[Faction research topic]: The Great Moravia,Serbia, Anciliaries and titles.

[Majkl]

Ask any croatian historian and he will tell you that the term "Pannonian Croatia" is historyographical, not the historycal term.That region was populated with the no-named Slav population which could be, or not, Croats.

A little off topic but I hope admins will forgive me cuz I would liek to react on this one. I will leave rest of debate cuz "I do not know anything" about Croats netiher Serbs (Serbians? ).
Poeple who lived in Panonia were called Sloveni. As well as poeple who lived in today's Slovakia. Many scholars keeps idea that there were "some no called" or "undefinied" Slavs. They also says that Slovaks history begin in 15th century because untill that there is no any documentation about such tribe as Slovaks.
The problem is that Slovaks became slovaks after some changes in czech language. They were calling Poles Poleni, after that they changed to "Poláci" ,Slovaks were called Sloveni after that they called us "Slováci" and so on. I do not exactly know why our men call ourselves Slovaks but still after hundreed of years our women are called "SLOVENky" our republic is "SLOVENska republika" and our language is "SLOVENský jazyk" and so on. Only men are nov called Slováci not Sloveni. This all was mostly about to remove Slovakia from history map so Magyars (I hope noboy will get offended but it is liek that) could say that they were here since 9th century while Slovaks since 14-15th century and our lands demands to them. Slovenes lived in todays Slovakia, Panonia and partly today's Moravia and very east part of Austria. West border could be river "Dráva". Behind this river there lived ancestors of Slovenians.
Btw as far as I know they also call themselves Sloveni ,slovenki etc.. no?

BTW2: I hope there will not be anyone who will start soem falme war abotu soem nationalistic crap as always. If someone disagree send me PM or give link to some "General Slavic forum" so we dont fill this topic with soemthing useless for Serbia research. I do not really want to turn this discussion to some nationalistic crap.

[Majkl]

Dunno If u gonna use some custom music so posting just because I like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypQs2JH85f4
Veľkomoravský chorál - based on "Kievan letters" ..my english suck, dunno how to translate it Kievan papers are composed from 7 parchment papers which contains 38 prays at all. It is the oldest glagolitic alphabet. This alphabet is very close to the very first alphabet of Cyril and Methodius. This paper belong to "libelli missae" category (dont know hwat is it thou ) That is what I found about this song.

[Bagatyr]

Earliest serbian states?I know that there was only one - Serbia.The Tribals wasnt the name exclusive only to serbs - it was used for Travunians and people of Dioclea alike.It all depends on author.If you find that same author called both Diocleans and Serbs as Tribals, then you have your point.

Let me remaind you matja that the state you call only one Serbia have been named as Rascia .So by your logic Rascia wasn't serbian aither ... I think that Nikola is right about Dioclea .They aren't some neutral slavs .They are aither serbs or croats .And by most of the sources and historians Dioclea is a serbian state .Even in bulgarian history books it is noted everywere that Dioclea is serbian state .

[Hrobatos]

well there isa number of old sources which do call Diocleans "Red Croats", there are two byzantine writers which even say #people of Serbs who are also called Croats"
in my own opinion Dioclea was a place where Serb and Croat identity mixed, and where eventualy it was Serbian which prevailed

as for serbianity of Rascia no one has ever disputed that, Serbia is Rascia, Dioclea may be serbian, but is not Serbia
same way as southern Panonia/northern Croatia ( aka Slavonia ) maybe is croatian but is not Croatia

[Son of Fire]

What does Britannica and the majority of third part sources say?

[Hrobatos]

what does Britanica has to do with anything? all of us here are familiar with actual historical work and the actual early medieval sources, we dont need Wiki or Britanica

[Son of Fire]

Well Wiki isn't really recognized by scholars and the like...

Where as Britannica is given credibility...
And granted everyone here knows history to some degree or another... after all, it is a historic game that brought us all here in the first place...
But the the point is, that there is contention with certain points and such... and looking at what the general consensus among actual historians whos thoughts and opinions carry some weight and such might serve to resolve said conflict...

[Hrobatos]

and britanica is? cant really recal that any historian ever used Britanica as sources... and I hope I never will
there are primary sources, anyone who wants to discuss something like this must be familiar with them, I mean some kind of knowledge is required

[Son of Fire]

It's not that historians cite Britannica... it's that Britannica tends to look at a large portion of published and qualified work produced by credited sources and individuals...

