Arrival of Croats and Serbs

[MeAgain]

ofcourse no one can no for sure, but shouldnt stop us to disscuss

but theory of Croats arriving with rest of the Slavs has few weak spots

first of all, if we were called Sclavini for 200 years why suddenly did world stopped calling us Sclavini
and how did Sclavini in 9 century got non-slavic name Hrvati-Croats?

why not keep calling us Sclavini, and why didnt we got name by region we lived in as Diocleans, Zahumlians, Travunians, Paganians, and other Sclavini did?

this could bring a man to conclusion that name Croat appeared among Sclavini in 9 century and name passed to them and they become known as Croats

secondly, what influenced creation of "big" state among Croats in 9 century?
why did Sclavini south of us remained separated in small slavic duchies?
or in other words, we suddenly in 9 century have higher level of centralisation that other Sclavini

this are two among several questions which every theory has to explain


and this isnt for any game, nor mod, its pure discussion with no higher goal, than to discuss

Is this in response to what I wrote? If it is, you seem to have a few other posts (none of them mine) mixed into it. I don't have a problem discussing any of this, but can you clear up what is your response to me because I didn't say anything about the Sclavani or most of the other stuff you posted. In fact, everything except the first and last sentence relate to something ARU posted before.

I taught that this relates to your Mount&Blade mod because of the relative closeness of the date, and you had some questions in another thread (also, started by you) in relation to that mod.

[phoenix[illusion]]

some documentary films
http://istorijabalkana.com/index.php...d=10&Itemid=34

[MeAgain]

Isn't this the same as the one in the other thread? I'm trying to watch it but my internet doesn't come back 'till tomorrow so it'll take some time to load.

[phoenix[illusion]]

Isn't this the same as the one in the other thread? I'm trying to watch it but my internet doesn't come back 'till tomorrow so it'll take some time to load.

yup, if you mean in thread "The History of the Serbs ~ 630-1112 A.D. Web Documentary"
but it has documentary films on Croatian, that's why i put it here

[MeAgain]

Yes, that one. It seems to have something about the arrival (amongst other things) of both Serbs and Croats, but I can't download anything significant until tomorrow
Maybe I can watch the first episode about the Serbs before I go to bed, the Croat stuff needs to be downloaded and not streamed so it'll have to wait.

[NikeBG]

Most meanings of national names are shrouded in mystery.

As a support of this, I'll mention that the ethnonym "Bulgar" has almost 200 hypotheses for its origin, some of them dating as far back as the early Middle Ages and going up till today (and new ones continuing to appear, of course).

Also, while I'll note in advance that I have practically no knowledge about Croatian and Serbian prehistory (I've heard the things you talk about before, but haven't studied them deeply), I'll also ask a question - Is it possible that the Serbs and Croats were not Slovenes, but Antes? As you know, they are considered to be what later formed respectively the South and the East Slavs, but there are also some points suggesting that the Antes not only had strong influence from the steppe cultures (namely Sarmatians), but might have actually been originally steppe tribes, which were Slavicized to some extent before moving westward. At least I have some memories that our late archaeologist Rasho Rashev, while dealing with the Proto-Bulgars in the Pontic steppes, had suggested such a thesis.

[slavic_crusader]

Antes?? i never heard of them. Are they like people before the slavs??

[NikeBG]

No, they're supposedly the Eastern wing of the Slavic world (living in modern day Ukraine etc) and are sometimes mentioned as having raided Byzantium together with the Slovenes (who were in modern day Romania and Hungary and formed the Southern wing) or alone. Also, IIRC, Pseudo-Mauricius says they have the same language, customs etc.

[slavic_crusader]

Yea i heard that the slavs in hungary and romania were pushed down becuase of the huns or something or avars maybe. thats y there was a gap between north and south. But i supose all slavs are basically from modern ukriane/poland/russia region, around that area. So were basically all related...

