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

[matija191]

one more seal

seal of archont peter, IX century.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

i already posted peter's church, one of the oldest surviving christian church in balkans
what i wanted to add is that it was under bulgarian arch-episcopy (archdiocese), serbs gain their arch-episcopy (archdiocese) later under st.sava (rastko nemanjic)

I am curious - what Dioclea has with a early medieval Serbs?

titles are quite mess, since there was ban (vojvoda title), and satnik, in same time administrative titles and military titles

That is from a Priest of Dioclea - you see, his work is full with mistakes and legends , and you shouldnt take his words about titles of Croatia/Dioclea/Rascia seriously.His main goal was to prove that there was some great country in the past, composed from Croatia, Dioclea and Rascia, and that their people descended from a Goths - ofc, both "informations" are wrong, but his goal had political/church intentions, not the historical ones.You see, he copied the social pyramide of Croatian kingdom and used for describing a society of his imaginary Gotho-Slavic Kingdom.The first stotnik or satnik (centurion) in Croatia is mentioned in 11th century, and they existed on, into the 13th century.Bans are mentioned from 10th century (although there are some indications for bans in 9th century).Correct if I am wrong, but there are no satniks and bans in Serbia, especially in that time - is there any sign of them in old sources?

If not, they should be excluded from Serbian trait tree.

I am not sure how "on topic" this is... but since titles and such are being mentioned...
I tend to advocate that the Serbian "Praetorians" wouid most likely have been called Druzina...

Preatorians?So Velites are out ?

[phoenix[illusion]]

I am curious - what Dioclea has with a early medieval Serbs?

same as pannonain croatia with littoral croatia. Regions which shared many influences, collaborations, dynasties, and later formed one state (in croatian case medieval Croatia, in Serbian case medieval Serbia)

That church which i posted is made by Petar Gojnikovic and it's located on region of Ras. As for seal, there is no Petar of Duklja in times of IX century, nor later, only Petrislav of Duklja in X century. Petrislav is mentioned by Chronicles, as some believe Chronicles can't be trusted, but it can sure preserve some unchanged things. Now, on seal. As I previously wrote (and write that again), Rascia had right to place titles of some neighbor states, as DAI states that archont of Rascia crowned zhupan of Zahumlje and gave him title of same archont. It only suggest that Zahumlje was under some kind of foederati status, vasal or protectorate of Rascia.As we know, Mutimir (who ruled in period of which we talk about) before he came as one ruler, he was co-ruler with his brothers Stojimir and Gojnik (Stojimir's seal already posted). He managed to exile his brothers to bulgaria, but he left Gojnik's son Petar by his side (which is unknown why). So, by knowing that seal comes from IX century, and inscription is with name Petar (not Petroslav from Chronicles), also that neighbor Zahumlje was under Rascia's protectorate (by crowning into higher rank) it can be said that Mutimir gave to Petar rulership over Duklja (ΠΕΤΡΟΥ ΑΡΧΟΝΤΟC ΔΙΟΚΛΙΑ (Σ) ΑΜΗΝ.), by which Duklja could be in same status toward Serbia as Zahumlje.

That is from a Priest of Dioclea - you see, his work is full with mistakes and legends , and you shouldnt take his words about titles of Croatia/Dioclea/Rascia seriously.His main goal was to prove that there was some great country in the past, composed from Croatia, Dioclea and Rascia, and that their people descended from a Goths - ofc, both "informations" are wrong, but his goal had political/church intentions, not the historical ones.You see, he copied the social pyramide of Croatian kingdom and used for describing a society of his imaginary Gotho-Slavic Kingdom.The first stotnik or satnik (centurion) in Croatia is mentioned in 11th century, and they existed on, into the 13th century.Bans are mentioned from 10th century (although there are some indications for bans in 9th century).Correct if I am wrong, but there are no satniks and bans in Serbia, especially in that time - is there any sign of them in old sources?