As for us... well, the majority of people on this board, though interested in history, and more knowledgeable than the layman... are still amateurs...
Granted, there are some actual historians (like Clandestino) and archeologists present, but the majority of us are amateurs... and we don't have the full resources or credentials that they bring to the table...

Now I am not saying this to negate the work that people here have done... the folks here are by and large very knowledgeable, clever, and hard working individuals who put in tons of work for something they love... and they have contributed vastly...
But there is a reason that more trust is given to people with the proper credentials... they have training that I don't, and access to information I don't...

In short what I am saying is... "What does the general consensus among certified and trusted sources say?"...

[Majkl]

Well ,I visited that Britannica encyclopedia only once, never more ... really poor and informations and much misunderstandings.

[NikeBG]

Poeple who lived in Panonia were called Sloveni.

People who lived outside Pannonia were also called Sloveni, considering that's the name for the Slavs in general - Bulgarians also called themselves Slovene, Serbians and Croats probably did as well. The Byzantines also separated the early Slavs to two parts - Slovenes and Antes (respectively Southern and Eastern Slavs). The current form of "Slavs" (English) or "Slavyani" (some Slavic languages) is newer - "Slovene" is the older, original form. Which is why the etymology of the Slavic name is "speaking people" (as opposed to the "nemtsi" - "speechless people"), coming from "Slovo", not "glorious people", coming from "slava".

Where as Britannica is given credibility...
And granted everyone here knows history to some degree or another... after all, it is a historic game that brought us all here in the first place...
But the the point is, that there is contention with certain points and such... and looking at what the general consensus among actual historians whos thoughts and opinions carry some weight and such might serve to resolve said conflict...

One of the main problems of "sources" like Britannica and even Western scholars dealing with Eastern European history is that in most cases they don't really have much detailed researches of their own and instead just pick what is the official thesis from the historical schools which mostly deal with this area (f.e. the Russian historical school, or the German one in some cases). Heck, I've seen Brittish historians make such absurd factological mistakes about Bulgarian history (f.e. combining three tsars into one) which would give you nothing more than the worst mark, even if you were only a fifth-grader.
That's why I agree with Hrobatos - either you deal with primary sources or you don't. Heck, if you want to use modern sources, I'd even recommend local historians (as biased as they may be) over foreign ones, simply because the foreign ones have two main categories: just as biased as the local ones (or even more) or outright lazy. On the other hand, the local researchers at least have a several times bigger and more up-to-date literature (on the local languages, which most foreigners don't really deal with) which can be used.

But there is a reason that more trust is given to people with the proper credentials... they have training that I don't, and access to information I don't...

While I personally agree that I personally (and most of us here) am nothing more than an amateur, I find it even sadder that I've seen a number of those "people with the proper credentials" make mistakes which even I wouldn't make. Eventhough they're older than me, they have an actual training (in some cases maybe even as long as my own life so far) and, well, that's their job and what they get paid for, that's all they have to do really. And yet in some cases, as absolutely immodest it will sound, they are worse than me. I'm not saying this to compare myself to professional historians - I know a lot of good ones, even ones who are still just students, and I have an awesome respect for their knowledge which outright dwarfs me (and sometimes even depresses me ). But most of those people are locals, dealing with local history. I'm also not saying there aren't such Western historians - I'm more than sure there are plenty of them actually, but I'm afraid most of them are probably dealing with their own local and/or specialised histories as well. So far I haven't met any of them who deals with the Balkans f.e. (except a few, very specialised exceptions, who usually deal with Byzantium) - the best ones I've seen are on a rather mediocre or slightly above mediocre level. I hope one day I'll read a great research on the Balkans (be it from outside or inside of it, since insiders also don't go much beyond mediocre, unfortunately), but until then - we all have to make due with what we have. And the best we have are primary sources and locals.

[Majkl]

People who lived outside Pannonia were also called Sloveni, considering that's the name for the Slavs in general - Bulgarians also called themselves Slovene, Serbians and Croats probably did as well. The Byzantines also separated the early Slavs to two parts - Slovenes and Antes (respectively Southern and Eastern Slavs). The current form of "Slavs" (English) or "Slavyani" (some Slavic languages) is newer - "Slovene" is the older, original form. Which is why the etymology of the Slavic name is "speaking people" (as opposed to the "nemtsi" - "speechless people"), coming from "Slovo", not "glorious people", coming from "slava".

