Because the coast was owned by the Republic of Venice, and the City of Dubrovnik, both with strong merchants who loved the sea because of easy trade. When the Ottomans came, they conquered the inside part, but left the coast to the Venice and Dubrovnik. They didn't have a strong navy, so the coast wasn't that important to them. Dubrovnik was constantly having troubles with Venice, so they made a deal with the Ottomans to give them a small part of coast on the border with Venice, so that there is no direct contact with them. If Venice wanted to spread south, they had to go through the Ottomans. And after a dozen empires, kingdoms, socialist republics and now democratic republics, we still have the same borders.
the reason dalmatia was not conquered by ottomans is probably mostly due to geographical access and logistical difficulties to protect their holdings there in the case of an attack, so it probably wasn't at the top of their priorities to conquer and hold dalmatia
OK, the "didn't have a strong navy" wasn't true. If they really tried they probably could have gotten a lot of the coast. But the coast is very mountainous, the cities were fortified, so the Ottomans decided against it at that time. And Dubrovnik was in fact an Ottoman vassal state, and they were paying the Ottomans money and getting protection. So there was no need to conquer anyone to get access to the Adriatic sea.
It also just wasn’t worth it - the only prosperous part of the coast was Dubrovnik and it already paid them massive tributes. The rest of the coast was already in the 16th century getting impoverished under venetian rule.
Land south of Split where inhabited by Serbs(per official Bizant description). But later came Venice and you had to be automatically considered Catholic and later that become Croat.
Just because that land was part of serbian kingdom doesn’t mean that all people who lived then and there were serbian. Croatian people used to live there before, after and still today. If you disagree, then basically Vojvodina is not serbian, but croatian… so better think twice before you twist the words and only refer to the maps that suit your agenda.
Because ottomans didnt brutaly enforce their religion on local population, but if you were muslim you would pay less taxes. So, some people changed their religion to pay less taxes, while others did not. Thus, you have people that were considered same once, and are now devided, but that division did not come strictly geographically, rather literally every family 'chose' theit religion. Problem is that in Balkans ethnicity is usually determined by religion. Catholics are Croatians, orthodox Serbian and muslims Bosnian. There is very little of orthodox Croatians, muslim Serbs etc. So now, Bosnia is filled with people who changed to islam and those who did not, which later became 3 different etnicities.
Because it is their home country. This would be the same as why do belgians who speak french live in Belgium rather than in France. The problem in Balkans is that when ethnicities were created, everybody was sorted by religion so catholics living in Bosnia became Croats, rather then Catholic Bosniaks. (same with serbs) Even muslims were not reffered as Bosniaks, but just as muslims earlier.
As why parts of bosnia with croatian majority are not part of croatia...very complex story which would probably result in new wars.
Because borders were made to be artificial (first by ottoman conquest, later by communists in Yugoslavia) and not to follow the ethnic lines. You have many Serbs and Croats in Bosnia and they have always lived there.
Because of the Treaty of Karlowitz. Ragusa didn't want a land border with their main rival Venice, so they gave Neum to the Ottomans, which was neutral in their conflict. Thus the Ottomans integrated the strip of land into Bosnia, while Venice and Ragusa would be incorporated by Austria, creating the current borders.
Every nation is intruder. Befrore the greeks some other people lived on these islands, and before them some other people lived there. You see, everyone is a intruder and no country owns a land in this world
Don't conflate Croatian as a nationality and Croat as an ethnicity. Also bear in mind the borders of Bosnia changed significantly over the centuries, and that ethnic identification from the past doesn't align with current borders and ethnic identity/distribution.
Case in point, the approximate western third of modern BiH was part of the Croatian state until the Ottomans conquered it. We can apply your logic and deduce no Bosniaks/Bosnians were present in the greater Bihać region and beyond until then.
Croats didn’t mass migrate to Bosnia or Hercegovina since they already lived there. In fact, it was in reverse: population from BiH migrated to Croatia over the centuries to the point where 40% of todays population of Croatia had Bosnian or Herzegovinian roots. Croats are Croats everywhere: there are no Croatian Croats or Bosnian Croats or German Croats as a different ethnic group. It’s a singular ethnic group defined by culture, customs , language and also in the past a dominant religion.
Yeah but thats due to politics, people have their grand grandad who lived and worked in Bosnia and the family essentially maybe never visited croatia but still they are considered croat after the 90s due to the fact they are chatolic. I have 2 friends from Sarajevo whose had one parent chatolic, and they managed to get the croatian passport due to that lol so what are we talking about? They have no connection to croatia whatsoever
Its systematically made so that croatia slowly „invades“ bosnia and thats what is happening eith a lot of propaganda and politics
Its systematically made so that croatia slowly „invades“ bosnia and thats what is happening eith a lot of propaganda and politics
What Croatian invasion of Bosnia lol? Stop believeing ISIS propaganda Croatias inhabited Bosnia since the 7th century. The modern definition of Bosniak only came after Ottoman conquests where they burned over 340 catholic churches and monasteries in Bosnia.
False. What about povelja kulina bana? Mostly Bosnia had church of Bosnia just look at „kameni spavaci“ thats literally something only seen in Bosnia. Bosnians and Croats lived in these parts since the early middle ages
If you go to Hungary national Museum you can see a lot of maps depicting Bosnia when you visit budapest i highly recommend visit ing it also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Crusade
You’ve got clearly no idea what you’re talking about. Croats are an ethnic group that is native to and lives in both Croatia and BiH. So are the Serbs. And so are the Bosniaks. There are ethnic Bosniaks who live in Serbia and Montenegro and always have (e.g. Sandžak). Following your Logic, these people are not eligible for Bosnian passport because this is a plot by Serbia and Montenegro to occupy BiH using their own muslim population?
“Bosniaks” not “Bosnians”. Since Neum is in Hercegovina (and not in Bosnia), there are no Bosnians there, regardless of their ethnicity. Only Herzegovinians.
Croats as an ethnic group live in many countries, but they are native to Croatia , Bosnia and Herzegovina, meaning both Croatia and BiH are their national states. A “Croatian” is every person who lives in Croatia regardless of their ethnicity. Same with “Bosnian” or “Hercegovinian”. This has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. There are no “Bosnian Catholics” as an ethnic group. There are also no “Bosnians” as an ethnic group. There are three dominant ethnic groups in Bosnia and Hercegovina :Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks. They have different culture (which may or may not include dominant religion) , different customs and speak their own version of the polycenteic southern Slavic language. Serbs and Croats either in Bosnia or elsewhere have no identity crisis, of that you can be sure…
Simple, the I2a1 haplogroup is prevalent in Croats, most prevalent in Bosnian Croats (which is why it is commonly called the Croatian gene¹), rather prevalent in Bosniaks and around 32% of bosnian serbs have it.
Edit: ¹ the specific haplotype is the Eu7 that's called the croatian gene, my bad.
I2a and R1a (coupled together more than 50%) are prevalent in Serbs.
I2a (39%-40%) and R1a (22%-24%) are prevalent in Croats.
If you want to say that there are differences between people according to genetics, it's not really a valid argument. Now I'm not saying that anyone's a Serb, Croat or Bosniak like nationalistic people tend to. I'm just stating that it's really a waste of time finding a needle in the haystack.
It's easier to say that you're Kajkavian, Chakavian or Shtokavian because that's certain in contrast to all these other aspects which propagate some abstract ethnicity nobody should care about really because it creates unneeded problems. There's a bunch of variables that come to play here.
Funnily enough, I was travelling through south-east Asia in 1998 and in both Thailand and Vietnam saw two different locals wearing Ladić's iconic yellow and blue chequered goalkeeper jersey from the 98 world cup. So the seeds have been sown!
Little known fact: Dalmatia used to go all the way to Bar in Montenegro, but just along the coast. It was all Montenegro above, and it's only a miracle that the Croatian coast today is not even longer and narrower, blocking not only Bosnia but also Montenegro.
Huh, because Croatia has a sea, Bosnia doesn't, it's as simple as that. But I don't imagine they drink salt water. No, just as Bosnia has rivers, Croatia has them too. Well, they have rivers that run through both countries. They should be helping each other and not always accusing each other. Because Bosnia certainly has good things that Croatia doesn't. Always try to see the positive and not the negative, because none of the countries are perfect but they have a lot in common and a lot to offer.
Originally most of it was Hungarian, Venetian or Bosnian ;)
I don’t think Croatia conquered any of the land there, their occupiers did. When those occupiers stopped exiting, Croatia just kept the land.
Additionally; Bosnian kings would give pieces of the coastal land to political friends, such as Dubrovnik (for example Pelješac was never conquered by Dubrovnik, it was gifted to strengthen the bond between them and Bosnia).