I believe the origin between serbs and croats so far that actually makes sense so far to me. Is that we are from white serbia and white croatia. Which explains about the Sorbs as well. And also that area was slavic at the time. But if u also think about it everywhere u go in ex-yugoslavia, people are different from place to place and region to region. Perhaps it shows that they were different slavs and some aspects of them survived or these regions/places were heavily inlfuenced by other foreign powers and peoples?(obviusly it did but at what extent?) And perhaps both have contributed significantly?
I find it kind of sad, how we dont really know much about our origins, but at leasts its interesting searching for it, but also creates confict and voilence.....

[NikeBG]

Also don't forget that the regional differences of today were also interested by the history after the creation of the Serbs/Croats/etc. There have been other, later migrational waves, like Pechenegs, Uzes, Cumans, Cirkassians, Turks etc. which have also left a mark in the shaping of the people today.

[MeAgain]

Maybe it's better not to know some things.

I don't think the Antes thing you put forward is true, from what I know they were in Romania (etc), and raided ERE before the arrival of Serbs and Croats.
It's unlikely that Serbs and Croats are Antes but there could have been some amongst them. This is a little offtopic, however, we should be talking about the arrival of Serbs and Croats (if we are going by the title of the thread). Not their origins.

[Bosnian_King]

According to me it is important to know that todays nations are not the result of tribal connections from the 7. or 8. century. Tribal connections were broken when the first classical feudal states were formed in the 10. century. Till the 10. century we had let's say a Croatian kingdom and the basis for this kingdom was the Croatian tribe. And we had a serb kingdom with the serb tribe as a basis. But after the 10. century this began to change. Kingdoms or states became a mix of tribes and not one of those kingdoms from, let's say the 12. century, was a "pure tribal kingdom".

From this perspective we can see that it is only in the interest of uneducated nationalists to talk about tribal relations and to explain their identity on the base of those relations. In civilased countries people know that tribes are not their national identity but in areas like the balkan; theories about tribes are very often used to boost extreme nationalistic ideas and also wars.

In this way Serbs began to explain Bosnians and most of Croatians as "from serb origin" and Croatian nationalist began to spread theories (in the time of the WW2) about muslim Croatians from Bosnia and their "Croatian till the Drina river" which would include whole bosnia as well.

Still today I can read at various forums discussions between Croats and Serbs where they are fighring about the fact if bosnia is a serb land or a Croat land. It is really hillarious for me as a bosnian to read such things and it is very frightning too. The Bosnian kingdom and the early bosnian state as well as the bosnian church are very often explained as serbian or croatian. There are a lot of educated Croats as well as ordinary people and very respected Croatian historians who have always been writing about the fact that bosnia and bosnians were nor croatian nor serbian nor that the Bosnian state or church was ever serb or croatian; but those nationalists who write on forums always seem to have the last word. And I am always very suprised about their energy and fanatism when tehy are writing and "attacking" bosnia.

It would be really strange to tell an American that he is not an American but an enlihman because he is from the English tribe. And it would be strange to tell a Scotish man that he is an Englishman and not a Skotman because he has English blood. Also it would be strange to tell a Dutch or an Austrian that they are not Dutch or Austrians but Germans. In this way we can see that explaining history through tribal connections does not exist at all in reality.

In this same way it would be ridiculous to tell a Bosnian that he can not be a Bosnian but only a Serb or a Croat. The Bosnian kingdom made Bosnians and the bosnian church formed the medieval bosnian identity. It doe snot madder if Bosnians existed or not as a tribe. We do not is bosnian dis exist as a tribe. The famous Croatian historian and profesoor Marko Vega wrote that "Bosnians got their name from the German army leader Bosna who let his people inhabit bosnia". A different approach to history just does not exist in the modern histography besides the approach of looking to nations from the perspective of early medieval states. Modern european nations have their roots in medieval STATES and not ie TRIBES.

good luck

[Hrobatos]

the connection with Antes is highly possible, and several Croat historians have suggested itbut i dont wanna get into discussion of origin of Croats further east than Belochrobatia (modern northwestern Ukraine), cause in my opinion thats all alternative history, and no point in discussing it

@Bosnian_King please dont post here, your completely off-topic,

[Son of Fire]

Well here is my 2 cents…
But please don’t stab me in the face with a fork… though it isn’t pretty, I would still like to keep it intact…

Based off of the information I have at my disposal, that being the books, as well as the DNA haplogroups as well as my thoughts on the matter…

I think it pretty much went like this…
The Serbs and Croats formed from Slavs in the north, with ruling elite of some kind, from which they got their respective names…
The arrived in the Balkans and saw it wasn’t empty… as no land ever really is, and from there they settled and mixed with the people present.
That formed the bulk of the population as they became absorbed into the more dominant tribes/cultures/ whatever…
Those being (but not limited too) other Slavs, Romano-Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, Eastern Romans, and whoever else happened to be there at the time, or get introduced latter.
From that, the Slavic culture and language was the most dominant (for whatever reason), and become prevalent, though certain other minor cultural traits survived as regional traditions. Hence people identifying themselves as Serb or Croat…

Ergo, when I see some folks try to pull the “Well we have more of X or Y in us, therefore we are better (or older, or more pure, or have more rights to this or that, or whatever bunk they spew)” I just can’t help but chuckle.
The bottom line is… if you are in the Balkans, you have a goodly amount of the indigenous people’s blood (see genetic material) in you.
Some folks may have a bit more, and others a bit less, but either way, there is still plenty of it, and thus everyone alive in the Balkans today (or descended from them), is still in a sense a native of the Balkans… the end.

There… now remember the no stabbing…

[Hrobatos]

yeah, basicly thats it

even do origin of Serbs is even more without any reliable informations than Croat origin

[Son of Fire]

At present that is true... but there seems to be evidence that they have the same, or similar genesis...

[Carpathian Wolf]

According to me it is important to know that todays nations are not the result of tribal connections from the 7. or 8. century. Tribal connections were broken when the first classical feudal states were formed in the 10. century. Till the 10. century we had let's say a Croatian kingdom and the basis for this kingdom was the Croatian tribe. And we had a serb kingdom with the serb tribe as a basis. But after the 10. century this began to change. Kingdoms or states became a mix of tribes and not one of those kingdoms from, let's say the 12. century, was a "pure tribal kingdom".

From this perspective we can see that it is only in the interest of uneducated nationalists to talk about tribal relations and to explain their identity on the base of those relations. In civilased countries people know that tribes are not their national identity but in areas like the balkan; theories about tribes are very often used to boost extreme nationalistic ideas and also wars.

In this way Serbs began to explain Bosnians and most of Croatians as "from serb origin" and Croatian nationalist began to spread theories (in the time of the WW2) about muslim Croatians from Bosnia and their "Croatian till the Drina river" which would include whole bosnia as well.

Still today I can read at various forums discussions between Croats and Serbs where they are fighring about the fact if bosnia is a serb land or a Croat land. It is really hillarious for me as a bosnian to read such things and it is very frightning too. The Bosnian kingdom and the early bosnian state as well as the bosnian church are very often explained as serbian or croatian. There are a lot of educated Croats as well as ordinary people and very respected Croatian historians who have always been writing about the fact that bosnia and bosnians were nor croatian nor serbian nor that the Bosnian state or church was ever serb or croatian; but those nationalists who write on forums always seem to have the last word. And I am always very suprised about their energy and fanatism when tehy are writing and "attacking" bosnia.

It would be really strange to tell an American that he is not an American but an enlihman because he is from the English tribe. And it would be strange to tell a Scotish man that he is an Englishman and not a Skotman because he has English blood. Also it would be strange to tell a Dutch or an Austrian that they are not Dutch or Austrians but Germans. In this way we can see that explaining history through tribal connections does not exist at all in reality.

In this same way it would be ridiculous to tell a Bosnian that he can not be a Bosnian but only a Serb or a Croat. The Bosnian kingdom made Bosnians and the bosnian church formed the medieval bosnian identity. It doe snot madder if Bosnians existed or not as a tribe. We do not is bosnian dis exist as a tribe. The famous Croatian historian and profesoor Marko Vega wrote that "Bosnians got their name from the German army leader Bosna who let his people inhabit bosnia". A different approach to history just does not exist in the modern histography besides the approach of looking to nations from the perspective of early medieval states. Modern european nations have their roots in medieval STATES and not ie TRIBES.

good luck

the connection with Antes is highly possible, and several Croat historians have suggested itbut i dont wanna get into discussion of origin of Croats further east than Belochrobatia (modern northwestern Ukraine), cause in my opinion thats all alternative history, and no point in discussing it

@Bosnian_King please dont post here, your completely off-topic,

Nevermind off topic. It's complete non sense. Bosnian is just a regional name. There was no "Bosnian tribe" like Croats and Serbs who came to the Balkans. Bosnians are simply a combination of the two, more so Serb from what we see from demographics, who later maintained their own regional identity. It is like me being part Oltenian. I can't say tomorrow if Oltenia converts to Islam "Oh we're Oltenian not Romanian." It's completely ignoring the facts. What he's saying is his Sarajevo political non sense trying to find an identity for that country. That's all.

Edit: Personally I think we should pass a law in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia that you are not allowed to marry someone from your 'ethnic group.' So if Croat you have to marry a Serb or a Bosniak and same every other way around. In 30 years everyone will be much calmer.

[MeAgain]

Nevermind off topic. It's complete non sense. Bosnian is just a regional name. There was no "Bosnian tribe" like Croats and Serbs who came to the Balkans. Bosnians are simply a combination of the two, more so Serb from what we see from demographics, who later maintained their own regional identity. It is like me being part Oltenian. I can't say tomorrow if Oltenia converts to Islam "Oh we're Oltenian not Romanian." It's completely ignoring the facts. What he's saying is his Sarajevo political non sense trying to find an identity for that country. That's all.

Edit: Personally I think we should pass a law in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia that you are not allowed to marry someone from your 'ethnic group.' So if Croat you have to marry a Serb or a Bosniak and same every other way around. In 30 years everyone will be much calmer.

They don't need a law for that it's been going on for a long time. My mother is Croat and my father is Serb, both from BiH.

Both of you (Bosnian_King and Carpathian Wolf) are off-topic and are clearly both wrong about most of the crap you wrote. I would like to plead with somebody to delete both your posts as well as this one. Thank you in Advance.

[MeAgain]

Well here is my 2 cents…
But please don’t stab me in the face with a fork… though it isn’t pretty, I would still like to keep it intact…

Based off of the information I have at my disposal, that being the books, as well as the DNA haplogroups as well as my thoughts on the matter…

I think it pretty much went like this…
The Serbs and Croats formed from Slavs in the north, with ruling elite of some kind, from which they got their respective names…
The arrived in the Balkans and saw it wasn’t empty… as no land ever really is, and from there they settled and mixed with the people present.
That formed the bulk of the population as they became absorbed into the more dominant tribes/cultures/ whatever…
Those being (but not limited too) other Slavs, Romano-Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, Eastern Romans, and whoever else happened to be there at the time, or get introduced latter.
From that, the Slavic culture and language was the most dominant (for whatever reason), and become prevalent, though certain other minor cultural traits survived as regional traditions. Hence people identifying themselves as Serb or Croat…

Ergo, when I see some folks try to pull the “Well we have more of X or Y in us, therefore we are better (or older, or more pure, or have more rights to this or that, or whatever bunk they spew)” I just can’t help but chuckle.
The bottom line is… if you are in the Balkans, you have a goodly amount of the indigenous people’s blood (see genetic material) in you.
Some folks may have a bit more, and others a bit less, but either way, there is still plenty of it, and thus everyone alive in the Balkans today (or descended from them), is still in a sense a native of the Balkans… the end.

There… now remember the no stabbing…

Yes, that's the way it is. No need to stab you.
This is also off-topic, but more relevant.

Edit: Oops, some confusion on my part, definitely not off-topic. Guess I was still thinking about the crap those two wrote.

[Son of Fire]

Thanks man...
But how is it off topic?