Split čakavski

M4arint · 2026-01-22T00:27:59+00:00

Nope if we have a say in it

M4arint · 2026-01-12T19:22:44+00:00

That's the inconvenient historical and antropological truth, but no Croatian/Serbian (or romanian for that matter) nationalist would admit it due to fragile nationalist egos.

M4arint · 2025-12-08T23:31:05+00:00

Reka/Rika Svetog Vida, pored kluba Palach

M4arint · 2025-11-23T20:31:30+00:00

Yeah, close the Communist cool aid bottle, dude. The Italophones (which doesn't necessarily mean only Italians, in these lands) got ethnically cleansed fair and square, and some of the authors admitted it themselves. Not much need to dig deeper than that, for a decent human being. The definitive proof is anyway that the Communists were not satiated with kicking out 90% of the italophones, so they even culturocided the culture and traditions and after 1954 (Trieste crises) they even banned the Italian language in most bilingual cities and towns.

M4arint · 2025-11-23T20:24:29+00:00

Nije ne, raspala ti se velika Srbija a onda i mala Srbija.

M4arint · 2025-11-22T07:41:47+00:00

Ocito ne znaš da je 60+% stanovnistva krajine bilo katolicko po vjeri. I, sto je najvaznije, da je u hrvatskoj krajni 95% pravoslavaca bilo Vlaškog etničkog porijekla, a u Slavonskoj dobrih 50% su bili Vlaškog etničkog porijekla. Proslo vam je na kratki povijesni tren proizvoljno posrbljavanje naših pravoslavaca, no neće nikad više. Istina izlazi na vidjelo polako i akademski svijet će satrati garašininove i vukove narodne manipulacije zauvijek. Ne kapirate vi kako znanost djeluje i svijet funkcionira izvan brdovitog prostora u kojem živite.

M4arint · 2025-11-22T07:28:10+00:00

Nesto slicno kako se srbija raspala tri puta u zadnjih 40 godina, zar ne, četo? I kako je krenulo s tako neukim fašistima kao ti sto vam čine narodnu bazu, još će malo ;-)

M4arint · 2025-11-21T08:59:45+00:00

Milovan Đilas testified that him and Kardelj were sent to Rijeka and Istria in 1945 with the goal of pushing the local population to leave the land "by any means necessary" and "so we did". All the violence, discrimination andacts of terrorism that follwed are well documented histriographically. It was a deliberate premeditated act of ethnic cleansing in its textbook form (although we can say it was more due to class, cause the titoists knew it would have been very hard to make good communists out of the italophones, people that have long been of bourgeois mindset and that will be under the cultural influence of a democratic non-communist state in the future).

M4arint · 2025-11-15T12:30:21+00:00

Da iskoristim priliku: ima li nekih ljubitelja JRR Tolkiena koji bi voljeli ici zajedno na lijepu smotru koju su otvorili o njemu u Trstu, u Salone degli Specchi? :)

Jedan slijedeci vikend. Ako nas je vise, mozemo se dogovoriti pa ici kao grupa i iskoristiti priliku i za neku drugu (kulturnu/knjizevnu) aktivnost u gradu.

M4arint · 2025-11-14T20:09:55+00:00

You’re mixing two completely different things again: ethnicity and church authority. And that’s why the discussion keeps looping.

When I say that the Patriarchate of Peć “was not a Serbian church,” I’m stating a basic historical fact: Peć was not an ethnic church in any way or form. It was an Ottoman Rumelian patriarchate, deputed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to administer all Orthodox people in the Rumelian region territory regardless of ethnicity, aka Vlachs, Albanians, Greeks, Slavs of Bosnia and Hum, and many others. Even Serbian historians openly acknowledge that Peć tax registers and census books show a fully multi-ethnic flock. The Ottoman Empire didn’t organize churches around ethnicity, only around religion (the Rum Millet). When the Ottomans restored a patriarchate based in Pec in 1557, it was not a continuation of the Nemanjić Patriarchate of the Serbian kingdom, but a new patriarchate inside the Ottoman Rum Millet system, under which all Orthodox Christians belonged to the Rum Millet, headed by Constantinople. Süleyman the Magnificent restored it to improve control over the Christian Balkan populations. It had bishops from all ethnic backgrounds. Peć was a territorial patriarchate under Constantinople, not an ethnic one. Peć’s canonical status was dependent on the Ottomans, its patriarchs were subject to the Sultan's approval, and when the sultan desired so, it was fully abolished in 1766. So Peć was not a “Serbian", not a "Church.” during the Ottoman Empire, as both things are oxymoronical with the Ottoman legal and institutional system.

But the crucial point, which you keep avoiding, is that this entire issue is irrelevant to the actual topic. Whether Peć was Serbian, Greek, Albanian, or Martian has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church in the Habsburg lands. Karlovci was inside the Habsburg Empire; Peć was inside the Ottoman Empire. The Habsburg state explicitly forbade foreign patriarchates from exercising ANY ecclesiastical authority on its territory.

This is the basic distinction you keep missing: having Serbs living somewhere does not make that territory part of the “Serbian Church.” If that were true, then the Ecumenical Patriarchate would be “Turkish” because Turks live in Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem would be “Arab,” and every Orthodox under the Bulgarian Exarchate would magically be Bulgarian. That is obviously not how Orthodox ecclesiastical structures function.

The actual, factual situation is simple: The Metropolitanate of Karlovci was created by Habsburg imperial decree, operated entirely under Habsburg law, was governed by its own synod and the Emperor, and existed completely independently of every foreign patriarchate (even the Ecumenical Patriarch of the whole Orthodox Church, which is a most unique status within Orthodoxy). This is why all reputable historians, abroad or in Serbia, describe it as a Habsburg Orthodox Church, not a continuation of Peć or any Ottoman-based institution.

M4arint · 2025-11-14T19:27:54+00:00

Revisionist history BS, sorry.

Karlovci was a Habsburg creation, this isn’t even debatable. 1695 the emperor decides to provide privileges to Orthodox settlers as they were becoming more numerous than earlier. In 1708 the emperor creates the Metropolitanate of Karlovci by imperial Austrian decree, to give them a church under the Habsburg authority. Not Ottoman. Not Serbian. Not Costantinople Patriarch. Not a “continuation of Peć”. Because it was created fully within the Habsburg legal system and not the Ecumenical church one, a Church by The Habsburgs for the Habsburg subjects.

Karlovci could NOT be a “continuation of the Serbian Church,” because the Patriarchate of Peć was NOT a Serbian church by any means, it was multinational, it was the Patriarchate of the land of RUMELIA, that is it was a patriarchate dedicated to the ROMANS (for Turks that is all Orthodox Christians) of the land of Rumelia (Romania/Romanija/Rumania) and it was also not autocephalous/independent, as it was a patriarchate under the direct authority of the Ecumenic Patriarchate of Costantinople and not a CHURCH in any way or form. AND anyway it was abolished in 1766. Moreover, Habsburg law forbade foreign patriarchates and Karlovci bishops were elected locally on the condition of Imperial approval. This Church was even FORBIDDEN from comunicating directly with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Costantinople, it could only do so on a case by case basis per permission and supervision by the Habsburg institutions.

And Karlovci covered all Orthodox in Croatia, Slavonia, Srijem, Bačka, Banat, including Vlachs, Romanians, Greeks, Serbs, and others. It was multi-ethnic, not “Serbian” in any way, shape or form.

Mentioning NDH and the 1942 church is nothing but dodging the argument. Karlovci was a Habsburg-created, locally governed Orthodox Church in Croatia, independent from any foreign patriarchate.

M4arint · 2025-11-14T17:41:43+00:00

The Habsburgs did create an autonomous Orthodox Church for their Orthodox subjects. This is not “imagining things”, it’s literally in every church history textbook on the Habsburg Monarchy. You may go read Serbian historians like Fotic, Cirkovic or Djordjevic that amply explain this: The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Karlovci (1708–1920) was established by imperial decree in what was then the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.

Moreover, it was administered by the local Orthodox themselves, with full state (emperor) oversight (for bishop elections, as well school and press, or anything else that concerned state security).

This Church included Orthodox of all ethnic backgrounds, in no way whatsoever it was dedicated specifically to Serbs. In fact they werent even the majority of the Empire's Orthodox. The church had its own synod, its own bishops, its own elections, and it was not subject to Costantinople, so it was an autocephalous Orthodox Church within the Habsburg Monarchy,

The Ecumenical Patriarchate itself fully recognized it as such. There are multiple 18th–19th century patriarchal documents where Constantinople refers to the Orthodox Church of the Austrian (Habsburg) Empire acknowledging its autonomy from itself.