Yes, you are right about Chronicles, but historians still use some texts which seems obvious, and that's titles too. Even if someone from medievals wanted to forge history, he still could preserve same titles. As for those titles, same titles appear in Nemanjic Serbia, where are much more sources. Satnik has same function as in Chronicles, as for Ban, that title does not exist, but Vojvoda, which has same function as Ban (Vojvoda is just slavic term). I just note Nemanjic titles which totally agree with Chronicles, and not only by that, but also Bulgarian titles in those centuries equal to Serbian sources in times of Nemanjics. So it's obvious that those titles were used before. I'll just name some Serbian titles from Nemanjic times which are used for Bulgaria in early medievals (so we can assume Serbia too). Desetnik, pedesetnik, satnik, tisucnik, celnik, vojvoda.

Preatorians?So Velites are out ?

I didn't get you at all. He just stated that Serbia should have "praetorians", which was probably roman substitution for druzina.
Croats in TGC roster have praetorians

[Hrobatos]

the Franks write about pretorians of croatian duke Borna in the early 9. century, this is most likely druzhina, so yeah, Serbia should have druzhina as well, its common thing for all slavic peoples

[Majkl]

Man's shirt
regular
sabbatical
ritual
military

Ornaments used on clothes



bonus - girls

[neoptolemos]

Ah Slavic beauty....wait wake up Neoptolemos return now to the TWC stop dreaming of the fair beauties.........
Good post mate!

[AnthoniusII]

I like the bonus...

[Matthæus]

thanks for pictures !

good news is that, finally i have some progress to report...
and some pictures for you to enjoy.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us




be aware that those are levy troops.


These units shoild be considered an team effort because i used a lot of parts made by: Absinthia, Koultouras, Leif Erikson, Petar and others...

[matmohair1]

[matmohair1]

[Majkl]

I always liked levy troops dressed in their own clothes ,especially that white cloacks etc..
But funny is that even I am checking this forum so long I did not notice that first pic in thus thread until now.
btw + rep for units

[Matthæus]

I always liked levy troops dressed in their own clothes ,especially that white cloacks etc..
But funny is that even I am checking this forum so long I did not notice that first pic in thus thread until now.
btw + rep for units

that one on first page is a basis for armored troops. right now I'm editing that model to be even more authentic.

[matija191]

same as pannonain croatia with littoral croatia. Regions which shared many influences, collaborations, dynasties, and later formed one state (in croatian case medieval Croatia, in Serbian case medieval Serbia)

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.

The Dioclea was independent state which had almost nothing with Rascia (except the fact that Diocletia conquered Rascia), and which population was different from Serbs.So, i dont see any special connection (except for neighbouring fact) between Dioclea and Serbs.

cut

You know that Strojimir´s seal is not authentic?

Yes, you are right about Chronicles, but historians still use some texts which seems obvious, and that's titles too. Even if someone from medievals wanted to forge history, he still could preserve same titles. As for those titles, same titles appear in Nemanjic Serbia, where are much more sources. Satnik has same function as in Chronicles, as for Ban, that title does not exist, but Vojvoda, which has same function as Ban (Vojvoda is just slavic term).

Then you should use Vojvoda .

I just note Nemanjic titles which totally agree with Chronicles, and not only by that, but also Bulgarian titles in those centuries equal to Serbian sources in times of Nemanjics.

You want to say that Bulgarians had bans and stotniks in 10th century?Any proof for that?

Desetnik, pedesetnik, satnik, tisucnik, celnik, vojvoda.

I heard only for tisucnik.

I didn't get you at all. He just stated that Serbia should have "praetorians", which was probably roman substitution for druzina.
Croats in TGC roster have praetorians

It was a joke - take it easy.


Little advice :

If you have access to historical sources, such as, as you claim, for Nemanjich titles, you should qoute them insantly.It would the mod-makers a lot.

[matija191]

Those soldiers are from Nemanjich time, but maybe they could be helpfull

[phoenix[illusion]]

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.