Yeah ,but does this mean that there are "no named" slavic tribes? I doubt so. From what I have readen I believe that central Danube is home of the Slavs (the west one called Sloveni or Sclaveni ,depends on source u read but u know that ). And because Slavs who lived there and never moved to other places they also did not change their original name which they used to call themselves. I really thinks that Slovaks and Slovenes are the only on Slavs whos named has remainded still same even after all these years. (little exception that our mens are since 14th or 15th century called Slovaks) Problem was that in communist era our history was written by political propaganda who wanted Czechs and Slovaks in one state! So they decide to remove us from history untill 14th century. Same it was with magyar schollar (not all thou) who wanted to prove their thruth that Maygyars were here earlier than some Slovaks so todays Slovakia lands demands to them and thus "Trianon treaty" is an invalid. The saddest part is you can see even in 2010 how some magyar nationalist burns slovakian national flag in fron of our embassy in Budapest.
I went to political sphere thou. Do not u know some forums even here on TWC where we could discuss this? If u are interested I could u offer sources ,the point of view from our "non political involved" historians ,historical sources and so on. I am afraid soon some mod will come and punish me for offtopic.

[matija191]

I really thinks that Slovaks and Slovenes are the only on Slavs whos named has remainded still same even after all these years. (little exception that our mens are since 14th or 15th century called Slovaks)

I dont for Slovaks, but Slovenes are nation from 19th century, composed from minor slavic nations who lived on Austrian Crown teritory.Their name, the Slovenes (Slovenci) was voted on referendum.Other proposition was that they should called themselves as Caranthanians (Karantanci), but Styrians were opposed (there was a strong Croatian opposition in Styria, and only few decision (mainly those from Austrian court) made the Styrians as a part of Slovene, not the Croatian nation), so they simply choosed the Slavic name - Slovenci.

In 14th century there are no Slovenes - you have Styrians, Carniolans, etc., but you dont have the Slovenes.In 19th C. all of those nations/tribes/regional peoples united themselves into one nation.

And, I dont want to offend anyone, but the names "Slovene" and "Slovak" are simply the most unoriginal ones.

[phoenix[illusion]]

i will write about duklja no more, adn i will not spam this thread of duklja's research. here's just one logic statement, with which i finish my statements of duklja. why was duklja separated from serbia? reason is simple, serbian ruler was not able to gather all serbians into one state, and tribe chieftains of those parts managed to have their own authority over those people. it happens through whole middle ages, i already mentioned separated scottish tribes over many states, langobard principalities, irish tribes. when central authority is weak, deputies over some territories tend to have their own autonomy. it's called will to rule, and it can be seen in later serbian history, after fall of tsarom. so, questioning how come there be more serbian states is quite dull. and how come rascia be called serbia, but not other principalities? usually, when deputies of some region break away from central authority, new principality is known by it's regional name. there is no recorded dukljans as large tribe which came, it could be only sub group of one of two large tribe which came: serbs and croats. i already mention langobards, who had their main principality called kingdom of langobards, and other minor principalities (duchy of spoleto, principality of benevento). as you can see, their main state was called as langobard (lombard) other by regional name. same goes for rascia (serbia) and duklja as regional name. as duklja became dominant over rascia, it started to be called serbia (which was only rascia previously called) by byzantine sources (based on historical fact, i'll search for evidence, had it somewhere). i speak of contemporaries in times of duklja's risings. all contemporaries agree that they fought serbs, they call them serbian leaders, and what's most important, they call stefan vojislav travunian serb (he was born in travunia). so, it gives more to that that travunia is just a region, not ethnicity. important in those sources is that romans fought them, and they are more reliable than some pope who never heard about them, and calls them typically "slavs". not only that byzantines recognize them as serbs, but also bulgarian tzar samuil, on his campaign calls dukljans as serbs. i think that those people who were involved politically and through war should know better who they fight. now, to get to nemanja's serbia. dukljan people are called serbs in those times, all dukljan dynasties were serbian. aftermath of serbian history must be taken to get to resolve things. nemanjic dynasty was crowned not a kings of serbs and dukljans, but kings of all serbs. this is an important fact, since kings used to be crowned as rulers of people they rule. hrobatos speaks of mixed ethnicity. i don't see error in that, and it could be possible, but by the times of kingdom of duklja, dukljan people were recognized as serbs (already mentioned byzantines and bulgarians). now to get to that "just another slav tribe, which has nothing to do with serbs". since is that way, in which nation was later people of duklja? serbian, of course. by that, heritage of duklja is serbian. i speak of it cause remember novgorod, kievan rus, smolensk etc. those people in middle ages were not called russians, ukranians, belorussians, but slavs or rus' (sometimes russians by rus' people). they are all considered as medieval state of russia, ukraine, belarus, and it is taken as their heritage, cause those people in middle ages are their "forefathers" even if name of those people was no in middle ages. same goes for duklja, nation which carries heritage of duklja's poeple is serbian. we had that luck (or better to say misfortune) that our middle age nation is called the same as today, not just slavs with no meaning like slovenes and others. why i say misfortune, is that we search same name in historical sources. sebian people are based on duklja's and other people from territory of serbians that gives them right to claim it as serbian, same as english claim right on both agli and saxons. but in serbia case, by sources we can see that dukljans are no other people but serbs. that is no one source, two, but at least five. historians can't be that wrong.

