SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 597 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,047 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The city of
DUBROVNIK

HRVATSKA

Dubrovnik reminds me of Ljubljana on steroids - not architecturally, but in a different way. Ljubljana is such a small city, fairly insignificant by world standards, yet it is widely recognized and adored.

Dubrovnik takes this one step farther. The city isn't even a capital, yet it is - in my opinion - by far the most recognized city in the former Yugoslavia.


That's an amazing feat - Dubrovnik is immensely popular, and here's why:



























 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
Nice pictures.

I would disagree with you though. No offense to Croatians but I think Sarajevo is actually the most "recognized" city in the former Yugoslavia due to various historical circumstances. It's certainly debateable though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
Repeat after me people: overrated, overrated, overrated. OK, it's absolutely gorgeous in terms of architecture and cityscaping in general, but this place is fake and entirely too touristy. I am much more partial to Split, which looks like a city locals actually live in and isn't there just to look pretty (although it is beautiful, as well). Finally, who can say no to Diocletian's Palace? Just an amazing sight.

This is not to say I don't think Dubrovnik has its charms. It does. I just think it is overhyped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
salvius said:
Repeat after me people: overrated, overrated, overrated. OK, it's absolutely gorgeous in terms of architecture and cityscaping in general, but this place is fake and entirely too touristy. I am much more partial to Split, which looks like a city locals actually live in and isn't there just to look pretty (although it is beautiful, as well). Finally, who can say no to Diocletian's Palace? Just an amazing sight.

This is not to say I don't think Dubrovnik has its charms. It does. I just think it is overhyped.
Overhyped or not, it's beautiful and charmfull. But I agree maybe too tourist.
I also prefer Split, some of my familie was born and still live there so I visit it every year. Tough maybe the beaches in Split aren't the best;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
salvius said:
Repeat after me people: overrated, overrated, overrated. OK, it's absolutely gorgeous in terms of architecture and cityscaping in general, but this place is fake and entirely too touristy. I am much more partial to Split, which looks like a city locals actually live in and isn't there just to look pretty (although it is beautiful, as well). Finally, who can say no to Diocletian's Palace? Just an amazing sight.

This is not to say I don't think Dubrovnik has its charms. It does. I just think it is overhyped.
Maybe, but perhaps you're too quick to overlook the cultural and historical impact Dubrovnik has had on modern Croatia. Think about it. If it wasn't for this city, nearly everybody on this side of the Drina would be speaking ikavski.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
^ no, perhaps I wasn't clear. Far be it for me to declare Dubrovnik a historically unimportant and decrepit backwater. That's not what I was trying to say. I am trying to say that Dubrovnik has become Disneyland, and that this transformation is most unfortunate.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
193 Posts
L3D3NI said:
Maybe, but perhaps you're too quick to overlook the cultural and historical impact Dubrovnik has had on modern Croatia. Think about it. If it wasn't for this city, nearly everybody on this side of the Drina would be speaking ikavski.
Ikavski??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
bokiii said:
Ikavski??
?

Ijekavski
Ekavski
Ikavski

Lijepo
Lepo
Lipo
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
223 Posts
Wow...last time I was in Dubrovnik that bridge (Franjo Tuđman's) was still under construction. I had a great time there! I don't know why, but they find people from Sarajevo very interesting. I'm not so funny person, but every my joke was hillarious for them :colgate:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,047 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
^ I agree with all of you. If Croatia has a Disneyland, Dubrovnik would be it. I find the siege of Dubrovnik in the 1990s added to this, the reconstruction of the city, I mean. New red tiles on the rooves, perfectly polished streets, and so on - it subtracts significantly from the historical feeling of the city, at least in my opinion.

I think Split is a much more attractive destination for Slavs, and other East Europeans who are at least vaguely familiar with Dubrovnik; but for tourists from Western Europe and the world at large - Dubrovnik is still much more historically important. Dubrovnik may be the most touristy city in our part of the world - but it's certainly not Las Vegas, Paris, or Amsterdam. Tourists from Western Europe might describe Dubrovnik, compared to their cities, in the same way we view Split.

California EU, I agree - I find most Adriatic cities look similar - especially along the Croatian coast. There are, of course, many exceptions. I don't know whether it is the landscape that makes me feel this way...but I find Rovinj, Dubrovnik, and Kotor look completely different. I wouldn't be surprised to see them at opposite ends of the Meditteranean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
^ Kotor and Dubrovnik are certainly different. While the architecture is certainly similar, the planning isn't (this is readily apparent), nor is the landscape as you have alluded to.

If Dubrovnik had a Montenegrin sister, it would be Budva. It's obviously much smaller, but it has a vaguely similar layout. Similarily, Budva is the Disneyland of Montenegro -- very artificial and far removed from what it once was.

Again, not that any of these places aren't worth visiting. They are -- but Split first ;)
 

·
Streetwalker
Joined
·
7,028 Posts
You're probably just whinging Salvius because Dubrovnik is out of your budget. ;)

Anyway, I wouldn't say Dubrovnik looks like "Disneyland". If anything it all looks so surreal at times. I have on many occassions looked down at Dubrovnik from the heights above it and just marvelled at its sheer beauty and uniqueness. Its sometimes hard to accept that such a place exists looking like paradise on Earth or better still ... "The Pearl of the Adriatic" as its called.

They have done well thru the centuries to protect it and maintain it, even as recently from the ruthless bombardment that caused pointless damage. The reason why tourists flock to Dubrovnik is because it has achieved these things, its full of history and a genuine place to visit.

Its not "fake" or "over-rated" as you put it Salvius. Its real, its highly popular and one of the most famous cities in the world. Apart from the tourists, Dubrovnik functions as any normal city going about its daily routine, its just lucky its been blessed with such beauty and fame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,003 Posts
L3D3NI said:
Nice pictures.

I would disagree with you though. No offense to Croatians but I think Sarajevo is actually the most "recognized" city in the former Yugoslavia due to various historical circumstances. It's certainly debateable though.

Most of us all believe the same thing, just with small differences. For example, I agree with Mila when she says, "New red tiles on the rooves, perfectly polished streets, and so on - it subtracts significantly from the historical feeling of the city." Personally something as beautiful as Dubrovnik is totally spoiled when you see all those street polished. It makes it seem like some silly trick to make it "seem" better.
Then again, you can't really blame the Croats to fix what happened in the war, since didn't all the cities that got damaged in the war fix at least something? :)
The last time I visited Dubrovnik, it was only 4 years ago, and I must admitt it had been borring after the first 5 days. It seemed like I'd seen absolutely everything there was to see, and we even went through those stupid tours. We'd spent probably 70% of the time we arranged to stay there swimming, and getting sunburnt. :D
Overall, you can't blame for the city to be fixed up, but I'm sure it's not what it used to be, with the REAL things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
SinCity said:
Its not "fake" or "over-rated" as you put it Salvius. Its real, its highly popular and one of the most famous cities in the world. Apart from the tourists, Dubrovnik functions as any normal city going about its daily routine, its just lucky its been blessed with such beauty and fame.
Dubrovnik during peak season may function like any normal city, but it sure as heck doesn't act like it. Parking? Forget it. Tourist traps? Galore. Extravagant prices? Certainly. Expensive tours? But of course. It's beautiful, but Split is hardly ugly, and indeed you are right that it is much cheaper.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
193 Posts
Travunia Travunja Travunians

Travunia in the 9th century, according to De administrando imperio
Greek map of Serb lands in the 9th century, according to De administrando imperioThis was a medieval principality located in today's Hercegovina and Southern Dalmatia.

"Travunia (Terbounia) and Konavli are united. Its inhabitants originate from unchristened Serbs, who lived there since the archont that fled from unchristened Serbia to Emperor en:Heraclius and Serb archont en:Vlastimir [...] The archonts of Travunia have always been subject to the archont of Serbia [...] Populated cities in Travunia and Konavli are: Travunia (ηε Τερβουνια), Vrm (το Ορμος), en:Risan (τα Ρισενα), Lukavete (το Λουκαβεται), Zetlivi (του Ζετλεβε)."

Constantine VII, De Administrando Imperio: Chapter 34 [ [1] (http://wikisource.org/wiki/De_Admin...avljani_and_the_land_which_they_now_inhabit)]


Bordered by Zahumlje to the west, Duklja to the south and Serbia to the north. Travunia encompassed what is now Southern Dalmatia and Dubrovnik. Today it is part of Dubrovnik-Neretva county. Its center is Dubrovnik. Other larger towns are Metković and Ploče in the Neretva river delta (hence the mention in the county name). It includes the larger islands of Korčula, Lastovo, Mljet, Šipan, Lopud and Koločep.

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos descibes the Travunians in De Administrando Imperio as a Serb tribe which settled in the area at the start of the 7th century. Travunia entered into confederations with the Serb princes of Raska early on. In the early 9th century, Knez Vlastimir of Serbia married his daughter to Knez Krajina, son of Beloje, the grand zupan of Travunia.


The Serb prince Caslav Klonimirovic of the House of Vlastimirovic fully incorporated this area into his domain between 927 AD and and 940. After the death of Caslav in 960, Travunia was contested between Byzantium and Bulgaria. But by 968, it was violently conquered by the Croatian King Kresimir but it returned to the Serb princes of the House of Vojislavljevic of Zeta by the middle of the 11th century and later to Serb princes of the House of Nemanjic of Raska.

Croatian academics have pointed out that Travunia could have been Croats, but this is not generally accepted since these claims rely on Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, which has been discredited as unreliable and full of errors. It is now accepted in most academic circles outside of Croatia that Zachumlie / Zahumlje, the Bosna River Valley and Pagania / Paganija and Zeta / Duklja were settled with Serb tribes, as it states in De Administrando Imperio.

Here is little bit of Dubrovnik's older history:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
^:lol:

But seriously, could someone delete that garbage?
 
1 - 20 of 597 Posts
Top