The Dioclea was independent state which had almost nothing with Rascia (except the fact that Diocletia conquered Rascia), and which population was different from Serbs.So, i dont see any special connection (except for neighbouring fact) between Dioclea and Serbs.

ahh, if you know serbian history better, you should know that principalities around rascia have a lot of common. whole early serbian history is based on rascia and states around it.

how can it be different than serbs? which gives you right to talk about it like that? i don't know which ethnicity was it during settling, was there red croatia or no, but i know what do byzantines talk about dioklea in times of it's risings. main historians like john skylitzes and kekaumenos, on which writings was based whole history of kingdom of diokela, speak of dioklea as serbians and diokletian archonts as serbians. i don't know which would be better proof if not the one which talks about whole history of dioklea that we know. i already told the story of nemanjic, so as other medieval serbs, who were from diokela.

skylitzes about stefan vojislav of dioklea, founder of vojislavljevic dynasty:
"Gold was taken by stefan vojislav, archont of serbs, (Στέφανος δ καΐ Βοϊσθλάβος, δ των Σέρβων άρχων), who recently got away from constantinopole and taken whole lands of the Serbs (τον τόπον των Σέρβων)..."

skylitzes about the war against same vojislav (battle of bar):
"Serbs have left us to come into their lands..." "Serbs had taken gorges..."

john zonaras:
"some serbian man, called vojislav, got away from byzantium and gathered men..."

doukas writes about konstatnin bodin, attacking every roman cities outside his borders of serbia.

i could go on with this, there's no need...
i really don't know where i was talking about dioklea in whole thread except that dioklea and rascia formed one state, which is correct...

You know that Strojimir´s seal is not authentic?

that's just assumption, cause of cyrilics, which is no real fact. by that, it could date later, but not far as 10th century.

You want to say that Bulgarians had bans and stotniks in 10th century?Any proof for that?

check out titles thread, nikebg done titles very well, and i think he would not do it by low arguments
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=464486

If you have access to historical sources, such as, as you claim, for Nemanjich titles, you should qoute them insantly.It would the mod-makers a lot.

i really don't have times to quote and especially translate from books, right now i'm the only one who wants to do research and i do it from head. i think that many do the same...

Those soldiers are from Nemanjich time, but maybe they could be helpfull

it's not from nemanjic time
http://www.dbaol.com/armies/army_142a_figure_1.htm

it can be best seen by that mailed spearmen, which looks like from early medievals. serbs in nemanjic times were more byz like, while those are slavic like. only that horsemen can be nemanjic time, since he has triangular broadshield

[matija191]

how can it be different than serbs? which gives you right to talk about it like that?

Historical sources give me right.

skylitzes about stefan vojislav of dioklea, founder of vojislavljevic dynasty:
"Gold was taken by stefan vojislav, archont of serbs, (Στέφανος δ καΐ Βοϊσθλάβος, δ των Σέρβων άρχων), who recently got away from constantinopole and taken whole lands of the Serbs (τον τόπον των Σέρβων)..."

True, but you dont see a point - Vojislav is byzantine prisoner who defected, take control in Dioclea and conquered Rascia - "land of Serbs."And he is archont of Serbs because he conquered their land:

http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/atta...0&d=1223290775

skylitzes about the war against same vojislav (battle of bar):
"Serbs have left us to come into their lands..." "Serbs had taken gorges..."

Hmm, I have different translation:

http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/atta...8&d=1223411780

He calls them "Tribals"

john zonaras:
"some serbian man, called vojislav, got away from byzantium and gathered men..."

So, Vojislav is Serb to him, while others calls him a "Diocletian"...even if he was a Serb, that doesnt mean that Diocletians were serbs...

doukas writes about konstatnin bodin, attacking every roman cities outside his borders of serbia.

No, he doesnt - he mentions that Bodin attacks cities outside from his "OWN" borders:

http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/show...281085-1090%29

i could go on with this, there's no need...
i really don't know where i was talking about dioklea in whole thread except that dioklea and rascia formed one state, which is correct...

No, they didnt.Dioclea was conquered by Rascia - in that case, we can speak that Englishmen are Danes, because danish king conquered parts of Anglia, and therefore established one state.But he didnt, he only add it Anglia to his state.

Anyway, Georgie Cedrenos mentions Diocleans, as one of the peoples who settled in Dalmatia:

http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/show...avodi-Dukljane

And we have something more:

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/5...avljahupl6.jpg
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/408...ihrvatagc1.jpg
http://www.blogovanje.com/Montenegro...avaNormane.jpg

And I have much more sources, if you want...

that's just assumption, cause of cyrilics, which is no real fact. by that, it could date later, but not far as 10th century.

Assumption on which historians agreed.But, its no matter.

check out titles thread, nikebg done titles very well, and i think he would not do it by low arguments
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=464486

That doesnt mean that there was a similar caste system in Serbia...

i really don't have times to quote and especially translate from books, right now i'm the only one who wants to do research and i do it from head. i think that many do the same...

What if someone doesnt trust you?

[phoenix[illusion]]

True, but you dont see a point - Vojislav is byzantine prisoner who defected, take control in Dioclea and conquered Rascia - "land of Serbs."And he is archont of Serbs because he conquered their land:

http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/atta...0&d=1223290775

Stefan Vojislav never conquered Rascia. He only fought rebel wars and stabilized Dioklea. It was Mihajlo who started conquests, and Bodin who succeeded overtaking all principalities around Dioklea. So his "archont of serbs" really means that. in fact, he was called "trabounian serb" by keukamenus (he originally came from trabunia.

Hmm, I have different translation:

http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/atta...8&d=1223411780

He calls them "Tribals"

that's why i told you that you need to learn more about serbian history before judging. byzantines used to call all neighbors by the past neighbor names. for serbia they used triballi (which some people in "misjudge" translate as tribals) which was name of thracian tribe. example is in other peoples like bulgarians which they call mezi (mesia) and hungarians as turks. triballi was in fact name that byzantines use from earliest serbian states till end of their empire. even in XIV century, serbs were often called triballi or english translation tribals or triballians, before serbs.

niketas choniates:
"Shortly after this, he campaigned against the nation of triballians (whom someone may call serbians as well) ..."

eustatius, bishop of salona, calls stefan nemanja as "grand archont of tribals"

teodorius metohit talks about milutin as ruler of triballians.

alexius labin says for same milutin that he is ruler of triballi and mizii, so he uses greek words for sebs and bulgarians.

from 15th century:
This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father

there are lots and lots more evidence of this, especially since it appears from 10th/11th century byzantine scripts till end of byz empire. so, scripts with written tribals, tribalians are translated as serbs, with strong facts, and it really is historically correct by connecting documents with serbs written as serbs. as for the word, in greek sources it is used triballi, other thing is that authors translated it as tribals or tribalians or tribes. we should use triballi word instead of any other. as a proof that it is nob about tribes as word, but of triballi a name of thracians, we should look how byz sources call other peoples. (already posted)

No, he doesnt - he mentions that Bodin attacks cities outside from his "OWN" borders:

http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/show...281085-1090%29

too much coffee from montenegro for you. translation vary from author to author. i bet that original sources does mention "serbian" or "triballian". that was written by some so called "crnogorac" and it's all part of nowadays propaganda that crnogorci are not serbs, but "some kind of other people"

Anyway, Georgie Cedrenos mentions Diocleans, as one of the peoples who settled in Dalmatia:

http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/show...avodi-Dukljane

And we have something more:

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/5...avljahupl6.jpg
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/408...ihrvatagc1.jpg
http://www.blogovanje.com/Montenegro...avaNormane.jpg

And I have much more sources, if you want...

hmm, what does dalmatia mean to you? if yo mean today's border of dalmatia, you are wrong. in fact, all sources speak of serbs settling dalmatia, so as croats settling dalmatia. dalmatia was a huge roman province. i'll always repeat, there was no real medieval nationality. people used to call them by the province, state. what constantine porphyrogenitus says is that all principalities around serbia were decendants of serbs. he does not talk about dioklea much, but in later text he speaks of it as serbian province. there were only two large tribes, serbs and croats, which had smaller tribes among them, and some of them are zaclumians, diokleans etc. the reason that they gain their own name is that they formed new states, much smaller than rascia sometimes called only serbia.

those sources only speak of diokleans. but does that mean they are not serbians or from serbian tribe? you just assume that cause author speaks of serbia and dioklea (also traboiunia, zachlimia...) in the same time. the best example is langobard (lombard) principalities in italy. creating many principalities by other names and having one kingdom of lombardy. such as duchy of spoleto, principality of benvenuto etc. all langobarian principalities.

Assumption on which historians agreed.But, its no matter.

assumption by one historian, radmilo petrovic. his assumption is rejected by most historians, for your info.
here's tibor zivkovic's work for better knowing the date of the seal
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19267472/T...al-of-Stroimir

and finally this

No, they didnt.Dioclea was conquered by Rascia - in that case, we can speak that Englishmen are Danes, because danish king conquered parts of Anglia, and therefore established one state.But he didnt, he only add it Anglia to his state.

it was conquering, cause in order to subdue other principality you have to conquer it right? that does not ruin my statement, since i said that rascia and duklja formed serbia. it's a fact that rascia conquered duklja, and with that kingdom of serbia is created, so dioklea, rascia and other principalities are formed into one kingdom, in which creating there was wars against each. it is the same scenario as kingdom of ireland, scottish kingdom etc. stefan nemanja's role in unification is the same as kenneth macalpin's from scotland, who conquered neighbor scottish states, and made one scottish kingdom.

[matija191]

Stefan Vojislav never conquered Rascia. He only fought rebel wars and stabilized Dioklea. It was Mihajlo who started conquests, and Bodin who succeeded overtaking all principalities around Dioklea. So his "archont of serbs" really means that. in fact, he was called "trabounian serb" by keukamenus (he originally came from trabunia.

Hmmm, good one.

that's why i told you that you need to learn more about serbian history before judging. byzantines used to call all neighbors by the past neighbor names.for serbia they used triballi (which some people in "misjudge" translate as tribals) which was name of thracian tribe.

I know that.And I also knew that you gonna used that argument - you see, the Pope, Normans, Arabs and sometimes Hungarians called Croats as Dalmatians - Byzantines and some Westerners sometimes called people of Dioclea as Dalmatians - ergo, you have Croats in Dioclea.You see how is simple to manipulate with the sources?

example is in other peoples like bulgarians which they call mezi (mesia) and hungarians as turks. triballi was in fact name that byzantines use from earliest serbian states till end of their empire. even in XIV century, serbs were often called triballi or english translation tribals or triballians, before serbs.

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.

too much coffee from montenegro for you. translation vary from author to author. i bet that original sources does mention "serbian" or "triballian". that was written by some so called "crnogorac" and it's all part of nowadays propaganda that crnogorci are not serbs, but "some kind of other people"

Well, the pages are from book, not from internetic delusions of some kid with complexes , so if you dont have original, we have status quo.

hmm, what does dalmatia mean to you?

Roman province of Dalmatia.

what constantine porphyrogenitus says is that all principalities around serbia were decendants of serbs.

Yeah - principalities of Pagania, Travunia and Zachumlia.But, guess what, there is no Dioclea in the list.Btw, if you really believe that Narentanians, Travunians and Zachumlians are Serbs, then...

he does not talk about dioklea much, but in later text he speaks of it as serbian province.

Can you post that?Or atleast tell me the chapter?

those sources only speak of diokleans. but does that mean they are not serbians or from serbian tribe?

Yes.

it was conquering, cause in order to subdue other principality you have to conquer it right? that does not ruin my statement, since i said that rascia and duklja formed serbia.

No, they didnt.Serbia already existed, but she now expanded on the coastland.

it's a fact that rascia conquered duklja, and with that kingdom of serbia is created, so dioklea, rascia and other principalities are formed into one kingdom, in which creating there was wars against each.

Serbia existed before.

it is the same scenario as kingdom of ireland, scottish kingdom etc. stefan nemanja's role in unification is the same as kenneth macalpin's from scotland, who conquered neighbor scottish states, and made one scottish kingdom.

We shall called even for now - you gather all your source/s which speaks about Diocleans as Serbs, and I will gather mine.We shall meet here at 12:00 sharp.Bring the pistols .

I am kidding.But I mean seriously about the sources - gather them through week, I will gather mine, and we shall post them, and leave it to audience to decide.It is apsolutely clear that you will not change my opinion, nor I will change yours.

[Tureuki]

Croats and Serbs have little differences(at least from the outside its looks like this), whats the reason for that opposition ? I can't understand :/

[NikeBG]

There are no "little differences" on the Balkans.

[Hrobatos]

I dont see why are you even arguing, neither of those small south Adriatic sclavinias ( Naretania, Travunia, Dioclea, Zachumlia ) will be a faction here anyway, only Serbia and Croatia