Talk:Serbian Empire: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 88: Line 88:

:::: Please stop diverting the subject and making excuses. Santasa99 contributed to the talk page for over ten years, and Joy is well-informed about these topics. Editors who contributed do not [[WP:OWN]] the article and as such not only they should be pinged.

:::: Please stop diverting the subject and making excuses. Santasa99 contributed to the talk page for over ten years, and Joy is well-informed about these topics. Editors who contributed do not [[WP:OWN]] the article and as such not only they should be pinged.

:::: I literally don’t care about the one from the University of Belgrade, the issue is those two controversial maps. It’s propaganda from the 19th century; that these were made by some international authors in the early 20th century doesn’t mean a damn thing, it is a known fact that in old international scholarship can be found the same misinformation from the Serbian scholarship because of the influence and lobbying of the same scholarship and political apparatus at the time. The controversial maps don’t belong in this, but in the Greater Serbia article. Why should this propaganda be promoted in the article, and why do you even agree to be here at all? If we included them in this article, then we need a very long section with a certain context, usually titled as “Legacy”, in which would be described how the Serbian Empire statehood, its downfall, the battle of Kosovo, and so on, became an integral part of Serbian national identity, but also mythologization used for political purposes with its borders seen by some authors as much larger than they were in the correct greatest extent. -[[User:Miki Filigranski|Miki Filigranski]] ([[User talk:Miki Filigranski|talk]]) 19:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

:::: I literally don’t care about the one from the University of Belgrade, the issue is those two controversial maps. It’s propaganda from the 19th century; that these were made by some international authors in the early 20th century doesn’t mean a damn thing, it is a known fact that in old international scholarship can be found the same misinformation from the Serbian scholarship because of the influence and lobbying of the same scholarship and political apparatus at the time. The controversial maps don’t belong in this, but in the Greater Serbia article. Why should this propaganda be promoted in the article, and why do you even agree to be here at all? If we included them in this article, then we need a very long section with a certain context, usually titled as “Legacy”, in which would be described how the Serbian Empire statehood, its downfall, the battle of Kosovo, and so on, became an integral part of Serbian national identity, but also mythologization used for political purposes with its borders seen by some authors as much larger than they were in the correct greatest extent. -[[User:Miki Filigranski|Miki Filigranski]] ([[User talk:Miki Filigranski|talk]]) 19:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

::::: Neither of them contributed to this article, also I am now going to ask you to read [[wp:civil]], also we dont need the section legacy since there is already part of the article that describes downfall of the empire. Also those maps dont belong to the greater Serbia article because they describe the Serbian empire. [[User:Theonewithreason|Theonewithreason]] ([[User talk:Theonewithreason|talk]]) 03:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

::::: Neither of them contributed to this article, also I am now going to ask you to read [[wp:civil]], also we dont need the section legacy since there is already part of the article that describes downfall of the empire. Also those maps dont belong to the greater Serbia article because they describe the Serbian empire. [[User:Theonewithreason|Theonewithreason]] ([[User talk:Theonewithreason|talk]]) 03:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I have removed this incorrect and outdated map older then 150 years. The description of this map on Wikimedia commons clearly states: Map from late XIX century, representing a view about boundaries of Serbian empire during Stefan Dušan, about 1350. (Modern historiography has a stance that borders of Serbian empire were somewhat different. For the view of modern historiography,please see this map File:Map of the Serbian Empire, University of Belgrade, 1922.jpg, etc. Wikipedia is not a place for outdated and fringe views presented as leading theory. Jingiby (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Orbini’s ‘Kingdom of the Slavs’ is considered a reliable source and it mentions the Serbian expansion into Bosnia. Norsx (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sources is not always considered as reliable source. It has many dubious claims, and we have sources from 14th century that clearly show that Dusan never took anything to the east beyond Kavala. We also have no real proof that Bulgaria had any legal obligations to Serbia during Dusan’s rule, as for Bosnia, Dusan never managed to take over Bosnia because he was attacked by Byzantines in the south in 1350. Serbian1331 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To borrow from Joy, who explained it in another TP discussion on Orbini: “Orbini lived 400 years ago and is documented to have advocated for various mythological positions. It’s not a secondary source comparable to the works of numerous trained historians who’ve lived and died since.” ౪ Santa ౪99° 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about this map to the right below? Jingiby (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skopje was already part of the Serbian Kingdom as it was conquered by king Uros II Milutin towards the end of the 13th century. Norsx (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biggest problem with that map is that 1331 borders are very wrong, Serbs in 1331 already had Branicevo, Kucevo, Velbazd, Uzice, Rudnik, Skoplje. Nothern border of Byzantium was Strumitsa, Prilep, Ohrid, Kruje (there were still Byzantine controlled cities until 1333-4, Kruje was taken in period of 1337-43) Serbian1331 (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would, if possible, swap out the image of serbian medieval armour for armour that better represents the armour they had at the time the empire was actually around and not something from 2 centuries later.

