Battle at Kosovo Polje/Kosovo Field; 1389
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19880
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 05:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Battle at Kosovo Polje/Kosovo Field; 1389
Posted By: miki015
Subject: Battle at Kosovo Polje/Kosovo Field; 1389
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 21:23
Milos Obilic
It was the
year 1389 AD...Ottoman empire rising up.They crushed up
Byzantie,Macedonia...And finaly,they wanted something more,entrance to
Europe,opened gates to defeat christian world.And they find
one...Kosovo polje... 28.July,1389. two armies finaly had meet.Soultan
Amurat I,as the leader of Otoman army,and Sveti Knez Lazar{Holy Duke
Lazar},as the leader of the Serbian army.Battle was so terrible that
bouth leaders were death before the battle was over...Messenger was
sent to declare Serbian victory and the bells of Notre Dam church was
ringing for two days to celebrate...Otoman army was dewasteted,but
Serbian army was destroyed completely...just a few manage to retreat to
Krusevac...but,with faith in God,that Holy warriors and Martyrios block
the way and protect the Europe...------------- Sa verom u Boga za Kralja i Otadzbinu Miki |
Replies:
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 21:37
Byzantine Empire was not crushed yet.
Not necessarily to defeat the Christian world, it was their natural area of growth at that time, the Balkans!
Sultan Murad I to be correct
Sultan Murad didn't die in action, was murdered after the battle when wandering around the battlefield.
Murad I had the faith in same God, so does that mean God favors Christians more on the battlefield?
 The aim of the battle in mirror of Serbia was not to protect Europe but to protect themselves, it was not that global...
And, Ottomans didn't go further because Sultan Murad was dead, and Bayezid was to be crowned... ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: miki015
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 21:57
|
Alah is not my God...
------------- Sa verom u Boga za Kralja i Otadzbinu Miki |
Posted By: miki015
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 22:04
|
Have you been there then?
------------- Sa verom u Boga za Kralja i Otadzbinu Miki |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 23:59
|
Allah = Arabic word for God, you don't say God i in Serbian either, you say Bog. Mr. Nationalist please refrain from regurgitating Serbian nationalistic crap. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 00:02
PS.
This battle was not for Europe, nor for anything else but for Lazar's stake to the several broken principalities of the former Serbian kingdom.
Also, it was the Bosnian king Tvrtko I alongside Hungary and their Croatian vassals, and many Albanians that Lazar fought alongside with. This was by no means a Serbian battle that centuries of folklore and mythology made it out to be. It was a multi national effort to curb Ottoman incursions into the Balkans it failed, therefore the Serbian principalities fell under Ottoman vassalage.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 00:27
|
Ottomans won, Serbian principalities became vassal states. ------------- |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 01:16
|
Beware of the pitfalls of nationalism. Serbia has suffered enough, so has Greece. Others hopefully will find out soon.
------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 02:52
|
It is funny to say, Serbs protected germany england and france at kosova.. I am sure all these nations can protect themself better than serbs.
It is sad we turks were so unlucky.
Greeks bulgarians serbs croats albanians and all other nations protected Europea against us. If They did not protected europea our capital city would be berlin.
|
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 07:19
|
was the ottoman army really devastated? i read, from ottoman sources, that the reason the army didn't pursue the balkan campaign after that battle was because beyazid was eager to assert his new postion as sultan before his brother could. otherwise they wouldn't have returned to edirne. but as i said, these are ottoman sources, so perhaps they are wrong. if so, please inform me. maybe the fact that the was a second battle of kosovo in the next century proves that the ottoman army really was devastated in that battle. and konstantinius, i am very interested to learn why and how greek nationalism has been detrimental to greece (from a greek perspective). it was the primary reason for them securing their independence, aside from europeon intervention.
|
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 14:04
|
Well, in my own perspective Greece suffered greatly in the aftermath of the Venizelian "Megali Idea" and the 1918-22 affair. Of course if today Greece was comfortably sitting on both shores of the Aegean I'd probably consider Venizelos a great hero. What can I say that the Romans haven't already: vae victus. This is off-thread, PM me for more. ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: miki015
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 17:59
|
I think that all of your reply`s are correct in some way... Why do you
think of nationalism same moment when somebody speak about his
origines,in my case,Serbian?I am proud to be the Serb,with all of my
heart and soul....No one of you can`t understand the meaning of Kosovo
for serbian people,it is the very soul of Serbs...Our proverb say :
"What belong to other we dont want,but what belong to us we will not
gave to others!".I think this is enough for reasonable man to
understand...Balkan was always the crossroad of destiny,sometimes wery
cruel for us... ------------- Sa verom u Boga za Kralja i Otadzbinu Miki |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 00:19
|
Albanians have lived there, too. Well, they can use this same methodology as well. ------------- |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 00:28
However, nationalism can sometimes blind you from the truth. From what seem a glorious victory to the nation of the people that fought in it might be just another battle in the war against the Ottomans to other nations. From what others posted, it seems your topic contains some inaccuracy. However, its not shameful to admit that you are wrong, but instead be happy that you got some valid info  |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 06:59
You could say that, but they compensated for it soon afterwards by fighting with the Ottomans against the Crusaders at Nicopolis in 1396. Serbian heavy cavalry was what broke the initial onslaught of the French knights in that battle.
