Kosovo myth - the strength of the nurtured lies

[Watzy]

Kosovo myth - the strength of the nurtured lies

By Andrej Nikolaidis

In his essay 'Lament nad Beogradom', the prominent Yugoslav historian and intellectual Ivan Lovrenović wrote about the battle of Nicopolis on the Hungarian shores of Danube 1396. That battle was far more important for Europe than Kosovo battle, and yet it was systematically made marginal by Serbian historiography.
According to Lovrencevic the battle of Kosovo - made popular by all domestic sources; schoolbooks, television and verbal tradition - was 'objectively just one episodic battle in the era of the expansion of the Ottoman state in Southeastern Europe marked by contemporary historic sources only as a larger sidenote.'

The Battle of Nicopolis, about which we never learned anything, took place 7 years after the Kosovo battle. Since that moment sultan Bajazit (Bajazid) concurred Serbia and Bulgaria, since than history noticed him at the gates of Hungary. Sigismund, king of Hungary gathered military alliance composed by French, German and English knights. It was the NATO of the middle ages, and Siegismund full of hope marched on Turks leading 120 000 men. While the eyes of the entire Christian Europe were focused on Sigismund, praying his force to be sufficient to stop the arrival of the Turks, at Nicopolis Siegismund prepared for the battle of his time.

For a brief moment it appeared the Christian side led by the courage of the French knights shall gain victory and throw the Turks out of Europe. But Sultan Bajazit was a brilliant strategist who used his concealed and most powerful weapon in the most important moment. In the middle of the battle he released his 'elite army' - 5 000 Serbian knights led by his subject Stefan Lazarevic, Despot of Serbia.

Part of the Christian army drowned in Danube, and the rest ends up in Turkish slavery. Quoting the American historian Barbara Tuchman and her book, Lovrenovic described the consequences of Serbian victory at Nikopolis:

"For 300 years, until the victory of Jan Sobieski 1683, the West shall not succeed to regain strength and unity to resist the Ottomans."

Battle of Nicopolis is a taboo subject because it shakes the funds of the Cathedral built upon the Kosovo myth. The essence of the Kosovo myth is to portray Serbian sacrifice for the defense of Europe. The battle of Nikopolis proves it wrong - Serb arrangement was not essential for the defense, but for 300 years of European defeat.

Nevertheless, the historic data is helpless in front of the devastating strength of the myth, based upon the non-critical opinion of the masses. Perceiving this, Lovrencevic quoted an underestimated Serbian intellectual Miodrag Popovic who wrote 1976. Prophetic words: "The mature civilizations, the border between a myth and a historic opinion, between the reality and a fairytale is known. In civilizations that are still maturing this border is uncertain, which leads to frequent conflicts, misunderstandings and pseudo-dynamics.

Original text:

KADA JE MIT POLITIČKI PROGRAM
Snaga njegovane laži

Veliki južnoslovenski istoričar i intelektualac Ivan Lovrenović u eseju Lament nad Beogradom piše o bitci kod Nikopolja, na bugarskoj obali Dunava, godine 1396. Ta bitka, iako za evropsku povijest kudikamo bitnija od one Kosovske, u nas je sistematski prešutkivana. Lovrenović piše kako je boj na Kosovu, kojim smo bombardovani iz svih izvora saznanja, od školskih udžbenika, preko televizije do usmenog predanja, "realno, tek jedna od etapnih bitaka u silnom nadiranju osmanslijske vojske i ekspanziji osmanlijske države u jugoistočnoj Evropi, koja je u opštoj istoriji tog vremena zabilježena tek kao oveća fusnota".
Bitka kod Nikopolja, o kojoj nismo učili ništa, dešava se dakle sedam godina nakon Kosovskog boja. Do tog trenutka sultan Bajazit (ili, kako bi bilo tačnije izgovarati, Bajazid) pokorio je Srbiju i Bugarsku, i sada ga istorija zatiče kako nadire na vrata Ugarske. Sigismund, ugarski kralj, okuplja vojnu alijansu sastavljenu od francuskih, njemačkih i engleskih vitezova. To je NATO tog vremena, i Sigismund pun nade maršira pred moćnom vojskom od 120 000 ljudi. Dok čitava hrišćanska Evropa gleda u njega i moli se da njegova snaga bude dostatna da zaustavi nadiranje Turaka, Sigismund se u Nikopolju priprema za krvavu bitku.

Naša predstava o srednjovjekovnim bitkama uveliko je stvorena filmskim prikazima tih klanica. Objektivna slika bila je još surovija. Stotine hiljada tijela u sudaru za sobom su ostavljale rijeke krvi, koje su se kod Nikopolja ulile u plavi Dunav, raskomadana ljudska tijela po poljima i smrt, dokle god je, kroz dim spaljenih kuća i krike unesrećenih, dosezao ljudski pogled.

Na trenutak se činilo da će hrišćani, vođeni hrabrošću, prije svega francuskih vitezova, ostvariti veliku pobjedu i iz Evrope izgnati Bajazita, zvanog Jildirim - munja. Ali sultan je bio briljantan strateg, koji je u odsudnom trenutku potegao svoje skriveno, a najmoćnije oružje. Na vrhuncu bitke on na hrišćane pušta svoju "elitnu vojsku" - pet hiljada srpskih vitezova na čelu sa Stefanom Lazarevićem. Srpskim despotom a njegovim vazalom". Hroničar dalje piše: "Dio hrišćanske vojske koji uteče pokolju, potopi se u Dunavu, a dio dopade Turskoga ropstva". Pozivajući se na američku istoričarku Barbaru Tuchman i njenu knjigu Daleko ogledalo, Lovrenović ovako opisuje posljedice trijumfa srpskog oružja kod Nikopolja: "Cijela tri vijeka od tada, sve do Jana Sobieskoga i bitke pod Bečom 1683, neće Zapad uspjeti sakupiti snage ni sloge da se odupre Osmanlijama".

Bitka kod Nikopolja zabranjena je tema, jer kao trulo stablo u samom korijenu ruši Kosovski mit. Jer njegova suština jeste srpsko stradanje zarad odbrane Evrope. Bitka kod Nikopolja to demantuje - srpski angažman nije bio presudan za odbranu, nego za trovjekovni poraz Evrope.

Istorijski podaci su, međutim, nemoćni pred razornom snagom mita, koja je fundirana u nekritičkom masovnom mišljenju - a nije li to binarna opozicija mišljenju, nužno individualnom. Nijedno naknadno saznanje ne dotiče mit, tu mašinu koju pokreće sinergija neobaviještenosti i zadrtosti mase.

Uočavajući to, Lovrenović citira potcijenjenog srpskog intelektualca Miodraga Popovića, koji je još 1976. proročki pisao: "U zrelim civilizacijama jasno se razlikuje šta je mit a šta istorijsko mišljenje, šta poezija a šta zbilja, šta bajka a šta živa stvarnost. U civilizacijama koje tek sazrevaju, ovi pojmovi se mešaju, međusobno prožimaju, što dovodi do stalnih sudara, lomova, nesporazuma, do pseudodinamike... Kao trajno stanje duha, vidovdanski kult može biti koban po one koji nisu u stanju da se iščupaju iz njegovih pseudomitskih i pseudoistorijskih mreža. U njima, savremena misao, duh čovekov, može doživeti novo Kosovo: intelektualni i etički poraz".

Čak ni danas, kada su malobrojni preostali kosovski Srbi, kao živući spomenici pogubne politike Beograda na Kosovu, izloženi teroru albanskih ekstremista, nikome ne pada na pamet da razloge vlastitog poraza potraži u mudrim Popovićevim riječima. Žrtve "vidovdanskog kulta", zapravo nesposobnosti da se život razluči od mita, i dalje ostaju zatočnici mitologije.

Destruktivni rad mita i na mitologiji zasnovanih stereotipa nipošto nije ekskluzivna odlika samo srpskog društva. Crnogorci su imali tu privilegiju da vide kako se uživo, pred njihovim očima, tokom napada na Dubrovnik, pod nogama rezervista koji su uprtili konavoske pršute, u travestitskoj zabavi ratnika koji su oblačili donji veš Tereze Kesovije, raspada mit o herojskoj Crnoj Gori. Nešto kasnije će oni koji su hvatali izbjeglice utekle u Crnu Goru razoriti i mit o čojstvu. Hrvatski stereotip o sopstvu koji je korišten tokom devedesetih bio je vrlo sličan srpskome: Tuđman je kao mantru ponavljao frazu o Hrvatskoj kao "predziđu kršćanstva", zemlji i naciji čiji je zadatak da katolički svijet sačuva od "barbara sa istoka". Bošnjaci danas plaćaju panislamski entuzijazam Alije Izetbegovića, a autentična bosanska verzija islama mukom odolijeva uvezenim vehabijskim uticajima. No Kosovski mit je najupečatljiviji primjer destruktivnosti mita pretvorenog u politički program.

To je evidentno, no kao da se to srpske političke i intelektualne elite ne tiče. Cjelokupna politička djelatnost prosrpskih političkih partija zasnovana je na razornom djelovanju stereotipa. Odbija se voditi dijalog sa neistomišljenicima - jedini dijalog na koji se pristaje jeste onaj sa vlastitom mitologijom. U kojem se svi o svakom pitanju u svemu slažu. Za sve ostale, one izvan tog mitološkog obora, ma koliko uporno pozivali na dijalog i razum, rezervisana je samo mržnja i status neprijatelja, Jer u mitu nema dijaloga i argumenata: ima samo pobjednika i poraženih. Ali neodgovornost u djelanju prosrpske opozicije u Crnoj Gori beskrajna je i upravo proporcionalna odgovornosti za mir i budućnost Crne Gore koja je na njima. Ne u mitu, nego u realnosti.

Andrej Nikolaidis

[Banat]

Hungarian shores of Danube 1396. That battle was far more important for Europe than Kosovo battle, and yet it was systematically made marginal by Serbian historiography.

Battle of Nicopolis is a taboo subject because it shakes the funds of the Cathedral built upon the Kosovo myth. The essence of the Kosovo myth is to portray Serbian sacrifice for the defense of Europe.

Totally incorrect statements. Not only that Kosovo Myth wasn't forced by some Serbian historiography, but was а central part of living folk tradition throughout centuries, but the very idea of Kosovo Myth hasn't at all anything to do with Europe and its defense.

Kosovo Myth is what its name says - a Myth. And that Myth says that due to sins of Serbian gentry and Serbian people, Serbian Empire fell under 'Moslem savages', and the people ended up in slavery. Kosovo Myth is about sacrificing this earthly life for the sake of spiritual one, or as it is said: 'sacrificing the Kingdom of Earth for the Kingdom of Heaven'.

The essence of Kosovo Myth is the legend, sang in oral poetry, that Prince Lazar was given a choice by God himself, to choose 'Earthly Kingdom' and crush Turkish army and reestablish Serbian Empire, or to choose 'Heavenly Kingdom', in which case he all his army would die in battle, and the state would be destroyed. His choice remained as a proverb until now, and it went like this: 'Earthly Kingdom is of short times; and Kingdom of Heaven is always and ever.'

Kosovo Myth is also about heroism, presented by Milos Obilic and other Serbian knights and soldiers, and treason, manifested in Prince Vuk Brankovic. It highly values bravery and honour, even for the price of death, and condemns treason and cowardice. It has nothing to do with Europe, and certainly not with some idea that Europe somehow remained protected because of Kosovo battle. That is a misinterpretation.

The Battle of Nicopolis, about which we never learned anything, took place 7 years after the Kosovo Battle.

This is also not true, the Battle of Nicopolis is learned in history classes as much as the Battle of Kosovo. The author also over-exaggerates the importance of Nicopolis Battle, giving Lazarevic's squads too much importance and doesn't even consider the inferiority and incompetence of European armies against the Ottomans.

In the middle of the battle he released his 'elite army' - 5 000 Serbian knights led by his subject Stefan Lazarevic, Despot of Serbia.

ROFL! The 'elite' army of sultan Bayazid - Serbian knights, that changed the course of battle! Those same knights in vastly larger number 7 years earlier, fighting for their own country were just a 'Kosovo Myth', but fighting as Turkish vassals, at the side of their former blood enemies, in significantly lower numbers - they are an 'elite army', Turkish their 'special forces'. LOL

Part of the Christian army drowned in Danube, and the rest ends up in Turkish slavery. Quoting the American historian Barbara Tuchman and her book, Lovrenovic described the consequences of Serbian victory at Nikopolis:

LOL, so much for the seriousness of the text.

"For 300 years, until the victory of Jan Sobieski 1683, the West shall not succeed to regain strength and unity to resist the Ottomans."

...when Serbs fought on the side of what was later called 'Holy Coalition', and Hungarians sided with Turks. :rolleyes:

This man is no historian man.

Nikolaidis's only aim in this amateurish essay is to assault Serbian ego, and nothing more. The only thing he maintained publishing it is to totally misunderstand the idea of Kosovo Myth and the idea of waging battles at the time.

LOL, when even as a laymen I can see through the motives of this text, I can only imagine how historians would tear it apart.

[Watzy]

The author also over-exaggerates the importance of Nicopolis Battle, giving Lazarevic's squads too much importance and doesn't even consider the inferiority and incompetence of European armies against the Ottomans.

Some other sources:

"The battle was about evenly matched until the Serbians arrived."

http://battle-of-nicopolis.area51.ipupdater.com/

"Sigismund's force was engaged with the Ottoman cavalry, when it was ambushed by the Serbian allies of Sultan Bajazet, led by Stephen Lazarevitch, who had retained his lands at the price of becoming an Ottoman vassal. This attack by the Serbs broke the Hungarians, and when Sigismunds banner was cast down, the army dissolved."

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_nicopolis.html

It has nothing to do with Europe, and certainly not with some idea that Europe somehow remained protected because of Kosovo battle. That is a misinterpretation.

"Despite the fact that it took another sixty years for the Ottomans to establish their conquest of Serbia (and more than a hundred before they captured Belgrade), the Battle of Kosovo Polje is, in the words of Misha Glenny (in his book The Balkans, "presented as the end of the Serb medieval empire, its army vainly defending Christendom."
Kosovo Polje forms a cornerstone of the cult of victimhood underlying Serb nationalism. Every wrong ever done to the Serbs can be traced back to that day on the Field of Blackbirds; the Turk arrested the development of the Serbian culture ("We would have been even greater than the Italians, were it not for the Turks."), and the rest of Christendom abandoned them to their fate (the presence of Hungarian, Moldovian and Wallachian contingents in Lazar's army notwithstanding, nor the fact that seven years later on 1396, the Serbs fought on the Ottoman side against the Hungarians in the Battle of Nicopolis).

By the time of the resurgence of Serb nationalism after Tito's death, the cult of victimhood had metamorphosised into a cult of entitlement. Anything the Serbs did against "the Turk" (i.e. Bosnian muslims or Kosovar Albanians) was justified, because "the Turk" had robbed the Serbs of their glorious destiny; the West should shut up, because they had left the Serbs sole defenders of Christendom to their fate six centuries before. The ethnic cleansing, the concentration camps in the Bosnian Krajina, the rape camps in Foča, the mass murders following the fall of Srebrenica, all were justified because the Serbs had been victims, and the world owed them as result."

http://home.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000046.htm

[Banat]

Alright, so it's my turn to pick up a quote from those links. Here's one from historyofwar.org -> LINK (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_nicopolis.html) you already provided:

'Very few survivors of the battle returned to the west. Those that did blamed the Hungarians for the defeat, although the appalling behaviour of the French knights was in reality a major cause of the disaster.'

Anyway, that's not the point. An army was sent from Prince Stefan's state to aid the Ottomans because of one simple reason - he was Bayazid's (or Bayezid's) vassal, and he was obligated to provide him his knights and squads for every battle he waged. This is something widely known, and Prince Stefan was neither the first nor the last who aided Ottomans in their campaigns. This is not a secret, even the less a taboo :confused:. Ottoman armies were consisted out of all peoples and of all lands they ruled and they always found colaborators in every nation and land they conquered. Balkan countries are no exception.

"Despite the fact that it took another sixty years for the Ottomans to establish their conquest of Serbia (and more than a hundred before they captured Belgrade), the Battle of Kosovo Polje is, in the words of Misha Glenny (in his book The Balkans, "presented as the end of the Serb medieval empire, its army vainly defending Christendom."
Kosovo Polje forms a cornerstone of the cult of victimhood underlying Serb nationalism. Every wrong ever done to the Serbs can be traced back to that day on the Field of Blackbirds; the Turk arrested the development of the Serbian culture ("We would have been even greater than the Italians, were it not for the Turks."), and the rest of Christendom abandoned them to their fate (the presence of Hungarian, Moldovian and Wallachian contingents in Lazar's army notwithstanding, nor the fact that seven years later on 1396, the Serbs fought on the Ottoman side against the Hungarians in the Battle of Nicopolis).

By the time of the resurgence of Serb nationalism after Tito's death, the cult of victimhood had metamorphosised into a cult of entitlement. Anything the Serbs did against "the Turk" (i.e. Bosnian muslims or Kosovar Albanians) was justified, because "the Turk" had robbed the Serbs of their glorious destiny; the West should shut up, because they had left the Serbs sole defenders of Christendom to their fate six centuries before. The ethnic cleansing, the concentration camps in the Bosnian Krajina, the rape camps in Foča, the mass murders following the fall of Srebrenica, all were justified because the Serbs had been victims, and the world owed them as result."

http://home.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000046.htm

Alright. What does all that mean? That didn't refute in any way what I said. It's just another misinterpretation.

Kosovo Myth practically died out in 19th century, and definitely vanished after the First Balkan Wars of 1912.

[Watzy]

'Very few survivors of the battle returned to the west. Those that did blamed the Hungarians for the defeat, although the appalling behaviour of the French knights was in reality a major cause of the disaster.'

Naturally, it took place after Lazarevic's attack which caused consternation in Christian lines. The description of the French behavior during the battle (from the same source):

"...the French leaders refused any role that denied them the first attack, and leaving the Hungarian army behind, they charged the centre of the Ottoman line"

The French knights were a major strike force of the Christian army, just like the article of Nikolaidis mentioned: "hrišćani, vođeni hrabrošću, prije svega francuskih vitezova"

This is something widely known, and Prince Stefan was neither the first nor the last who aided Ottomans in their campaigns. This is not a secret, even the less a taboo :confused:.

It's a taboo subject even amongst non-Serbs. I was almost banned by a certain Spanish berk at one point for mentioning it at Stirpes . :D

Alright. What does all that mean? That didn't refute in any way what I said. It's just another misinterpretation.

The quote of Glenny refuted your statement how the Kosovo myth is not presented as a Serbian sacrifice for the Christian Europe to the outsiders.

Kosovo Myth practically died out in 19th century, and definitely vanished after the First Balkan Wars of 1912.

The myth was very much alive in 20th century, and so is today. It was/is the greatest inspiration of the Greater Serbian ideology. In 20th century Ferdinand was killed in ambush on the day of St. Vitus (Vidovdan, day of the Kosovo battle), the assassination of Radic took place on St. Vitus day as well. The assassins (Gavrilo Princip and Punisa Racic) without doubt identified them selves with the mythical hero of the Kosovo Battle Milos Obilic who killed Sultan Murat by trickery in Sultan's own tent after surrendery.

Also, every modern Serb who is not chauvinist or fanatical enough is labeled as 'Vuk Brankovic' - the mythical traitor of Serbhood. Here is the recent example from every-days life; A Serb family from Eastern Croatia harassed by their Serbian neighbors because they weren't anti-Croatian enough : http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/news/croatia/417745/index.do

[Ace Rimmer]

http://www.rickard.karoo.net/articles/battles_nicopolis.html

http://www.geocities.com/nbulgaria/bulgaria/nicop396.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis

http://www.war-art.com/nicopolis_1396.htm

All sources speak the same on crucial Lazarevich role in battle.

[Watzy]

Interesting schematics...

If you hide "Serbs (Stefan Lazarevici)" square with your palm, you can notice Christian and Turkish forces are almost equal, with a small advantage for the Ottoman side. Yet if you remove a palm, you get a completely different picture.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Battle_of_Nicopole_battle_map_1396.jpg

In such difficult situation any interference could have bean deceitful.

PS
On this map we can notice an army led by Croatian Ban Nikola Gorjanski (1397. - 1402.) - "Nicola of Gora" in the Christian ranks, right behind Sigismunds army. :)

[Banat]

The quote of Glenny refuted your statement how the Kosovo myth is not presented as a Serbian sacrifice for the Christian Europe to the outsiders.

No, it only gave a another misinterpretation of it. Kosovo Myth has nothing to do with 'defending Europe', but is a mourn over Serbian disunity and envy, which brought to disaster. It's a glorification of heroic sacrifice, and a condemn of cowardice and treason.

