PDA

View Full Version : Medieval Serbia


dimitrije
04-03-2006, 12:46 AM
After this initial blooming of the Serbian state, a period of stasis and retrogression followed. Marked by disintegration and crises it lasted until the end of 12th century. After a struggle for the throne with his brothers, Stefan Nemanja, the founder of the Nemanjic dynasty, rose to power in 1170 and started renewing the Serbian state in the Raska region. Sometimes with the sponsorship of Byzantium, and sometimes opposing it, the veliki zupan (a title equivalent to the rank of prince) Stefan Nemanja expanded his state seizing territories east and south, and newly annexed the littoral and the Zeta region. Along with his governmental efforts, the veliki zupan dedicated much care to the construction of monasteries. His endowments include the Djurdjevi Stupovi Monastery and the Studenica Monastery in the Raska region, and the Hilandar Monastery on Mt. Athos.


Stefan Nemanja was succeeded by his middle son Stefan, whilst his first-born Vukan was given the rule of the Zeta region (present-day Montenegro). Stefan Nemanja's youngest son Rastko became a monk and took the name of Sava, turning all his efforts to spreading religiousness among his people. Since the Curia already had ambitions to spread its influence to the Balkans as well, Stefan used these propitious circumstances to obtain his crown from the Pope thus becoming the first Serbian king in 1217. In Byzantium, his brother Sava managed to secure the autocephalous status for the Serbian Church and became the first Serbian archbishop in 1219. Thus the Serbs acquired both forms of independence: temporal and religious.

The next generation of Serbian rulers - the sons of Stefan Prvovencani - Radoslav, Vladislav and Uros I, marked a period of stagnation of the state structure. All three kings were more or less dependent on some of the neighboring states - Byzantium, Bulgaria or Hungary. The ties with the Hungarians had a decisive role in the fact that Uros I was succeeded by his son Dragutin whose wife was a Hungarian princess. Later on, when Dragutin abdicated in favor of his younger brother Milutin, the Hungarian king Ladislaus IV gave him lands in northeastern Bosnia, the regions of Srem and Macva, and the city of Belgrade, whilst he managed to conquer and annex lands in northeastern Serbia. Thus, all these territories became part of the Serbian state for the first time.

Under the rule of Dragutin's younger brother - King Milutin, Serbia grew stronger in spite of the fact that occasionally it had to fight wars on three different fronts. King Milutin was an apt diplomat much inclined to the use of a customary medieval diplomatic expedients - dynastic marriages. He was married five times, with Hungarian, Bulgarian and Byzantine princesses. He is also famous for building churches, some of which are the brightest examples of Medieval Serbian architecture: the Gracanica Monastery in Kosovo, the Cathedral in Hilandar Monastery on Mt. Athos, the St. Archangel Church in Jerusalem etc. Because of his endowments, King Milutin has been proclaimed a saint, in spite of his tumultuous life. He was succeeded on the throne by his son Stefan, later dubbed Stefan Decanski. Spreading the kingdom to the east by winning the town of Nis and the surrounding counties, and to the south by acquiring territories on Macedonia, Stefan Decanski was worthy of his father and built the Visoki Decani Monastery in Metohija - the most monumental example of Serbian Medieval architecture - that earned him his byname.

Under the rule of Dragutin's younger brother - King Milutin, Serbia grew stronger in spite of the fact that occasionally it had to fight wars on three different fronts. King Milutin was an apt diplomat much inclined to the use of a customary medieval diplomatic expedients - dynastic marriages. He was married five times, with Hungarian, Bulgarian and Byzantine princesses. He is also famous for building churches, some of which are the brightest examples of Medieval Serbian architecture: the Gracanica Monastery in Kosovo, the Cathedral in Hilandar Monastery on Mt. Athos, the St. Archangel Church in Jerusalem etc. Because of his endowments, King Milutin has been proclaimed a saint, in spite of his tumultuous life. He was succeeded on the throne by his son Stefan, later dubbed Stefan Decanski. Spreading the kingdom to the east by winning the town of Nis and the surrounding counties, and to the south by acquiring territories on Macedonia, Stefan Decanski was worthy of his father and built the Visoki Decani Monastery in Metohija - the most monumental example of Serbian Medieval architecture - that earned him his byname.

