|
Post by terroreign on Sept 13, 2011 11:55:42 GMT -5
^that's an absurd theory because it is widely known that the slavs were primarily a peaceful, farming people.
however this Oleg is onto something - Srb becomes Hrv (with a turkish suffix "-at").
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 13, 2011 12:20:00 GMT -5
^^ Hahah , I love your hair brain theories. Makes this forum entertaining But seriously , history records that the Croats were called upon to eliminate the Avars from Dalmatia on behalf of the Byzantine Empire. At the time Croats lived north of Hungary as opposed to south of it like today. The Croats came and conquered the Avars out of Dalmatia and then settled there. Some sources record that some Avars were absorbed into the Croat people which would explain the odd findings on Hvar. No people ,especially in Europe , is homogenous after all. The portion of the Croats that split off from Dalmatia and seized Pannonia were aided by the Franks in putting down Avar rule. None of these findings are surprising to me and perfectly line up with the historical recording of the Croats conquering , settling , an assimilating Dalmatia.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 13, 2011 12:20:26 GMT -5
No. What's absurd is your idiotic claim that all Slavs are Serbs.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 13, 2011 12:24:05 GMT -5
We also borrowd some formal titles in the realm of government from the conquered Avars such as 'Ban' ( Bayan in whatever Turk language the Avars spoke) Ban has always been a uniquely Croatian title from this point on. Also not surprising since its already well known that Turkic people already had a higher form of organized government than the Slavs over whom they ruled.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 13, 2011 12:31:45 GMT -5
No. What's absurd is your idiotic claim that all Slavs are Serbs. When you think about it he's not completely wrong but you have to distinguish what is meant by 'those Serbs' and the eventual ethnicity of Serbs that rose in the 12th century from which all modern Serbs draw their identity. The Greeks in particular often conflated 'Slav' and 'Serb' together to mean the same thing. In Greek / Latin the words Serb and Slav basically meant the same thing : A lower form of people named after some shoddy footware and servantile status. Latin sources also used 'Slav' to describe other Slavonic speaking peoples like Croats ( Thomas the Archdeacon - and the Greek regent Anna Comnena). What Krivo fails to understand is that this makes the term 'Serb' completely meaningless before the conversion of Rascians to Orthodoxy. Again the pre Serbs didn't call themselves Serbs , others called them that , they didn't even have a country named Serbia as they called themselves Rascians. It was the Nemanja/Nemanjic Rascians that accepted the foreign lable of Serb as a national and religious identity. Krivo's people were Rascians just like the ancestors of Slovenes were Carantians. Onl the Bulgars and Croats carried their own name over and called themselves and their countries by those names many centuries before Serbia even existed. ^ Solid reasoning , try to break it.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 13, 2011 13:28:37 GMT -5
Serbs existed as a people before entering the roman empire, and before "slav" existed as a term.
As for the Rascian comment, Stefan Vojislav is recorded as a Serb....from Duklja, not Rascia, and he precedes the Nemanjici.
"Sorabi, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur.."
- 882, Frankish annals
"The Serbs, the nation which lives in Dalmatia..."
Notice it is in latin, and yet "Sorabi" not Servos or some later Latin corruption...
|
|
|
Post by Moe Lester on Sept 13, 2011 16:56:23 GMT -5
Aren't all Slavs from modern day Iran anyway?
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Sept 13, 2011 17:13:16 GMT -5
Aren't all Slavs from modern day Iran anyway? When? Which period of history are you talking about? Most of East and West Slavs are originally from Eastern Europe(regions from Baltic sea to Black sea)
|
|
|
Post by Moe Lester on Sept 13, 2011 17:19:29 GMT -5
When? Which period of history are you talking about? Most of East and West Slavs are originally from Eastern Europe(regions from Baltic sea to Black sea) Before they entered Europe, they were from modern-day Iran. There language has many things in common with Persian (like the word Gorod/Grad coming from Persian word "Jerd" ("Gerd" before Arab invasions). And they're genetics has a lot in common with the Iranians today.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Sept 13, 2011 18:01:53 GMT -5
When? Which period of history are you talking about? Most of East and West Slavs are originally from Eastern Europe(regions from Baltic sea to Black sea) Before they entered Europe, they were from modern-day Iran. There language has many things in common with Persian (like the word Gorod/Grad coming from Persian word "Jerd" ("Gerd" before Arab invasions). And they're genetics has a lot in common with the Iranians today. Early Iranians(say about 1000 BC) were akin to modern Slavs, modern are closer to Arabs
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 13, 2011 18:13:17 GMT -5
There are theories that the old Serbs, Croats, and Bulgars were of Irannic origin. There have been theories that the Russians have had genetic contributions from an Irannic tribe known as the Roxolani; some have even tried to prove that the name 'Russians' derives from the Roxolani and not the Varangians though this theory has failed to gain popularity.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Sept 13, 2011 18:43:18 GMT -5
Novi - the point is that you keep banging on about Turkic Bulgars etc., when in fact the Serbs also dwelt with Avars, and mixed with them. Unlike you, I don't deny there could be Bulgar blood in us, especially since Kuber's Bulgars settled in the Pelagonia plain (where I am from). I think you also need to recognise your Avar connections - BTW, their Khaganate did not encompass any Macedonian territory.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Sept 13, 2011 18:45:28 GMT -5
There are theories that the old Serbs, Croats, and Bulgars were of Irannic origin. There have been theories that the Russians have had genetic contributions from an Irannic tribe known as the Roxolani; some have even tried to prove that the name 'Russians' derives from the Roxolani and not the Varangians though this theory has failed to gain popularity. Russians have a lot of Mongol blood in them given that they were part of the Mongol empire for so long.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Sept 13, 2011 20:14:52 GMT -5
"There are theories that the old Serbs, Croats, and Bulgars were of Irannic origin."