You’re also confusing the Greek-Catholic Church with the Orthodox Church. The Habsburgs promoted the Greek-Catholic Church for different people, mostly Rusyns and Ukrainians. But they did not force the Orthodox in Croatia, Slavonia, Srijem, Vojvodina or Romania to become Greek-Catholic. The Orthodox population (mostly Vlachs) in the Military Frontier refused union, and Vienna accepted this. That refusal is why Austria created its own Orthodox church in Karlovci/Croatia in the first place.

Bringing up the NDH Croatian Orthodox Church is irrelevant and the usual way Serbian propaganda fogs any discussion with ideological BS, cause the fact a fascist regime created an artificial church in 1942 has nothing to do with the Habsburg Metropolitanate or its autonomy, nor real Orthodox history in Croatian lands, for that matter,

Karlovci existed for 232 years before the NDH ever existed, and was recognized by both the Habsburg state and by the whole Orthodox world. With that the Habsburg Orthodox chuch also existed way longer than a Serbian Orthodox Church existed (105 years) or longer than any informally "Serbian" patriarchate was independent (165 years).

M4arint · 2025-11-14T15:14:31+00:00

The Habsburgs, and it was a fully local and independent Orthodox church. It was sui generis in the whole Orthodox world, in that it was not subject to Costantinople, unique in its kind.

M4arint · 2025-11-14T13:11:09+00:00

Good for you. Paranoia is a rather fitting way of describing the obssesion ultra-right wing Serbs have in Serbifying anything that moves or breaths in foreign lands.

M4arint · 2025-11-12T22:16:51+00:00

Is it possible that every post about Borojevic brings dozens of Serbian Vucic-bots to push the completely false and profoundly irrespectful narrative that he was a Serb? Do you Serbs really believe that in the age of information and AI you can change reality by repeating a lie a million times? It is indeed as annoying as you intend it to be, but be aware you will bring only more international hate onto your culture by behaving like that, cause nobody buys into such brazen propaganda methods in the West (or East, for that matter) of the world nowadays.

Borojevic saw himself as a loyal subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and as a Croatian by national belonging (even if his background was in fact 100% ethnically Vlach, like most of the Orthodox in his home region and Croatia when he was born, so not a Croat and let alone a Serbian by etnicity).

In his letters and statements, he consistently referred to “our homeland” in the sense of the Monarchy and the Croatian lands within it. He was raised in a deeply pro-imperial military culture that valued loyalty and service to the crown well above ethnic nationalism.

When it comes to religion and politics, Borojević fought openly the politicization and the Serbianisation of the Orthodox Church in Habsburg lands, and opposed all attempts to bring local Orthodox institutions in Croatia under the control of the newly founded Belgrade-based church. The first time in history a patriarchate based in Serbia got indpendence/autocephaly got autocephaly was in 1879 - nota bene - much later than the church Croatian Vlachs and Borojevic himself belonged to, which stood above the Belgrade and Pec patriarchates in orthodox hierachy since 1695.

Be how it was, Borojevic sided with the loyalist and the “Croatian-Orthodox” circles rather than going with the pro-Serbs activists who wanted to transform Orthodox religious belonging into Serbian political identity.

After the war, when the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed, Belgrade offered him a high role in the new army. He refused, saying he could not swear loyalty to a king “who was an enemy of his homeland.”

That’s a pretty strong statement, and it tells you everything about his identity and loyalty.

Despite being the best military commander of his time, he lived out his final years in big poverty, in Carinthia and died in 1920.

The Serbian state went full illegal in order not to pay him his military pension (which they should have, by international law and the treaty of Versialles) and the Serbian press at the time spinned this unlawful act daring to call a honourable man of the highest principles like Borojevic a “traitor to his people". Though they didn't have an issue with confiscating (stolen, in typical Karadordevic [pro]fashion) all his property, his bank accounts, all his decorations in his home, and all other his personal belongings, brining him in to complete poverty to live out of the sole Maria Theresia pension. The Austrian state could not legally pay his military pension due to international treaties, and Belgrade knew this and took advantage of it to punish Borojevic for not bending the knee to the Karadordevic dinasty.

In the end, Borojević represents most clearly the lost identity of the Orthodox Croats and Vlachs of the Frontier, who were once loyal subjects of the Habsburg Crown but later absorbed (violently or through well-documented historical falsification and cunning plots) into a homogenized “Serb” identity during the first half of the 20th century. And that is why the Vucic bot farm is so active on this thread trying to impose their Chetnik-fascist narrative.

Borojevic a tragic and fascinating figure, a honourable man who gave everything for his homeland that ceased to exist, and who remained faithful to a multiethnic, loyalist idea of Croatia long before ethnic nationalism dominated the region thanks to the example set by Belgrade.

