Milos Jagodic
Born in 1975. Undergraduate studies (1994-1999), graduate studies (1999-2002), PhD 2008, all at Belgrade University, Faculty of Philosophy, Department for History. Works at the same Department since 2000. Professor since 2016. Teaches 19th and early 20th Century History of the Serbs. Specialized in, but not limited to history of the Serbs in Old Serbia (Raska, Kosovo, Metohija, Makedonija).
Address: Spanskih boraca 2, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Address: Spanskih boraca 2, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
less
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Milos Jagodic
Serbia, from 1834 until 2011. It is based on official data presented in published censuses, conducted throughout the period. Population of Aleksinac
increased from 890 inhabitants in 1834 to 16685 inhabitants in 2011. The
population growth was quite fast during the 1834–1874 period (4,25 % annual growth rate) and 1948–1971 period (3,1 % annual growth rate), while
a decrease of population was recorded between 2002 and 2011 (– 0,31 %
annual growth rate). Estimated demographic losses during the wartime periods were: 1,3 % 1874–1884 (Serbian–Turkish wars 1876 and 1877–1878),
42,2 % 1910–1921 (First Balkan war 1912–1913, Second Balkan war 1913,
First World War 1914–1918) and 6,2 % 1991–2002 (Yugoslavia breakup
wars 1991–1995 and NATO aggression against FR Yugoslavia 1999). Demographic losses occurred as the consequences of the Second World War cannot
be estimated, for the lack of relevant data. One household averaged around
6 members from 1834 to 1910 and around 3 members from 1948 to 2011.
Male–female ratio shifted from approximately 1:0,9 during the 1834–1900
period to 1:1, 1 during the 1961–2011 period. Age structure of the population
has changed significantly over time. A half of Aleksinac inhabitants were under 20 years of age in 1890 and over 40 years of age in 2011. Percentage of
literacy increased from 20,9 % in 1866 to 98,2 in 2011. Around 90% of the
population was of Serb ethnicity throughout the whole period. A third of the
population supported itself by agriculture, crafts and aggregated trade, public
and personal services respectively in 1866. Structure of the population by
occupation was very similar in 1890 and 1971. Approximately 45% of the
active working population was engaged in aggregated industry, crafts, mining
and construction sectors and approximately 10 % in aggregated trade and inn
keeping businesses; on the other hand, the share of famers decreased from
14,4 % in 1890 to 10,9% 1971, while the percentage of employees in public
services increased from 16, 6 % to 24,7% during the same period. In 2002,
the share of farmers was reduced to 3,3 %, 32,4 % of the active working population was engaged in aggregated industry, crafts, mining and construction
sectors and 17,5% in aggregated trade and inn keeping businesses, while the
percentage of public services employees increased to 32,2%.
Historical sources testifying about Avramović’s involvement with the preparation of the Serb uprising in 1840-1841, as well as with the banditry in the Kosovo region in 1842 are analyzed in detail. However, presented evidences remain inconclusive, so his role in the mentioned activities has yet to be confirmed or denied by new sources, should they appear. However, certain questions are raised and paths to future research are pointed to. Among these, a potential connection between Marko Avramović and Prince Nikola Vasojević deserves a special notice, for the latter is still a mysterious person, whose role in the Serb history might be more significant than suspected so far.
the Ottoman Empire. It examines the notion of Serbia's citizenship, as well as rules and regulations concerning it, with special focus on legal procedures and usual practice regarding naturalization. The paper also focuses on relation between Serbia's citizenship and Ottoman subjecthood. It is based predominantly on published and archival sources of Serbian origin.
in March and April of 1850. The background and role of Jovan Teodorović, organizer and
planner of the insurgency, are explained, as well as his arrest by the Serbian authorities.
Teodorović’s detailed war plan and list of his fellow conspirators are presented. It is shown
that preparations for the uprising continued after his removal, led by village chieftains from the
Vidin, Belogradčik and Lom kazas and monks of the Rakovica Monastery. Serbian policy towards
the insurgency is discussed and certain indications about possible Russian involvement
are stated. The paper is based on previously unused documents of Serbian origin.
Puja’s revolt broke out on April 19th 1849 in the Bojnica village. A small skirmish between Bulgarian peasants and few Ottoman guards occurred, which left two Bulgarians dead and three wounded. That was the only armed conflict during the revolt. Peasants from at least two neighboring villages also took up arms and went close to Vidin, apparently in order to seize it. The Ottoman authorities from Vidin were promptly informed about the event, but reacted wisely. A cavalry squadron was send first to the rebels to try to appease them and then into other villages to prevent the revolt from spreading. In fear from retaliation, few hundred refugees crossed into Serbia and settled beside the border fence. Head of the Serbia’s Crna Reka County Danilo Stefanović cooperated with the Ottomans in efforts to persuade the rebels to surrender peacefully and refugees to return, as instructed by his superior, Minister of interior Ilija Garašanin. Eventually, the revolt ended on April 27th, when a group of around two hundred partially armed Bulgarians faced the Ottoman squad beside the Serbian border, near the Veliki Izvor village. The rebels delivered Puja to the Ottomans and majority of them surrendered. Some fled to Serbia, but were extradited immediately.