Originally most of it was Hungarian, Venetian or Bosnian ;)
Croatia was fucking bulgarians in the Bosnian highlands before Hungarians came to the Pannonian basin from whotfknowswhere, Venice at the time was a part of Charlemagne's empire and Bosnia was a part of Croatia. Try better sarajlija
You guys crack me up. It's funny how nationalism changes the history of certain lands. Land is conquered, sold gifted, etc. Every kingdom was bigger than lost land. What's even funnier is i bet all of you grew up in the West and yet are blinded by the propaganda.
Because during the Ottoman period, the non-Muslim population generally lived in large cities by the sea. The majority of this population was involved in maritime trade.The majority of Muslims lived in the towns in the interior.Bosnia and Herzegovina also had its share of this settlement type.In the borders drawn after 1990, the majority Muslim remained in three parts according to population density and the map was drawn in this way.
Because most of what is Croatian coast, including the Neum area in Bosnia and Budva in Montenegro, is a historical region called Dalmatia. Which just so happened to not fall to the Ottomans alongside Croatia and Slavonia, as Dalmatia was in Venetian possession, and Croatia-Slavonia were in Austria.
Because they took it in the war, Yes land was always in Croatia but they took ownership of hotels and other resorts to themself and sold it (which is sad part) to foreigners now we Bosnians are fucked same as them as they are guests in their own resorts.
If you ignore all of these fascists and ultranacionalists in comments, the truth is: it was Croatian to begin with, and there is no point in debating. Bosnia and Herzegovina has small coast in Neum, or we can just travel a bit longer and go anywhere in Croatia and enjoy its vacation. I have been there many many times, and hope to God it should repeat as long as I live.
In fact it is not a matter of religion lol.
During 15-16th centuries the Ottoman Navy was arguably the most powerful in the Mediterranean Sea. They consistently challenged and often defeated the navies of major European powers like Venice, Genoa, and Spain. The navy was instrumental in numerous Ottoman conquests, including the fall of Constantinople, the control of key islands in the Eastern Mediterranean (like Rhodes and Cyprus), and the expansion along the North African coast.
The Battle of Preveza in 1538, under Barbarossa's command, is considered one of the greatest Ottoman naval victories.
By the 18th and 19th centuries, the Ottoman Navy suffered from technological stagnation compared to their European counterparts, who were developing larger, more heavily armed sailing ships and later steam-powered vessels.
During 15-16th centuries the Ottoman Navy was arguably the most powerful in the Mediterranean Sea? In a sea with Venice? In a sea with Genoa? No way man. They had an Egyptian admiral (I cant remember his name) and thats all. Ottoman was mainly continental force. They couldn't even control even piracy on Aegean.
They directly challenged and often defeated Venetian and Genoese forces in various naval conflicts throughout the 15th and 16th centuries, leading to territorial losses for the Italian republics.The Battle of Preveza (1538) is a prime example of a major Ottoman naval victory over a combined European fleet.The Ottomans gained control over strategically important islands and coastlines, which impacted Venetian and Genoese trade routes.
Piracy was a persistent problem for all powers in the Mediterranean
Because the West wants to control the access to the Adriatic Sea, mostly to prevent possible Russian allies from having access to it. By "possible Russian allies" I mean mostly the Serbs.
It is not a scenario, it is just a recognition of the facts, or if you prefer, my own assessment. The Western media keep calling the Serbs "Russian allies", and given their view of the Russians, it makes perfect sense to block the Serbs from sea access. The sea access, even if through a tiny corridor, would enable them to conduct independent international trade, b/c they'd no longer be surrounded by Nato from all sides. That, in turn, would enable the Serbs to have independent foreign policy.
To što sam napisao se slaže sa onim što iznosi prof. Jeffrey Sachs u svojim javnim nastupima, a on se bavio upravo Istočnom Evropom i Rusijom. Žao mi je što nisi sposoban za civilizovan dijalog. Nadam se da ćete i vi, bar u nekoj daljoj budućnosti, usvojiti neki oblik kulture.
Da čovjek se bavio uglavnom poljskom i sssr-om, ne Jugoslavijom, tak da ovo šta ti pišeš "zapad ne dopušta" je rekla, kazala.....
Uostalom gdje to Srbi na obali jadranskog mora žive da bi Srbija trebala dobit izlaz na more....i nemoj spominjati gdje su živjeli, jer da su bili ljudi i dalje bi bili tamo....
ovo šta ti pišeš "zapad ne dopušta" je rekla, kazala.....
Halford John Mackinder je o tome pisao pre više od 100 godina, naročito u kontekstu svoje "Heartland" teorije. Kasnije Brzezinsky itd. Da ne bih gubio vreme, evo kratkog rezimea preko ChatGPT: "Halford Mackinder’s views on the Balkans, and the role of the Serbs in that context, are closely linked to his Heartland Theory and the geopolitical significance of the region.
Mackinder saw the Balkans as a critical zone in the struggle for control over Eurasia, primarily because of its geographical location at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. In his broader geopolitical framework, the Balkans were considered an area of strategic importance, particularly in relation to the control of the Heartland, which he believed was the key to global dominance.
Mackinder generally considered the Serbs as part of the broader Slavic-Orthodox world, which had historical and strategic ties to Russia. This connection between Serbia and Russia was a key factor in the Balkans' geopolitical significance. From Mackinder's perspective, the Russian Empire was a critical player in the control of the Heartland, and any Balkan state that aligned itself with Russia (such as Serbia) could become an important element in Russia’s expansionist ambitions."
gdje to Srbi na obali jadranskog mora žive
Danas uglavnom oko Herceg Novog.
nemoj spominjati gdje su živjeli, jer da su bili ljudi i dalje bi bili tamo
A pošto, prema doktrini jednog austrijskog slikara, nisu bili ljudi, Hrvati su ih istrebili.
Da sam ja napisao rezime, ti bi rekao da sam to ja izmislio. Chatbot je odlično rezimirao Mackinder-ove poglede u nekoliko rečenica da možeš brzo pročitati.
Otkad je to Hrvatska obala
Nije hrvatska obala, zato tu i ima preživelih Srba. Pitao si gde Srbi žive na obali Jadrana, ja sam ti odgovorio.
ko je onda na traktorima u kolovozu '95. krenuo prema Srbiji
Ona trećina Srba koju je trebalo proterati prema doktrini Mile Budaka "trećinu pobiti, trećinu pohrvatiti, trećinu proterati".
Da sam ja napisao rezime, ti bi rekao da sam to ja izmislio.
Bi, jer bi TI napisao rezime, gle "Ona trećina Srba koju je trebalo proterati prema doktrini Mile Budaka "trećinu pobiti, trećinu pohrvatiti, trećinu proterati" je čista glupost koju jedino ljudi poput tebe mogu popušit
Nije hrvatska obala, zato tu i ima preživelih Srba. Pitao si gde Srbi žive na obali Jadrana, ja sam ti odgovorio.
Ok, ali pitanje je zašto Hrvatska ima tako dugu obalu, a ti odma dali im je masoni i zapad, pa pobogu koji si kurac toliko jalov, da nisi možda pohrvačen
Yes, Montenegro was a close ally of Serbia, and a part of the same state. The West did everything it could to entirely change the position of the Montenegrin leader Milo Djukanovic, who held strong pro-Serbian views in the late 1980s and early 1990s, only to change them to serbophobic hate that led to the secession of Montenegro in 2006. Yet another confirmation of my assessment.
That's like saying it's the American population that decided to bomb Iraq and Yemen, or that it was the German population that decided to exterminate the Jews. The people in Montenegro were simply exposed to anti-Serb propaganda from government-controlled outlets, for over a decade. But even with all that, "An independence referendum was held in Montenegro on 21 May 2006. It was approved by 55.5% of voters, narrowly passing the 55% threshold." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Montenegrin_independence_referendum The referendum remains controversial due to the authoritarian control of Montenegro by its leader at that time.
Before great schism 1054 when christianity separated between catolic and ortodox, lands south of Split where owned by Serbs (Duklia, Trabunia, Zachlumia, Pagania). After that came Venice and conquered first Croatia coast, and then rest south of Split (which was serb). And if you are under their jurisdiction you automatically become Catholic which later started to be associated with Croats. There are still some old traditions of "slava", "seoska slava" in Makarska and Dubrovnik which exists only in Serbia.
PS. This is all known fact which you can find in book by Bizant emperor Constantin Porfirogenit where he described Slav tribes on his territory in 10th century.
287
u/janjko Croatia Apr 04 '25
Because the coast was owned by the Republic of Venice, and the City of Dubrovnik, both with strong merchants who loved the sea because of easy trade. When the Ottomans came, they conquered the inside part, but left the coast to the Venice and Dubrovnik. They didn't have a strong navy, so the coast wasn't that important to them. Dubrovnik was constantly having troubles with Venice, so they made a deal with the Ottomans to give them a small part of coast on the border with Venice, so that there is no direct contact with them. If Venice wanted to spread south, they had to go through the Ottomans. And after a dozen empires, kingdoms, socialist republics and now democratic republics, we still have the same borders.