ࡱ> )` bjbj .{{=d%ZZZx@ @ @  8F$j,B&">>>>>>>$>ChE?@ 999?@ @ A:::9@ @ >:9>::@ @ : pSfm9F:>A0B:tF :vtF::JtF@ : ':m.3??:B9999d T t J ~tJ< @ @ @  The Ottomans and Croatia at the End of the Middle Ages (1458-1526) Borislav GRGIN Abstract In the collective imaginary of the Croats the notion antemurale christianitatis is very much present up until today. This is certainly the consequence of centuries-long warfare on the Hungarian, Habsburg and Venetian borders with the Ottoman Empire, from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century. The so much praised and proudly emphasized above-mentioned notion during this period was in fact a gloomy and harsh reality for the Croatian lands and people, coupled with all possible kinds of existential threats. The price paid for all this was very high, both in political, as well as in economic and demographic terms. Key words: Ottomans, Croatia, Late Middle Ages, antemurale Christianitatis In the collective imaginary of the Croats the notion antemurale christianitatis (Croatian Predzie kraanstva) is very much present up until today. This notion has its long history in medieval Christendom. The first one who used it was the most important theologian and church leader of the twelfth century, Bernard of Clairvaux, referring to the French garrison in Edessa defending it from the Muslim Seljuks. Needless to say, this metaphor had its significance primarily in the context of creating a strict and absolute delimitation towards the unwanted adversary. The ones who defend this wall are therefore sacrificing themselves for the common Christian cause, emulating the role of Christ who sacrificed himself for others, for the whole humanity. Medieval sources, both in Croatia and elsewhere, contain many similar metaphors to that of antemurale, such as propugnaculum, scutum, clypeus, murus, munimentum, or praesidium. On the other hand, the delimitation of Christendom towards the east started to be ever more present in the collective imaginary of European medieval elites from the 13th century onwards, from Pope Inocent III (1198-1216) who was the first who frequently mentioned the notions terrae Christianorum and fines Christianitatis. During the three centuries that followed these notions became ever more defined. The usage of the antemurale metaphor during the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries in Croatian sources had a twofold significance. It could be used to emphasize either religious or cultural differences, or both at the same time. This was usually coupled with warnings to Croatias western neighbors, i.e. Italian and Austrian states and provinces, that they will certainly share the unfortunate fate of the Croatian lands if they do not assist in the common anti-Ottoman defense. The frequent usage of the antemurale metaphor (and later myth) until today is certainly the consequence of centuries-long warfare on the Hungarian, Polish, Habsburg and Venetian borders with the Ottoman Empire, from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century. This motif was mostly spread in Croatia, Hungary and Poland, where essentially the same terminology was used. Moreover, the Croatian and Hungarian nobility from the fifteenth until the nineteenth century used the antemurale slogan as a very important element of their ideological and political unity. Honorary and flattering titles such as antemurale, primarily constructed by the papal curia and formulated in various above-mentioned variants, were frequently used in papal correspondence with different Christian rulers and peoples on the Ottoman borders during the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries - from the Baltic to the Black Sea and the Adriatic Sea. It is thus no wonder that all present-day nations in the region (Poles, Hungarians, Croats, Serbs, and Romanians alike) later constructed as part of their self-image that they were the sole or at least the most important defenders against the Ottomans, who saved Christian Europe from the hoofs of the Turkish horses. Hungary was called for the first time antemurale by Enea Silvio Piccolomini (1405-1464), later Pope Pius II, in 1440. Italian humanist Francesco Filelfo (1398-1481) used the term Christiane Republicae propugnaculum for Poland in 1444 for the first time, in connection with the Battle of Varna. In Serbia, the antemurale motif and myth is primarily associated with the Battle of Kosovo, in 1389, and in Romania with the successes of the Moldavian voievod Stephen the Great (1457-1504) in his anti-Ottoman struggle. In todays Croatia, the role of this region as a forefront of western Christianity started to be first mentioned in connection with the Bosnian heretics, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as well as in connection with the Mongol invasion in 1241/1242. Until the second half of the fifteenth century the Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa), located on the border of the Orthodox and later Muslim world, developed a similar motif in its political propaganda and diplomatic efforts. According to Ivo }ani, from the fifteenth century onwards the antemurale motif started to be ever more present in medieval Croatian lands on three levels. On the level of the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom one encounters explicit references to medieval Slavonia as a "shield of Hungary" by King WBadysBaw II Jagiello, in 1496, and by Maximilian of Habsburg, in 1498. The Croatian lands were at the same time a part of the larger area of East Central and South East Europe, the actual forefront of Christendom both in political and spiritual terms. And thirdly, Croatian magnates, prelates and military commanders started to identify themselves ever more, personally and as elite groups, as an antemurale Christianitatis. According to Ivan Jurkovi, who thoroughly researched the migrations and mobility of the Croatian magnates, nobles and population in the analyzed period, the Croatian estates started to use the forefront metaphor for themselves for the first time in their letter to Maximilian of Habsburg, after the disastrous Battle of Krbava Field in 1493. The first explicit mention of it Jurkovi dates to September 1522, at the Reichstag in Nuremberg, when Count Bernardin Frankapan petitioned for help, reminding his hosts that "Croatia is a shield of Christianity" (Croatiam ipsam christianorum scutum). A year later, in 1523, Bernardins son Count Krsto in his letter to Pope Hadrian VI emphasized that Croatia is a murus ante murale of Christianity, particularly of Carinthia, Carniola, Istria, Friuli and Italy. At this point, one should confront the above-mentioned imagery and stereotypes with the reality of Croatian-Ottoman relations in the closing part of the Middle Ages, starting with the beginning of King Matthias Corvinuss rule in the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom, in 1458, and ending with the Battle of Mohcs, in 1526. First of all, one should tackle the political and military impact of the Ottomans on Croatia. One has to mention that the contemporary Republic of Croatia comprises territories of the late medieval kingdoms of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia, as well as parts of late medieval Hungary, Habsburg and Venetian Istria, and the territory of the former Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa). This analysis will focus on the late medieval kingdoms of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia, the backbone of todays Croatia. If one compares the situation at the beginning and at the end of the period analyzed, there is an easily observable change on the map. In the beginning the Ottomans did not rule over any part of the three mentioned kingdoms. However, by 1526 they already had conquered large parts of late medieval Croatia and significantly curtailed the districts of several Dalmatian communes. The territorial conquests happened mainly during the last decade and a half, from 1512 to 1526, during the reigns of sultans Selim I and Suleiman the Magnificent. If one examines the events in greater detail, the usual pattern of Ottoman strategy in conquest and the tactics used are clearly visible. Firstly, there were frequent raids of Ottoman auxiliary troops, in pursuit of booty and slaves, coupled with burning to the ground of the enemys fields and their overall infrastructure. These repeated devastations significantly managed to weaken the economic, demographic and military potential of the adversary. The final phase always engaged huge Ottoman armies of cavalry and infantry, with the aim to finally conquer already completely prepared territory. In the Croatian case it took several decades for the Ottomans to reach that final stage. One can distinguish several important turning points during that period. In 1463 the Ottomans conquered medieval Bosnia. King Matthias responded with a counteroffensive and managed to re-conquer parts of Bosnia (the later banats of Jajce and Srebrenik), consolidating, expanding and strengthening the defensive system of fortresses on the kingdoms southern borders, which King Sigismund had already started to build in the first half of the fifteenth century. Despite all of its weaknesses, this defensive system for the most part successfully performed its function until 1512. Despite this, from 1463 the central parts of medieval Croatia and the hinterland of Dalmatian towns became almost completely exposed, due to the lack of natural obstacles (great rivers and the like) between Bosnia and Croatia. The Ottoman raiders regularly plundered those regions almost every spring and summer from 1465 until the end of the 1470s, during the Hungarian and Venetian war with the Ottomans (1463-1479). After the truce of 1483, the next decade offered some relief to the Croatian defenders. However, by conquering the remains of Herzegovina, in 1482, the Ottomans put strong pressure on the Croatian coastal areas from Split to the mouth of the Neretva River. They even managed to conquer and hold parts of this territory until the end of the fifteenth century. The next great blow came in September 1493. In the ill-advised and badly planned attempt to block the return to Bosnia of the huge Ottoman army that plundered Austrian and present day Slovenian lands, which was heavily loaded with booty and slaves, the Croatian noble army led by ban (viceroy) Emerik Deren in (Derencsnyi Imre) suffered a crushing defeat at the Krbava (Corbavia) Field. The worst thing for Croatia was that the backbone of its noble army had been broken and many nobles, both lesser ones as well as the magnates, were killed, executed after the battle, or taken into slavery. Although this heavy defeat did not result in any additional Ottoman campaign, the devastating consequences for Croatia were immediately felt. Contemporary sources agree that the defeat at Krbava Field had huge consequences for the nobility in medieval Croatia, and that nearly every noble household lost at least one member. Coupled with this was the widespread sense of despair and fear. Moreover, Croatian nobles gradually started from then onwards to loose faith in the help offered by their king and the central authorities, although King WBadysBaw II Jagiello did what he could objectively do in the given circumstances. This in turn resulted with the fact that the leading noble circles started to try to find alternative solutions. They mainly requested help and protection from the Habsburgs or from the Venetians. Such attempts were becoming ever more frequent as time went by. By the end of the period in question the leading magnates and even some of the bans were practically Habsburg men or Venetian condottieri (for example, ban Ivan Karlovi). After 1526, new political solutions were therefore prepared for quite some time in advance among the Croatian political elites of the time and did not come as a surprise. From 1493 to 1512, the Croatian lands did not witness major wars or attacks from the Ottomans, with the exception of the Venetian-Ottoman war from 1499 to 1502, which was localized in the hinterlands of Dalmatian towns (the main war having been fought in modern day Greece). The districts of Dalmatian towns, however, suffered devastation, particularly the areas of Zadar (Zara), ibenik (Sebenico) and Split (Spalato). During this war the Ottomans managed to conquer the coastal town of Makarska, south of Split, with its surroundings. They also approached by the sea near the town of Trogir (Tra) and conquered parts of `ibenik and Trogir districts also. Although King WBadysBaw II and his kingdom remained neutral in the war and the Ottoman higher authorities repeatedly instructed their military commanders not to plunder the royal territory of medieval Croatia, such examples however occur in the sources. Everything turned for the worse following Sultan Selim I ascension in 1512. The Ottoman authorities judged the situation on the Croatian side of the frontier to have become ready for the final blow - territorial conquest. The precondition for this was the successful conquest of the banate of Srebrenik, in 1512. Already in 1513 the Ottomans managed to conquer several Croatian fortresses in the hinterland of Split. In 1514 they conquered the most important Croatian fortresses in the hinterland of Zadar. The second turning point was Sultan Suleimans successful assault on Belgrade, in 1521. During 1522, 1523 and 1524 the Ottoman troops conquered the most important remaining towns and fortresses in medieval Croatia [Knin (Tinin), Skradin (Scardona), Ostrovica and Sinj). The fortress of Klis, in the immediate vicinity of Split, remained the last southern Croatian fortress that resisted the Ottoman assault in 1524. The core of early medieval Croatia south of the Velebit Mountain fell almost entirely into Ottoman hands. On their way from Belgrade before the Battle of Mohcs, in 1526, the Ottomans conquered parts of southern Hungary which are today located in eastern Croatia, namely the region of Srijem (Szerm) with its important center in Ilok (jlak), and the town of Osijek (Essek). Six decades of more or less intensive warfare on the Croatian-Ottoman border had serious economic and demographic consequences for Croatia. The Ottomans inflicted heavy blows due to their strategy and tactics of burning everything down to the ground, because of the dominantly agrarian economy in the late medieval Croatian lands. This was also true for the Dalmatian communes with their relatively narrow districts, the exception being Zadar. Throughout the Middle Ages this fact made the importing of grain and other agrarian products necessary for their very survival. As those districts shrank in size due to the Ottoman attacks and conquests, the problem of supply was becoming ever more acute. Consequently, throughout the sixteenth century Dalmatian towns were becoming ever more dependent on Venice for their supplies, even for the most basic commodities. On the other hand, the territory of medieval Croatia was particularly hard hit in the period analyzed. The destruction of crops, burning, pillaging and looting meant that for the serfs and free peasants in particular, but also for the lesser and the middle nobles, survival in their old seats became almost impossible. Therefore, migrations towards safe havens started after the fall of Bosnia in 1463, and intensified following the Battle of Krbava in 1493. It reached even greater proportions from 1512 onwards. The beginnings of this process are visible from the extant sources, for instance the urbarium of the Modru manor in central Croatia, written down in 1486. According to it, many of the previously inhabited peasant plots were already abandoned. The demographic consequences of migrations, which were directed towards medieval Slavonia, Slovenian and Austrian lands, Hungary, todays Slovakia and Italy, were huge. Recent