Is the De Adminisrando Imperio a reliable document

[slavic_crusader]

Hi, is the document reliable for the reason why the Serbs and the Croats arrived in the Balkans?


I know the Serb story of the arrival and how they were given land, thanks to their aid of fighting the Avars but what about Croatia, is it a similar story?Were they given land as well?

[matija191]

Hi, is the document reliable for the reason why the Serbs and the Croats arrived in the Balkans?


I know the Serb story of the arrival and how they were given land, thanks to their aid of fighting the Avars but what about Croatia, is it a similar story?Were they given land as well?

actually the both are the same,but the story about croatian arrival is a older then story about serbs, so many believe that Constantin Porfirogenet has just copied the croatian story,and replaced Croats with Serbs....is it reliable?maybe, but we cannot be certain.....

[slavic_crusader]

I also heard about the some Frankish Cronicle... what that about? is it something to the with the arrival of the Serbs and croats in balkans or something else? But i think it is defiantly not reliable though?

[Hrobatos]

its more reliable than DAI, way more...

[matija191]

I also heard about the some Frankish Cronicle... what that about? is it something to the with the arrival of the Serbs and croats in balkans or something else? But i think it is defiantly not reliable though?

it is about rebelion of prince (dux.knez) of Panonian Croatia Ljudevit Posavski....

[slavic_crusader]

My bad, perhaps im reffering to something else.....

[slavic_crusader]

Thanks Matija! and Hrobatos

[matija191]

Thanks Matija! and Hrobatos

no problem...

[clandestino]

Hi, is the document reliable for the reason why the Serbs and the Croats arrived in the Balkans?


I know the Serb story of the arrival and how they were given land, thanks to their aid of fighting the Avars but what about Croatia, is it a similar story?Were they given land as well?

Well it's not that simple, as a whole DAI is relatively reliable, but some parts of it are more and some are less reliable, depending on time distance.
To put it simple:
DAI is written in 948. and regarding the Croats and Serbs it describes events from 7th century to this date ( 948 ). When talking about settlement of Croats and Serbs he's talking about things that happened some 350 years before his time, in historical science that makes him unreliable source cause time and space distance is to big for him to know what happened exactly in 7th century and non of the things he mentioned can't be corroborated with other sources. But, for his own period and close time frame ( lets say 9th and 10th century ) he is considered quite reliable cause he was close in time and more important he was in position to know a lot of things as a ruler of most powerful state in region.
Somewhere here I discussed about DAI and migration of Croats and Serbs and I pointed on several moments that could influence the creation of CP's story. CP was writing from his point of time 948. backward using the information he had collected by himself ( for period closer to his own time ) as well as older sources such as older Byzatine historians like Menandros, Theophylact, Nicephoros and Theophanes for more older times (late 6th-early 7th century ). When writing about his own time he encountered one problem: on western Balkan there were already established states of Croats and Serbs whose recent ( from late 8th century ) history he described probably using the information of local Byzantine governors and officials from neighborhood of Serbia and Croatia, however in older sources he couldn't found anything about Serbs and Croats cause non of the Byzantine sources mention Croats and Serbs in 7th, 8th and good part of 9th century. You can imagine that CP was confused, here he has two states and people covering half of peninsula but he doesn't know how they ended up there cause the older sources speak only of settlement of Slavs or Slavs and Avars. Modern historian will naturally presume that during the time ( from 7th to 9th century ) two leading tribal Slavic groups ( Croats and Serbs ) managed to gain control over neighboring tribes and eventually give their name to the states created this way, like it happened in Czech and Poland where the strongest tribes ( Czechi and Polani ) united various related tribes and gave them their name. However in CP's time this would be quite revolutionary way of thinking so he found explanation that suited his time better. Namely, he already know that there are other Serbs and Croats living in Czech, eastern Germany and southern Poland so he connected them with Balkan Serbo-Croats so he stated that parts of this northern Croats and Serbs migrated southward after the some Slavs and Avars had already settled in Balkans thus making the compromise between older sources that mention only Slavs and his own time where only Serbs and Croats existed. The whole thing with Heraclius is however total bollox and CP just put it there to show how ( allegedly ) Croats and Serbs recognized the power of Byzantine emperor ever since they came to Balkan which is quite unbelievable when one knows history of Byzantium from Heraclius to CP when in fact Byzantium couldn't even impose its power to the Slavs living in Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly and Peloponnesos. Generally the Heraclius story served to show rights and supremacy of Byzantine empire on whole Balkan.
In regard of Serbs CP further developed its construction introducing the city of Servia into the story and creating the wandering path of Serbs from eastern Germany to northern Greece then to Belgrade and finally to the central Balkan. In this case we have simple etymological construction typical for middle ages.

I also heard about the some Frankish Cronicle... what that about? is it something to the with the arrival of the Serbs and croats in balkans or something else? But i think it is defiantly not reliable though?

The Frankish chronicle ( Einchard's chronicle ) is the first source that mention Serbs in Balkan, in year 822. and it has nothing with the arrival of Serbs and Croats. It is however important cause it shows approximately time when the Serbian state was created and when Serbs rose up from anonymous masses of Slavs by uniting various tribes and giving them their name. When compared with DAI it shows that creation of Serbian state in deed occurred in late 8th century cause CP puts prince Višeslav as the first known ruler of Serbia in this time frame as well. Similar development occurred with Croats as well, in early 9th century Croat tribe managed to unite various Slavic tribes in Dalmatia and give them their name which will be first time attested in 852. Before that Serbs and Croats were part of Slavic masses in Balkan and weren't recognized as separate entities by the sources, only when they united other tribes and created their states they begin to appear in sources.

[slavic_crusader]

Thanks for the info mate, i appriciate it

[matija191]

The Frankish chronicle ( Einchard's chronicle ) is the first source that mention Serbs in Balkan, in year 822. and it has nothing with the arrival of Serbs and Croats. It is however important cause it shows approximately time when the Serbian state was created and when Serbs rose up from anonymous masses of Slavs by uniting various tribes and giving them their name. When compared with DAI it shows that creation of Serbian state in deed occurred in late 8th century cause CP puts prince Višeslav as the first known ruler of Serbia in this time frame as well. Similar development occurred with Croats as well, in early 9th century Croat tribe managed to unite various Slavic tribes in Dalmatia and give them their name which will be first time attested in 852. Before that Serbs and Croats were part of Slavic masses in Balkan and weren't recognized as separate entities by the sources, only when they united other tribes and created their states they begin to appear in sources.

are you sure about prince Višeslav was a serbian prince?I know only one Višeslav,and he was croatian prince:

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi%C5%A1eslav

[phoenix[illusion]]

are you sure about prince Višeslav was a serbian prince?I know only one Višeslav,and he was croatian prince:

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi%C5%A1eslav

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi%C5%A1eslav_I

[Hrobatos]

didnt Nada Klaić proved that Serbs arent mentioned there, but a place called Serb which lead some historians to confusion with people of Serbs?
I remeber I read something like that...

[Hrobatos]

al s druge strane nju nikad nisam osobito cijenio, niti mi se čini da je u pravu, valjda joj latinski ne leži

[matija191]

didnt Nada Klaić proved that Serbs arent mentioned there, but a place called Serb which lead some historians to confusion with people of Serbs?
I remeber I read something like that...

yeah,about that everything is big confusion...it is all explained here:

http://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/ost...p_einhard.html

page is on croatian

P.S. thanks phoenix

[phoenix[illusion]]

didnt Nada Klaić proved that Serbs arent mentioned there, but a place called Serb which lead some historians to confusion with people of Serbs?
I remeber I read something like that...

nada klaic

[matija191]

nada klaic

Phoenix I agree with you..historian who claims that Bosnia is eldest balkan country is not historian

[The Noble Lord]

Somewhere here I discussed about DAI and migration of Croats and Serbs and I pointed on several moments that could influence the creation of CP's story.

That was a very good post Clandestino. One question though, did Serbs and Croats arrive at exactly same time to the Balkans or one of them arrived bit earlier from the other??

[matija191]

That was a very good post Clandestino. One question though, did Serbs and Croats arrive at exactly same time to the Balkans or one of them arrived bit earlier from the other??

good question

[Hrobatos]

DAI claims that Croats came like 15-20 years earlier, bu there are toher aspect that should be taken into account, like from where did they come, when did they came, in what numebrs they came and so on...