There was really no single army to rival the Ottoman one at this point, only conglomerations could hope to stand a chance, and Serbia did not. The Ottomans were at their greatest like the Romans; they frequently lost battles, but they could always muster a new one faster than their opponents could recover, and in the end they always won the war if they focused their resources on it. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 09:06
|
That's exactly what the battle of Kosovo Polje turned out to be a conglomeration of states vs. the Ottoman army, Lazar participated with various Serbian principalities under his control, Tvrtko I of Bosnia sent his army, Hungary sent their Hungarian and Croatian troops, the Albanians of Kosovo as well. It was a multi-national effort, it was not a "Serbian" battle that's where the myth starts that it was some kind of Serbian action. Lazar could not have stood a chance without the crucial help from Bosnia and Hungary. Tvrtko held the title of King of Serbs unlike Lazar, he held some of the western principalities, he had the influence to muster enough troops for that encounter. If Lazar had initiated the battle with no help it would have been a single sided slaughter. ------------- |
Posted By: the_oz
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 13:29
| I cant understand why Miloş Obiliç is an hero for Serbians?He just murdered a Turkish Padishah.So what?A new Padishah came..Yıldırım Bayazid was very succesful Padishah too.It didnt damaged Ottoman Empire.It didnt made Serbians stronger.. |
Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 15:44
| I think miki described the battle as a heroic or something like this.The serb army at this time was considered mostly of peasants that didn't really care who they fight or why they do it as long as they survive and return to their families,so i don't consider them heroes or "defenders of chrisindom".The battle itself wasn't that important as it is described.Europe wouldn't care much if it finished the opposite way.All nations that fought large invading armies in Europe(mongols,turks,moors,huns) tend to think their ancestors saved whole Europe but the truth is if it wasn't for them (those that fought against invaders) it would be someone else.We also tend to say we "saved" Europe from the turks or the mongols or the russians but i don't really like such nationalistic statements. |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 18:54
Ahh... speak English please! 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 22:21
You seem to not have read this topic fully, especially the part about the composition of soldiers.
------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 02:07
|
miki please translate anything you post into English. This is an
English speaking forum and English is the common language of
communication used here. I liken Kosovo to the Battle for Gallipoli in 1915. Although it ended in defeat for both enemies of the Ottomans, to those who fought there it was crucial in forming a national identity. ------------- |
Posted By: Krum
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 03:56
|
I can understand.I think it is from the serbian version of Wikipedia.Next time post it in English.
The defeat of Kosovo pole was very improtant for serbs.If serbs after all won that battle it could be crucial for the ottoman expansion or it could happen as Plochnik.The battle of Kosovo pole doomed bulgarians,serbians and even greeks.It is known that Tsar Joan Shishman refused to send bulgarian forces against serbs and that was a reason for Bayazid to attack Bulgaria and conquered it in the end. ------------- It is only the dead who have seen the end of war. Plato |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 07:24
|
though some questions i asked previously remain unanswered, i have some more questions for you. why is the battle known as the battle of kosovo polje? where does that last term 'polje' come from? is it a slavic word? what does it mean?
the question i'm most interested in, is: how did the battle progress? what tactics did they employ? what exactly happened on the field? from what i've read after the battle both sides were claiming victory, so i'm suspecting
there isn't too much information on this.
|
Posted By: Krum
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 09:00
|
Polje = Pole = Field ------------- It is only the dead who have seen the end of war. Plato |
Posted By: Krum
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 09:02
Saying doomed i meant that they were doomed to be conquered not to be exterminated. ------------- It is only the dead who have seen the end of war. Plato |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 09:17
|
ah ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. i'm deleting that section of my that post. |
Posted By: miki015
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 18:34
|
Why
the Scots untill nowdays honours William Wallace?Take a little surf
trough the net and you will find out why we still honoured Milos ...
------------- Sa verom u Boga za Kralja i Otadzbinu Miki |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 18:55
I can understand why Serbs like Milos so much, but those two have a totally different story..One was a great leader,soldier and a freedom fighter while the other one has on famous for killing the leader of the opposite side in a battle ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: miki015
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 19:17
Kapikulu,it depends from wich side you are loking to the point...Milosh has done a heroic thing,something that no one has done before him... ------------- Sa verom u Boga za Kralja i Otadzbinu Miki |
Posted By: miki015
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 19:21
Milosh was our William Wallace...period. ------------- Sa verom u Boga za Kralja i Otadzbinu Miki |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 19:45
|
I would have thought that Lazar would be the Serbian equivilent of
William Wallace. Certainly, he lost, but in terms of putting up an
heroic fight there is plenty of comparison.
------------- |
Posted By: the_oz
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 12:55
ok,Sultan Murad is our William Wallace too. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 13:38
|
I think Timur e Leng's army was stronger than Osmanli. ------------- |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 19:37
No. It's Kemal. ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 11:08
|
Well, nobody is William Wallace but himself, stay in the topic. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 09:19
|
I really cannot believe what I have just read, is this what is taught in Serbia about this war?
Don't you know that powerfull Serbian princes, lords and their armies were fighting for the Ottomans against what they saw as oppressive Serbian leaders? Don't you learn about Kraljevic Marko? Konstantin Dejanovic?