The revolt was poorly organized and led, and therefore destined to fail. However, it clearly signified readiness of the Bulgarian people to rebel and fight for freedom. Therefore, Puja’s revolt should be considered as an indication of great 1850 revolt which erupted in the Vidin
‘’Demographic losses’’ caused by war(s) are defined as the sum of direct war losses (killed and deceased military personnel and civilians) and indirect war losses (decreased birth rate before, during and right after the war, deaths after the war caused by the war consequences like famine, diseases etc. and migrations caused by the war). Estimated demographic losses of the Serbs 1910-1921 are equal to the difference between the real number of Serbs recorded by the 1921 censuses and the number of Serbs whom would have lived on the stated territories in 1921, had the war(s) not taken place. Projected 1921 Serb population is calculated for each country/province separately by the mathematical method of exponential extrapolation. The calculation is founded on the assumption that the monthly exponential growth rate of the Serb population from the 1900-1910 period would have continued into the following decade, had there been no wars. The monthly growth rate of the Serb population is calculated and applied separately for each country/province according to the 1900 and 1910 censuses data. For comparison purposes, the same was done for non-Serb population (‘’others’’), where possible and sensible. Final results of the paper are presented in English in the summary.
Detailed comparative analysis has shown that Jovanovic used characteristic features about Serbia’s rulers’ personalities from Krstic’s Diary. Therefore they have become well known in Serbian history long before their original source was published. Majority of data that Jovanovic took from the Diary are about Milan Obrenovic; on the other hand, Krstic’s Diary was the least useful to the author for description of Alexandra Obrenovic. Jovanovic’s interpretations do not differ from the original source. Although usually indirect, pieces of information provided by Nikola Krstic are reliable, since they originate from primary sources. Therefore, Jovanovic’s writings about Obrenovic dynasty monarchs personalities based upon Krstic’s Diary remain trustworthy.
Having estimated the number of Serbs in referent years 1880, 1890, and 1900 in countries or provinces where censuses were not taken in these years, we were able to give estimates about total number of Serbs 1880-1910 and their distribution in all previously mentioned countries or regions, apart from USA and Canada. Total number of Serbs was estimated to 3323035 (46.3 % in Kingdom of Serbia) in 1880 and 5299819 (52.4 % in Kingdom of Serbia) in 1910. Yearly geometrical population growth rate of Serbs 1880-1910 was 1.57 %.
Paper also contains number and distribution of Serbs in major administrative districts in all countries or provinces in years 1880, 1890, 1900 and 1910.
Serbia, from 1834 until 2011. It is based on official data presented in published censuses, conducted throughout the period. Population of Aleksinac
increased from 890 inhabitants in 1834 to 16685 inhabitants in 2011. The
population growth was quite fast during the 1834–1874 period (4,25 % annual growth rate) and 1948–1971 period (3,1 % annual growth rate), while
a decrease of population was recorded between 2002 and 2011 (– 0,31 %
annual growth rate). Estimated demographic losses during the wartime periods were: 1,3 % 1874–1884 (Serbian–Turkish wars 1876 and 1877–1878),
42,2 % 1910–1921 (First Balkan war 1912–1913, Second Balkan war 1913,
First World War 1914–1918) and 6,2 % 1991–2002 (Yugoslavia breakup
wars 1991–1995 and NATO aggression against FR Yugoslavia 1999). Demographic losses occurred as the consequences of the Second World War cannot
be estimated, for the lack of relevant data. One household averaged around
6 members from 1834 to 1910 and around 3 members from 1948 to 2011.
Male–female ratio shifted from approximately 1:0,9 during the 1834–1900
period to 1:1, 1 during the 1961–2011 period. Age structure of the population
has changed significantly over time. A half of Aleksinac inhabitants were under 20 years of age in 1890 and over 40 years of age in 2011. Percentage of
literacy increased from 20,9 % in 1866 to 98,2 in 2011. Around 90% of the
population was of Serb ethnicity throughout the whole period. A third of the
population supported itself by agriculture, crafts and aggregated trade, public
and personal services respectively in 1866. Structure of the population by
occupation was very similar in 1890 and 1971. Approximately 45% of the
active working population was engaged in aggregated industry, crafts, mining
and construction sectors and approximately 10 % in aggregated trade and inn
keeping businesses; on the other hand, the share of famers decreased from
14,4 % in 1890 to 10,9% 1971, while the percentage of employees in public
services increased from 16, 6 % to 24,7% during the same period. In 2002,
the share of farmers was reduced to 3,3 %, 32,4 % of the active working population was engaged in aggregated industry, crafts, mining and construction
sectors and 17,5% in aggregated trade and inn keeping businesses, while the
percentage of public services employees increased to 32,2%.