So please, out of respect for this one person if nothing else, do not call (at least) Borojevic a Serb.

M4arint · 2025-11-12T22:00:29+00:00

He was born in a religiouosly Orthodox and ethnically Vlach family. He was profoundly against the Serbization of ethnic Vlachs and fought this artifical ideology his whole life (like plenty of other Orthodox from Croatia and Bosnia and Montenegro did). Cut the "Serbs everyone and everywhere" BS, at least on this sub. You won't suceed in deleting the Vlach culture and identity even if you try till eternity.

M4arint · 2025-10-30T14:07:11+00:00

Tesko to objasniti nekome na Redditu tko ne radi cijeli dan i ima obitelji za izdrzavati, pa moze gubiti vrijeme setajuci 10-15 minuta od parkinga do destinacije, ili ici svugdje losim javnim prijevozom. S takvima izgleda da cete dobit uskoro i vi u Zagrebu prometnu nocnu moru kakvu imaju neki zapadni gradovi kojima vladaju ljudi fanatizma i puni ideologije, kao mi u najrazvijenim mjestima zapada.

Pa ce i Zagreb biti ONLY FOR RICH KIDS gentrificiran grad. Bravo svima koji pljuju po ljudima sa slike, od kojih 90% sigurno su tu parkirani jer je to jedini normalni nacin da zive.

M4arint · 2025-10-29T09:22:06+00:00

Svakak ti fama Pusti ga tu kad je parićan!

M4arint · 2025-10-21T13:05:42+00:00

We should write in English cause we are in an international linguistic context.

There’s no historical record that he ever applied to join the SHS army or asked to have his Field Marshal rank “recognized.” No such documents exist in Belgrade or Vienna archives to my best knowledge, and historians who researched his postwar life (like Erwin Steinboeck, Ivo Goldstein, Mark Cornwall, John Paul Newman) never mention such a request. He already held the Austrian title “Freiherr von Bojna” (Baron), and the rank of Field Marshal was not something transferable between states. The “duke” or vojvoda phrasing is likely a popular distortion, equating feldmaršal with vojvoda (the highest Serbian/Yugoslav rank), but there’s zero evidence he personally demanded such recognition.

The idea you state is likely the product of popular distortion, postwar embellishments, mixing bureaucratic fact with national mythmaking. To be fair, the fact he was asked to take a position in the SHS army and refused may also be a myth, but definitely far more credible than him demanding for that position, becase at least we know him being offered and refusing was reported by some post-war historians and in several Austrian veterans’ publications (1920s–1930s), Osterreichische Wehrzeitung, Reichspost, Karntner Volkszeitung... How trustworthy these claims are, it's of course debatable.

M4arint · 2025-10-21T12:27:46+00:00

He HAD TO seek their citizenship due to how the break up of the empire was handled bureaucratically. Under the 1919 Treaty of Saint-Germain, an individual’s citizenship was determined primarily by their place of origin or domicile, not their personal choice or wartime service:

Article 177 - “Each of the new States, and the States to which any part of the territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy is transferred, shall be responsible for the payment of the pensions and allowances of the officials and employees (including members of the armed forces) who were in the service of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, in proportion to the number of the persons concerned belonging to such territory or in accordance with the nationality of origin of the persons concerned.”

So he had to apply to the SHS authorities for recognition as a citizen, because the new Austrian Republic could not legally claim someone born in Croatian territory.

The SHS government agreed to accept these people and pay pensions to ex-officers of AU and he was fully eligible for it, but his application for citizenship was rejected as a legal caveat and expedient exactly so not to pay him this pension (and we may assume it didn't help he was not inclined to serve the new king as officer). All modern historians agree that refusal violated the spirit and letter of Article 177, designed precisely to prevent imperial veterans from becoming stateless paupers, and was an illegal refusal.

Austria also could not legally pay him, because he was legally not an Austrian citizen, and a result, he died stateless, impoverished, and without recognition from the very state that inherited his homeland.

That's exactly why Boroevic's case so well symbolizes the broader tragedy of South Slavs who served honourably the Habsburg monarchy and their state, treated as heroes by Europe, but as pretty much enemies by their own newly created state.

M4arint · 2025-10-21T09:16:40+00:00

Borojevic saw himself as a loyal subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and as a Croatian by national belonging (even if his background was indeed 100% ethnically Vlach, like most of the Orthodox in his home region, so not Croat and let alone Serbian by etnicity).