What seems to be "hidden" is that Ottoman had many Christian allies and that many Christian warriors and armies thought for the Ottomans as Christians. The Christian Sipahis and their Voyniks fought as Ottomans in the Battle of Serbia, this all seems to be forgotten. Why is Prince Marko a Serbian legend with mythical status? he was an Ottoman and fought for Ottomans.
Zagros
I think Timur e Leng's army was stronger than Osmanli.
His army wasn't more powerfull, Timur was the better pollitician, he told the Turkmen beys and clans, look at Bayezid he's neglecting and not giving the credit that is deserved. Basically, Timur spoke of himself as "BasBug" leader of Turks, he promoted the Turkish Beys giving them more power and promised alot more.
What happened is, the Turkish Beys and Clans joined Timur in the war, leaving Bayezid without a chance.
The problem was caused by Bayezid anyway, Timur wanted to ally with Bayezid which Bayezid refused. However, after the war we know that they both respected each other and Timur mourned Bayezids death.
The war taught the Ottomans that the backbone of their state were these Beys and Clans and they had to treat them well and give them lands in order for them to stay loyal or they would revolt which happened again like in the Safavi-Ottoman wars. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 03:36
|
The most annoying thing here is that everybody is talking of some Hungaro-croat army and Bosnian army. Point is that Hungaro-croat army was 200 crusaders strong! Point is that Bosnian army was Serb army also! You think when you read wiki that you know everything. Only that is sure for this battle is that Serbs was outnumbered 2 by 1, that it was mainly Serbian army, that is was great sacrifise from the Serbian nobles. Aftermath was devastated armies from both sides. Both leaders was dead, none knows how they died. Turks will say that Murad was killed in assasination ofcourse. They will not admit if he was killed in combat with Lazar's center. Turks retreted after battle to their capital. Bayazid killed his own brother becouse of the trone right after the battle. Serbs was asking for help from all Europian people but allmost noone came. Yes we have traitors and cowards like every nation and they was on Turks side. That was the downfall of our empire. But we made sacrifice that marked us for eternety. At the end, we could just let them trough Serbia like some nations did. No, we wanted to fight for our freedom! |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 04:06
actually it is one thing that we can never be sure of
 In the contemporary history the strength of armies, statistical info are available. But when it comes to 1389, I don't think nobody bothered to count the exact numbers of the fighting sides before the battle ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 12:15
The Bosnian army was not Serb, nor even Orthodox Christian, the only Bosnian region that had a significant number of Orthodox Christians(not Serbs) was Hercegovina. Bosnia proper was majority Catholic, and offshoot Bosnian Church, there were ten or twenty orthodox families in the border regions. You obviously are a Serbian nationalist, and King Tvrtko I was a Bosnian king, who had been crowned king of Serbs as well. That is why he send his Bosnian army to fight alongside the Serb forces. ------------- |
Posted By: miki015
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 19:17
That is righ opinion,my fellow man!!!! ------------- Sa verom u Boga za Kralja i Otadzbinu Miki |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 21:06
I'm sorry but do you know how Bayazid actually died ?
Timurlane put him in the cage so that everybody could mock and humiliate him in Tamerlane's palace in Samarkand.
It was however to much for poor Bayazed, so he broke his head at the cage's bar.
Well, not so much respect. It's another topic though. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης 
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 21:21
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vaslui">
Read about this battle also.
My impression is that in all the major battles fought by Ottomans they had a huge numeric superiority.
It's amazing, a small army of the Principality of Moldavia defeated the huge Ottoman army.
A really heroic deed !
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vaslui ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2007 at 04:16
|
@The Bosnian army was not Serb, nor even Orthodox Christian, the only
Bosnian region that had a significant number of Orthodox Christians(not
Serbs) was Hercegovina. Bosnia proper was majority Catholic, and
offshoot Bosnian Church, there were ten or twenty orthodox families in
the border regions. You obviously are a Serbian nationalist, and King
Tvrtko I was a Bosnian king, who had been crowned king of Serbs as
well. That is why he send his Bosnian army to fight alongside the Serb
forces.@ It was Serbian royal line also. He sent only small force that took left side of the battle. You make mistake by thinking that only Serbian land was Serbia. And also you think that only orthodox christians in the Balkans were Serbs. Big mistake. There were also catholic Serbs in the Balkans. Do you want to say that Raska was not Serbian land also? Just because it was not called Serbia?! I am not a nationalist. I just think that Kosovo battle doesnt deserve this treatment. Also i think Serbs dont deserve this kind of treatment in history. I think that you are either Croat or Bosnjak  and thats why you wrote bunch of craps.Serbian army was outnumbered greatly and maybe by 2 vs 1. In that period of it was really bad odds. Inspite that, Serbs came on the battlefield and fought valiantly, and maybe defeated Turkish army in military mean. |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2007 at 10:50
think about this logically. ottoman sources tell us that murad I was murdered by a deserter after the battle. serb nationalists such as yourself claim he was killed in battle. now looking at both arguments:
if he was killed in battle, how would the serbs know? when leaders die in battle the opposing army learns of their death after the battle. for instance the last emperor of the byzantine empire, Constantine XI, was summoned by Mehmed the Conqueror after the capture of constantinople only for Mehmed to find out later he died in battle. when the opposing army does learn of that leaders death, its through contacts in the opposing army's nation, so if the sultan had died in battle it would say so in Ottoman sources. Besides which, if the sultan had died in battle the ottoman army would have disintegrated and been defeated almost instantaneously.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2007 at 14:38
I am Bosnian, and I did not write bunch of "craps" either. I just don't follow the traditional nationalist Serbian view on history where everything, and everyone somewhow is a Serb or connected to Serbdom. "Srbija do Tokija
"You may not be a nationalist, but you stil do follow "BS" historical pretensions that the Bosnian royal line is Serbian, why? because, Serbs would take it the hard way that a Bosnian was king of Serbs.