research of Croatian historians, economists and historical demographers came to the conclusion that the Croatian populations percentage as part of the overall world population was halved during the last five centuries. The Ottoman period of Croatian history undoubtedly contributed to this to a great extent. Late medieval Slavonia, together with the adjacent parts of southern Hungary which are today in Croatia, was a socially and economically more developed area in comparison to medieval Croatia. It had more advanced agriculture, a greater number of important urban centers, as well as more numerous and flourishing oppida (boroughs). The process of commutation of dues in labor and kind to monetary payments gained significant momentum throughout the fifteenth century. The economic and demographic consequences of Ottoman attacks and raids were not as heavy as in the south, at least until the end of the period in question. However, the same devastation occurred in the following decades of the sixteenth century, when exactly this area became the primary target of destruction and territorial conquest, coupled with similar consequences as several decades earlier in Dalmatia and Croatia. From the second half of the fifteenth century, due to an ever more important Ottoman presence in and around the Croatian medieval lands, the Ottoman motif became frequent not only in official documents, but also in Croatian literature and other narrative sources of that time. The heathen from the East became thus one of the dominant topics of Croatian literature throughout this and the following period. The earliest important text vividly describing the devastating consequences of early Ottoman attacks was written by a ibenik noble citizen Juraj `i~gori. One of his best known poems Elegia de Sibenicensis agri vastatione, written in 1477, probably describes, according to Tomislav Raukar, the events connected with the Ottoman raids in the Dalmatian hinterland in 1468-1469. The central part of the poem is the most vivid and the most interesting one from a historical point of view. It clearly reveals the importance of the Ottoman cavalry in the attacks, near complete mobilization of the defending male inhabitants in the region, as well as Ottoman tactics of razing everything to the ground, coupled with all kinds of atrocities imaginable. The Elegia is also one of the most important documents of literary representation of the Ottomans in Croatian literary culture of the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period. It takes place at the very beginning of constructing a Croatian version of the grand European anti-Ottoman narrative. Moreover, it includes almost all important stereotypical Christian attributes ascribed to the Ottomans until the seventeenth century, such as drinking, homosexuality, ferociousness and cruelty, but also skillful military campaigns and the conquest of Greece. One of the charters written down in the Zagreb cathedral chapter in January 1478, although not in literary form, suggests an essentially similar picture regarding the Ottoman incursions in medieval Slavonia at approximately the same period. In 1477, the same year in which `i~gori s incunabula appeared, Koriolan Cipiko from Trogir published his memoirs (Petri Mocenici imperatoris gesta) about the recent Ottoman-Venetian War (14701474). Texts of a similar kind written in medieval Croatia are rarer, at least ones dating from the second half of the fifteenth century. The most important and well known are surely the notes of a certain priest Martinac, written in 1493, immediately following the Battle of Krbava Field. He managed to briefly describe all the hardships that the medieval Croatian lands had to endure, due to the fact that they were on the frontline of anti-Ottoman defense. Martinac, like `i~gori earlier, described the gloomy reality. It was marked with looting, arson,  sacrileges of all kinds , as well as the dragging of young people, women and children into slavery. In the first half of the sixteenth century all this led to a development of a whole new genre in late medieval Croatian literature, namely the so called Speeches against the Turks. They were written down after being read in front of the high dignitaries in Europe, such as the popes, members of the papal curia, Reichstag of the Holy Roman Empire, etc. The authors were various Croatian magnates and prelates, as well as Renaissance writers from the Dalmatian towns. One might conclude that the so much praised and proudly emphasized notion antemurale Christianitatis during the period analyzed was in fact a gloomy and harsh reality for the Croatian lands and people, coupled with all possible kinds of existential threats, to which Croatian societies only partly and with limited success managed to respond. It is, however, true that in the long run the core of the Croatian lands and people remained preserved and the Croats later partly managed to recover and retake some of their ancestral lands. However, the price paid for all this was very high, both in political, as well as in economic and demographic terms. The Croatian lands shared the fate of other border societies on the outer edges of the great empires. Bibliography Bernardin Frankapan Modruki. Oratio pro Croatia/ Govor za Hrvatsku (1522.). Ed. by Ivan Jurkovi and Violeta Moretti, Katedra akavskog sabora Modruae, Modrua 2010. Coriolani Cepionis dalmatae Petri Mocenici Imperatoris gesta, Bernhard Maler, Erhard Ratdolt and Peter Lslein, Venice 1477. Cusin, Fabio, Il confine orientale d Italia nella politica europea del XIV e XV secolo, 2nd ed., Edizioni Lint, Trieste 1977. Davies, Norman. "Polish National Mythologies" in Myths & Nationhood, ed. by Geoffrey Hosking and George Schpflin, Hurst & Co., London 1997. Duki, Davor. Sultanova djeca. Predod~be Turaka u hrvatskoj knji~evnosti ranog novovjekovlja, Thema i.d., Zadar 2004. Duki, Davor  Grgin, Borislav,  Juraj `i~gori and the Ottomans: the Image of the Other in a Late Medieval Dalmatian Commune, Association Internationale d'tudes du Sud-Est Europen  Revue, Vols. 40-44 (2010-2014), Bucarest 2014, pp. 97-112. Gestrin, Ferdo,  Migracije iz Dalmacije u Marke u XV. i XVI. stoljeu , Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1977, pp. 395-404. Gligo, Vedran (Ed.), Govori protiv Turaka, Logos, Split 1983. Grgin, Borislav, Po eci rasapa. Kralj Matijaa Korvin i srednjovjekovna Hrvatska, Ibis grafika, Zagreb 2002. Hrabak, Bogumil,  Turske provale i osvajanja na podru ju danaanje severne Dalmacije do sredine XVI stolea , Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest, Vol. 19, 1986, pp. 69-100. Jurkovi, Ivan, "Turska opasnost i hrvatski velikaai - knez Bernardin Frankopan i njegovo doba," Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i druatvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, Vol. 17, 2000, pp. 61-83. Kekez, Hrvoje,  Bernardin Frankapan i Krbavska bitka: je li spasio sebe i malobrojne ili je pobjegao iz boja? , Modruaki zbornik, Vol. 3, 2009, pp. 65-101. Klai, Vjekoslav, Kr ki knezovi Frankapani. Od najstarijih vremena do gubitka otoka Krka, Matica hrvatska, Zagreb 1901. Klai, Vjekoslav, Povijest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svraetka XIX stoljea, Vol. 4, Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb 1980. Knoll, Paul W.  Poland as "Antemurale Christianitatis" in the Late Middle Ages. , The Catholic Historical Review , Vol. 60, No. 3, 1974, pp. 381  401. Kun evi, Lovro, "The Rhetoric of the Frontier of Christendom in the Diplomacy of Renaissance Ragusa (Dubrovnik)", Dubrovnik Annals, Vol. 17, 2013, pp. 37-68. Ku~i, Kreaimir,  Bitka Hrvata- bitka na Krbavskom polju 1493. godine , Historijski zbornik Vol. 67, No. 1, 2014, pp. 11-63. Lopaai, Radoslav, Hrvatski urbari. Urbaria lingua Croatica conscripta, Monumenta historico-iuridica Slavorum meridionalium, Vol. 5, 1894. Ljubi, `ime, Listine o odnoaajih Ju~noga Slavenstva i Mleta ke Republike, Vol. 10, Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum meridionalium, Vol. 21, Academia scientiarum et artium Slavorum meridionalium, Zagrabiae 1891. Mesi, Matija, Hrvati na izmaku srednjega vijeka. Izabrane rasprave, Damir Karbi (Ed.)., HYPERLINK "http://katalog.kgz.hr/pagesResults/rezultati.aspx?&searchById=-1&spid0=1&spv0=&fid0=4&fv0=Hrvatski+institut+za+povijest+-+Odjel+za+povijest+Slavonije%2c+Srijema+i+Baranje" Hrvatski institut za povijest - Odjel za povijest Slavonije, Srijema i Baranje - Matica hrvatska Slavonski Brod  Povijesni arhiv Slavonski Brod, Slavonski Brod 1996. Nagy, Ivn  Nyry, Albert, Magyar diplomacziai emlkek. Mtys kirly korbl 1458-1490, Vol. 2, A. M. Tud. Akadmia KQnyvkiad-Hivatalban, Budapest 1877. Panteli, Marija  Nazor, Anica (Eds.), II. Novljanski brevijar: hrvatskoglagoljski rukopis iz 1495., Staroslavenski institut Svetozar Rittig - Turistkomerc, Zagreb 1977. Pavli evi, Dragutin (Ed.), Krbavska bitka i nCVWYbc   U o z  f h :;48BXls޸`K)jhwhw0JCJUaJmH sH %hwhwB*CJaJmH phsH  hwhwCJPJaJmH sH #hwhw5CJPJaJmH sH #hwhw6CJPJaJmH sH hwhw6CJaJmH sH hwhwCJaJmH sH ,jhwhw0J5CJUaJmH sH hwhw5CJaJmH sH "hwhw56CJaJmH sH CDXYbc  '.f4t?_ILQ $`a$gd@ $`a$gd>W $`a$gdw  ^ `gdw`gdw $`a$gdw $`a$gdwxT  lq-.!FK{KnW_|1!K!L!M!z$|$&:&;&&&'''F'''''((񽮟hwh_>$CJaJmH sH hwh.CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH )jhwhw0JCJUaJmH sH hwhw6CJaJmH sH hwhwCJaJmH sH ;(.(3(C(H(M(N(n((((((((((()))))))))*!*B*C****ĩ|Ě|m^m|mhwh#OCJaJmH sH hwh*CJaJmH sH hwh3aCJaJmH sH hwh-CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwhICJaJmH sH hvCCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwh.CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH !****%+,+.+0+C+G+Q+V+`+n+++++++++++ ,,A,`,b,e,u,|,,,,,,,,,,,,-@-ĵ⦵ĦĦĦӈӈӗӗӈyhwh{LCJaJmH sH hwh*!CJaJmH sH hwhv0LCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwh)[CJaJmH sH hwh-CJaJmH sH hwh3aCJaJmH sH hwh*CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH ,@-`-o-r-v------------..$.%.&.'.5.D.Y.w..........//:/H///////_00ĵĦĦ◈ĈӈyĈĈhwhCJaJmH sH hwh[>*CJaJmH sH hwh_>$CJaJmH sH hwh)[CJaJmH sH hwhv0LCJaJmH sH hwh3aCJaJmH sH hwh{LCJaJmH sH hwh*!CJaJmH sH hwh6CJaJmH sH .00001)1.1M1R1a1e1g1k11 222:2=222222233'3.3/333>3B3K3T3U33333334⯾⠯񯾯͑sssshwhCJaJmH sH hwhM}CJaJmH sH hwhICJaJmH sH hwhY}qCJaJmH sH hwh2CJaJmH sH hwh3aCJaJmH sH )jhwh0JCJUaJmH sH hwh[>*CJaJmH sH hwh#OCJaJmH sH *44%4=4B4e4f444444444455-55595d5~556 66,6.6l6t66666ӵⵦⵗ∵xhxhYhwhb"CJaJmH sH hwhY}q6CJaJmH sH hwh{L6CJaJmH sH hwhmCJaJmH sH hwh#OCJaJmH sH hwhY}qCJaJmH sH hwh{LCJaJmH sH hwhSToCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwh3aCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH "66677074767@7N777777788L8N8]8e8888888889 9&9̮̟̽̽ې۽۽rrrcTrhwhb.CJaJmH sH hwh;CJaJmH sH hwhbCJaJmH sH hwh}_CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwhmCJaJmH sH hwh3aCJaJmH sH hwhY}qCJaJmH sH hwhb"CJaJmH sH )jhwh0JCJUaJmH sH  &9+909<9E9_9e9f9g9u9y9999999:,:4:6:>:p:::;&;*;;;;;;<<Z<g<l<<ĵĠӑĂđđĵđssdhwh{CJaJmH sH hwh?CJaJmH sH hwh;CJaJmH sH hwhb.CJaJmH sH )jhwh0JCJUaJmH sH hwhp(CJaJmH sH hwhbCJaJmH sH hwh3aCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwhQCJaJmH sH &<<< ==#=2=6=>6>d>>>>?0?t?v???????????