues Vlach-Raguzan to the Raguzan knez and Vlach-Raguzan sues Serbian-Bosnian to the ban. Reprisals are forbiden.
And about other two charters:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
translation:
Quote:
Both of them have same line, like in first Ninoslav's charter, about solving mutual lawsuits by the bosnian ban and knez of Dubrovnik, and here also Raguzan is called Vlach and Bosnian is called Serb.
V.Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808, v.1, Zagreb 1980, page 81-2.
Here you go,
it's the litigation over debts between Vlachs/Raguzans and Serbs/Bosnians, according to Foretić. Now, I nicely gave you source and quotation from not one
but from 4 different historians saying same thing, so be polite and answer me in same manner instead making ridiculous theories with absolutely no backup. Every word of your is worth as a source behind it, and so far I haven't see a single source.