Throughout centuries, Serbian 'guslars' from Croatia and Dalmatia, to the Bulgarian borders, never sang of 'defending Christian Europe', but of Kosovo sacrifice, and virtues and flaws of Serbian heroes of the time.

It's a taboo subject even amongst non-Serbs. I was almost banned by a certain Spanish berk at one point for mentioning it at Stirpes . :D

A taboo subject?! What kind of talk is that? A taboo is something that is forbidden to talk about, something that is even forbidden to pronounce. Not something that is learned throughout the school system, and what is often mentioned in popular literature and historical TV shows (!).

www.kosovo.com (http://www.kosovo.com/sk/rastko-kosovo/istorija/zfajfric-lazarevici.html)
www.rastko.org (http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/istorija/zfajfric-brankovici.html)
www.srpsko-nasledje.com (http://www.srpsko-nasledje.co.yu/sr-l/1998/11/article-5.html)
www.vj.yu/english/ (http://www.vj.yu/english/en_aktuelno/vesti/jul2004/v0719e.htm)

Those are links that are often labeled as 'Serbian sources' and 'Serbian propaganda' and they all speak of the Nicopolis Battle in the very same way, mentioning the role of Prince Stephan as Bayazid's vassal. Should I have my history schoolbooks scanned next and present that they tell of the battle the same?

And BTW for as much as I know, you were banned from Stirpes for saying that you saw no restraints in using Islam too as a tool against Serbia. And here we talk about supposed hypocrisy of Kosovo Myth, by pointing out Serbian leaders who were Turkish vassals.

The myth was very much alive in 20th century, and so is today.

Oh, really? And how can you tell? Is that the impression those 'chauvinistic' and 'fanatic' sources make? Are they representative when talking about people in general?

It has been relived in some form only since NATO bombings in 1999.

It was/is the greatest inspiration of the Greater Serbian ideology.

Rubbish. Greater Serbian ideology has nothing to do with Kosovo Myth. It is an ideology and a political plan, and isn't at all based on Kosovo Myth, but on other premises. And it is something that could be perhaps labeled as a taboo in Serbia.

[Banat]

Interesting schematics...

If you hide "Serbs (Stefan Lazarevici)" square with your palm, you can notice Christian and Turkish forces are almost equal, with a small advantage for the Ottoman side. Yet if you remove a palm, you get a completely different picture.

In such difficult situation any interference could have bean deceitful.

PS
On this map we can notice an army led by Croatian Ban Nikola Gorjanski (1397. - 1402.) - "Nicola of Gora" in the Christian ranks, right behind Sigismunds army. :)

I was just about to post the very same image, to show how 'allied forces of Serbs and Turks' looked like.

Chroniclers of the time wrote that Ottoman army counted 200,000 soldiers. Probably exaggerated, as the number of 5,000 Serbian knights. It is also interesting that Hungarians and French were blaming one another for the defeat, and not those 'powerful Serbian forces' that were 'the elite of Turkish army' :rolleyes:.

And moving palm doesn't mean anything. Even with Stefan's squads, the armies were evenly numbered.

[Zrinski]

Banat it's a historical fact that Serbian forces were allies of Ottoman Turks and that they were the instrument of surprise at the Battle of Nicopolis...a suprise that gave the advatange to Turkish forces.

[Banat]

Banat it's a historical fact that Serbian forces were allies of Ottoman Turks and that they were the instrument of surprise at the Battle of Nicopolis...a suprise that gave the advatange to Turkish forces.

Of course Zrinski, nobody denies that. When you put it this way, I can only agree, for that is how it was.

My objection was pointed towards the misinterpretation of the idea of Kosovo Myth, and making of absurd conclusions out of the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396. And the statement that nothing was known about it, for it was a taboo, which is totally untrue.

Imposing that Serbian people as such joined the Turks to attack Christian Europe and that their 'elite troops' led by a 19-year old were the only cause of the loss of battle, and even more: the main reason why Turks remained in Europe, is absurd. And such is calling the event 'Serbian victory at Nikopolis' where those soldiers from Stefan's Princedom made less than 5% of his army, given that minimal number of Bayazid's soldiers was 105,000, and maximum of Stefan's was 5,000.

[Watzy]

Kosovo Myth has nothing to do with 'defending Europe'

I can agree with that, but it doesn't change a fact this myth (a fiction) is widely used to portray Serbs as martyrs and defenders of Europe.

An example of propaganda I'm talking about:

"It is difficult to assess the importance of the Kosovo Battle for world history. Such is also the case with the battles at the Alamo or Gettysburg, which are so important for American history. However, it is undeniable that the Battle of Kosovo was exceptionally significant not only for Serbia, but also for Europe and European Christian civilization.

It is a fact that on Vidovdan, June 15, 1389, the Serbs, without help from a single European nation (SIC!!!) , defended on Kosovo Field not only the frontiers of their own territory and lives of their people, but, at the risk of losing their national independence, they also defended the interests and security of Christian Europe. In the conflict of 2 rival civilizations, the Muslim and the Christian, the Serbs checked the wave of the Turkish invasion, interposed themselves as a wall between the Turks and Europe, and enabled Europe to make preparations for its own defense. It is questionable whether the history of Europe would have been the same without the Battle of Kosovo and the sacrifice of the Serbian nation."

--Fr. Mateja Matejic

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/bookstore/kosovo/kosovo19.htm

...a mourn over Serbian disunity and envy, which brought to disaster. It's a glorification of heroic sacrifice, and a condemn of cowardice and treason.

By analyzing this myth, we also analyze archetypes shaped by Serbian uniqueness and also the values shaping the unique collective mentality of the Serbs. I already mentioned highly unorthodox ways of Obilic's 'chivalry' marked by the abuse of trust, falsehood, trickery and a hidden dagger. Similar archetype we can spot by observing another traditional 'hero' of the Serbian verbal tradition - Marko, the king's son, a slayer of a stronger Albanian hero Musa. Marko challenged his opponent on a duel, and after discovering he cannot kill him in a combat, he used a dagger in a similar way to Obilic. Serbian virtues you mentioned should be perceived cum grano salis.

[Banat]

I can agree with that, but it doesn't change a fact this myth (a fiction) is widely used to portray Serbs as martyrs and defenders of Europe.

No, Kosovo Myth doesn't value that much Christian martyrdom (which *is* a virtue), it rather values an active sacrifice for ideals. The ideas of Serbs as defenders of Europe goes with struggles that Serbs waged against Turks much later, as members of Hungarian and Austrian armies. In that case, Serbs are the defenders of Europe, but of course not only Serbs and not just Serbs.

it is undeniable that the Battle of Kosovo was exceptionally significant not only for Serbia, but also for Europe and European Christian civilization.

It was significant, but over-exaggerating its significance is as wrong as underestimating it.

It is a fact that on Vidovdan, June 15, 1389, the Serbs, without help from a single European nation (SIC!!!) , defended on Kosovo Field not only the frontiers of their own territory and lives of their people, but, at the risk of losing their national independence, they also defended the interests and security of Christian Europe.

Well *indirectly* perhaps, but Serbs, as all the others, mainly defended their own interests and their own domain. And I agree, Serbs had help from other European nations, as they did in all their previous battles with Byzantium. Those were Middle Ages, not modern times.

Anyway, to stop, I agree that the mentioned quotation is naïve at least, and even not a real propaganda, but more a 'kafana talk'. It may have something to do with certain Serbian nationalists, not very smart, but hardly with the majority of them, and especially with the people.

Now you're speaking about the myth/fiction. Ok, it an interesting subject as well because by analyzing this myth, we also analyze archetypes shaped by Serbian uniqueness and also the values shaping the unique collective mentality of the Serbs. I already mentioned highly unorthodox ways of Obilic's 'chivalry' marked by the abuse of trust, falsehood, trickery and a hidden dagger. Similar archetype we can spot by observing another traditional 'hero' of the Serbian verbal tradition - Marko, the king's son, a slayer of a stronger Albanian hero Musa. Marko challenged his opponent to a duel, and after discovering he cannot kill him in a combat, he used a dagger in a similar way to Obilic. Serbian virtues you mentioned should be perceived cum grano salis.

Yes, the Kosovo Myth is mostly a fiction, but a beautiful fiction.

And yes, it would be interesting to analyze both Milos and Marko. They are often stated as 'solar' and 'lunar' heroes, respectively, Marko being the lunar, meaning that he also has a dark side, something shameful to hide, is dangerous and behaves unpredictably. A lunatic; a drunkard. But also has his heroic and noble side.

It would be interesting to analyze further. I will only say that Musa wasn't 'Albanian hero', but an anti-hero. A 'kesedzija': outlaw and murderer, fear of all people of any faith. It is a great motive in the end of the poem/song when Marko cries over Musa's dead body, asking God to forgive him for he has slayed someone greater than himself.

"Some taboo activities or customs are prohibited under law and transgressions may lead to severe penalties. Other taboos result in embarrassment, shame, and rudeness."

There is no need for anyone to be ashamed of Prince and latter Despot Stefan Lazarevic. He was a great figure, and any Serb and anyone other can only be proud of him. His involvement in the battles of Rovine, Nicopolis and Angora don't cast shadow over his life.

But I agree to an extent - it may result in embarrassment and shame with those who overly idealize Serbian history and exaggerate its importance, but it's their own fault and the fault of their illusions, and not the fault of the people or the idea of Kosovo Myth.

[Ace Rimmer]

The knights of western Europe soon lost their enthusiasm for crusading. Fighting would continue in Spain and the Mediterranean, and among the pagans of northern Europe, but no new expedition was launched from the west after this defeat. England and France soon renewed their war. The Hungarians and Poles were defeated at the Battle of Varna in 1444, and Constantinople finally fell in 1453, but western Europe did not organize another expedition against the Ottomans until the Renaissance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis

Beside Battle of Nicopolis,
Serbs as Turkish vassals also participated in these two battles on Ottoman side.

At battle of Varna 1444 Serbian despot George Branković privately informed Murad on the advance of Christian army.

While at Constantinopole 1453 Serbs participaded in siege under Sultan Mehmed II and contributed to fall of Constantinopole.

[Banat]

The knights of western Europe soon lost their enthusiasm for crusading. Fighting would continue in Spain and the Mediterranean, and among the pagans of northern Europe, but no new expedition was launched from the west after this defeat. England and France soon renewed their war. The Hungarians and Poles were defeated at the Battle of Varna in 1444, and Constantinople finally fell in 1453, but western Europe did not organize another expedition against the Ottomans until the Renaissance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis

Let Hercules himself do what he may,
The cat will mew and dog will have his day. :rolleyes:

vas·sal (vhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl)
n.

1. A person who held land from a feudal lord and received protection in return for homage and allegiance.
2. A bondman; a slave.
3. A subordinate or dependent.

It is really interesting how only recently this 'fascinating fact' that supposedly resolved the 'most important battle of Europe' was found by some Balkanoid Internet-diggers and 'crushers of Kosovo Myth', while for 600 years nobody in Europe gave that ammount of intention or importance to it.

At battle of Varna 1444 Serbian despot George Branković privately informed Murad on the advance of Christian army.

Link to full text -> Wikipedia.org: Janos Hunyadi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi). See for yourself what was it all about.

While at Constantinopole 1453 Serbs participaded in siege under Sultan Mehmed II and contributed to fall of Constantinopole.

Link to full text -> Wikipedia.org: Fall of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople). See for yourself what was it all about.

Beside Battle of Nicopolis,
Serbs as Turkish vassals also participated in these two battles on Ottoman side.

Which is confirmed and sealed in Serbian 500 years old oral tradition, which clearly marked Despot Djuradj and his wife Irene as 'damned' and laid an eternal curse over them, while at the same time worshipped and glorified Janos Hunyadi who fought the Turks as Serbian hero, whose name even came into Serbian proverbs. http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/7056/rofl3fk.gif



LOL, it is a very well known fact that Turks had all the peoples they conquered as parts of their army. For God's sake, there were even Greeks who fought on Turkish side during Constantinople siege, and what conclusion does that make?



Here's a tip: On Kosovo Battle in 1389, Konstantin Dejanovic, a Serb fought on Turkish side and as Turkish vassal, and so were probably the squads of Marko Kraljevic.



Perhaps it can be used as a proof that on Kosovo it was actually Turks and Serbs who fought side-by-side against the Christian Coalition of Bosnia, Croatia, Hungaria and Wallachia. http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/7056/rofl3fk.gif

[Ace Rimmer]

One more interesting fact about Serbian-Ottoman cooperation is that Bayazid's army at battle of Ankara against Timur the Lame(1402)was entirely composed of Serbs.

In the battle of Kosovo polje(not the famous first one, but the second)that took place in 1448 once again Serbs were Ottoman trusted allies.