Can you stop being a liar for once. BULGAR is a Turkish name, your founder Asparuch didn't speak an Irannic tongue, but an east asian one. In Kirgizstan there is a mountain named after your mongol tribe.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 13, 2011 20:21:15 GMT -5
yeah please dont put serbs in the same boat as bulgarians, ivo.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 13, 2011 20:28:57 GMT -5
Serbs existed as a people before entering the roman empire, and before "slav" existed as a term. As for the Rascian comment, Stefan Vojislav is recorded as a Serb....from Duklja, not Rascia, and he precedes the Nemanjici. "Sorabi, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur.." - 882, Frankish annals "The Serbs, the nation which lives in Dalmatia..." Notice it is in latin, and yet "Sorabi" not Servos or some later Latin corruption... There is no record of the Serbs calling themselves Serbs before the Nemanjic's. Again , their country is called Rascia and they are Rascians just like the pre-Slovenes were Croat/ Carantian mixed. Serb was commonly used as subword for Slavs since it had the same meaning especially among the Greeks. The Frankish annals refer to Slavs in that instance because in the very next script ( one Serbs often ignore) Einhardt writes that Ludevit ( Posavian Croat ruler) took flight from Borna ( Dalmatian Croat ruler) i.e. in Dalmatia and went to the Serbs. If the 'ethnic Serbs' held Dalmatia as you say, why would Einhard write that a Posavian prine leaves Dalmatia to go to the Serbs if the Serbs are already supposed to be there? Serbs as an ethnicity was born with Rastko and his church. Sticking to the topic - about the Avars , there is no source tha mentions any kind of (ethnic) Serb encounter with the Avars. The Avars are mentioned going to war with Croats and Croats specifically over Dalmatia and Pannonia. Croats win petty much independently in Dalmatia and pledged loyalty to the Franks in Pannonia for their military assistance. Again this explains the probably Avar ancestry on Hvar since some Avars assimilated into the victorious Croats. Serbs - or the Slavs that would become 'ethnic Serbs' are mentioned at this time too but they are way down in Macedonia trying to decide whether to stay or not. As far as we know , they had no direct conflict with the Avars over Dalmatia which works as evidence against their presence there at all.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Sept 13, 2011 20:34:34 GMT -5
"when in fact the Serbs also dwelt with Avars, and mixed with them." Never happened Chento. Kuber never settled *permanently* in Vardar, he and his group of slavs, romans and germanics just came by and looted gold vaults etc...Fact of the matter is there is a contradiction made by Bulgarians heavily here, they say, Kuber settled permanently in Vardar and swiftly absorbed into the population of Serbs, while his relative Asparuch and his Bulgars were effectively a segregated mass from the Slavs of Thrace, til the 10th century, have a look below: "As late as the ninth century Bulgarian inroads into unconquered Slav territories were UNDOUBTEDLY RAIDS CARRIED OUT BY MARAUDERS, which hardly have left any ethnic traces on these territories." - HUGO GROTHE Referring to the replies given by Pope Nicholas I to the questions put to him by the Emperor Boris: "They offer valuable and irrefutable evidence that the Bulgarian ruling stratum had not yet become fused with the subjugated Slavs" - C.J. JIRECHEK "In the tenth century the Bulgars were still a separate people" - M. MURKO PS 1 Ask Pyrro to translate the fabrication made by wiki regarding the Kuber inscription PS 2 Why should l recognise Avars when it never occurred? PS 3 Your sympathy for the Bulgars is amazing
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Sept 13, 2011 20:39:43 GMT -5
I actually agree wholly with Novi Pazar here ( yes it is possible.) Chento get your facts straight. There is no mention in any historical source that the Slavs that would become ethnic Serbs ever had any relations with the Avars. Only the Croats are mentioned as the primary antagonist faction against the Avars and this was more north in Dalmatia and Pannonia. Avar influence fizziled out down south were you're from and the Serbs are from without a conflict ( unlike Dalmatia were there was at last a 10 year conflict between the Croats and Avars with the Avars losing.)
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Sept 13, 2011 20:44:09 GMT -5
uh i just quoted to document where he strictly states that a people named serbs dwelled in dalmatia, in that context the only possibility is that a) they were speaking of a croat vs serb dalmatia or b) that 'croatian' is just a title bestowed on catholic serb rulers.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Sept 13, 2011 20:44:35 GMT -5
use some logic novi. are you telling me that avars and slavo-serbs formed alliances and fought together and did not mix?
sure, their genetic influence may not be that great, but you cannot deny it. likewise i don't deny proto-bulgar or even iranic-serboi influence on our dna. the majority of our dna however is neither of the two.
|
|