btw, speaking of serbs and rascia, even in modern times serbs from central serbia are called srbijanci among serbs, serbs from hercegovina as hercegovci, serbs from montenegro as crnogorci, serbs from bosnia as bosanci. same regional names...

[phoenix[illusion]]

I dont for Slovaks, but Slovenes are nation from 19th century, composed from minor slavic nations who lived on Austrian Crown teritory.Their name, the Slovenes (Slovenci) was voted on referendum.Other proposition was that they should called themselves as Caranthanians (Karantanci), but Styrians were opposed (there was a strong Croatian opposition in Styria, and only few decision (mainly those from Austrian court) made the Styrians as a part of Slovene, not the Croatian nation), so they simply choosed the Slavic name - Slovenci.

In 14th century there are no Slovenes - you have Styrians, Carniolans, etc., but you dont have the Slovenes.In 19th C. all of those nations/tribes/regional peoples united themselves into one nation.

And, I dont want to offend anyone, but the names "Slovene" and "Slovak" are simply the most unoriginal ones.

i agree, but it's not about originality but of their non success to form as large united people through history. in that documentary hrvatski kraljevi it is well said, that foreign sources mention croats as croats, not more as slavs, which gives credibility of people. styrians and carniolans were names of regions (steiermark and krajina (border)) not the tribes. tribe name of slovenes we don't know cause they accomplished nothing in history to be called different than slavs, later in 19th century, during national movements, to be reviled as slovenci i slovaci, both meaning just slavs. if slovenes acomplished more with their carantania, they would sureliy be recognized as carantanians thrugh middle ages and history.

[matija191]

I think that is fair that I also post my last opinion about the Dioclea subject.

I will start with sources:

Anals of Bari, 1081.

"Et it mense aprilis Archirici perrexit ad Michalam regem Sclavorum deditque eius filio suam filiam uxorem"

Mihajlo is called as king of Slavs.

In the letter of pope Klement III. to the archbishop of Bar 1089:

"Crux quoque per omne regnum Diocliae feratur ante te "

"Hold your cross and show him to all the kingdom of Dioclea."

The land is called Dioclea.

This two sources are describing a bulgarian revolt in 1072.-1074., in which Mihajlo, king of Dioclea, helped the Bulgarians, by sending his son Bodin (who was crowned as bulgarian emperor), and force of 300 warriors under the leadership of Petrilo.

Skylitzes Contiuatos 1073.

"people of Serbs, who was also called as Croats (το των Σερβων έθνος ους κοα Ηροβατας καλούσα) decided to conquer Bulgaria"(...)"Mihajlo, who was a ruler (αρχηγον οντά) in that time of mentioned Croats (τηνικαυτα τ(Πν εφημενων Ηροβατων) with the center in Kotor and Praprat (rrjv οικηοαν τε εν Δεκατεροις κοα Πραπρατοις ποιουμενον) and held a large teritory."

He also mentioned that after the defeat of Petrilo, Byzantines captured a commander who was "first among the Croats after the Petrilo" (τον μετά τον Πετριλον εν Ηροβατοιςτετατμενον).

John Zonaras, who describes the same event in same manor, except one thing:

"people of Croats, who was also called as Serbs"

This "people of Serbs, who was also called as Croats" could be confusing.That sentence means that Petrilo lead a army composed both from Croats and Serbs.Why Serbs?Its easy - Mihajlo had conquered Rascia before.John Zonaras tells us the same thing.But to us is more important that Mihajlo is described as a leader of Croats, and Petrilo´s second in command is described as secong among the Croats, right behind the Petrilo.Conclusion: Dioclea is actualy a Croatia, while Petrilo is her´s governor/vojvoda/ban/vice-king.In Rascia there was Petrislav, who was also a Mihajlo´s vojvoda and who ruled instead of him.

