|
Post by andromeda on Dec 20, 2010 1:05:25 GMT -5
Actually it puts the Serbs in a very favorable light. The Emperor only makes it a point , sometimes harshly, to emphasize that the Serbs are his subjects or the subjects of the Romans. Then he brags about how the Romans ( really Byzantines) showered the Serbs with gifts of land , title , and wealth as well as kept them safe from their enemies ( not always the case actually).
In reality , Porphy describes 'two Serbias.' One of them is what we would consider Western Serbia + parts of Montenegro , Kosovo , and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The second Serbia extends it ( or its vassals) to the Adriatic as well as eastward into what would be considered Western Bulgaria and Macedonia today.
The second Serbia appears chronologically estranged from the rest of the story. What I mean is that when Porphy describes all the land , he gives a 10th century ( post Symeon obliterating and scattering them) description of Serb holdings but it actually doesn't add up to the 7th century projection of their plight in which the '1st Serbia' does.
According to this Byzantine source , a 10th century emperor with a generally friendly and favorable opinion of the medieval Serbs , it would seem that the Serbs were the most violent bunch in the Balkans constantly getting into civil war and courting neighbors only to destroy each other. The shifting alliances and land holdings morphs what 'Serbia' at the time actually looked like which nobody really knows tbh.
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Dec 20, 2010 1:25:06 GMT -5
Tnx for the great info andromeda. As it is obvious from the text, it was Croatia, Bulgaria and Byzantuim that played most important roles at the time on the Bolkans. Serbia was a compilation of jupans that fell under the influence of the three and depending on the period was dominated by one of the three. This is more or less correct but perhaps not so dramatic. In comparison to the medieval Croats and Bulgarians at the time, the Serbs were a people who sort of came down to the Balkans without a purpose of their own which is why it took them longer than the others to finally establish a noteworthy country. The Bulgarians and Croatians came down on their own accord more or less. They had the means and the motive and they pretty much conquered all in their path and shortly after settling set up powerful dukedoms and eventually kingdoms , and again I emphasize , in rapid time. The Serbs came down as 'guests' or 'bribed servants' ( depends on how you look at it) of the Byzantines. Their purpose was planned out for them. They were to integrate into the Byzantine culture , be almost completely assimilated , and become fresh new Byzantine troops and citizens in a land the current Empire couldn't keep under control ( the Bulgarians , Avars , etc kept them on their toes) The Cros came and dealt with the Avars , got their Adriatic prize and continued whatever it is they did up north , only with new elements obviously. Cros hardly ever wen't to war with Bulgaria even though they shared a common frontier. What's the point? The only times they were ever drawn into conflict was over the Serbs actually who had the misfortune of being caught between the frontier. I believe one of the reasons the Emperor seemed so intent on empowering the Serbs ( in his name of course) was not only to spread his own influence but also curb the years of established friendship between the medieval Croatian and Bulgarian states. DAI talks about lucrative trade and gifting. Check it out: [glow=red,2,300]Nor has the Bulgarian ever gone to war with the Croats, except when Michael Boris, prince of Bulgaria, went and fought them and, unable to make any headway, concluded peace with them, and made presents to the Croats and received presents from the Croats. But never yet have these Croats paid tribute to the Bulgarians, although the two have often made presents to one another in the way of friendship.[/glow] ^^ That 'battle' was over the Serbs , interestingly enough. Serb nobles not loyal to Bulgaria fled into Croatia, those same nobles convinced the Croats to protect them, there was a minor skrimish at best but then neither side thought it was worth an all out war, diplomacy worked out better obviously.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 20, 2010 1:37:31 GMT -5
(various albanian reactions) Albanian, the main point of my argument, was not on the term "λαός" but on the term "ΠΛΕΙΣΤΟΣ" which of course in any form of greek means *most* and not "many". The fact that you chose to display a *possibility* that the translation of "λαός" might actually be correct (besides, however that in ancient and modern versions of greek ΛΑΟΣ=PEOPLE) and not verify straight ahead that the translation of "ΠΛΕΙΣΤΟΣ" (which is the important notion in this passage) is TOTALLY wrong, shows your motives. Which are to harm me, at any cost. Albanian, you have an agenda and are not interested in the truth in the slightest. ANSWER ME ALBANIAN!! IS THE TRANSLATION OF "ΠΛΕΙΣΤΟΣ" -> most or "very many" ? Lets show to us how much of a ..... greek you are...