Historical sources testifying about Avramović’s involvement with the preparation of the Serb uprising in 1840-1841, as well as with the banditry in the Kosovo region in 1842 are analyzed in detail. However, presented evidences remain inconclusive, so his role in the mentioned activities has yet to be confirmed or denied by new sources, should they appear. However, certain questions are raised and paths to future research are pointed to. Among these, a potential connection between Marko Avramović and Prince Nikola Vasojević deserves a special notice, for the latter is still a mysterious person, whose role in the Serb history might be more significant than suspected so far.
the Ottoman Empire. It examines the notion of Serbia's citizenship, as well as rules and regulations concerning it, with special focus on legal procedures and usual practice regarding naturalization. The paper also focuses on relation between Serbia's citizenship and Ottoman subjecthood. It is based predominantly on published and archival sources of Serbian origin.
in March and April of 1850. The background and role of Jovan Teodorović, organizer and
planner of the insurgency, are explained, as well as his arrest by the Serbian authorities.
Teodorović’s detailed war plan and list of his fellow conspirators are presented. It is shown
that preparations for the uprising continued after his removal, led by village chieftains from the
Vidin, Belogradčik and Lom kazas and monks of the Rakovica Monastery. Serbian policy towards
the insurgency is discussed and certain indications about possible Russian involvement
are stated. The paper is based on previously unused documents of Serbian origin.
Puja’s revolt broke out on April 19th 1849 in the Bojnica village. A small skirmish between Bulgarian peasants and few Ottoman guards occurred, which left two Bulgarians dead and three wounded. That was the only armed conflict during the revolt. Peasants from at least two neighboring villages also took up arms and went close to Vidin, apparently in order to seize it. The Ottoman authorities from Vidin were promptly informed about the event, but reacted wisely. A cavalry squadron was send first to the rebels to try to appease them and then into other villages to prevent the revolt from spreading. In fear from retaliation, few hundred refugees crossed into Serbia and settled beside the border fence. Head of the Serbia’s Crna Reka County Danilo Stefanović cooperated with the Ottomans in efforts to persuade the rebels to surrender peacefully and refugees to return, as instructed by his superior, Minister of interior Ilija Garašanin. Eventually, the revolt ended on April 27th, when a group of around two hundred partially armed Bulgarians faced the Ottoman squad beside the Serbian border, near the Veliki Izvor village. The rebels delivered Puja to the Ottomans and majority of them surrendered. Some fled to Serbia, but were extradited immediately.
The revolt was poorly organized and led, and therefore destined to fail. However, it clearly signified readiness of the Bulgarian people to rebel and fight for freedom. Therefore, Puja’s revolt should be considered as an indication of great 1850 revolt which erupted in the Vidin
‘’Demographic losses’’ caused by war(s) are defined as the sum of direct war losses (killed and deceased military personnel and civilians) and indirect war losses (decreased birth rate before, during and right after the war, deaths after the war caused by the war consequences like famine, diseases etc. and migrations caused by the war). Estimated demographic losses of the Serbs 1910-1921 are equal to the difference between the real number of Serbs recorded by the 1921 censuses and the number of Serbs whom would have lived on the stated territories in 1921, had the war(s) not taken place. Projected 1921 Serb population is calculated for each country/province separately by the mathematical method of exponential extrapolation. The calculation is founded on the assumption that the monthly exponential growth rate of the Serb population from the 1900-1910 period would have continued into the following decade, had there been no wars. The monthly growth rate of the Serb population is calculated and applied separately for each country/province according to the 1900 and 1910 censuses data. For comparison purposes, the same was done for non-Serb population (‘’others’’), where possible and sensible. Final results of the paper are presented in English in the summary.
Detailed comparative analysis has shown that Jovanovic used characteristic features about Serbia’s rulers’ personalities from Krstic’s Diary. Therefore they have become well known in Serbian history long before their original source was published. Majority of data that Jovanovic took from the Diary are about Milan Obrenovic; on the other hand, Krstic’s Diary was the least useful to the author for description of Alexandra Obrenovic. Jovanovic’s interpretations do not differ from the original source. Although usually indirect, pieces of information provided by Nikola Krstic are reliable, since they originate from primary sources. Therefore, Jovanovic’s writings about Obrenovic dynasty monarchs personalities based upon Krstic’s Diary remain trustworthy.
Having estimated the number of Serbs in referent years 1880, 1890, and 1900 in countries or provinces where censuses were not taken in these years, we were able to give estimates about total number of Serbs 1880-1910 and their distribution in all previously mentioned countries or regions, apart from USA and Canada. Total number of Serbs was estimated to 3323035 (46.3 % in Kingdom of Serbia) in 1880 and 5299819 (52.4 % in Kingdom of Serbia) in 1910. Yearly geometrical population growth rate of Serbs 1880-1910 was 1.57 %.
Paper also contains number and distribution of Serbs in major administrative districts in all countries or provinces in years 1880, 1890, 1900 and 1910.