Medieval Serbia that enjoyed a high political, economic and cultural reputation in Medieval Europe, reached its apex in mid-14th century, during the rule of Tzar Stefan Dusan. This is the period when the Dusanov Zakonik (Dushan's Code) the greatest juridical achievement of Medieval Serbia, unique among the European feudal states of the period. St. Sava's Nomocanon, Dushan's Code, frescoes and the architecture of the medieval monasteries adorning Serbian lands are eternal civilizational monuments of the Serbian people. Tzar Stefan Dusan doubled the size of his kingdom seizing territories to the south, southeast and east at the expense of Byzantium. He was succeeded by his son Uros called the Weak, a term that might also apply to the state of the kingdom slowly sliding into feudal anarchy. This is a period marked by the rise of a new threat: the Ottoman Turk sultanate gradually spreading from Asia to Europe and conquering Byzantium first, and then the other Balkan states.

Billy Score
04-03-2006, 06:10 AM
Tzar Stefan Dusan doubled the size of his kingdom seizing territories to the south, southeast and east at the expense of Byzantium.

One thing i can't understand is how various european peoples fought against the Byzantines, did they lack forsight that greatly? Or was turkic dominance preferable? I can't imagine a more suicidal act than bringing down the greatest buffer state in history, especially for a nation like Serbia.

Ace Rimmer
04-03-2006, 10:07 AM
One thing i can't understand is how various european peoples fought against the Byzantines, did they lack forsight that greatly? Or was turkic dominance preferable? I can't imagine a more suicidal act than bringing down the greatest buffer state in history, especially for a nation like Serbia.

Serbs even participated in siege and fall of Constantinople 1453 side by side with Turks.
Which meant the end of Byzantium and open way for Turkish dominance in SE Europe, which is to last for nearly 500 years.

Banat
04-03-2006, 02:25 PM
Serbs even participated in siege and fall of Constantinople 1453 side by side with Turks.
Which meant the end of Byzantium and open way for Turkish dominance in SE Europe, which is to last for nearly 500 years.

Utterly false, this is a very careless and dishonest statement to make. No one can blame it on "Serbs" that there were some mercenaries - no matter how numerous - from a conquered and minimized "Serbia" who participated in the army of the Ottoman Empire, and were marked and remembered as traitors in folk tradition even until today.

Turkey was one of the greatest world forces at the time, and - how oddly - its army wasn't consisted only of Turks and other Islamized peoples they conquered, but also of Christians of various nations, who even fought against their kinsmen and former states under Turkish flag. Christian Greeks and Bulgars also. Can you blame it on the brave Greek nation that they had persons like Kir Luka and a foul Palaeologus among them?

Serbs were the people that brought the five-centuries long struggle against Ottomans on their weak shoulders, far too often betrayed by Christian Empires of Austria and Russia, because of their schemes and struggles of interests, and it was for Serbs, Bulgars and Greeks that Turks were pushed out of our lands. Statements like this, especially made by Internet-crusading Croats (since no one else of sane mind and basic history knowledge would ever make such conclusions) will be considered as nothing but flames. History has said its word: Serbs were the arch-nemeses of Turks; their foes and bitter opponents.

Banat
04-03-2006, 02:36 PM
One thing i can't understand is how various european peoples fought against the Byzantines, did they lack forsight that greatly? Or was turkic dominance preferable? I can't imagine a more suicidal act than bringing down the greatest buffer state in history, especially for a nation like Serbia.

Mazdak,

Those "wars" weren't the wars in a modern sense when peoples crush peoples: those were Medieval feudal wars, waged mostly by mercenaries (there were a lot of Venetians and Saxons, for instance, in Serbian armies of the time) and over feudal interests - there weren't destruction of civilian structures, pillages etc. Conquering of Greek lands led only to submission of Greek landlords, and nothing more. Besides, Byzantine at the time was falling apart, while Turks still weren't near and didn't represent a greater threat than, say, Arabs. That is why no one payed attention to them, but more to re-establishment of Byzantine under new ways and new dynasties.

King Stephen Dushan was crowned as Tsar (Emperor), that is: he announced his pretension over Byzantine throne. Byzantine was at the time parched, and exhausted by civil wars, while young Serbian kingdom was in its peak, and already was a small empire, consisted of Serbian, Albanian and Greek lands.