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 20, 2010 1:39:33 GMT -5
andromeda, are you fucking blind? i was precise about what i wrote, don't do this... i aint gonna repeat it.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 20, 2010 2:05:08 GMT -5
lol that's ridiculous. No "purpose"? Thus they couldn't organize themselves. lol
Actually it was because of the fact there were just more Serbs, thus why it was more difficult for them to stay united. The Bulgars (Turkic) were a relatively smaller population, and the Croats for the most part were part of the Serbian ethnic corpus. (Trpimirovici house)
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Dec 20, 2010 2:20:14 GMT -5
andromeda, are you f**king blind? i was precise about what i wrote, don't do this... i aint gonna repeat it. Pyro , if none of us own this book , we don't know what those references are to. Upon which source is the thesis built on? I am quoting direction a (translated source). Let me put it to you another way. If we were arguing about the Bible , I would be using the Biblical scripture while you're using some book written by some guy living today about what he thinks of the events in the Bible and then not even bother to point us any of his references , you only showed that he has a certain number of references , what are they?Clearly you have not done anything like this before , at least on the university level. That's OK though , not your fault. I'm just trying to help you make your 'point' more jagged.
|
|
|
Post by shejtani on Dec 20, 2010 2:23:35 GMT -5
Here's what a Serbian author has to say; a ime Bijeli Pavle naèinjeno je prema albanskom uzoru. Po jednom albanskom predanju, Leka Dukaðin je imao sina Nikolu od kojega potièu Miriditi i Šaljani, i sina Bijelog Pavla od kojega vode porijeklo Bjelopavliæi i Gašani. I sami Bjelopavliæi prièaju da su Bijeli Pavle i Gaš (Gavrilo) bili braæa, sinovi Leke Dukaðina, a isto predanje imaju i Gaši. U "Zemljišniku skadarskom", iz 1416. godine, meðu albanskim imenima nalazi se i Pali Bard. Kako primjeæuje Šobajiæ, kod Albanaca se uz imena èesto upotrebljava atribut bard - bijeli, pa je prema tome Pali Bard - Bijeli Pavle. I u jednom mletaèkom izvoru iz XVII vijeka spominju se Bjelopavliæi pod imenom Palabardi (Palabardhi). Iako su neka bratstva u Bjelopavliæima, po predanju, starinom iz "latinskog Dukaðina", zbog njihove pravoslavne vjere, koja je oèito kasnije primljena, Šobajiæ ih je smatrao Srbima.f116 Why if they trace their origins to the same root would they be called "Old" and "New" Kuci? Unless some other variable is at work, which is a fact .. namely that the Drekal clan actually claimed descent from Skanderbeg, not the Mrnjavcevici. Old toponyms like Bankeqi, Bardhanj, Koci, Fundina etc testify to the contrary, not to mention old sources that speak of "Chuzzi Albanesi" (Bolizza, 1614). Old Montenegro is pretty close, not to mention these people had the tendency to migrate. For example the Ceklin clan of Old Montenegro claim descent from Kelmendi. I wont comment on the rest of your attempt to violate and rape history.. just correcting certain details. funny how he doesn't even answer now ...
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Dec 20, 2010 2:39:09 GMT -5
They couldn't, obviously. Bulgaria and Croatia full fledged medieval countries by the 10th century , recognized by neighbors and Apostolic councils ( incl the Pope) - consider this equivalent to the a 'medieval U.N.' Serbs did not. Talk about disorganization : [glow=red,2,300] and the same emperor Heraclius received him and gave him a place in the province of Thessalonica to settle in, namely Serbia, which from that time has acquired this denomination. ( Note this is the 'first Serbia' mentioned) Now, after some time these same Serbs decided to depart to their own homes, and the emperor sent them off. But when they had crossed the river Danube, they changed their minds and sent a request to the emperor Heraclius, through the military governor then holding Belgrade, that he would grant them other land to settle in. [/glow] Tell me , does this sound organized? ? There is no way to draw this conclusion and according to the DAI the Serbs were close to obliterated in a short while. Read on: [glow=red,2,300]Now, at that time these same Bulgarians under Alogobotour entered Croatia to make war, and there they were all slain by the Croats. Seven years afterwards Tzeëslav escaped from the Bulgarians with four others, and entered Serbia from Preslav, and found in the country no more than fifty men only, without wives or children, who supported themselves by hunting. With these he took possession of the country and sent a message to the emperor of the Romans asking for his support and succour, and promising to serve him and be obedient to his command, as had been the princes before him.[/glow] Now , personally I think ' 50 Serbian men left' is obviously an exaggeration but its probably an exaggerated truth. Clearly the historical account doesn't consider the Serbs very numerous. Meanwhile same source says : [glow=red,2,300]In baptized Croatia are the inhabited cities of Nona, Belgrade, Belitzin, Skordona, Chlebena, Stolpon, Tenin, Kori, Klaboka. Baptized Croatia musters as many as 60 thousand horse and 100 thousand foot, and galleys up to 80 and cutters up to 100. The galleys carry 40 men each, the cutters 20 each, and the smaller cutters 10 each.[/glow] Clearly an exaggeration but a statement nonetheless. Dude , can I smoke whatever you're having. That's gotta be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 20, 2010 2:56:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 20, 2010 3:09:11 GMT -5
Hah. There's not even any evidence of Tomislav's crowning or that he was an actual 'King'.
