Talk:Vukašin of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

NB! When you have a collision of name forms, try not to favour one or another form of the name, but give the original form and then various local forms in brackets. For exmple: NOT "Vukasin (Bulgarian Vulkashin)" BUT "Vlukashin (Serbian Vukasin, Bulgarian Vulkashin)" OR NOT "Jovan Ugljesa (Bulgarian Ivan Uglesha)" BUT "Iowan Uglesha (Serbian Jovan Ugljesha, Bulgarian Ivan Uglesha)" Original names you can get from the original medieval chronicles. In that case names are Влъкашинъ and Iowaн Углеша. You have to respect this.

Great, then let's just use Cyrillic original. I honestly had no idea what the original was, so I simply could not use it. The edit was done in good faith, I was merely working on what we had in the page history. --Joy [shallot] 13:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for avoiding collisions, but name Vlukashin simply isn't used[1]. Vulkashin gets 13 Google hits, not all relevant[2].

Perhaps it would be the best to use "Vukashin". It is a middle ground between "Vukasin" and "Vulkashin", and it is used by both Serbian and Bulgarian sources [3], [4]. Nikola 11:08, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Ogneslav? --Joy [shallot]

Done now. --Joy [shallot] 23:33, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note also that the transcription of sha is not clear here, we can pick both "sh" and "š" (which morphs in to "s" in the title). --Joy [shallot] 13:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When you have a collision of historical interpretations, try not to favour one or another POV, but give pure facts. In that relation - don't write "Serbian ruler" or "Bulgarian ruler", but just "ruler". Ogneslav 12:52, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought he was a ruler that was suzerain to the Serbian tsar, not the Bulgarian one? --Joy [shallot] 13:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And Marko was a vassal of the Turkish sultan - does this make him a Turk?! See Joy, I'm not trying to give you hard time, just want the artciels to be correct. And if historical "correctness" is not always possible, then let articles be correct to readers' feelings, at least. There are those people that would write their national name in front of each single word they see on this site... if you let them to. Ogneslav 14:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marko was a Turkish vassal of course, as is Schwarzenegger an American governor. Nikola 11:08, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those are valid points... it's probably best that we mention the various suzerainties and leave the issue of nationality aside in order to avoid offending anyone. His subordinates probably can't be mapped all too well to modern nations, this isn't the only place where this happens. --Joy [shallot] 14:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now can I ask you something... *flushing* ...how can I leave personal messages or reply when I get one? I really dedicated last few hours searching for explenation, but I found nothing... :o Ogneslav 21:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh. Every user has a User:Name page and a User talk:Name page. For example, if someone wants to leave you a message, they'd do so on User talk:Ogneslav, or for me it would be User talk:Joy. Also, all talk pages have a little plus sign (+) next to "edit this page" which means "add a new section". That's what you should use when starting a new discussion. --Joy [shallot] 23:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marica and Chernomen

Battle at Chernomen is better known as Battle of Marica: only 9 results at Google, comparing to 92. So, I included both names.

The brothers have resisted the invading Turks, but in the battle of Marica (battle at Chernomen), on September 26 1371 they were defeated and killed by sultan Murat's hordes.

