Talk:Military Frontier

There are some citations from the book in the article but if someone tries to click on the source there is none existing link ,therefore I am puting direct pdf link here : if someone wants to read, I have re-edited some parts of the article because I can't find any similar citations in the source ,especially on pages 98-99, maybe is the sentence mentioned on other pages ? Theonewithreason (talk) 15:04 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Poznati pod nazivom "martolozi" ili "vojnuci", postali su najopasniji element u otomanskoj vojnoj mašineriji. Istodobno su Vlahe i Srbe koji su pobjegli na sjever pred oto-manskom najezdom u 15. stoljeću i koji su njegovali sličnu vojničku tradiciju, Habsburgovci počeli koristiti s druge strane te nestalne i promjenljive granice. Uz pojedine velike ratne pohode, ratovanje Osmanlija i Habsburgovaca sastojalo se na ovoj granici uglavnom od vječitih okršaja Vlaha s Vlasima...Known as "Martolos" or "Voynuks", they became the most dangerous element in the Ottoman military machinery. At the same time, the Vlachs and Serbs who fled north from the Ottoman invasion in the 15th century and who nurtured a similar military tradition, the Habsburgs began to use on the other side of that volatile and changing border. In addition to some major military campaigns, the warfare of the Ottomans and the Habsburgs on this border consisted mainly of the eternal clashes between the Vlachs with the Vlachs". Noel Malcolm; (1995), Povijest Bosne - kratki pregled (page 97-99). We must respect RS. Mikola22 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes ok but where is it ? Are we talking the same book ? Do you mean this book ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonewithreason (talk • contribs) 15:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, follow the page numbers in the book.Mikola22 (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you help ,so far on pages 98 I can see description of siege of Jajce, clash between Matijas Korvin and Ottomans and mentioning that Jajce fell in 1527. Theonewithreason (talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This (my information) is from Serbs and Vlachs chapter, page 97-99.

• Istodobno su Vlahe i Srbe koji su pobjegli na sjever pred oto-manskom najezdom u 15. stoljeću i koji su njegovali sličnu vojničku tradiciju, Habsburgovci počeli koristiti s druge strane te nestalne i promjenljive granice. Pridružili su im se i neki Vlasi iz unutrašnjosti Bosne. 12 Roskicwicz, Studien über Bosnien, str. 77. 13 Vasić, "Etnička kretanja", str. 238; Šabanović, "Vojno uređenje Bosne", str. 218- 219. 14 Kuripešić, Itinerarium der Bolschafisreise, str. 43. Nakon poraza Turaka pod Siskom 1593. godine mnogi su Vlasi prešli na austrijsku stranu (Gušić, "Wer sind die Morlaken'.'", str. 461). 98. page 98. Mikola22 (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope you found pages (97-99). Here is an additional link where you have pages in the book and pages below the book. Pages below the book are (153-155) Mikola22 (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I plan to read the whole book and also about the author. Theonewithreason (talk • contribs) 18:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC

@Theonewithreason: Before enjoying the book of English academician, return information from RS to the article, thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure , but I can already see that he has also problems with defining Vlachs like on page 97 : Već 1530. godine, kad je habsburški službenik Benedikt Kuri-pešić putovao kroz Bosnu, izvijestio je da u toj zemlji žive tri naroda. Jedan su Turci, koji "krajnje despotski" vladaju kršćanima. Drugi su "stari Bosanci, koji su rimokatoličke vjere". A treći su "Srbi koji sebe nazivaju Vlasima... Doselili su se iz Smedereva i Beograda" and also some neutral authors have some critique about his neutrality like Emmers : .There are even some sources mentioning him as a president of anglo-albanian organisations. Is he a RS or not , I think that some other more experienced wikipedians can give better answer. Theonewithreason (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as source is concerned you have "Reliable sources/Noticeboard" (if there is a problem), and for this information which you are quoting, it is one historical record. Vlach migrations to Bosnia coming from several directions although in reality there is little written historical records from where exactly the Vlachs coming to Bosnia. Mikola22 (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Major WP:FRINGE and WP:OR (the last comment). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: What is it about? As far as I know this term in Croatian and the Military Border has nothing to do with the political term. Mikola22 (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it is more appropriate to link to Cordon sanitaire (international relations) (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I don't think that's right either. "Cordon militaire" is used for part of Military Frontier Kordun - Cordon. As for term "Cordon sanitaire", it is some kind of area for defense against infectious diseases. "Godine 1978., od 26. do 28. listopada, Zbor liječnika Hrvatske i Zavod za zaštitu zdravlja grada Zagreba održali su simpozij u povodu 250. godišnjice vojnokrajiškog sanitarnog kordona. Naime, godine 1728., 22. listopada, car i kralj Karlo VI.(III.) patentom je propisao stalnu obranu od zaraznih bolesti iz Osmanskog Carstva..In 1978, from October 26 to 28, the Croatian Medical Association and the Institute for Health Protection of the City of Zagreb held a symposium on the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the Military Krajina Sanitary Cordon. Namely, in 1728, on October 22, the emperor and king Charles VI (III.) prescribed in a patent a permanent defense against infectious diseases from the Ottoman Empire" page 72,73 and 78(In some of its aspects, it was almost »hermetically« closed (Cordon Sanitaire Mikola22 (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If the purpose is to protect against diseases, then it is cordon sanitaire (medicine). (t · c) buidhe 11:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That should be it. Mikola22 (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot access the publication referenced in this chapter. This publication is on page 1 mentioning 272 755 Orthodox inhibitants and 402 332 Catolic inhibitants. I tend to remove the publication with no access and different numbers than this one, thus I'm starting this dicussion. Bilseric (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Some time has passed and no one has answered this discussion. I don't want to edit that by myself to the article, since I can't access the referenced sources. I'll leave this discussion with this source, maybe it can be useful in the future. Bilseric (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Theonewithreason , regarding your revert. I didn't see the source. However, the source doesn't state year 1881 but it states until the Military Fronties's aboliton in the early 1870. Some administration was returned to civil authorities before 1881. The abolition started in 1870s. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There were parts that started with demilitarisation earlier, but the formal abolition was in 1881. []. Theonewithreason (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The source says that the abolition happened in 1870, it doesn't even state 1881. It also has a footnote which doesn't exist at the bottom of the page. I'm not negating the core statement. MF and it's inhabitants were under Austrian Military Law, but I don't think that every single administration job was under military administration. For instance, schooling. I don't think that in the 19th century, schooling was under military administration. The administration was complex, but in general, not everything was done by military, although the military had the "full control". In that regard I don't think the quote is giving the full info. I will leave it be until I find some sources. However, I don't think we can state 1881 when the source is stating 1870s. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There are other sources which mention exact date of abolition, Valentic also speaks about that. The formal abolition was on 15. July 1881. [],[]. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I know that, but you can't change the quote from one source in that manner. Civil administration was returning gradually from 1870, and now the article says that complete military administration was up to 1881. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not change anything, because the quote refers to the whole process of abolition, military and civilian which lasted until 1881. Theonewithreason (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I know, but the source says 1870. It wasn't "complete" until 1881. Ok, I'll leave it be. I was trying to make a point that the area was under military administration in the sense that the area was under Austrain Military law, not in the was that every aspect of civil administration was administrated by Austrain military personel. There's a lot to say about the meaning "complete military administration", which isn't seen just from one statement like this. That's why the sources are pretty extensive when describing MF. I don't really have problems with the sentence itself, but I see people making all kind of conjectures from that simple sentece. But, I don't know how to sum up hundreds of pages the sources use to describe MF in one sentece like this. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add inline citations. 64.189.18.28 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 18:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Pukovnija has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 22 § Pukovnija until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be spillover from Talk:Nikola Tesla, where these anonymous users, some of whom are evading blocks, are trying to essentially right great wrongs. They seem to enjoy endlessly arguing about these specific points, instead of actually composing article text referenced to reliable sources that would improve things for the readers. For example, this article has a reference about this from a 1906 source, but apparently rambling has to come first. --Joy (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Sahib-e-Qiran, yes on this article there isn't dispute, but Joy is disputing it on Tesla article. There he doesn't allow a discussion like this because it should belong here and not on biography article. But they did edit that article in such a way so that their disputed content is present in that article. Amd if someone complains they are banning and not allowing discussion. Is it ok to have a discussion herr since this is disputed, although not on this page, but I they don't allow to have a discussion on disputed page. ~2026-17213-05 (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Sahib-e-Qiran, TarnishedPath. Sorry. I'm not too familiar with how this should go. If RfC is not the way to go. Can I remove RfC tag and have a normal discussion? Yes. Joy has correctly