Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 137

Thread: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

  1. #41
    matija191's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trench
    Posts
    1,042

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    how can it be different than serbs? which gives you right to talk about it like that?
    Historical sources give me right.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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"

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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?
    COMPANY OF HEROES - BALKANS IN FLAMES

    Mi? Satrli smo grobu vrata,
    Da,još nas ima - još Hrvata!


  2. #42
    phoenix[illusion]'s Avatar Palman Bracht
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    yo, there
    Posts
    3,306

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    Quote Originally Posted by matija191 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by matija191 View Post
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by matija191 View Post
    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"

    Quote Originally Posted by matija191 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by matija191 View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by matija191 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by phoenix[illusion]; October 30, 2011 at 01:52 AM.
    long time no see, but still twc drug kickin'
    check out Tsardoms: Total War!
    Under patronage of respectable Annaeus
    Patron of honorable Giacomo Colonna


  3. #43
    matija191's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trench
    Posts
    1,042

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    hmm, what does dalmatia mean to you?
    Roman province of Dalmatia.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    those sources only speak of diokleans. but does that mean they are not serbians or from serbian tribe?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix[illusion] View Post
    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.
    Last edited by matija191; October 30, 2011 at 08:09 AM.
    COMPANY OF HEROES - BALKANS IN FLAMES

    Mi? Satrli smo grobu vrata,
    Da,još nas ima - još Hrvata!


  4. #44

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    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 :/

  5. #45
    NikeBG's Avatar Sampsis
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Posts
    3,468

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    There are no "little differences" on the Balkans.

  6. #46
    Hrobatos's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,330

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    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

  7. #47
    Majkl's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Prešov ,Slovakia
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    Quote Originally Posted by matija191 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Majkl; October 30, 2011 at 07:54 AM.

  8. #48
    Bagatyr's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Some where in Space
    Posts
    1,646

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    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 .




  9. #49
    Hrobatos's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,330

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    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

  10. #50
    Son of Fire's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario Canada
    Posts
    225

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    What does Britannica and the majority of third part sources say?
    "Such Heroic Nonsense."

  11. #51
    Hrobatos's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,330

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    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

  12. #52
    Son of Fire's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario Canada
    Posts
    225

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    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...
    "Such Heroic Nonsense."

  13. #53
    Hrobatos's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,330

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    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

  14. #54
    Son of Fire's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario Canada
    Posts
    225

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    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?"...
    "Such Heroic Nonsense."

  15. #55
    Majkl's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Prešov ,Slovakia
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

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

  16. #56
    NikeBG's Avatar Sampsis
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Posts
    3,468

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Majkl View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Fire View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Fire View Post
    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.

  17. #57
    Majkl's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Prešov ,Slovakia
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    Quote Originally Posted by NikeBG View Post
    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.

  18. #58
    matija191's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trench
    Posts
    1,042

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Majkl View Post
    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.
    COMPANY OF HEROES - BALKANS IN FLAMES

    Mi? Satrli smo grobu vrata,
    Da,još nas ima - još Hrvata!


  19. #59
    phoenix[illusion]'s Avatar Palman Bracht
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    yo, there
    Posts
    3,306

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    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...
    long time no see, but still twc drug kickin'
    check out Tsardoms: Total War!
    Under patronage of respectable Annaeus
    Patron of honorable Giacomo Colonna


  20. #60
    phoenix[illusion]'s Avatar Palman Bracht
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    yo, there
    Posts
    3,306

    Default Re: [Faction Research topic]: Serbia.

    Quote Originally Posted by matija191 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by phoenix[illusion]; October 31, 2011 at 08:24 AM.
    long time no see, but still twc drug kickin'
    check out Tsardoms: Total War!
    Under patronage of respectable Annaeus
    Patron of honorable Giacomo Colonna


Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •