Examples of "brotherly nations"?

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,978
Iowa USA
I had many debates with Tsar and he was really one of the best members on Historum. I still do not agree with much of what he claimed, he changed my mind on some topics and he was a valuable member.
Yeah, Tsar is very knowledgeable. He could have done a better job keeping the time here in a healthy perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,565
Republika Srpska
What did he claim?
I don't remember everything but off the top of my head, Tsar claimed that:

1. Bulgaria did not conquer Serbia in 924
2. King Vukašin Mrnjavčević deposed Emperor Stefan Uroš before his death
3. Serb Patriarchate of Peć was not disbanded after the Ottoman conquest
4. remains of St. Sava were not burned

@Kotromanic
Yeah, Tsar could get hot-headed during debates. I felt that personally lol.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,916
SoCal
I don't remember everything but off the top of my head, Tsar claimed that:

1. Bulgaria did not conquer Serbia in 924
2. King Vukašin Mrnjavčević deposed Emperor Stefan Uroš before his death
3. Serb Patriarchate of Peć was not disbanded after the Ottoman conquest
4. remains of St. Sava were not burned

@Kotromanic
Yeah, Tsar could get hot-headed during debates. I felt that personally lol.
What caused the dispute between you and him on these issues? As in, how did you two come to different conclusions about these topics using the same sources?
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,978
Iowa USA
I don't remember everything but off the top of my head, Tsar claimed that:

1. Bulgaria did not conquer Serbia in 924
2. King Vukašin Mrnjavčević deposed Emperor Stefan Uroš before his death
3. Serb Patriarchate of Peć was not disbanded after the Ottoman conquest
4. remains of St. Sava were not burned

@Kotromanic
Yeah, Tsar could get hot-headed during debates. I felt that personally lol.
Seems that each of 2-4 you were on the "conforming" viewpoint. About the tenth century, it is hard perhaps for us in the 21st century to really conceive of how the vassal relationships were honored, and the specific verb "conquer" could seem too strong of descriptor. Who knows, maybe he views the forum once in a while still. In that case.... I mean no personal disrespect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
May 2013
188
USA
Seems that each of 2-4 you were on the "conforming" viewpoint. About the tenth century, it is hard perhaps for us in the 21st century to really conceive of how the vassal relationships were honored, and the specific verb "conquer" could seem too strong of descriptor. Who knows, maybe he views the forum once in a while still. In that case.... I mean no personal disrespect.
The problem is that all history is open to interpretation, especially when talking about something occurring 1100 years ago. We do not really know much about such early periods and to this day we do not even know the exact location of Serbian lands from Einhard’s chronicle, let alone to doubt that Bulgars conquered Serbia in 920s when the logic and all available information clearly point to it. It is surprising that he would argue that...then again Nada Klaic argued that Hungarians never attacked Bosnia in 1230s despite the correspondence between Pope and Hungarian king.

I also felt that he was somewhat argumentative, while certainly knowledgeable, but if he really claimed above points then it tells me that his ego got in the way. I fully understand that as somebody studying history he would have the reason to get frustrated with “alternative viewpoints”, but you really cannot get mad at the popular internet forum where the threads such “Who was the best warrior” or “Best general” and as such are allowed. We all have separate interests, mine is medieval Bosnia and Serbia and WWII in Balkans and to an extent US Civil War. I often feel that it is a waste of time to participate on such forums but then I open this webpage now and then and see some really interesting subjects on ancient Egypt or various foods or Roman conquests and still manage to enjoy it to an extent. Life is too short to argue but I have been participating in online forums for nearly 20 years and do not have the patience any longer to try to convince anyone whether I am being objective or knowledgeable on something or not...simply not worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,646
Spain
The problem is that all history is open to interpretation,
For me.. Interpretation is not history... but a tale..... history is (and ONLY) is facts, facts, facts. That is the reason because I don´t like Ancient History because we don´t know facts.... but interpretation.. I don´t like to read books written by historian man (for me... the same as to read one Astrologic man)... Facts, facts, only facts.... When Prinz Eugen took Beograd is a fact....I don´t care what a guy in 21st century writes about that Fact... I am only interested in the Fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,916
SoCal
For me.. Interpretation is not history... but a tale..... history is (and ONLY) is facts, facts, facts. That is the reason because I don´t like Ancient History because we don´t know facts.... but interpretation.. I don´t like to read books written by historian man (for me... the same as to read one Astrologic man)... Facts, facts, only facts.... When Prinz Eugen took Beograd is a fact....I don´t care what a guy in 21st century writes about that Fact... I am only interested in the Fact.
What about if there is a dispute over the facts, though? For instance, it's unclear whether US President Andrew Jackson was born in North Carolina or South Carolina.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Castrum 1415

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,916
SoCal
Similarly, we don't know exactly which of the Dakotas was first admitted as a US state in 1889 since US President Benjamin Harrison shuffled the Dakotas' admission papers before he actually signed them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,978
Iowa USA
Similarly, we don't know exactly which of the Dakotas was first admitted as a US state in 1889 since US President Benjamin Harrison shuffled the Dakotas' admission papers before he actually signed them.
I'm not Martin however... when I read his comment such a very very fine distinction, which Dakota did B. Harrison admit first, wasn't what he was addressing.

(By the way, human affairs have managed to proceed well since 1889 with the "unfortunate" South Dakotans being considered second to their Northern neighbors by the most frequently used convention on this matter!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76
May 2013
188
USA
For me.. Interpretation is not history... but a tale..... history is (and ONLY) is facts, facts, facts. That is the reason because I don´t like Ancient History because we don´t know facts.... but interpretation.. I don´t like to read books written by historian man (for me... the same as to read one Astrologic man)... Facts, facts, only facts.... When Prinz Eugen took Beograd is a fact....I don´t care what a guy in 21st century writes about that Fact... I am only interested in the Fact.
Yes, I hear you and this is the reason I dislike most so-called historical movies or shows as they are frequently only loosely based on facts. Having said that, ALL written history is based on interpretation of those said facts. Do we know what Prinz Eugen thought as he sacked Bosnia on his way to Sarajevo? What did he eat on the way down there? Was he anxious that Ottomans may place an ambush somewhere in Usora valley considering he did not have a large army? What did locals think when they saw his army approaching? None of this is available from the fact and three different historians will give you three different versions of his state of mind, his plans, or the overall success or failure of his excursion into the middle of Bosnia.

What I am alluding to is that we hardly can reconstruct events from WWII into smallest details let alone events going back several hundred years or millennia. Unless we discover the way to travel back in time, you will never have ONLY facts but rather historians’ own, frequently faulty and utmost subjective, points of view about historic events. History to me is not the linear timeline of events and wars but everything that happened in between or at the same time on a different continent, in another country. It is much more than what we know at this point.....some things will get clearer with more archeological finds, some we will never know as they are lost in time. It’s just a nature of human analytical mind to inquire and to fill in the gaps between the knowledge or if you want, facts.