Taking a stance and saying everyone and everything was Serbian is rather ludicrous. Especially in an age where ethnicity was not defined in the same way you define it or I define it.etc...
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 03:54
|
Now i understand everything. You just cant stand that Bosnjaks didnt exist in that time. It was Serbs and Croats. There were not Bosnjaks. Modern history clearly says that. Serbs just have two kingdoms, one Serbia and one Bosnia. Serbia was called Raska earlier. Serbs was orthodox and some smaller part was catholic. While Croats was mainly catholic. There were not any Bosnjaks! It is modern problem that many modern states in the Balkans made their own history which is bunch of craps. Kurt@@ It is point that Turks would not say that their king died in battle, because its more profitable for them to say that he was killed by assassin. By some sources, he died at the end of the battle by the last charge at his royal bodyguards. Charge was taken by Milos Obilic greatest Serbian champion at the time, and his comrades. That was after Lazar died and when it was end of the battle. I dont want to say that is the ultimate truth but point is that nothing is clearly from that period. We only have some informations from which we must make larger picture. |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 04:36
|
Yeah, just produce some tale, than say nothing is clearly from that period..
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 05:52
As far as I remember, Bosnjaks were mainly Bogomils at that time, weren't they? ------------- . |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 06:07
| Yep. They were Bogomils, and that's why the got Islamisized. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 07:23
|
Sarmat
I'm sorry but do you know how Bayazid actually died ?
There are a number of conflicting sources.
According to first-hand sources of the time ie Timur's historians, Bayazid was treated well, Timur tried to help him become leader of the Ottoman state again, they played chess together and Timur mourned his death.
Other sources tell of Timur putting him in a cage and parrading him around town. Also another source tells of Timur using Bayezid as a footstool and keeping him as a trophy prize.
It must be said, the more outragous tales of Timur's actions towards Bayezid were written at later dates by people's who didn't actually see them.
Feonor
Only that is sure for this battle is that Serbs was outnumbered 2 by 1, that it was mainly Serbian army, that is was great sacrifise from the Serbian nobles.
Serbs was asking for help from all Europian people but allmost noone came. This is all very romantic by doesn't reflect what the sources say.
It wasn't a Serbian vs Turk war showdown were every Serbian fought against the "terrible Turk".
The war was one based upon power struggles in the region, the Kingdoms in the Balkans were weakening, they were neglecting lesser lords, not running the state efficiently and not paying.
Many Serbian lords and other lords joined the Ottomans who allowed them to maintain their status and also provided them with alot more disposable power, wealth, regional autonomy and even rights.
This is the key factor you are ignoring.
The war was one against the decadent lords of the region against a new growing power in the region which were the Ottomans.
A large chunk of Sultan Murdad's army were actually Serbs, you do know this? not just a "few" traitors, powerfull lords with their voyniks armies were fighting with Murad agains other lords.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 13:42
There were Bosnians then and now, modern history clearly instills that notion.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 13:43
|
BTW I'm pretty sure you are breaching a few CoC guidelines on posting with nationalist, incitive, deragatory posts. ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 14:35
Hmm that sounds kinda strange, you invade ones country, defeat its army, and then try to install the same guy back at the throne. In which primary source Bayezid's captivity is described like you wrote? ------------- |
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 04:11
Actually, lower-central Albanians. They were under the leadership of a member of the Muzaka family. He reportedly died during the battle. |
Posted By: Bosniakum
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 22:37
|
Saying that Tvrtko I Kotromanic was from a serbian royal line is a bit misleading, because Tvrtko like any monarch in medieval europe had blood ties to multiple monarchs. Which in Tvrtko's case were to to the serbian family of Nemanjic, but also even more to the croatian family os Subic and and Hungarian royal family. As far as Bosniaks not existing is not quite accurate. The term Bosniak did not exist at that time, unstead the term Bosnjan (I hope you see the relation) was used in multiple bosnian royal documents describing the inhabitans of Bosnia proper.
As far as Bosnia being a serbian kingdom, that is just nonsense, and is just based on the serbian assumption that all south slavs are originally serbs, which is very flaud, since originally the modern notion of nationality did not even exist. The only senseable coclusion that could be made about about the inhabitants of medieval bosnia, serbia, and croatia is that they were south slavs, speaking a south slav tounge, and that they were seperated by by borders, that were changeing constantly, and religion.