@@L@P@Y@Z@p@q@@ӴӥӖӴӴӴӇӇӴxixhwhCJaJmH sH hwhSToCJaJmH sH hwh;CJaJmH sH hwh CJaJmH sH hwhp(CJaJmH sH hwhykFCJaJmH sH hwhI6CJaJmH sH hwhICJaJmH sH hwh3aCJaJmH sH hwh |CJaJmH sH $@@@@@@@@@AAAAABBBBBBBBCCCC,DID]DdDkDtDDDDDӵӵĂsddhwhk0CJaJmH sH hwh:]FCJaJmH sH hwhp(CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH )jhwh0JCJUaJmH sH hwhSToCJaJmH sH hwh;CJaJmH sH hwhykFCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwhaCJaJmH sH #DDDDDDDDEE'E(E)E>EBEVE^EcFjFuFF#G(G4GH@HNH]HjHHHHHHHHӵӗӦӇӇӦӦӦӦxxĦĵĵhwh CJaJmH sH hwh6CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwh:]FCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwhp(CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwhykFCJaJmH sH hwh=]CJaJmH sH /HHHHHHH IIII&I,I6I;I>IVI[I]I^I_IIIIIJ J񟐁rcTEhwhCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwh2"BCJaJmH sH hwhiCJaJmH sH hwhXCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH )jhwh0JCJUaJmH sH hwh CJaJmH sH hwhykFCJaJmH sH hwh:]F6CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwh:]FCJaJmH sH  JJJJtJ}JJJJJJJJJJJJKKKKK6K:K@KIKOKRKSKVKxKKKKKKӵ񵗈y񦗦jjhwhBxCJaJmH sH hwh CJaJmH sH hwhATCJaJmH sH hwhykFCJaJmH sH hwh kCJaJmH sH hwh2"BCJaJmH sH hwhk&<CJaJmH sH hwhc\CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH #KKKKKKLTLXLhLrLLLLLLLLLLM MMM%M'MTMfMMMMMӵӦӗ∗yjyjy[hwhA{CJaJmH sH hwh2"BCJaJmH sH hwhCCJaJmH sH hwhk&<CJaJmH sH hwhPCJaJmH sH hwh<CJaJmH sH hwh CJaJmH sH hwhATCJaJmH sH hwhBxCJaJmH sH hwhykFCJaJmH sH hwh^#CJaJmH sH MMMMMM NNSNVNWNcNlNNNNNNNNNNNNNO O񵦵sdUdEhwhP6CJaJmH sH hwh|CJaJmH sH hwhPCJaJmH sH )jhwhK40JCJUaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwh1lCJaJmH sH hwhA{CJaJmH sH hwh^#CJaJmH sH hwh2"BCJaJmH sH hwhCCJaJmH sH hwh0$vCJaJmH sH hwh3CJaJmH sH  O^O_OoOpOOOOPPPPPPPPQ$Q*Q9QCQDQZQlQwQxQQQQQQQ RR񾯠ssssssdUUhwh{<CJaJmH sH hwhXCJaJmH sH hwh CJaJmH sH hwhp(CJaJmH sH hwh2uCJaJmH sH hwhTCJaJmH sH hwh^#CJaJmH sH hwhA{CJaJmH sH hwh|CJaJmH sH )jhwhK40JCJUaJmH sH hwhPCJaJmH sH !R;RJRLRfRtRRRRRRRRS!S"S*S4S:S;SpSsSSSSSSSSST TT,T~TTTTTTTTĵĦӗĦxiӦӦxӦixxihwhu-ACJaJmH sH hwh3CJaJmH sH hwh5_6CJaJmH sH hwh|CJaJmH sH hwh5_CJaJmH sH hwh CJaJmH sH hwhe:CJaJmH sH hwhA{CJaJmH sH hwhp(CJaJmH sH hwh{<CJaJmH sH )TUUNUQUUUU-VVVVWWW#W8X>X@XHXbXXYYYY&ZӵyĈyyĈiTEhwhCJaJmH sH )jhwhK40JCJUaJmH sH hwhLp6CJaJmH sH hwh>CJaJmH sH hwhLpCJaJmH sH hwhp(CJaJmH sH hwhdXCJaJmH sH hwhZqCJaJmH sH hwhA{CJaJmH sH hwhb9CJaJmH sH hwhR,oCJaJmH sH hwh5_CJaJmH sH QU]ehhhhjklmnpq$rrZtBvzwjx`gdtH`gd@`gdC $`a$gdKF$7$8$H$`a$gdKF $`a$gd@&Z*Z%[&[d[e[f[j[p[H\J\\]T]\]]]e]x]]]]]]]]];񾍾~o`O`O hwhR,oCJPJaJmH sH hwhR,oCJaJmH sH hwheBCJaJmH sH hwh CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH "hwh%6CJ]aJmH sH hwh%CJ\aJmH sH hwh%CJaJmH sH )jhwhK40JCJUaJmH sH hwhLpCJaJmH sH hwhA{CJaJmH sH ]]]]^^^_`E`F`G`H`````````aaaaϙyhyyWyWyF hwh[CJPJaJmH sH  hwheBCJPJaJmH sH  hwhCJPJaJmH sH  hwhMLICJPJaJmH sH hwhMLICJaJmH sH )jhwhK40JCJUaJmH sH "hwh%6CJ]aJmH sH hwh%CJaJmH sH hwhR,oCJaJmH sH  hwhR,oCJPJaJmH sH  hwh"CJPJaJmH sH aaa=aFaKaUa[aaabacaraaaaaaJbZbbbbbcc,c4crctccc!d"dͼͼͼ͔ͥͼ͔ͅttͼͅcR hwhoCJPJaJmH sH  hwhaBCJPJaJmH sH  hwh[CJPJaJmH sH hwhMLICJaJmH sH  hwh"CJPJaJmH sH -jhwhK40JCJPJUaJmH sH  hwheBCJPJaJmH sH  hwhMLICJPJaJmH sH  hwh[CJPJaJmH sH  hwhCJPJaJmH sH  "dmdddddddddddd eeeeJeQeeeeeeeff,f7f8f:fނp_N hwheBCJPJaJmH sH  hwh[CJPJaJmH sH #hwh^lr6CJPJaJmH sH  hwhuoCJPJaJmH sH #hwho6CJPJaJmH sH  hwh4W,CJPJaJmH sH  hwh^lrCJPJaJmH sH -jhwhK40JCJPJUaJmH sH  hwhK4CJPJaJmH sH  hwhoCJPJaJmH sH :fff9g=gngxgggggggg8hzzt{{{\||||R}V}߾paQaB2Bhwhs6CJaJmH sH hwhsCJaJmH sH hwh~6CJaJmH sH hwh~CJaJmH sH hwhVj6CJaJmH sH hwhVjCJaJmH sH hwh6CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH hwhj6CJaJmH sH hwhjCJaJmH sH "hwhj6CJ]aJmH sH hwhjCJ]aJmH sH hwh~CJ]aJmH sH jx^yz{|} J >txpFgdwgdw`gdD,`gd)`gd@`gdVj`gdV}}}}}n~~~DFHVX fSS4S=hwhz0J>*B*CJaJfHmH phq sH %jhwhzCJUaJmH sH 1hwhz0JCJaJfHmH q sH hwhz6CJaJmH sH hwhzCJaJmH sH hwhzCJ]aJmH sH "hwhQf6CJ]aJmH sH hwhQfCJ]aJmH sH hwhsCJ]aJmH sH hwhsCJaJmH sH hwhs6CJaJmH sH  HH`b܅" 0Z>!ҳҤssdTdEhwh^CJaJmH sH hwhb6CJaJmH sH hwhbCJaJmH sH hwh6CJaJmH sH hwhCJaJmH sH Uhwhj6CJaJmH sH hwhjCJaJmH sH hwh CJaJmH sH hwh>C 6CJaJmH sH hwh>C CJaJmH sH hwh w6CJaJmH sH hwh wCJaJmH sH jezine posljedice, Hrvatska matica iseljenika  Zavod za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta Sveu iliata u Zagrebu, Zagreb 1997. Raukar, Tomislav, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje: prostor, ljudi, ideje, `kolska knjiga, Zagreb 1997. Raukar, Tomislav  Petricioli, Ivo  `velec, Franjo  Peri i, `ime, Zadar pod mleta kom upravom 1409-1797, Proalost Zadra, Vol. III, Narodni list  Filozofski fakultet, Zadar 1987. Stipeti, Vladimir,  Stanovniatvo i bruto domai proizvod Hrvatske (1500.  