Serbs were organized in tribes, much like the Montenegrins of today. There was no real hierarchy or King, it's simply a different form of organization. The fact that the Serbs consistantly stayed a compact and recognizable people from the Steppes, to Germany to the Balkans reflects the strength of their organization and ethnic consciousness.
Also depends on what they're considering "Serbia" there, Duklja, Travounia, Zahumlje or Rascia? And it's obviously inaccurate like you say.
Tomislav's brother Vladislav, was recorded to be a Serb. Add to this the large amount of Serb rulers of Hrvatska.
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Dec 20, 2010 3:42:01 GMT -5
A letter from Pope John X calls Tomislav 'Rex Chroaturum,' Rex is king in Latin plus we know there is a recorded legacy starting with Trpimir that ends with Zvonimir ( Zvonimir was still a cousin of Kresimir , yadayada).
Now I'm an objectivist. The letter from the Pope is recovered many centuries later and therefore its authenticity is in question. But I don't see why it doesn't 'fit in the pieces.' I mean previous recognitions have been bestowed on Croatian rulers such as Branimir ( Dux Chroatorum) which is actually etched in stone. Biggest problem with Tommy is that he's not mentioned in critical documents like the DAI, in fact only Trpimir and a handful of others ( half of them probably legendary) are mentioned ( but the DAI is chronologically all over the place so...) But even if the King that ruled Croatia wasn't actually named Tomislav , who cares ? His presence was recorded in strong historical documents i.e. the size of his army and holdings. He could've been named Milokliz Trpimirovic for all I care. lol.
Croats were organized pretty much along the same lines , as well as the Bulgarians. As well as other nomadic turned domestic peoples. Yet the level of Serbian disorganization during this time was staggering compared to neighbors. Again , I think they didn't have their own purpose for settling the Balkans, not initially, and even wanted to go back home but then settled on real estate in land more peaceful ( i.e. the land the Croats just conquered from the Avars) I mean the Serbs were probably militarily weaker than the Croats at the time ( they weren't invited for their military obviously) and less numerous ( judging by illustrious baptism of the Croats compared to the mundane of the Serbs and the huge army size of the Croats compared to the virtually wiped out Serbs in a matter of a couple years). Also the description of white Serbia being located to 'Great Croatia' in their previous homeland. Serbs have lived side by side with the Croats even before their Balkan escapades. It made sense for them to not settle in the heart of Bulgarian-Greek conflict ( Thessalonica-Macedonia) and closer to their traditional cousins ( which is why they decided to settle close to or in lands that Croats conquered).
The numbers are understated obviously but the impression is real enough I think. It seems that the Serbs that eventually came to rule the duchies were not there before Symeon had scattered them anyway. This seems to be the only logical explanation unless the DAI just interchanges Croat with Serb willy-nilly , I don't think that's the case. Its only after Tzeslav returned with Byzantine backing that he and his vassals enjoyed rule in the duchies or else the story of the Serbs makes no sense whatsoever. Also , chronologically speaking , its only after the war with Symeon and the obliteration of Serbia are the duchies mysteriously Serbian now or that this region of Dalmatia-Illyricum even has newly named duchies. DAI did say that he sent Tzeslav and some rulers back with money and people to repopulate the lands. The ones that scattered into Croatia , guess where they ended up?
'Vladislav Trpimirovic" is a Serb where? This is news to me and I consider myself fairly well versed in history. Sounds like a desperate theory but I'm interested in hearing its grounding. Furthermore , its unknown how many , if any , brothers Tomislav had and its not even confirmed if he was the actual son on Muncimir.
And the only Serb ruler of Hrvatska I ever knew of was Alexander Karadjordjevic ( plus some Serbian despots that ruled Cro parts of Bosnia , but not the whole thing.)