Nicefor Brijenije 1072.

"Croats and Diocleans rebelled and pillaged entire Illirycum (Ηωροβατοι και Διοκλεις αποσταντες άπαν το Ιλλυρικον διετιθουν)" and later the Byzantines marched "against Diocleans and Croats" (κατά Διοκλεων και Ηωροβατων).

This source is about the Croats and Diocleans who lived near the city Dyrrachium.So, this is not the word about Dioclea, but I thought that it could be helpfull to understand some things.Illirycum is actually a Dyrrachium themate.

Nikita Honijat (Koniates) (died around 1206.) describing an attack of Nemanja on Zeta (Dioclea)

„Emperor (Emanuel) had heard, how Stefan Nemanja, a man of restless and insatiable spirit, had attacked neighbouring lands, and that he is, appropiating the Croatia and region of Cotor.“

Anonymus (unknown byzantine author from 13th century, author of "Review of History"), about the same event:

"And he heard [emperor Maneual Comnen] that serbian ruler Nemanja Stefan had became ruthless, and that he enslaves and attacks equaly racial peoples [Slavs] and that he attends to conquer Croats and region of Kotor..."

Anna Comnenus in 1081. describes Mihajlo and Bodin as "egzarchs of Dalmatians", and later on, about the conflicts with the Robert Guiscard, she also writes that Bodin has army composed from "Arvanitoi/Arvatinoi", and she also sayes that John Dukas had fought against Bodin and his "Dalmatians."

There is also a one source, from 1083., who sayed that Robert Guiscard was attacked "from those called Arvatines and those send from Dalmatia by Bodin"

Michael Ataleiates, about the civil war in 1080.

"Proedros Basilakes (...) has taken city of Dyrrachium and gathered army from neighbouring lands; and he called Franks from Italy...when he saw that he gathered large army (he had large number of Romans, Bulgars and Arvanites), he marched towards Solun."

Georgius Cedrenius for year 840. wrote about the population of Pannonia and Dalmatia, and he called them together as Scyths, and then he names them by this order: "Croats, Serbs, Zachumlians, Travunians, Conavlians, Diocleans and Narentians."

So, we have:

Sources for Diocleans in Dioclea: 2
Sources for Croats and Diocleans in Dioclea: 1
Sources for Croats in Dioclea: 7
Sources for Serbs in Dioclea: 1
Sources for Dalmatians in Dioclea: 2
Sources for Tribals in Dioclea: 1

Sources for calling Dioclea as Croatia: 3
Sources for calling Dioclea as Serbia: 0

Its a simple math - Dioclea is not serbian land, nor its populated by Serbs.

EDIT:

Here is something that could be helpfull - a picture of Croats and Serbs sending a gifts to emperor Basil I. (picture is from 11th century).I think that you can use the colors and clothings for serbian nobles or something like that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ba...roatsSerbs.jpg

[Majkl]

I dont for Slovaks, but Slovenes are nation from 19th century, composed from minor slavic nations who lived on Austrian Crown teritory.Their name, the Slovenes (Slovenci) was voted on referendum.Other proposition was that they should called themselves as Caranthanians (Karantanci), but Styrians were opposed (there was a strong Croatian opposition in Styria, and only few decision (mainly those from Austrian court) made the Styrians as a part of Slovene, not the Croatian nation), so they simply choosed the Slavic name - Slovenci.

In 14th century there are no Slovenes - you have Styrians, Carniolans, etc., but you dont have the Slovenes.In 19th C. all of those nations/tribes/regional peoples united themselves into one nation.

And, I dont want to offend anyone, but the names "Slovene" and "Slovak" are simply the most unoriginal ones.

Oh did not really know about forming Slovenes at all. I usually do not even discuss about other nations because I can not have acces to all sources etc. Yet about history from 15 th century and ongoing I know practically nothing.
I do not know what u mean by unoriginal but I am not offended.

[phoenix[illusion]]

this means war
so, i got more final words

[neoptolemos]

Guys what's the status of the medieval Croatia and Serbia during the 14thcent?
Culturally?
any important writings?

[phoenix[illusion]]

Guys what's the status of the medieval Croatia and Serbia during the 14thcent?
Culturally?
any important writings?

i surely did not get the question.
what is your question?