Regarding the battle

VMORO following the logic from your argument, the Bulgarian army in Balkan wars was German, since Ferdinand I was German-French. You don’t want to go there. Unfortunately for the long term prospects of Christians in Balkan, the army was a coalition of the two brothers Vukashin and Ugljesa. There were no “several other feudal rulers” – not Bulgarian, not Byzantine not even other Serbian lords. However if you provide a reference for participation of some Bulgarian lord, I’ll respectively back off. --Cigor 16:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. But you are giving yourself proof to the argument that the army was not "Serbian". VMORO 17:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Serbian king=>Serbian army. The actual ethnic structure is irrelevant especially in Medieval times, where the allegiance was mainly to feudal lord, not “people” or “nation”. In fact, many army at that time were mercenaries, but that doesn’t make Varangian Guard “Swedish Army” or “English Army”.Anyway if you are comfortable with your logic, then I am sure you would not mind if I change the Samuil article. After all I am just citing Britannica. --Cigor 01:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Haha, Vukashin was half-Serbian and half-Bulgarian. So according to your logic, the army was half-Serbian and half-Bulgarian. As for Samuil, I certainly don't accept that, you take things out of the context, the article (and all other articles concerning his reign) makes it perfectly clear he was a Bulgarian tsar. Miskin quoted some researcher (Coon or something like it) who calls the Macedonian Slavs "Western Bulgars", should I use the same approach and begin the article Macedonian Slavs with "The Macedonian Slavs - also called Western Bulgars - ..."? VMORO 21:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Vukashin was half-Serbian and half-Bulgarian? References, please? As far I know Mrnjavčević brothers are from Bosnia so they can’t possibly be half Bulgarians. I never said that the army is Serbian because the king is Serb but because he was Serbian king (like Ferdinand I is Bulgarian tsar but not Bulgarian). Unless you dispute the fact that he was a Serbian king? The battle involved such carnage that the field was later referred to as “the Serbs' destruction.” VMORO, you are very eager to stamp “Bulgarian” attribute to half of the historical people in the Balkans, especially Macedonia. When there is clearly absence of Bulgarian contribution than you are insisting of some more neutral version. Furthermore you tend to marginalize all non-Bulgarian influences in Macedonia. While I will recognize that official Macedonian politics & historians have lot to answer for, you will never understand how did Macedonians get to where there are if you follow the simplistic approach that all was “Serbian propaganda”.

Vukashin and Uglesha's mother (Yelena or Yevrosima) was Bulgarian and she resided in Serres with Uglesha. The despotates of both rulers have been called both "Serbian" and "Bulgarian", both in contemporary and in later sources (including Serbian, f.ex. the Montenegrin Mitropolite, Vasil Petrovich, in his "History of Montenegro" or Serbian historian Ilarion Ruvarats in "On Prince Lazar" in 1888). The Jewish philosopher Ben Moskoni (born in Ohrid in 1330), for example, writes in his autobiography that he "left in his youth my homeland - Ohrid, a Bulgarian despotate ruled by Serbia". There are as many references to their despotates as "Serbian" ones. The coalition army in 1371 is, for example, called "Serbian and Greek" by a contemporary witness - a monk from Mount Athos (see [5]). However, if we apply a purely scholarly approach, their despotates are neither Serbian, nor Bulgarian - they were called neither "Serbia", nor "Bulgaria". Vulkashin and Uglesha were simply feudal rulers, their states were not national ones. Yet, they were more "Serbian" rulers than "Bulgarian" or "Greek" inasmuch as they (on their father's side) came from the Serbian nobility and they got their realms from the Serbian kings after the break-up of the Great Serbia of Stefan Dushan. But I again repeat, their small and short-lived states were not national ones. Does this suffice as an explanation to my attitude towards the article? VMORO 11:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

So here is the thing:

1) I couldn’t care less for Vukashin, although for the sake of historical accuracy he was Serbian king.

2) As for the Samouil, you said yourself that in the Vukashin case that you had to prove the army was not Serbian. Therefore following your method of thought, we can agree that Samoil was tzar of Macedonia if nothing else because there is no evidence against it. There is almost no written document from Samuil. There are plenty of historians that think that Samuil was not just Bulgarian tzar, but a true ruler of Macedonian Slavs – not only Macedonians and Serbians but others too. Not to mention that Samuil was not even Bulgarian – probably Armenian. We have whole nation / state that refer Samuil’s Empire as roots of its nation. So out of respect of 2 million people, quite of handful of historians, I think we could at least put something that most of encyclopedias do – that he was tsar of Bulgaria or Macedonia. And don’t tell me that Macedonia is synonym of Western Bulgaria – you know this is not true ( Brittanica would neve do such an amateur mistake, not now when there is country called Macedonia). You perfectly know that there are two theories regarding Samuel’s empire one being Western Bulgarian Empire (as oppose to the Eastern Bulgarian that was still in some form of existence in the beginning) and a new Empire in Macedonia, not necessarily not-Bulgarian but with more emphasis on the Slavic element. And that is exactly what the first sentence mean in Britannica, the most reputed encyclopedia. So let anybody who is truly interested about who Samuil is read Fringe section and judge for himself – although the section is heavily tilted toward Bulgarian POW. Otherwise somebody that visit Samuil’s fortress in Ohrid and ask questions about great Bulgarian tzar may have some troubles understanding the tourist booklets at least.

3) So we can have delete / revert wars until oblivion or we can have civilized solution – what do you say? We are already agreeing that we have two different POWs.--Cigor 02:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW here is what Britannica saying about the battle - only Serbians mentioned:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050991?query=Battle%20of%20the%20Maritsa%20River&ct=

There are not "plenty of historians" who think that "Samuil was the true ruler of the Macedonian Slavs", all western histories on the Balkans or Europe regard Samuil as a Bulgarian tsar and include him in the History of Bulgaria. The concise online edition of Britannica, for example, [6] says this:

"Tsar of Western Bulgaria (980–1014). Ruling originally in Macedonia, he conquered Serbia, northern Bulgaria, Albania, and northern Greece. He revived the Bulgarian patriarchate and in the 980s defeated Basil II. However, his struggle with the Byzantines continued until 1014, when Basil defeated Samuel's army at the Battle of Belasitsa. At Basil's order, the 15,000 Bulgarian prisoners were blinded and then returned to Samuel, who is said to have died of shock."

Regarding the full edition of Britannica which you quote incorrectly, the article consisently talks of him as a Bulgarian ruler and not a Macedonian one - as well as all articles referring to the matter - Basil II, First Bulgarian Empire, etc. Regarding other online encyclopedias - check the listing on the Talk page of Samuil. History books are, unfortunately, not available online but all western (or Russian) ones include his rule as part of the First Bulgarian Empire.

"The Western Bulgarian Empire" or "Western Bulgaria" is an expression which can be found quite often, especially in older sources, but it refers to the First Bulgarian Empire as a whole - in order to distinguish between the western Bulgars (the Bulgarians) and the eastern ones (the Volga Bulgars and their state, also called Bulgaria).

A civilised solution is already found, Cigor - and it is to include the accepted version (which is presented in the very same way in the vast majority of sources) in the main body of the article but also to mention the fringe theory, keeping in this way the NPOV of the article. You want to place a fringe theory in the leading sentence (unacceptable) - well, there are also sources which refer to the Macedonian Slavs as Western Bulgars or simply Bulgarians, if you follow your own "principles", you should hurry to the article Macedonian Slavs and make the necessary corrections before you come to Samuil and want corrections there. VMORO 12:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I’ve moved the Samuil related topics where they belong; as for Vukashin you have not showed any references of their Bulgarian heritage ( or his army). As far I know he is from Livno, Bosnia.You did mention that their mother was Bulgarian queen (J/H)elena, which is utter nonsense, that would imply they are children of Stefan Dušan. So I am reverting.--Cigor 01:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me; I didn’t see that you answered until now. This time you are the one with fringe theories – everywhere else they are considered as Serbian rulers. The Bulgarian attribute can be explained by Geographical location (the land was called Bulgaria by the “Romans” - Byzantines). This is the same argument all Bulgarian use when they see “Macedonia”/ “Macedonians” in medieval sources. But I generally agree. Their states were not national ones. Of course, because in medieval time there are no national ones. It is a system that allowed clear rule of a foreign thin elite in parts of Italy, Greece, France, Russia and other counties for many centuries without pressure from indigenous population. When one looks in Samuil’s Empire that you considered as a national Bulgarian, whereas my opinion was a conglomerate of Slavs, one have to consider Roman I who is supposedly also tsar. Skilitsa writes that in 1004 he surrendered the city to the Byzantines. He got a title of patrician from Basil II and became strategos of Abydos province. Today such thing is considered as high treason (and it was). But then, loyalty belonged to person, not “nation”. That is why one can see many references like that. So if Samul’s empire has to be Bulgarian, I don’t see why Vukashin is less “national”, so therefore it has to be Serbian.--Cigor 13:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

This is way off the storyline. Why the Bulgarian name? And why was Serbo-Greek changed to Serbo-Bulgarian. What's going on with the article? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Vukasin's wife

Who and why edited name of Vukasin's wife from Alena to Jevrosima? Why had I put reference there? In king Vukasin's charter to Ragusa from 1370 ( at Monumenta Serbica p. 180 [7]) he specifically says : ..with my beloved wife Alena and my beloved sons Marko and Andrejas... so there's no base to revert from Alena to Jevrosima which is name from epic poems, from same epic poems in which Marko Kraljevic has a horse who can speak and fairy for a girlfriend, so let's stick to the reliable facts and history, not fantastic stories and fairy tales. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clanedstino (talk • contribs) 11:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)