At the time Turks weren't seen as a threat by anyone in Europe, but Serbia, and that only because Serbia was close to them. Emperor Dushan pleaded for a crusade against the Turks in Asia Minor with Hungarians, Venetians and the Pope, and pleaded the Pope for the title of the Captain of Christian armies, but but they weren't much too eager for it, and his sudden death, which eventually led to falling apart of Serbian state, prevented it all.

Ace Rimmer
04-03-2006, 03:59 PM
Utterly false, this is a very careless and dishonest statement to make.

What is false in this historical fact?

Banat
04-03-2006, 04:25 PM
What is false in this historical fact?

Погрешан историјски контекст, али пре свега инсинуације у стилу „Браће-Z“ које сам преместио овде: ЛИНК. (http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5776) Осим тога, тема је о средњовековној Србији пре „пропасти Царства Српскога“ и доласка Турака. Хајде да мало одржавамо место чистим и да склањамо злураде упадице оданде где им није место.

Jimbo Gomez
04-03-2006, 04:30 PM
I don't see why either of you guys are thumping your chest like this. Had it ever come to an armed conflict between your nations and Flanders in the middle ages, we'd be discussing this in Dutch now and you guys would call me 'meneer Stan' (= mr Stan). :D

Slavic Enforcer
04-03-2006, 04:48 PM
With all respect, we are not in the middle ages anymore. ;)

Pablo Escobar
04-03-2006, 04:56 PM
I don't see why either of you guys are thumping your chest like this. Had it ever come to an armed conflict between your nations and Flanders in the middle ages, we'd be discussing this in Dutch now and you guys would call me 'meneer Stan' (= mr Stan). :D

LOL, that's rich, coming from a person whose nation "Flanders"
was a part of the Spanish empire, along with the Amerindians, and
other assorted peoples armed with sharp grass and cowhide shields. :222:

Billy Score
04-03-2006, 06:01 PM
Besides, Byzantine at the time was falling apart, while Turks still weren't near and didn't represent a greater threat than, say, Arabs. That is why no one payed attention to them, but more to re-establishment of Byzantine under new ways and new dynasties.

Arabs, Turks, Persians, the point is it is not going to help anyone to attack the Byzantines, regardless of how unstable their empire became. They were a buffer state against the muslim world and weakening them and handing them to the forces of Islam on a silver platter do not benefit anyone in Europe. I am aware that the serbs were not alone and were not deliberately trying to bring about Ottoman dominance in the region, but the action seems painfully short sighted. They may have held their own and showed their valour against the turks later on, but had they not worn away the Byzantines they might never have had to.

And this isn't coming from a croat internet crusader, but someone who sympathizes with Serbia.

Jimbo Gomez
04-03-2006, 06:46 PM
LOL, that's rich, coming from a person whose nation "Flanders"
was a part of the Spanish empire, along with the Amerindians, and
other assorted peoples armed with sharp grass and cowhide shields. :222:


Let those who were not the sultan's bitches cast the first stone...

Pablo Escobar
04-03-2006, 08:00 PM
Let those who were not the sultan's bitches cast the first stone...

Bang! The stone hits Ned Flanders across his forehead.
Montenegro was the only independent country in the Balkans. :222:

Jimbo Gomez
04-03-2006, 08:27 PM
Which corroborates my claim.

Slavic Enforcer
04-03-2006, 08:35 PM
The Turks were something like the Englishmen of Asia at that time.
I wouldn't say that it was a shame to lose against them.

Jimbo Gomez
04-03-2006, 08:36 PM
As opposed to the Spanish who conquered an entire continent with less than 1000 men?

Slavic Enforcer
04-03-2006, 08:41 PM
As opposed to the Spanish who conquered an entire continent with less than 1000 men?

The Spaniards were cool too, but I would say that the Turks were a more dangerous and aggressive foe than the American Indians.

Jimbo Gomez
04-04-2006, 10:02 AM
But we didnt face the indians, we faced the Spaniards who defeated them.

Slavic Enforcer
04-04-2006, 12:34 PM
I have mistaken you for a Spaniard, sorry (you even wrote in this thread that you are Flemish :rolleyes: ).

Jimbo Gomez
04-04-2006, 01:14 PM
I have mistaken you for a Spaniard, sorry (you even wrote in this thread that you are Flemish :rolleyes: ).

Heh, that's ok. No biggie.

Banat
04-05-2006, 05:08 PM
I have mistaken you for a Spaniard, sorry (you even wrote in this thread that you are Flemish :rolleyes: ).