Also the popular assumption about many bosnians (bosnjani) being bogomils is falud. Most modern historians disagree with that. the more recent theories say that besides being chatolic and orthodox many bosnians belonged to the bosnian church, which is just an off shoot of the Chatolic church due to the remoteness of the bosnian terrain. ------------- "I krv svoju za Bosnu moju" |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 09:27
|
Wasn't he killed in Samarkand by Tamerlane soon after his soon Murad took the throne? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 14:24
|
Hi,may i join the debate? The only certain thing is that the battle was cruel and both leaders Murad and Lazar died,And the turkish army won,but they didn’t took at once the control of the province,for example Bayzid returned to instambul immediately with all his army to secure his throne,and the Lazars son stefan accepted the turkish vasallage. The principal elements in the Ballkanic army were the lazar’s men(lord of central serbia),Brankovic’s men(lord of Kosovo),bosniaks under the command of Vukovic(one of the Tvrtkos generals),albanians under the lead of Teodor Muzaka,and many other nationalities like hungarians(some fonts say:czechs,valachians,franchs,bulgarians ecc) The same with the Turkish Army serbs,bulgarians,greeks,albanians fought on their side. Army numbers… Turks vs Serbs 40’000/60’000 vs 100’000…turkish version 40’000 vs 25’000 27’000/30’000 vs 15’000/20’000…both serbian version the second one is accepted from the principal western scholars. About the battle,i guess it was just a battle and not that important,what we have today is much more a myth than a historical event,for example the importance of the second battle of Kosovo(were the Serbian role wasn’t that positive) or of the precedent battle near the Marica river were an entire Serbian army were destroyed by an surprise nocturnal attack is bigger.
|
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2007 at 11:24
More or less, you are right.Even Franks send contingent of army there Remember after Maritza 1371, more Europeans came to portray Ottomans, as global European issue, and they acted that way.Best example of that unity, would be Battle of Varna, or Varna disaster, when crusaders were about to defeat Ottomans.And guess who saved them.Serbs Loooooool ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 10:12
I never knew Murad such important to Balkans. He was merely a Beg of small Ottoman sultanate at those times. 
|
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2007 at 08:01
1. Bayezid died with his own fate in captivity, not killed.
2. There has been a civil war in Ottoman country after Tamerlane's victory Bayezid's captivity. The former "bey"s of Anatolian "Beylik"s took the power back in the territories they ruled before, with support of Tamerlane. And the sons of Bayazid fell into a long civil war(which took 11 years). The victory was won by Mehmed I, one of the sons of Bayazid and he managed to unify the Ottomans again, then helping it to return back to its former status. Though The Battle of Ankara, 1402, has very longlasting effects. The Anatolian lands, which was mostly unified under Ottoman rule during Bayezid's time, was divided once again and it took more than 50 years to make a reunification. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2007 at 14:23
Bayezid commited a suicide in Samrkand because he wasn't able to stand constant humiliation at the Timur's Royal court anymore. Timur put him in the iron cage, so Bayezid killed himself by breaking his head against the cage's bars. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2007 at 15:59
There are speculations on this matter that has been turning around for years, the poison hidden inside his ring story being the most common, but as far as I know, none of them are proven yet and still only a speculation.
And at later phases of his captivity, it is accounted that Tamerlane treated him very well due to his personal respect, despite humiliating him in the first phase of his captivity. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 22:03
|
it appears, bayezid i might have been injured in the battle of cibuk plane near ankara
he was carried around in a specially made bed placed between two horses
months after the battle, still in anadolia,
there was a big party, a multiple wedding, involving among others
timur's grandsons marrying bayezid's daughters
perhaps, at the same ceremony, two lazar's granddaughters had been married to timur's grandson and son of the timur's general, respectivelly
girls mother, lazar's youngest daughter olivera, might had served wine to her husband bayezid,
which appeared rather strange to some of timur's entourage
some dervish wrote proudly to have had succeeded in converting olivera to islam
bayezid expired during the night of 1403.03.(08-09) in Aksehir Anadolia,
probably of internal injuries sustained in battle(s)
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 23:28
|
kosovo polje 1389 June-September
let assume ottomans were able to come near kosovo polje with an army of about 40000
they came from the east and secured all territories south of danube and east of (velika morava, juzna morava), including mountains just east of kosovo polje around novo brdo
thus, to put in field about 40000 men, ottomans needed resources from a huge territory of south eastern balkans and bigger and reacher asia minor,
i.e., rumelia and anadolia
it would be a common sense to expect from their opponent(s) to have similar resources at his_their disposal
who the opponent(s) of ottomans might had been ?
|
Posted By: vranakonti
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2007 at 19:52
|
Of course both armys were multiethnical.For example even italian soldiers are mentioned as mercenarys in the ottoman army.
------------- Ti Shqipëri më ep nder... |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 00:29
I have never heard of this. Are you making this up? Where did you learn this? I have heard a wide range of accounts regarding Bayezid, the battle of Ankara and his captivity under Timur, but never have i heard this.
|
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 11:31
From where have you created those illusions ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 16:18
|
one could start with von Hammer, follow his references, expand ...