15th century Serbian medieval armor

45.83.6.187 (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide an RS stating that the Serbian Empire had a capital city? I thought that the capital was wherever Stefan was. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theonewithreason was there an issue with the new map I uploaded? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbian_Empire&oldid=1217093118 Cattette (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a previous readings on this page, lots of maps were removed because they were violating Wikipedia copy rights, this old map that stands here has a free public domain, so other editors always reverted to that map. I am not sure about this new map you’ve posted, if it doesn’t violate any wiki rules you can maybe post it below the old map and see what happens Theonewithreason (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of that new map and I released it under a CC license, so I don’t think it stands to violate any wiki rules Cattette (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about we also keep the old map somewhere ? Theonewithreason (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s incomprehensible for the majority of English speakers and is effectively just a big purple blob left up to interpretation. Even if it was legible I think a bit too detailed to be a infobox map. I’ll attach the map in question in case anyone else is curious and wants to add their thoughts to the issue.

Serbian Cyrillic map

Cattette (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest problem with your map is that 1331 borders are very wrong, Serbs in 1331 already had Branicevo,Kucevo, Velbazd, Uzice, Rudnik, Skoplje. Nothern border of Byzantium was Strumitsa, Prilep, Ohrid, Kruje (there were still Byzantine controlled cities until 1333-4) Serbian1331 (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title; shouldn’t this be mentioned in the infobox religion section? Aliy Dawut (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently added a new (sourced) map that would be way easer to read then older map from university of Belgrade that is in Serbian. I suggest that main map of the page would be new one (English) while current (Serbian Cyrillic) map would be moved to gallery bellow. Serbian1331 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbian1331 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serbian1331, the map you provided, even thought sourced, is tehnically wrong. The way you drew the administrative divisions is not accurate, as you can’t put provinces AND local lords at the same time, because it does not make sense. It would be like drawing an administrative division of modern Serbia, and you put for “Vojvodina” the name of its president. Besides, the article itself states that the empire was divided between “lands, cities, zupe and krajista (counties)”. A correct map would include a three-province division, that is: “Serbian lands, Maritime lands and Greek/Roman lands” (+ cities), since that’s what Dusan (and other Serbian monarchs) used in their charters. I will not remove the map, but I kindly ask to fix this innaccuracy. Norsx (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Serbian1331 (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly altho it was known that Dušan’s state was nominaly split between newly taken (Byzantine) and old (Serbian) lands and that laws did apply differently, most historians note that this was only official and that it is very unlikely that Stefan Dusan would share power with his (still minor) son.
Now with the note of provinces, I will clerify that some provinces shown on the map (coloured same as central govenment) that were owned by central government were shown as they had notable autonomy (like lower Zeta, which was held by empress Jelena), as for the rest of internal divisions, I focused more on what nobility had within the state and to depict defacto situation within the state, which is why some nobles were governors of well defined provinces like Preljub (governor of Thessly) or Simeon (governor of Epirus), while others held several Zupas or cities like Branko Mladenovic ( who held both city of Ohrid and zupa od Drenica).
Also I would clerify that one of reasons why I posted this map is that I plan to actively update and improve the map, which would be impossible with old Serbian map from university of Belgrade, as I would note that external borders are very simplified on that map. Serbian1331 (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even thought the division, as historian say, is nominal, I still think it would be correct to add that to the map, to show a “de iure” situation (it doesn’t matter if Dusan didn’t share power, the division legally existed). While I understand where you come from, I think it would be more accurate to either use a map that only shows nobility, or a map with all the zupas (which is harder since much info is missing), since a zupa was in fact held by a nobleman. Also if I may ask, are you sure that Epirus and Thessaly were formally defined regions in the empire and not modern-day terms? Norsx (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with that would be that division wont depict internal situation accurately, and even we have no exact source on where exacly was nominal border between Serbian and Byzantine sides of the state, closest thing to assumption would be 1331 Serbo-Byzantine border, but that would be empty presumption.
I think I could change instead of Drenica and Ohrid being shown as seperate possesions of Mladenovici, I could depict them simply as possesions of Branko Mladenovic therefore It would show just defacto situation.
As for Epirus and Thessaly they were even seperate states and ethities post 4th crussade, Epirus being annexed by Byzantines in 1337 and then incoporated into Serbian Empire in 1347, while Thessaly had authonomy until it was integrated into Byzantium in early 14th centuary. For example during civil war in Byzantium in 1340s Thessaly had their own governor (John Angleos) until it was taken over by Dusan’s general Preljub who became governor of Thessaly under Dušan. Simeon Uroš (Dušan’s half brother) also became despot of Epirus in 1347. You can check out sources like John A V Fine’s “Late medieval Balkans” or other authors about the subject. Serbian1331 (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I read on a related article that the division line was around Skoplje, but it doesn’t matter. As for the accuracy of the border, keep in mind that many medieval maps (sometimes early modern too) also contain minor mistakes since we can’t know every exact border. But again, it is up to you. You could also just put words in the northen part as “Serbian lands”, while “Roman lands” in the south and Maritime lands on the west coast. I personally would just put the names of the nobles for every province to avoid causing confusing. Norsx (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reason why a lot of nobility was depicted by the regional name would be as they had titles like Vojislav Vojinovic who was Duke of Hum (even tho Vojislav did not rule over Hum region) until he took Hum out of his title in late 1350s as he didnt want to be restricted to his current holdings, while others simply had titles of Duke, Sir(Gospodin) ,Despot (like for example Despot Oliver), count etc.
Simply defacto situation was defacto too much complex so I desided to depict some part of nobility like this. Serbian1331 (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Were Epirus and Thessaly also zupas then? Norsx (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eprius and Thessaly were provinces, not župas, as they were somewhat sizeable provinces in the (“Byzantine”) part of the Empire, as Dušan did not change the structure much there. Župas were old slavic administrative divisions that would be better compared to counties rather then southern provinces like Epirus (that was ruled by a Despot) Serbian1331 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to say. But I’m interesting in knowing what kind of “province” Epirus and Thessaly were. Dusan in his code said that “lands, cities and zupas/krajinas” were the official administrative division of the empire. I have a hard time trying to fit Epirus and Thessaly in these four categories. Related to this, what was the name of the “regions” ruled by Alexander Komnenos Asen and Radoslav Hlapen? Norsx (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epirus was province governed by a Despot, Thessaly was a province ruled by Kesar, those structures were from Byzantine Empire, as I said Dusan didn’t change administration much in Greek provinces, except that Greeks were forbidden from having highest positions.
For Hlapen I used the fact that his court was set in Veria, but I could change that to his name, John Kosmin Asen ruled from Valona under title of Despot. Serbian1331 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was the official name of the (Byzantine) provinces? I mean the name in Serbian/Greek. Norsx (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maps were a topic of most discussions in the article’s talk page for various reasons, and their publication date, lack of reliability and inaccuracies were already discussed many years ago. Currently in the article’s main body and infoboxes include three almost the same, historically accurate maps showing the empire at greatest extent (1355). However, there are four more maps, two of which (1 File:Geographic map of the Serbian Empire.svg – Wikipedia and 2 File:Map of the Serbian Empire, University of Belgrade, 1922.jpg – Wikipedia) similar to the previously mentioned three, and two of which (3 File:Balkans in 1350 (134038106).jpg – Wikipedia and 4 File:Serbian Empire 1358.jpg – Wikipedia) different from them, third including the territory of the Banate of Bosnia, and fourth both Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia as well as Bosnia and Second Bulgarian Empire as part of the Serbian Empire. This latter two are historical fabrications without confirmation in historical sources as well as scientific literature (aside fringe nationalistic interpretations of short-term events in Bosnia and Croatia as territorial conquest).

Now, after my edits removing them, these 4 maps were restored in a separate Maps gallery section, for which there’s lack of scope as the article is already full of maps. I advise removing the controversially inaccurate old maps, and perhaps even the other two
@Theonewithreason @Santasa99 @Joy. Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dont know why are you pinging editors which did not contributed to this article, maps are long standing in the article and also according to their respective authors so there is nothing fringe in them, there is a section made for this, also map of Belgrade university was the one which was long standing for several years and has nothing to do with historical fabrications. I am going to ask you politely to remove pings. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santasa99 and Joy are mentioned in a discussion, and Santasa99 was present for a long time on the article (see the archive). “Long-standing” is not a valid argument, nor is the fact that they have an attribution. The 1st and 2nd maps are not controversial, but their inclusion is pointless as they are already included in visually better maps showing the same content. The 3rd and 4th maps are controversial fabrications and hence need to be removed. What is the point of having in the article these two completely inaccurate maps, with obvious analogies to the Greater Serbia propaganda?–Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they haven’t contributed to the article for a long time, Joy neither, maybe we should ping people who actually contributed, attributed sourced maps are on which Wikipedia articles are made by, that is why there is a section of maps in which different authors have their theories where did Serbian empire stretched, I dont see anything connected with as you call it Serbian propaganda especially if the authors of those maps are not Serbs but international scholars, we can rename the section to maps according to different authors or something like this, but to completely remove them especially the one from university of Belgrade – I disagree. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop diverting the subject and making excuses. Santasa99 contributed to the talk page for over ten years, and Joy is well-informed about these topics. Editors who contributed do not WP:OWN the article and as such not only they should be pinged.
I literally don’t care about the one from the University of Belgrade, the issue is those two controversial maps. It’s propaganda from the 19th century; that these were made by some international authors in the early 20th century doesn’t mean a damn thing, it is a known fact that in old international scholarship can be found the same misinformation from the Serbian scholarship because of the influence and lobbying of the same scholarship and political apparatus at the time. The controversial maps don’t belong in this, but in the Greater Serbia article. Why should this propaganda be promoted in the article, and why do you even agree to be here at all? If we included them in this article, then we need a very long section with a certain context, usually titled as “Legacy”, in which would be described how the Serbian Empire statehood, its downfall, the battle of Kosovo, and so on, became an integral part of Serbian national identity, but also mythologization used for political purposes with its borders seen by some authors as much larger than they were in the correct greatest extent. –Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them contributed to this article, also I am now going to ask you to read wp:civil, also we dont need the section legacy since there is already part of the article that describes downfall and the legacy of the empire. Also those maps dont belong to the greater Serbia article because they describe the Serbian empire and are from international scholars who made them. I gave a suggestion above we could rename the section and call them theoretical maps. Theonewithreason (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top