You confused him with Ebusitanus, you mean. :p

Banat
04-05-2006, 05:31 PM
Arabs, Turks, Persians, the point is it is not going to help anyone to attack the Byzantines, regardless of how unstable their empire became. They were a buffer state against the muslim world and weakening them and handing them to the forces of Islam on a silver platter do not benefit anyone in Europe. I am aware that the serbs were not alone and were not deliberately trying to bring about Ottoman dominance in the region, but the action seems painfully short sighted. They may have held their own and showed their valour against the turks later on, but had they not worn away the Byzantines they might never have had to.

I see your point, but the things weren't exactly as such. See this:

Almost all of the early wars Serbia and Bulgaria waged against Byzantium were feudal wars their rulers waged in order to control their own ethnic areas (not to run after Greek populated territories), subdued to Buzantine landlords, or the wars they had in order to keep their independence from the Byzantine that was attacking them. And, what I already said, one cannot forget that all three states belonged to the same cultural circle, shared the same religion (Serbs and Bulgars even the same language), and recognized the title of Tsar/Emperor Byzantine rulers had, that is: they admitted the authority of Byzantine/"Roman Empire", no matter the wars they had. The wars weren't directed at the civilian population, there weren't killings, persecutions - no terror the wars of the future times brought. Economy wasn't destructed because of the simple reason: the feudals wanted to prosper after gaining certain areas.

When the Turks came, both Byzantine and Serbia have already fell. The wars Emperor Dushan the Serb took agains Byzantine landlords were waged in order to unite and re-establish the Empire that was already divided with no chance to rise, and not in order to complete its destruction.

And this isn't coming from a croat internet crusader, but someone who sympathizes with Serbia.

:o I wasn't referring to you at all, check your PM in a couple of minutes.

TZAR DUSHAN
04-20-2006, 12:08 PM
How battles loooks in medieval times? Here is one picture: Sorabian knights with ancient sorabian amblem of white twoheaded eagle against muslims

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/8428/bitkanaplocniku2ho.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

TZAR DUSHAN
04-20-2006, 12:13 PM
This is heraldic symbol of dinasty Nemagnicc (Nemanjić)- kings and tsars of Balcan Serbia from 11. to 15.century AC



http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4418/grbnemanjic1rc.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Bartholomew Roberts
04-21-2006, 09:27 AM
How battles loooks in medieval times? Here is one picture: Sorabian knights with ancient sorabian amblem of white twoheaded eagle against muslims

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/8428/bitkanaplocniku2ho.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


I think most warriors didn't look anything like this picture. What you see is a modern assumption that all warriors were this well armed and armored.

TZAR DUSHAN
04-21-2006, 10:04 PM
Medieval time was golden time in serbia- full of glory and richness elsewhere..Every knight has his own horse, dog, and falcon..Of course, sword etc...etc...Look, for example, glass of gold of Tcar (king of kings this titlle means) for wine and bear :

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/574/casacaradusana4gv.th.jpg (http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?image=casacaradusana4gv.jpg)

TZAR DUSHAN
04-21-2006, 10:12 PM
And this is shield of dynasti Lazarević..Beginer was Lazar Grebelianovich (or hrebelianovic), known as KNEZ LAZAR...His descendant are still exists( Prince Stefan, Prince Igor), live in USA...

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8848/lazarevicivelikigrbweb2xp.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Banat
04-24-2006, 12:06 AM
I think most warriors didn't look anything like this picture. What you see is a modern assumption that all warriors were this well armed and armored.

Of course, the picture is a bit romantic, but the knights (that is - armed horsemen) did wear metal armours and helmets and there is written data about purchasing and manufacturing them for war needs.

Im not sure, but I think that the picture resembles the Battle on Plocnik, 1386.

Banat
04-24-2006, 12:34 AM
And this is shield of dynasti Lazarević..Beginer was Lazar Grebelianovich (or hrebelianovic), known as KNEZ LAZAR...His descendant are still exists( Prince Stefan, Prince Igor), live in USA...

I was very surprised when I found out myself that there are still Lazar's descendants, and that they are Americans. One of them wrote a short book on Serbian history some 80 years ago.

Hrebelianovich is indeed just a variation of Greblianovich (Grbljanovic), after Grbalj in Boka where Prince Lazar originated from.