said and you are also correct. There is no dispute here, but what is not in dispute here, people on other articles are disputing and editing other articles in such a way. What would be the best approach to have some consistency? ~2026-17213-05 (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you can certainly have a normal discussion. However, it seems as though this is not the correct page to discuss the issue. If you're concerned about the characterisation is where Tesla was born, that discussion should take place on the Tesla page. Riposte97 (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Then let it stay here. This is the correct place. This debate was already happened on this article. Tesla page isn't for forum like debates about the history of that area. It seems pointless to start a discussion for something nobody is disputing, but they are disputing it on other pages. I would expect if editors who are disputing it to join here to resolve. Isn't that fair? Resolve dispute on correct page. But the problem without RfC will be that they have their way and why would they join to resolve the dispute. I hope others will join and that will make them join as well. I'm not sure without RfC is lf others will join. Let's leave it and see. Maybe I can ping some. ~2026-17097-14 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Riposte97 , ok RfC only after regular discussion, I understand. But what is the best approach here. They are denying this on other pages. I can't start discussion there because they say Wikipedia is not a forum. They will not want to join here to resolve the dispute, yet they edit other articles and insert info contrary to this one on this article which isn't disputed here. I'm not sure which is the best approach. I'm just trying to resolve a dispute , but they don't want to resolve. They just edit articles in their viewpoint which I think is wrong according to sources. ~2026-17097-14 (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The statements about the formal union of the Croatian Military Frontier and the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) at Military Frontier#19th century are of a summary nature, dealing with a single election involving 57 representatives from the Military Frontier as a whole for a 5 day long parliament session that ended up electing a Bansko vijeće [hr], which governed Civil Croatia (I noticed that article uses an overly restrictive definition) for 2 years, ending up without control over the Frontier. In other words, they deal with representation during a political event rather than representation for their active administrative body. Since the Croatian Military Frontier was often referred to as a part of the Kingdom of Croatia, whether in earlier years by both de facto and de jure reasoning, or later on more prescriptively by the politically oriented, it would be worth adding further examples to a dedicated Military Frontier#Name section if the appropriate references could be found. So I believe the most accurate form would be "[Croatian/Slavonian] Military Frontier, Austrian Empire" unless their precise location of life event is unknown, in which case "Military Frontier, Austrian Empire". Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 16:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Legally, the Frontier was a part of Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Slavonia. That's what the sources are saying. They also say that those territories are under military administration. A country can arrange inner relations as it pleases, this doesn't bear impact on legal status. As sources say: "one land", but with separate civil and military administration. You say that Croatian Military Froniter was often referred as a part of Kingdom of Croatia. This is true, and this is exactly what others are denying. They are denying any relation between those two, and to be more absurd, they do see that "Croatian" in the name of this part of Military Frontier is giving away that there might be some relation. Then they are removing "Croatian" and just use "Military Frontier". They are using all sorts of reasoning, that readers "don't need to know so much details", that "it's not needed in the article", etc. But what is in my opinion very wrong is that they are going to talk pages denying this facts that they have removed from the article. They can't even on talk page agree that some village was part of "Croatian Military Frontier", they must remove "Croatian" and claim there are absolutely no relation between Military Frontier and Kingdom of Croatia, despite these sources that are well known in this article. ~2026-17050-14 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ, where are you getting with first part of your comment, but do you agree that sources are saying that Military Frontier is part of Croatia and Slavonia? The sources are using "mother land" description, because Austrain Empire has strict definiton of a "land". Land referrs there to crown land, a legal entity of the empire. Military Frontier had no legal status, it was just a part of Croatia under military administration. It's legal status was, as sources say "in union with it's mother land", or Horvat "formally a single land"~2026-17050-14 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd recommend you create an account. That will make this discussion easier to follow. Secondly, when you state that 'others are denying' certain things, where is that conversation taking place? It's usually better for conversations on the same question all to be resolved in one place. Riposte97 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)