(at least some) knowledge of arabic, ottoman, persian ... would be beneficial
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 20:51
yes
as a part of the preparation for the battle,
murad signed treaties with venice and genoa (pera)
on a number of occasions, including during earlier wars between venice and genoa,
murad rented to venice a few thousand archers
venice were returning the favor
obviously, such things were rather secretly done, nothing in writing ... only some post action reports by third parties
navaresse, catalans, condottieries ...
florentines in greece were on good terms with evrenos beg
yet, officially, they were vassals of d'anjou louis > maria > tvrtko ?
anyone knows any detail about firenze_florence - tvrtko connections ? correspondance ? |
Posted By: Larus
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 08:27
|
First of all, battle at Kosovo in 1389. was nowhere near as important as the battle of Marica some twenty years earlier. Combined Serbian and Bulgarian forces outnumbered Turkish troops in that particular battle, but thanks to the military brilliance of Sahin Pasha Turks won the battle which was crucial for the further development of war. Serbian knights at Kosovo fought bravely together with their Christian allies and they weren't defeated as the popular culture says today- most likely it was a tie, since Turks retreated immediately after the battle just to bring reinforcements later and force Serbian nobles to become their vassals who suffered loses alike their enemies but were not able to recover in numbers for future stuggle. Regarding Milos Obilic, that person never existed- it is a mythical hero created in popular literature thanks to Marvo Orbin, historian from Dubrovnik, many years later. How did Amurad/Murad/Murat died is very hard to say. Maybe he was killed by his son, maybe he was killed prior to the battle or after the battle since most historians agree it was impossible for an enemy to approach his tent during the battle. As far as his killer is concerned the only contemporary person to the battle of Kosovo who ever claimed to be the killer of the Sultan was King Stefan Tvrtko I of Serbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs - and Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 21:10
|
tvrtko's letter to the municipality of trogir from 1389.08 appears to be the ONLY direct and contemporary source about the battle
the letter is written in latin, and tvrtko simply wrote, among others, something like
I defeated the Infidel at kosovo
later, he gave the full credit to his Commander-in-Chief Veliki Vojvoda Vlatko Vukovic Kosaca, and explained, that although fully involved on the organization level, and financing, he (Tvrtko) did not personally go to kosovo polje
tvrtko's statements are in full agreement with logistic of events occuring before and after the battle
interestingly, it appears, between august and october, when tvrtko received the answer(s) from florence to his letter(s),
the news about murad's death and 12 brave men, like 12 disciples, started spreading ... etc
as like someone was spinning the story
florence official(s) congratulated tvrtko on his victory, the excellent news,
which they confirmed via independent sources
lazar was not mentioned at all, as if, he did not participate on tvrtko's winning side ? or played rather minor role ?
at least some ottoman sources from 15 ct mention that murad died between the end of august and beginning of september of the same 1389
those reports used lunar islamic calendar, which is more natural than gregorian one, thus less prone to errors
this appears to be in full agreement with the logistics after the battle
same sources also mentioned saruce pasa, who, days or weeks after the battle, captured lazar who was then on the run,
most probably around novo brdo area ?, which was still under the control of retreating ottoman armies
|
Posted By: Larus
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 06:27
|
What he also mentioned in his letters along with "defeating the infidels" was that he personally killed Murad (source- Rade Mihaljčić, "Junaci kosovske legende", page 10, BIGZ, 1989, Beograd). Certainly, this was a propaganda, but I just mentioned it for the sake of my previous argument regarding the myth of Milos Obilic and the battle itself. On the other hand, any one of his subjects fighting the battle could've easily been the one who killed Murad and according to the standards of that era killing would be attributed to Tvrtko himself. Certainly, these statements do not prove a thing, so they can only be treated as pure speculation, but I found them interesting enough to be mentioned. svantoVID-I didn't however had the opportunity to read those Ottoman sources regarding the battle of Kosovo, so I would appreciate if you could mentioned a few in order for me to look them up (I'm sure most of them are available in English). I must admit this is the first time I heard about Lazar's capture "after the battle while fleeing" and would be eager to learn more about it. As for your statement regarding Tvrtko "not mentioning Lazar in his letter"- well, that has probably nothing to do with one's importance on the battlefield but rather the fact that Tvrtko had it's eyes on vacant Serbian throne and logically recognized Stefan Lazarevic as the arch rival. Therefore, he had a good reason not to mention his father. Cheers, Larus |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 21:44
|
Tvrtko already had been crowned the legitmate king of Serbia and Bosnia, maybe his status as King made him omit Lazar as a mere prince doing his bidding among a whole pack of noblemen he had already sent out to Kosovo to participate in the battle. ------------- |
Posted By: Larus
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 04:23
| Legitimate king of Serbs and Bosnia, you mean? ;) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 23:53
Yes indeed, however, it still does not mean that "Serbs" applies to Bosnia now does it ------------- |
Posted By: Larus
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 11:39
Certainly not! Concept of the nation is something rather contemporary and has nothing to do with the middle ages, therefore I'm not nor I ever will try to imply something like that here or anywhere else. Tvrtko belongs to all Bosnians regardless of their national or religios background, but that's another story. This is going so offtopic- in order to correct that- my ONLY point was, Tvrtko wanted to be the sovereign of the territories on the east and it was perfectly legitimate to the standards of the time since he was the closest living relative to the Nemanjic dynasty. But he didn't have factual rule over the territories once controlled by Nemanjic dynasty. That is why he saw Lazarevic/Hrebeljanovic as a potential opposition. That's all I wanted to say. Cheers, Larus |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 12:12
in addition to my Private-e-Mail to you ...
one may consult (listed in alphabetical order) Creasy, Fine, Gibbon, Hookham, Inalcik, Jirecek, Lamb, Obolensky, Runciman, Setton, Skrivanic, Tomac, von Hammer Purgstall (books, then follow references, expand ... ) ottoman sources (it appears, at least parts have been translated into english, slavonic) such as asikpasazade, nesri, ... however, it is not easy to translate old local sayings and biblical_kuranic expressions and meanings, without thorough understanding of geopolitical situation of the times in question there are excellent archives, mostly in latin, such as vatican, venice, angevin_naples, arpad_hungarian, ragusa_dubrovnik, aragonese_castilean_portuguese,
byzantine (archives and writers) in old greek, and ottoman and their eastern neighbors, mostly in persian, arabic ... |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 04:50
|
I dont belive the battle of Kosovo to be so important.Inded the secont battle of kosovo is even more important. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 15:26
I agree. ------------- |
Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 17:56
Lies, so typical of a Serb. Centuries of your imperialism attempts speak otherwise. In last 15yrs alone, you have waged wars and had conflicts with most of your neighbours. Not only that, but you're also ungrateful. When Turks conquered Serbia and nearby regions, you fled to Croatia, and populated the lands which bordered with Ottomans. Instead of saying thanks, few centuries later, you started saying that was always your land and it should belong to you, and then you invaded us. Disgusting. And please spare us the nationalistic propaganda in this thread, no myth of yours will override historical facts. Your nation is the only one i know of in the whole world, which celebrates a lost battle as a national holiday.
Croatia protected Europe 20x better than Serbia did, so what's your point? Serbia got thrashed and conquered, while Croatia resisted and was doing the contribution for centuries, even being called by Pope "antemurale christianis", the bulwark of christianity. Of course, tactics used were mostly asymetric, such as these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uskok
Yes. And about many other things. Welcome to Balkans. This is the credo: "Repeat something 100x, and it will become the truth."
How long did it took you to figger that out? :)))) Just look at how he presents the arguments: "it was 2v1, we pwnd Turks, and nothing can be known of this battle that says something bad about us... whooops someone else has historical data? I deny!" :) ------------- The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed. |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 20:01
|
May I ask what precisely is problematic/questionable in this lengthy threat???
------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 07:23
The way it was presented. Not as a historical tract, but nationalistic pamphlet. ------------- The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed. |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 07:55
...and what's problematic/questionable in there?  ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 08:30
|
------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 17:59
I'm not kiddin'. I just hate to see threads that actually have no subject at all.  ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 19:36
|
well, you put a lol smile in the end and your answer was really funny. Don't be too sensitive.. It is the destiny of all of the forums ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 20:48
And I'm not too sensitive, but just kiddin'  ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 10:46
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 23:26
as sayings go:
every indian is beating his own drum
svaki cigo svoga konja hvali
Lodovicus dei gracia Hungarie, Dalmacie, Croacie, Rame, Servie, Gallicie, Lodomerie, Cumanie, Bulgarique rex, Princeps Sallernitanus et honoris ac Montis sancti Angeli Dominus, omnibus Christi fidelibus praesentibus et futuris presencium notitiam habituris salutem in omnium salvatore ...
this was Louis d'Anjou, with nice french name, partly magyar via maria arpad,
married to elizabeta kotromanic of bosnia, partly magyar via katlin arpad (she was married to dragutin nemanjic, who administered her lands of srem, usora, rama, etc., their children elizabeta and ursula were married to kotromanic and subic boys, respectively), maria's sister.
louis' and elizabeta's daughter and successor
Mária Rex Hunagariæ, Poloniæ, Dalmaciæ, Croaciæ, Ramæ, Serviæ, Galliciæ, Lodomeriæ, Cumaniæ, etc.,
and maria's maternal uncle, and legal protector against all enemies
Stefan Tvrtko I by the mercy of God King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands,
|
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2007 at 17:18
Josip, you're accusing others of nationalism yet you carry the same vile and detestable bug in you: you just hate anything that is Serb, which is not unusual for a Croat, except that you can't see your own bias. "Croatia protected Europe 20x better than Serbia did so what's your point?" Croatia protected Europe from whom? The Ottomans? Are you serious? Where were you at siege of Constantinople? That's where the bulwark was for hundreds of years, stemming the Arab and Ottoman tides so you today can speak Italian I'm not defending Serbia here but can you mention the battles the Croatians fought against the Ottomans? What were their losses? What year did they take place? After the blood Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, and Serbs shed to stem the Ottoman tide it is ridiculous to have a Croatian claim that they did the most on that matter. Even Moldavians did more in that respect."Antemurale christianis?" Who? Croatia? Hah!! This is coming from the institution that sat back and watched Eastern Christendom get swallowed up little by little by the "infidel" and did NOTHING to assist (not to mention the 4th Crusade and the pillage of the Polis). I'm too polite to tell you what you can do with the words of the heretical Patriarch of Rome The only reason Croatia did not fall under the Ottoman sway is not because they resisted but because geographically it is located further West, too close to to Italy and Austria and from very early on it came under the protection of powerful hegemones, first the heretical Roman Patriarch, then the Venetians, and finally the Habsburgs (helloooo, WW II, Ustashe, FASCISM, or have we "conveniently" forgotten about FASCISM--Croatia is the ONLY Balkan State that can be characterized as FASCIST). You're too lucky to have been close to your Western European protectors throughout your History and thus reap undue benefits so don't get too cocky about it.What we don't need on this forum are both Serb nationalism AND Croatian myth-building based on WEAK MEMORY of recent History. "Better the Sultan's turban than the cardinal's hat", any ol' time ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 16:00
|
Croatia was part of the hungarian crone (and later of the Habsburg), and they weren't ottoman vasals like f.e. moldavians, etc(certenly due to us(hung.)and the Habsburgs), so they had permanent war against the turks from the 1370's until 1699.
Some of the richest and powerfull south hungarian nobles had horvát(:-) origin (f.e.Frangepans, Zrínyis) they all fought with the ottomans, and not just the noblemen: in 1566 2500 hungarians and croats under Zrínyi Miklós fought in the siege at Szigetvár against Suleiman's 120 000 men army and the christians died -but the ottoman army couldn't move to Vienna.
|
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 19:23
|
OK, they fought. But my point about powerful protectors stands as is: Croatia has been privileged throughout its History by its proximity to the core of Europe and its Germanic/Hungarian/Habsburg/Catholic affiliation. In other words, Croatia is the West's pet child in the Balkans. Today the "miracle" of Croatian economy is, not surprisingly, based on German capital and investment. One should keep all this in mind before making grandiose claims of supremacy.
------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Perun
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 09:25
|
You all went to far in analyzing The Battle of Kosovo. All of Balkanian nations tried to stop Ottoman Turks not "defending Christianity" like was proposed from Vatican, but their own homes. Bosnian king Stjepan Tomasevic begged for help, but none of Western Christian powers helped him.
It seems that Ottoman empire at that time was strong enough to conquer eastern Balkans and huge parts of Hungary and Croatia. Ottoman troups (akinji's) often crossed Croatian and Slovenian border. Battle of Vienna 1683. remarked start of the Empires stagnation.
About Kosovo Battle 1389.; It is always the same,it all ends with the nationalism. The fact is that destiny of the Balkans was written on Maritsa in 1371. Kosovo 1389. was just an epilogue, when Balkanian nations tried their best to stop the invaders. Serbian nationalism used a Kosovo myth as a base for its "vengeful campaigns".
But the real truth is that Turkish historians never describe this battle as important one. One of the proposed possibilities for sultan Murat's death is that Obilic killed him with the help of Murat's son Bayezid, who wanted to secure his right to throne (because of his brothers Savci, Yakub and Ibrahim).
I think that we in Balkans should be more realistic about our "great histories", our "powerful kingdoms" and such mythological theories... ------------- Gromovnik |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 05:18
|
hey all you people from Crotia,Serbia.none of you saved Europe.Ottoman Empire wasnt even an empire those times :) She was just a Beglik state.who saved Europe was probably Austrians,Polish,HRE.Why do you use the word "saved" ? Ottomans didnt steal,didnt burn didnt done the things that steppe empires do.They are not Mongols ok ? ------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 05:38
|
Yay, another Nirvana fan.
Batu, after a while, a person becomes accustomed to the anti-Ottoman rhetoric of former Ottoman subjects. It's just a nationalist thing, i suppose. You shouldn't let it irritate you, otherwise you will have a life of frustration to deal with.
And for that matter, it was the Safavids who prevented Europe from falling under Ottoman dominion, by forcing them to abondan their Europeon campaigns with their frequent incursions into Ottoman territory.
Although personally, I gotta give the Poles alot of credit, after playing the major role in the utter destruction of the Ottoman army in 1683, even though they were Ottoman tributaries for around half a century. They regretted it though, when the Austrians participated in the partitioning of their land a century later.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 21:18
Good post, ------------- |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2007 at 18:35
The Ottoman Empire was an Empire before it conquered any of the Serbo-Croat states. ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: Larus
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2007 at 06:05
|
[QUOTE/] The Ottoman Empire was an Empire before it conquered any of the Serbo-Croat states. [/QUOTE] No, they were not. During the battle of Marica/Maritsa, local Serbian and some Bulgarian forces outnumbered Turks, but failed miserably, mostly due to the brilliance of Sahin Pasha. At that time Ottomans were truly just a Beglik and could not be termed an "Empire". |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2007 at 13:20
No, they were not. During the battle of Marica/Maritsa, local Serbian and some Bulgarian forces outnumbered Turks, but failed miserably, mostly due to the brilliance of Sahin Pasha. At that time Ottomans were truly just a Beglik and could not be termed an "Empire". Bulgarians fought at Maritsa? And that happened three quarters of a century before the first state was conquered. * 1453: conquers Byzantium and becomes an Empire * 1459: conquest of Serbia * 1463: conquest of Bosnia, abolished in the 1470s * 1481: conquest of Herzegovina * 1493: destruction of Croatia * 1499: conquest of Montenegro; abolished [/QUOTE] ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2007 at 16:31
Bosnian wasn't a Serbo-Croat state
------------- |