1913.) u kontekstu najnovijeg rada Angusa Maddisona, Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, Vol. 41, 2003, pp. 91 - 156. Szakly, Ferenc, The Hungarian-Croatian Border Defense System and its Collapse in: War and Society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Hungary (War and Society in Eastern Central Europe, Vol. 3), Jnos M. Bak and Bla K. Kirly (Eds.), Brooklyn College Press, Brooklyn 1982, pp. 141-158. }ani, Ivo, "Simboli ki identitet Hrvatske u trokutu raskri~je-prezie-most." in Historijski mitovi na Balkanu, ed. by Husnija Kamberovi, Institut za istoriju, Sarajevo 2003, pp.161-203.  Professor, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of History, e-mail: bgrgin@ffzg.hr  Ivo }ani, "Simboli ki identitet Hrvatske u trokutu raskri~je-prezie-most" in Historijski mitovi na Balkanu, ed. by Husnija Kamberovi, Institut za istoriju, Sarajevo 2003, pp. 163-164.  Paul W. Knoll, "Poland as "Antemurale Christianitatis" in the Late Middle Ages,", The Catholic Historical Review Vol. 60, No. 3, 1974, pp. 382  384.  Davor Duki, Sultanova djeca. Predod~be Turaka u hrvatskoj knji~evnosti ranog novovjekovlja. Thema i.d., Zadar 2004, p. 236.  Norman Davies, "Polish National Mythologies," in Myths & Nationhood, ed. by Geoffrey Hosking and George Schpflin, Hurst & Co., London 1997, p. 145.  }ani, "Simboli ki identitet", p. 197.  Wiktor Weintraub, "Renaissance Poland and  Antemurale Christianitatis ", Harvard Ukrainian Studies Vol. 3/4, No. 2, 1979/1980, p. 921.  }ani, "Simboli ki identitet", p. 199.  Lovro Kun evi, "The Rhetoric of the Frontier of Christendom in the Diplomacy of Renaissance Ragusa (Dubrovnik)", Dubrovnik Annals, Vol. 17, 2013, pp. 37-68.  }ani, "Simboli ki identitet", pp. 165-166.  Ivan Jurkovi, "Turska opasnost i hrvatski velikaai - knez Bernardin Frankopan i njegovo doba," Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i druatvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, Vol. 17, 2000, p. 74.  Bernardin Frankapan Modruaki. Oratio pro Croatia/ Govor za Hrvatsku (1522.). Ed. by Ivan Jurkovi and Violeta Moretti, Katedra akavskog sabora Modruae, Modrua 2010, pp. 102-109.  Vedran Gligo, Govori protiv Turaka, Logos, Split 1983, p. 356.  About the border defense system see in detail: Ferenc Szakly, The Hungarian-Croatian Border Defense System and its Collapse in: War and Society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Hungary (War and Society in Eastern Central Europe, Vol. 3), Jnos M. Bak and Bla K. Kirly (Eds.), Brooklyn College Press, Brooklyn 1982, pp. 141-158.  Ivn Nagy Albert Nyry, Magyar diplomacziai emlkek. Mtys kirly korbl 1458-1490, Vol. 2, A. M. Tud. Akadmia KQnyvkiad-Hivatalban, Budapest 1877, pp. 67-68, 75-76, 96-98, 117-119, 122, 126-129, 132-133, 216-217, 260-261; `ime Ljubi, Listine o odnoaajih Ju~noga Slavenstva i Mleta ke Republike, Vol. 10, Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum meridionalium, Vol. 21, Academia scientiarum et artium Slavorum meridionalium, Zagrabiae 1891, pp. 430-1, 447, 453-454; Vjekoslav Klai, Kr ki knezovi Frankapani. Od najstarijih vremena do gubitka otoka Krka, Matica hrvatska, Zagreb 1901, pp. 257-258; Fabio Cusin, Il confine orientale d Italia nella politica europea del XIV e XV secolo. 2nd ed., Edizioni Lint, Trieste 1977, pp. 422, 424-427; Vjekoslav Klai, Povijest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svraetka XIX stoljea, Vol. 4, Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb 1980, pp. 99, 115-116, 117-119, 131-132, 133; 145; Borislav Grgin, Po eci rasapa. Kralj Matijaa Korvin i srednjovjekovna Hrvatska, Ibis grafika, Zagreb 2002, pp. 174-176.  For the Krbava battle see various articles published on the occasion of i!Ut6BT\vxz|nѲ||h||WL<h>XzhvC6CJaJmH sH h>XzhvCCJaJ!jh>XzhvC0JCJUaJ'hwh)6CJaJmH nHsH tH$hwh)CJaJmH nHsH tHhwCJaJmH nHsH tH$hwhD,CJaJmH nHsH tHhwh)CJaJmH sH hwh w6CJaJmH sH hwh wCJaJmH sH hwh^CJaJmH sH hwh^6CJaJmH sH nprL8~DFH.b:<>Z$h>XzhvC0J5fHq h>XzhvC6mH nHsH tHh>XzhvCmH nHsH tHh>XzhvC6 h>XzhvCjh>XzhvC0JUh>XzhvC6mH sH h>XzhvCmH sH !jh>XzhvC0JUmH sH hvC,<z3jTbz& <    R T -D9DM [$\$gd|*agd|*agd|*a$dh7$8$H$^`a$gdw $7$8$H$a$gdwgdwZJrxz|*234% :0((љљю}qcqcqcqcqh>XzhvC6CJ]aJh>XzhvCCJ]aJ!jh>XzhvC0JCJUaJh>XzhvCmHsHh>XzhvC6hvCCJaJh>XzhvC6CJaJh>XzhvCCJaJjh>XzhvC0JUhvC h>XzhvC$h>XzhvC0J5fHq 'h>XzhvC0J56fHq &.Pjl hXx2TU:!"洭ttjh>XzhvCU!h>XzhvC0JfHq h>XzhvCmHsHh>XzhvC6h>XzhvCH*U h>XzhvCjh>XzhvC0JUh>XzhvC6CJ]aJh>XzhvC6CJaJh>XzhvCCJaJh>XzhvCCJ]aJh>XzhvCCJH*]aJ)ts 500th anniversary in: Dragutin Pavli evi (Ed.), Krbavska bitka i njezine posljedice, Hrvatska matica iseljenika  Zavod za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta Sveu iliata u Zagrebu, Zagreb 1997. Recently there were two important contributions on this topic with interesting new ideas and interpretations. See: Hrvoje Kekez,  Bernardin Frankapan i Krbavska bitka: je li spasio sebe i malobrojne ili je pobjegao iz boja? Modruaki zbornik, Vol. 3, 2009, pp. 65-101; Kreaimir Ku~i,  Bitka Hrvata- bitka na Krbavskom polju 1493. godine, Historijski zbornik Vol. 67, No. 1, 2014, pp. 11-63.  See, for example, the notes of one contemporary witness, Croatian Glagolitic priest Martinac, published in: II. Novljanski brevijar: hrvatskoglagoljski rukopis iz 1495., Marija Panteli and Anica Nazor (Eds.) Staroslavenski institut Svetozar Rittig - Turistkomerc, Zagreb 1977.  Bogumil Hrabak,  Turske provale i osvajanja na podru ju danaanje severne Dalmacije do sredine XVI stolea , Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest, Vol. 19, 1986, pp. 69-100; Tomislav Raukar  Ivo Petricioli  Franjo `velec  `ime Peri i, Zadar pod mleta kom upravom 1409-1797, Proalost Zadra, Vol. III, Narodni list  Filozofski fakultet, Zadar 1987, pp. 177-193.  Vjekoslav Klai, Povijest Hrvata, pp. 293-428; Matija Mesi, Hrvati na izmaku srednjega vijeka. Izabrane rasprave, Damir Karbi (Ed.)., HYPERLINK "http://katalog.kgz.hr/pagesResults/rezultati.aspx?&searchById=-1&spid0=1&spv0=&fid0=4&fv0=Hrvatski+institut+za+povijest+-+Odjel+za+povijest+Slavonije%2c+Srijema+i+Baranje" Hrvatski institut za povijest - Odjel za povijest Slavonije, Srijema i Baranje - Matica hrvatska Slavonski Brod Povijesni arhiv Slavonski Brod, Slavonski Brod 1996.  For migrations from Croatian lands through Dalmatian towns to Italy see for example: Ferdo Gestrin,  Migracije iz Dalmacije u Marke u XV. i XVI. stoljeu , Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1977, pp. 395-404.  Radoslav Lopaai, Hrvatski urbari. Urbaria lingua Croatica conscripta, Monumenta historico-iuridica Slavorum meridionalium, Vol. 5, 1894.  Vladimir Stipeti,  Stanovniatvo i bruto domai proizvod Hrvatske (1500.  1913.) u kontekstu najnovijeg rada Angusa Maddisona , Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, Vol. 41, 2"pq`bdZxz|$&(L ~    : < >        ˾ֶ˾ֶֶ˾ִֶ˾ֶֶֶ˾˾ˡn$h>XzhvC0J5B*CJaJph333'h>XzhvC0J56B*CJaJph333h>XzhvC5CJaJ$jh>XzhvC0J5CJUaJUh>XzhvC6jh>XzhvC0JUh>XzhvCmHsH h>XzhvCjh>XzhvCU-h>XzhvC0J>*B*fHphq +003, pp. 91 - 156.  Tomislav Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje: prostor, ljudi, ideje, `kolska knjiga, Zagreb 1997, pp. 407-408; Davor Duki  Borislav Grgin,  Juraj `i~gori and the Ottomans: the Image of the Other in a Late Medieval Dalmatian Commune, Association Internationale d'tudes du Sud-Est Europen  Revue, Vols. 40-44 (2010-2014), Bucarest 2014, p 100.  Duki  Grgin, Juraj `i~gori, pp. 100-101.  Duki  Grgin, Juraj `i~gori, p. 105.  Coriolani Cepionis dalmatae Petri Mocenici Imperatoris gesta, Bernhard Maler, Erhard Ratdolt and Peter Lslein, Venice 1477; Grgin, Po eci rasapa, p. 185.  See footnote No. 17.  Gligo (Ed.), Govori protiv Turaka, passim.     PAGE  PAGE 7           > P R T V Z \ ` b f h l n z | ~           ̿zkhwh)CJaJmH sH h3t0JmHnHu hvC0JjhvC0JUjhvCUhj!h>XzhvC6h>XzhvCmHsH h>XzhvChvCjh>XzhvC0JU2h>XzhvC5;B*CJOJQJ\^JaJphh>XzhvC5CJaJh>XzhvC56CJaJ$T X Z ^ ` d f j l ~        `gdD, &`#$gd@,1h. A!"#$% 0@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmHsHtHR@R |*a Heading 1dd@&[$\$5CJ0KH$\aJ0DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No List 4@4 _HTHeader  p#.)@. _HT Page NumberJ@J Lp Footnote TextCJaJmH sH tH @&@!@ LpFootnote ReferenceH*BO1B <*]apple-converted-space4U@A4 <*]0 Hyperlink >*ph@OQ@ |*a Char Char15CJ0KH$\aJ0Oa |*afnB'@qB @Comment ReferenceCJaJ<@< @ Comment TextCJaJ<O< @ Char Char_HmHsHtH*W@* tHStrong5\LoL wFootnote Text Char_HmH sH tH ZoZ wComment Text Char CJOJQJ^JaJmHsHtHVX= m =$!"$')06w;<=DPFwH2JNKwM,| |9Pb6w s\2ws,|!"& "& "&!"&!"&!"&!"& ):I"Y,|` ` ,CDXYbc [p  M&p-6u9U>AzHNQQQQ?RR;SS>T2UUUkVWXX"YY4ZZP[[\s^__r``aabc=djlprs:u'w xxoyzz#{{{|(|-|p#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#s p#s p#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#s p#s p#s p#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#sp#v:p#v: p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:p#v:yp#CDXYbc [p  M&p-6u9U>AzHNQQQQ?RR;SS>T2UUUkVWXX"YY4ZZP[[\s^__r``aabc=ddveff$gMggghhisjjlprs:u'w xxoyzz#{{{||| | | ||||||||(|)|*|-|000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 $$$$$'l(*@-046&9<@DH JKM ORT&Z]a"d:fkm$rxwV} !nZ"  CFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_`acduvxyQjxT  DXbw E]]^,|X  '!!@X8@0(  B S  ? >T  T!!!!T"""T###"#$T$$%T%$%&%T&&&'T'(''(T((T)))Zd!Lm* Ll,pv)#< hh4#̨##<#<##T d \# <#\#T#"> ? ?AApHpH`J`J NQQRRRR,S,SCSCSSSUUYYZZZZ____e`e```"d"dJdJdXdngng^hfhshshqqssgwgwyy-|      !"#$%&(')*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCEDFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`bacdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~]44t t g p { { H--ZgooP))\\r!r!!!}#$!$!$n%%%%%''))))..//`/p/p///0022I3I333B4B44444 5w55 6 666;9;999::;;<= = =>>??AAvHvHgJgJNQQRRRR3S3SISISSSUUYYZZZZ _ ___k`k```*d*dTd^d^dtgtgdhoh|h|h q qsslwlwyy-|  !"#$%&(')*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCEDFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`bacdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~9!*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace x !=d|-|=dirjujjlp%{{|-|45ccC Y! *f?rz^{<bb ; ZqBxT@q{,MyG>vIj!rp!"^#g#_>$?$$(p([>*o'+D,4W,-b.|.k0V31p23K43 4J4O5{7:e:<k&<'>u-A2"BvCUDvEKF:]FykFMLIYJ{Lv0LPLp/N#OOKyOAT_HTSV>WY)[6 \<*]=]N^}_5_|*a3a1@bBAb*dqdAif:h4AkXzA{C{~{49}~Ej~aBRA 5j;XoE*!H! B?}dX%]y{#Kr>QJ^3^=M}~cZIo~PjNgotCbEy|{{HLx$Z}c\]X[:C!>j6 ;tH2M k!.Qf[s,2uo$r*kCXiGb9eBIGu]9[^;a1llBrb"@)VjX2 |55~'~(~*~+,-/0CDHIKLQRTUVWXYZ\]^_acdefghij\l\m\n\o\p\q\r\s\t\v\w\x\y\z\{,|P@P P@PP@@P"P$PL@P6Pp@P:Px@P>P@PBP@PXP@P^P@PbP@PjPlPpPrPtPvPxPzP|PPPPP@PPPPPPPP@PPPPPPP@PPP@PPPP P UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialoFSValencia-RegularArial Unicode MS"c3/B'h*';):"T0"pgLir4dKc?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fpfm1TabletFWordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q