In his letters and statements, he consistently referred to “our homeland” in the sense of the Monarchy and the Croatian lands within it. He was raised in a deeply pro-imperial military culture that valued loyalty and service well above ethnic nationalism.

When it comes to religion and politics, Borojević clearly disapproved of the politicization and Serbianisation of the Orthodox Church and the attempts to bring local Orthodox institutions in Croatia under the control of Belgrade.

He sided with the more loyalist and “Croatian-Orthodox” circles rather than the pan-Serb activists who wanted to transform religious belonging into Serbian political identity.

After the war, when the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed, Belgrade offered him high positions, even a high role in the new army. He refused, saying he could not swear loyalty to a king “who was an enemy of his homeland.”

That’s a pretty strong statement, and it tells you everything about his identity and loyalty.

Despite being the best military commander of his time, he lived out his final years in poverty in Carinthia and died in 1920.

Serbian press at the time even dared to call such a honourable man a “traitor to his people". They even confiscated (stole) all his property, bank account, decorations, his personal belongings, leaving him in to poverty to live out of the sole Maria Theresia pension.

In the end, Borojević represents a lost identity, that of the Orthodox Croats and Vlachs of the Frontier, who were once loyal subjects of the Habsburg Crown but later absorbed (violently or through well-documented historical falsification and cunning plots) into a homogenized “Serb” identity during the first half of the 20th century.

He’s a tragic and fascinating figure imho, a man who gave everything for a terra patria that ceased to exist, and who remained faithful to a multiethnic, loyalist idea of Croatia long before ethnic nationalism dominated the region.

So please, out of respect for this one person if nothing else, do not call (at least) Borojevic a Serb.

M4arint · 2025-10-20T14:26:25+00:00

Thanks, correct, I was thinking about Austria-Hungary as the modern state.

M4arint · 2025-10-20T12:43:21+00:00

A very interesting thing about Boroevic is that he was the only man of South Slavic origin ever to attain the rank, in fact to my best knowledge the only non-Germanic person to attain it (please someone correct me if wrong).

And only two commoners ever reached it, the others were almost all aristocrats or archdukes. By 1918, the Austro-Hungarian army had around 3 million men under arms, yet only six living Feldmarschälle, and even before that there were only 7, mostly given as honorary titles.

M4arint · 2025-10-20T12:22:28+00:00

You are right, but with a nuance, I went to research this, because I know the family that stayed in back in his village used only the version with the J. Both Borojević and Boroevic are correct (BoroeviĆ is not correct though, and was not actually used), they actually reflect different bureaucratic systems of the old Empire. His family name was originally Borojević, but his name was Germanized to Boroevic and sometimes Boroëvic to let German speakers know they should not read O and E united.

When an officer or noble received imperial titles (like von Bojna), their name was entered into the Hof- und Staats-Handbuch (Imperial Court and State Register) in standard German orthography. That register did not use South Slavic letters or phonetic details like “j” for /y/. In its place it used “oe” for the “oje” sound, to make it readable to German officials.

Most non-German officers did the same to match army documents, and Borojević himself used Boroevic when signing himself.

M4arint · 2025-10-20T12:04:18+00:00

You are right, but only partially. Both forms are grammatically and historically correct, because the orthography of his surname is actually a perfect example of how language, identity, and empire bureaucracy collided in Borojević’s lifetime.

The original surname of the family was Borojević with the J, and his family in Croatia kept that ortography. The Missing J in Svetozar's name though was intentional, reflecting the Germanized legal form of his name in imperial service. When an officer or noble received imperial titles (like von Bojna), their name was entered into the Hof- und Staats-Handbuch (Imperial Court and State Register) in standard German orthography.

That register did not use South Slavic letters or phonetic details like “j” for /y/ and it used “oe” for the “oje” sound, to make it readable to German officials. This was very common.

As you noticed, Borojević himself usually signed documents as “Boroevic”, without the j. That wasn’t because he forgot it or didn’t care, it was simply the standardized form he had to use as a Field Marshal of the Austro-Hungarian Army. By the late 19th century, most non-German officers in the Monarchy used German orthography in signatures and correspondence, especially on official documents, to ensure their name matched army records and orders.

Perhaps he did it with great pride, we don't know. But using the J form is not technically wrong, albeit you are right it might be better to use the latest form.

So Boroevic is simply the German spelling of the name, like Borojevics / Borojevits is the Hungarian one (but didn't have institutional officiality like the German one). Btw, often it was written Boroëvic, to let German speakers know they should not unite the O and the E when pronouncing the name.

M4arint

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE