Talk:History of the Balkans/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I've writing "table chess" and automaticaly the link was addded? Does anybody know how this is possible? User:CristianChirita— Preceding unsigned comment added by CristianChirita (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 March 2005 (UTC)

Quote: "The history of the Balkans is dominated by wars, rebellions, invasions, the fluidity of ethnic groups, the inability of different groups to cooperate as well as interference by and clashes between great empires."

As a Bulgarian person I don't think thats fair. Well actually it is fair but it applies to ALL of nations and regions. I think the FIRST sentence was direct and open assault on the allready low image of the region. With no arguments these two sentences are radical and unreasonable; even if they had arguments, such points of view are not something to be encouraged in supposedly neutral encyclopedia.

- [email protected]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitar.ouzounoff (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this history include a geological history of the balkans? How the region was formed, the mountins etc. The balkans is a landmass, it would seem logical. User:GeZe

Maybe that would be too long. There could be a seperate article called Geological history of the balkans that links to this one...Bremen 22:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn`t this history include only a geological history of the Balkans (LOL)? It would probbably be the only non (too much) biased part in this, or any other article on the history of the Balkans. Although one can never be quite sure...Kornjaca (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There are several inaccuracies in the map by User:Bogdangiusca:

• 1) The Getae are regarded as a Thracian tribe, not as a Dacian one. See for example the report of the UNESCO about the Getae Tomb of Sveshtari - [1].

Getae is the name of Dacians South and East of the Carpathians. Strabo said that the Dacians and Getae spoke the same language.

Also, Geto-Dacians were a Thracian tribe and were related to the Thracian tribes of Thrace. But they were not exactly the same people. Just think the way Danes are a Germanic people and are related to the Germans. Bogdan | Talk 21:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good, Bogdan, then I can add the Dacians among the ancestors of the modern Bulgarians along with Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians:-)). The Macedonian language territory, however, continues to be inaccurate. VMORO 15:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The difference between Dacians and Thracians is also a bit artificial and they quite often are regarded as two branches of the same people.

But if there is anyway a differentiation between Dacians and Thracians, the border between them should go along the Danube.

It depends. A differentiation can be made easily with the help of the toponyms. Dacian towns have endings in "-dava", while Thracian towns in "-para". Please look at this map of Duridanov. Bogdan | Talk 21:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 2) The area of the ancient Macedonians is suspiciously reminiscent of the geographical region of Macedonia, the Macedonians, however, inhabited only a section of it, pretty much corresponding to nowadays northwestern Macedonia (Greece).

Well, it's not very precise to change like this... I'll try to find some map of Ancient Macedonia before I made a change there. Bogdan | Talk 21:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am urging User:Bogdangiusca who has created the map, to make the necessary corrections. VMORO 20:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)~

You need to convince me, not urge me ;-) Bogdan | Talk 21:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VMORO is right about the northern frontiers of ancient

01:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Macedonian sphere in the map extends way too far north, past even Paeonia into Dardania, populated by Thraco-Illyrians. The new map should accurately depict the Macedonian sphere as being further south and west (as far south as Thessaly, as far west as bordering on Illyria). Decius 01:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Though equating ancient Macedon with present Greek Macedonia is not correct either, as ancient Macedonia for most of its history (especially in 1000 bc) did not extend that far east into southern Thrace, where Thracians were predominant. Decius 01:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, Moesian probably should be represented separately, as transitional between Dacian and Thracian, as many scholars suggest (i.e. "Thraco-Daco-Moesian"), though no one really knows the differences between them. The Getae though are synonymous with Daci in Strabo and other sources, so they are to be included with Dacian: the Getae were Dacians.Decius 01:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another thing I don't like is that the color for Phrygian territory in Anatolia is too close to the color for Thracian territory in and around Bithynia and Thynia. At a casual glance, it looks as if there are no Thracians in Anatolia, just Phrygians. Decius 01:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most likely the Scythians had not migrated into the areas north of the Black Sea so early as 1000bc. They probably arrived later. I would not show Scythians on such a map from 1000 bc. If you read Herodotus, you can see that from the way they are discussed, it seems that they were newcomers in the area, arriving in the area a few centuries before Herodotus (800bc--600bc maybe). Decius 02:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Illyrian sphere is exaggerated: after

02:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huge Article

This article is going to be gigantic, from the looks of it. I'm not sure if it is suitable for one article. It's going to have to be very truncated. Decius 03:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well there are already several articles that cover material related to the balkans...the ottoman empire article is a good example. This article doesn't have to get that big...a good summary is what it really is.Bremen 06:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We'll see. Mostly what I'm doing for now is editing what other people write, and trying to organize the framework and chronology. There are individual articles for most of the sub-sections, though I don't know if there are such articles as Prehistory of the Balkans et cetera. I see that there is

06:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I should maybe discuss this on the Talk page for that article, but here it'll get more attention: The article Colonies in antiquity should not exist as it is right now: new format should be a separate article for each section: Phoenician colonies in antiquity, Greek colonies in antiquity, Roman colonies in antiquity. Each one is a big subject and should have its own article to be dealt with properly. I'll have to learn how to "cut and paste". The rest of the article (the introduction) should just be a disambiguation page directing to the specific articles. Decius 07:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please check the accuracy of the map.

I don't know much of Habsburg Empire, however I know that the political entity Slovenia emerged only after the first World War. Before that, there were Carynthia, Styria and Carniola, ruled by the Habsburgs, and the Littoral Region was called Goriška Region.

Also the city of

12:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed the map as no-one responded to my arguments. --

Eleassar777

22:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The period of history denoted by the 'resistance' section is a fairly important part of the whole article (arguably a lot more important for understanding the modern situation than the ancient history) but at the moment it is just a list of significant battles. I added an introductory paragraph but i think someone needs to weld the battles into a narrative (which may not be easy). I could give it a try tomorrow if noone objects.. Isthatyou 02:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, i thought it was worth mentioning that Greek was predominant in the Eastern empire, providing an interesting difference with the Western Latin empire but Decius disagreed with it ('it depends at which point in time you are considering---when the Eastern Empire was larger, the Latin element was larger than the Greek'). So can we decide on language that can be agreed on?

I think it is worth mentioning as an interesting fact because many people arent aware that there were Greek speaking Romans (at least the Byzantines always regarded themselves as such).

note: I am English, not a Greek nationalist or anything. ... Isthatyou 03:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem mentioning the large Greek element, but a broad statement that Greek was always the predominant language in the Eastern Roman Empire is not the way to represent it. When the Eastern Empire comprised Dacia Nova/Moesia, Scythia Minor, Illyria, Dalmatia (and even parts of Italy and Spain under Justinian) the predominant language was not certainly Greek. Decius 03:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also:

03:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also added into the figure are non-Greek languages of the Asia Minor provinces, and other populations in other provinces. Decius 03:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is surely accurate that in its later (greatly reduced-territory) phase the predominant language of the Empire was Greek, but that must be presented in context. In my opinion, discussion of language 'demographics' is not absolutely neccessary in this summary, but should certainly be discussed in detail here: Byzantine Empire. Decius 05:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was the official and most people spoke it but it wasnt the mother tongue of a big part of the Eastern R.E. denizens

It would probably be best to say that Greek was the intellectual language of the region. Officially administration was in Latin, on the level of the commoner there were a large variety of languages spoken, but the upper classes were largely Greek or Helenized, and spoke Greek as a common language between each other. Jztinfinity 02:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify that according to linguists the Gothic words entered early common Slavic (proto-Slavic) before the Slavs migrated south of the Carpathians and south of the Danube. So the words don't date from the time when Gothic tribes settled south of Danube (because I think the Goths settled south of the Danube about a century before the Slavs even crossed the Danube, and by the time the Slavs arrived, I think the Goths had already moved on into Italy or something; the topic of Gothic influence in the Balkans was raised, and I wanted to clear this up). Decius 09:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gavrilo Princip wasn't a member of Black Hand. He was member of Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia). Main goal of Black Hand was assasination of King Alexander in 1903. User:Belgrader do you have any evidence for this?Phil alias Harry 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Many western sources mis-sight the name of the organisation of gavrilo princip being the black hand. I am sure the author used this incorrect source. His organisation was known as Young BOsnia (ie Mlada Bosna)

I am sure people have kept using black hand as it has a rather more sinister sound to it.

It is true that Gavrilo Princip himself was a member of the Young Bosnia and not the Black Hand. But, the Young Bosnia was backed by the Black Hand, the later being the real organizer of the assasination. The Young Bosnia had been a youth revolutionary movement, and the Black Hand - a secret service based terrorist organization composed of well trained professonals, while Gavrilo Princip was just a 17 old lyceal, just like most other Young Bosnia members.Kornjaca (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The new proposed section Attested Milestones of the Balkanic states is breaking chronological order by having a reference to Classical Antiquity under the Dark Ages section. Chronological order is what is keeping this article together, and it avoids chaos and redundancy. If the section is going to remain it must restrict itself to the Dark Ages. This section could in fact be done as a different new article. Decius 12:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chronological order in Dark Ages: first Goths and Germanic tribes come on Balkan scene, then Hunnish, Avar, et cetera. The coming of the Huns is what led the Visigoths, for example, to enter Roman territory with the permission of the Emperor Valens. Goths up front, Huns come at their heels. Decius 12:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Dark Ages are keept Dark. It is very intersting because every Balkanic state have an own version about migration and assimilation. User:CristianChirita

I have a suggestion on how to organize the Dark ages---it can be summarized by the century, rather than by the ethnic group: 4th century, 5th century, 6th century, 7th century, and so on, summarizing the major events of those centuries: and the Goths, Huns, and so on will thus be discussed within the context of the unfolding Balkan history---there are already articles that discuss the groups themselves, so why be redundant when it can be done differently. Decius 04:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The best solution for Dark Ages can be a table: Maybe something like: Rows the Tribes Columns: Year of the migration , from what area, area covered, observations. User:CristianChirita

That sounds like a good idea. A table in addition to a prose summary. Decius 04:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know that i am getting old, but it took my eyes quite a while to make out Europe in the map. The "white ocean" initially looked like cloud cover over an unknown land mass. We could really use a nicer and clearer map. My 2 cents. func(talk) 00:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing cleanup tag, 400 edits later (at least), it's a whole different article. -- ∞Wirelain 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we need the tag back, the article is still a mess — it has inappropriate or simply bad wikilinks (

Western Catholicism), bad transliteration (Sadovez, Chan Krum), needs some structural changes and a whole lot of cleanup. Not to mention the Macedonian question and (National awakening in) Bulgaria sections, which are a complete mess. As a whole, the article simply doesn't look good. Todor→Bozhinov

13:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of National awakening of the ethnic Macedonians

It is proposed to merge in

TerriersFan

17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely oppose. There is no particular POV issue with that article, and furthermore, most of the other ethnicities have their own National awakening pages, why not the Macedonians? -

·

20:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Support This article is a poorly-formed, unsourced, stub. It needs to be merged. Argos'Dad 03:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Or elaborated upon, whilst the other excessively lengthy ones need to be shortened a bit so every country has an equal input

07:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

support, agree with the support arguments mentioned here, but maybe it makes more user-friendly. Since the article title is not easily found. Mallerd 12:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

there needs to be a more equal share of the macedonian awakening story on this page as macedonians are balkan peoples as well. more information would be very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.99.108 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Montenegro is left out of the article??? Talking about liberation from the Ottomans, who were the only free people then, what country was the only one resisting? I'm aware that some users here have a complex concerning this issue, but I would appreciate a usual biased you-are-all-Serbs kind of article more than my country being absolutely ignored, as if it's less important than others or what? There are only 2 or 3 active Montenegrin users, and it's pretty sad that anywhere we do not participate in the article's creation, we are being left out, or the article looks like it was written by Vojislav Šešelj and the likes of him...Sideshow Bob 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No answer, as I supposed... Sideshow Bob 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sideshow Bob, why don`t you add something yourself (or another one of those "2 or 3 active Montenegrin users")? Who do you expect to do it for you?Kornjaca (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia should be considered Balkans since its inhabitants, Slovenians, consider themselves part of the balkan region.

I believe that the Bavarians are more likely to consider themselves a part of the Balkan region than most of the Slovenians :) But, maybe I am wrong... Or, maybe they`ve changed their mind :) Kornjaca (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the arrival of Slavs section. It previously seemed to have been cut and pasted out of some other wikipedia article. My main change was the IRanian /samartian origin theory about the Serbs and Croats.

In wiki, all the articel about the origins of the Serbs and Croats are written as if the Iranian theopry is fact. However, i have amended it slightly to highlight that it is a thoery only, and a rather flimsy one at best.

Regards and happy reading 60.240.28.122 13:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that any trace of any theory on Serbs and Croats origins has disappeared from this article! The "arival" of Slavs is just a theory, too. Just as "native genesis" theories are just theories. However, it`s pretty sure that the original Croats and Serbs, whoever and whatever they had been, had been groups distinct from the "Slav" masses. How would you expect to know the "facts"? And what would you realy consider a fact? So, why not just mention various theories, with references if possible?Kornjaca (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there the need to put Serbs and Croats under the same section...Serbia and Croatia were not united until the 20th century, in the creation of Yugoslavia. The rest of their history is separate...Serbs and Croats should each have their own section.

The migration of these people have been parallel for pretty much all of history. Many historians doubt whether they even are seperate entities. More likely they are pretty much the same tribe, or at least two associated tribes (like the anglo-saxons) that merely settled in different regions.

I only edited this migration part.

Yes their subsequent medieval history IS seperate. This article is deals very briefly with their subsequent history. WHen i get time i ill be happy to elaborate a bit under seperate sub-headings.

Thank you for responding, I would like to also correct you by saying that it is not only the medieval history that is separate, rather everything that history can root back to. The actual origins or Croats and Serbs are a mystery, but any existence of the two prior to their 7th century arrivals to the Balkans is of TWO SEPARATE TRIBES. And their kingdoms did emerge in the Medieval era as you said, hoverer, their nations did not unite until Yugoslavia (which was not a naturally, unforced union, compared to lets say the formation of Germany or Italy through trade benefits), and that is no longer...As far as culture, Serbs and Croats lived in two different worlds for most of their existence, even when they did not have their own respective kingdoms/nations. When not in their own respective kingdoms, it was always either Croats - Some Western Catholicism Empire and Serbs Eastern Orthodox Empire - OR - Croats Some Catholic Empire and Serbs under Ottoman rule. Two different and seperate paths, developing seperate cultures...And the notion that they are the same tribe, well like I said, it is a mystery and when you have 2000 years of documentation as seperate tribes, and the origins are unknown, what we really only know is that there existed two tribes and before that is mere speculation. And since they migrated and settles separately, why would you not treat them the same as say Bulgarians?? By the way all indo-europeans came from the same entity anyways, so, tribes are mostly social.

Also, I noticed that the Bulgarian section contains a map of Bulgaria under the Great Emperor Simeon. Now the reason I bring this up, i on this Map of Bulgaria, there is in "X" in the region of Bosnia, near where it says "Croats". Next to this "X" it says "Bosnian Highlands (927)". The 927 AD Battle of Bosnian Highlands, is where the Croatian Kingdom under King Tomislav (so not just "Croats" and actual Kingdom...), defeated Simeon's Army. I am just giving you this as an example to show that the Croatian Kingdom was around at that time, and Simeon suffered a Crushing blow in that battle. The Bulgarian section is very elaborate in it's history, were the Croatian section (which doesn't really exist in this article) is rather in descriptive of Croat history in the Balkans. I am writing this, because I feel this article portrays Croatian history as insignificant compared to the other slavs, where obviously that is not true since I just showed an example were Croatia intact did exist, and had a very important impact on Bulgaria's history. Hence, not insignificant.

Again, I thank you very much for responding to me promptly - peace

Yes they have always been described to be seperate. My question is that they might have had some common origin. The resemeblence of even the names is uncanny : Srb and Hrvt (same stresses and form, etc). No one doubts that they had independent history ever since they arrived in the balkans, probably even before. Their different cultures furthermore developed, I think more due to chance. Ie croatia fell under the western, Latin rite whereas Serbia as orthodox, cyrillic, just because that is the way Rome was split

I agree with your point that their history in this article is brief (especially since one could argue that the ex-Yugoslavias history is the RICHEST of all). Yet this article has more history about Bulgaria and Albania. I just suppose it reflects the intentions or backgrounds of the original authors of the article. The key is to create a balanced summary for all the balkan countries history (and if someone wants more info then , ofcourse, they should refer to the individuals country's history).

This is something we can work towards. As i said i only edited the part about the arrival of the slavs because i was sick of reading about Serbs and Creoats supposedly being Iranian origin, when this is wrong.

1) "Their (Serbs vs. Croats) different cultures furthermore developed, I think more due to chance"... just like pretty any other cultural differentiation anywhere in the World, what kind of argument it is suposed to be? They did have developed. Point! 2) And what kind of argument is this one: "one could argue that the ex-Yugoslavias history is the RICHEST of all"? Someone other could argue that the ex-Ottoman history is FAR richest of all. The "ex-Yugoslavias history" is merrily an artefact and while almost all of Balkans for centuries belonged to the Ottoman World, Yugoslavia have existed for a less than a century (and it`s approximative idea for only few decads before).Kornjaca (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I propose the section in medieval part about Kumans and Pechenegs be removed or revised. Currently it makes no sense.

I do not think these groups deserve a seperate sub-heading as their influence on the Balkans is really not that great

18:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I re-iterate. THis section is very poor. Unless someone objects i will remove it, instead adding a couple of sentences in with the main body of the nomads section

11:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

territory of that kingdom was around ten times smaller than that described. Described territory was Roman province Illyricum, not kingdom of Illyria. Why so many fakes when Illyrians are in question???Zenanarh 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Every Illyrian article is overtly incorrect. There are certain people that seem determined to inhibit any correction

11:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

was formed in 9th century not in 10th! Croatian Kingdom was formed in 10th!Zenanarh 18:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole middle ages section is rather sloppy.

i propose it needs to be re-formatted. 1st a 'migrations' section, which needs to be a bit more stream lined , summarised and balanced. (Eg it has 2 lines about the hunns, then 30 about then goths, and nothing about the rest). And a whole chunk about Cumans which makes no sense

Then a 2nd section introduced about 'medieval states'. Eg the bulgrian chunk maybe be split. The first part about bulgars should be in migrations section, then the actual bulgarain kingdom part in medieval states section. If our Bulgarian friends don't mind, maybe this can be shortened a bit? The whole article is a little bulgarian heavy, if you know what i mean. We can always direct them to the main Bulgarian article. Then i will eloborate upon Serb, Croat, Hungarian states. It's just that there are many countries, and i think the main purpose of this article is to give an overview of the interrelated collective history of the balkans; not a detalied history about individual conutries .

THoughts ?

01:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-formatted the nomad section. Someone then changed the title to barbarian incursions, hich is probably more correct. Some references are yet to be added. The medieval states section is incomplete currently, only containing info about Bulgaria. Others will have to be elaborated upon, in due time

The Ottoman Empire section is in dire need of editing, rewriting even. I don't have time now (I'm working on an essay) but if someone who knows what the **** they're talking about could edit it that would be swell.--SCJE (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we try to convert all the references the ref-tag format, please? See WP:FOOT.

I'm going to leave the other, numbered references untouched for the time being. Eventually any that cannot be changed to ref-tags will be bulleted instead, because the numbers are confusing. --

21:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think these "references" (searches actually) fail

01:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is huge and only getting larger. I'm not sure how much is due to past merges, etc, nor am I familiar on how articles on similar topics are handled, but I at least wanted to encourage others to discuss this. Should we look at splitting this into sub-articles?

I moved section-level "See also" and "External link" sections from the "Vlachs" section, and noticed "Consequences of World War I" has something similar. If we're going to consider splitting the article, then I'm going to leave this as is because it will make for easier splitting. --

01:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. It is a little on the long side now

13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reader Jacob Haller has placed weasal tag in the following paragraph

"Most historians and archeologists support the theory that the Slavic homeland originated in areas spanning modern-day southern Poland and and Elbe valley in Germany. Since antiquity, the Balkans were already occupied by Illyrian tribes in the west and Thracian tribes in the east, many of which were Latinised (especially along the Dalmatian coast) and/or Hellenised (in the south). Their numbers were greatly decreased by the previous barbarian incursions. Many fled to mountainous areas or to the refuges of the cities on the Dalmatian coast. When the slavs arrived, they were the first barbarian tribes to actually settle in the area permanently. They assimilated many of the native Balkan people. [5][6]. However some retained their own cultures and language: scholars theorise that the Morlach/Vlach mountain tribes and Albanians are descended from such people. The Latinised Illyrians of the Dalmatian coast also remained distinct from the Slavs of the hinterland for quite some time, but they too eventually assimilated with the main population.

His objection: "it's not like everyone else settled for a time ... I'm not sure what "permanently" means here"

I will not insult everyone elses intelligence by defining the meaning of 'permanent', and then drawing an illustrated comparison of how other barbarian tribes had previously only settled temporarily.

Here's the source i got it from (the Britannica) "By the end of the following century they were permanently settled throughout the whole of the Balkan Peninsula."

00:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide the source, please? I don't see it in the article. --

Ronz

00:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Slavs. 'History section' It's in there Mr Ronz. This hardly requires a debate, as this is universally accepted theory by historians, linguists, etc.

00:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No debate,

Ronz

00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean? "When the Slavs arrived, they were the first barbarian tribes to actually settle in the area permanently." The passage can be read to mean that their predecessors were nomads, not agriculturalists. Jacob Haller 01:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

By 'barbarian' I mean that they were non -Romans, uncouth etc, as the Romans saw them. Not really referring their tribal organissation or way of life as nomads vs sedentary pastoralists. The permanent part means after they got there they stayed there, unlike the Goths or Lombards, etc. Others also stayed, eg Avars, but they were dispersed and no longer a single entity, or settled permanently later (eg Magyars). Hence they were the 1st of the 'invading' tribes to settle permanently.

I thought it makes sense

01:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The article persistently describes certain religious groups as "heretic." This is bad grammar and it is biased. Jacob Haller 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok if the grammar is bothering you, change it. As for the Bosnian church and bogomils being heretical, that is not my POV. That is what they were accused of by both the Pope and the Patriarchy in Constantinople. So that it is what i wrote, mentioning that it was the aforementioned bodies whih accused them of such. Now, if you have an issue with that, i suggest you take it up with the Pope. I cannot do much about it

00:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, it's not too uncommon for modern historical scholarship to use heretical in a neutral, value-free way, simply to describe that they differed from the dominant established church, without necessarily endorsing the theological value judgment originally inherent in that term, so I wouldn't have objected to this usage here. (If you come to think of it, the opposite term orthodox is also routinely used and it's just as judgmental in origin.) But maybe for lay readers not so much acquainted with this usage in historical discourse it might be better to rephrase it in some way.

To Hxseek: I know you are still angry at the many reverts of your contributions, but hitting out against Jacob like here [2] was not very helpful. And Ronz: bombarding Hxseek with ever more templated warnings [3] isn't particularly helpful either. In fact, using {{uw-3rr}} for an opponent you're yourself engaged in an edit war with can come across as more than a bit disingenious. Come on guys, everybody, pull yourselves together. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right future perf. But I;m not 'hitting out'. I;m just naturally a little cheeky

10:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In Croatian medival state - someone could put picture of Croatia during the

IV , it's greatest extend - . Also, can the ) 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Article structure is in an appalling state. I've tried to do some ToC edits and tagged the worst bits. Considering the effort that went into compiling all this, some house-keeping would definitely be in order.

19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I read this article and makes me think the whole grouping of areas into "Balkans" is silly

i.e. Most of the content is histories of areas unrelated or very thinly related. e.g. What is the connection of early Croatian history with Greece. Those two areas had more connections historically with "non-Balkan" states than with each other at the time. The trend follows for most of 'history of the Balkans'. The result is that it is extremely hard to follow reading this article unless you already know the whereabouts of all these areas, not because there is a problem in itself but that the grouping is a bit far fetched. --Leladax (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that this article is pretty much confuse, the early Croatian history has, actually, more connections with Greece (or, better to say - with Byzantium) than any later Croatian history.Kornjaca (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article it is mentioned. It is incomplete without it. I think though it should be just a link to the main article with a very small paragraph. --Leladax (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Off course, it`s a spiny question, maybe the most spiny one and certainly destinated to be highly biased, but, it`s simply unthinkable to talk about the modern history of the Balkans without even mentioning the Balkan Wars (except the recent "Third Balkan War")! If it`s so spiny that couldn`t be here, than, simply, this article shouldn`t be here at all.Kornjaca (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a plan to outline this subject? There have been many great religions in the region; from what we now know as Greek Mythology, to Catholicism, to the Orthodox one after the schism, to Islamic influence under the Ottomans, to modernity and more secularism. Should these be included in their own section or the sections about each civilization? Links possibly useful

• Orthodox history
• Islam in Balkas (book)
• Religion and Nationalism in Balkans

gren 23:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The book "Islam in the Balkans" cited above is terribly biased. I had the misfortune of buying it, and upon beginning to read it, saw I wasted my money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.40.242 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)