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 20, 2010 3:42:18 GMT -5
andromeda, are you f**king blind? i was precise about what i wrote, don't do this... i aint gonna repeat it. Pyro , if none of us own this book , we don't know what those references are to. Upon which source is the thesis built on? I ain't gonna upload a photo of myself posing next to the book, but i can ensure you that i have it in printed form, should i just scan the invoice from the e-book store and post it here? I wrote explicitly that the original passage (in greek) writes that the Bulgo Khan lost *MOST* (and not very many) of his people(or men, if that b1tch patrinos prefers so). I dont know any other word for it than VICTORY. So you, claiming that Serbs managed just a draw, @ best case, is a lie. Plain and simple. Now, i noticed, you said smth about me, not being bla bla bla in a position bla bla , first time bla bla.... Stop this helpless nonsense. And dont try to deviate the subject. Try to concentrate, focus (also trying to accept your faults would be a huge step ahead). So? Wanna talk about anything more specific?
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 20, 2010 3:51:04 GMT -5
andromeda, are you f**king blind? i was precise about what i wrote, don't do this... i aint gonna repeat it. Pyro , if none of us own this book , we don't know what those references are to. Upon which source is the thesis built on? I am quoting direction a (translated source). Let me put it to you another way. If we were arguing about the Bible , I would be using the Biblical scripture while you're using some book written by some guy living today about what he thinks of the events in the Bible and then not even bother to point us any of his references , you only showed that he has a certain number of references , what are they?Clearly you have not done anything like this before , at least on the university level. That's OK though , not your fault. I'm just trying to help you make your 'point' more jagged. alright you little twister. YOU EXPLICITLY WROTE that there are not many sources of the early slavs, before DAI. I GAVE YOU DIRECT HINT. (specific book, page, content about your question). I NEVER said i read all of them, i just showed you, that there are indeed several of them, before the DAI. Simple hey? Now, about the rest of your bubble,about DAI, i have bought DAI in printed form in the *original* Greek (with English translation), whereas apparently you are reading some on-line (most probably lousy) translation. cheers.
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Dec 20, 2010 4:00:42 GMT -5
Pyro , if none of us own this book , we don't know what those references are to. Upon which source is the thesis built on? I ain't gonna upload a photo of myself posing next to the book, but i can ensure you that i have it in printed form, should i just scan the invoice from the e-book store and post it here? I wrote explicitly that the original passage (in greek) writes that the Bulgo Khan lost *MOST* (and not very many) of his people(or men, if that b1tch patrinos prefers so). I dont know any other word for it than VICTORY. So you, claiming that Serbs managed just a draw, @ best case, is a lie. Plain and simple. Now, i noticed, you said smth about me, not being bla bla bla in a position bla bla , first time bla bla.... Stop this helpless nonsense. And dont try to deviate the subject. Try to concentrate, focus (also trying to accept your faults would be a huge step ahead). So? Wanna talk about anything more specific? Symeon almost wiped the Serbs off the map. That is not a victory. I showed that already. Most Serbian historians accept that. Thankfully for the Serbs some escaped to live in Greece and Croatia and come back and reclaim their land. Serbs got the upper hand in some battles but overall , Symeon crushed them in the war. How does that sound?
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Dec 20, 2010 4:04:29 GMT -5
Name one.
Common Pyrro don't be this dumb. Is it a charter? Script? even geographic log? Does it have a name?
And if you're not even sure what the name of your source is called, how do you know its reliable?
Post it in Greek , that would be fantastic. Scan it if you can. I don't know if you can read ancient Greek better than experts on the subject but you can certainly give it a try. Just a hint , most translation you can actually buy will be updated with modern language so whether its English or Greek , it will have the same words pretty much. Pyrro its up to you to challenge the experts!
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 20, 2010 4:15:47 GMT -5
Name one. Common Pyrro don't be this dumb. Is it a charter? Script? even geographic log? Does it have a name? I gave you book, page, with 3 list of sources. Dont blame me for your laziness (or poverty). I aint gonna do neither your homework, nor your babysitting. (i'll give only one important source : STRATIGIKON) (but dont expect any more homework for your lazy ass) Post it in Greek , that would be fantastic. Scan it if you can. I don't know if you can read ancient Greek better than experts on the subject but you can certainly give it a try. Just a hint , most translation you can actually buy will be updated with modern language so whether its English or Greek , it will have the same words pretty much. Pyrro its up to you to challenge the experts! It is hard to seat down and write 500 pages, just for the sake of some random ustasa i met on the internet, dont you think? Now if i can read ancient greek, better than your experts? 1st, this is not ancient greek, this is Byzantine Greek, pretty much close to "Kathareuousa" the official greek language till 40 years ago. 2nd, i showed small pieces where one not-so-accurate xalation can alter the meaning drastically.
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Dec 20, 2010 4:29:43 GMT -5
Pyrro , when I read a history book , I always check the bibliography and follow up , that is if I'm that interested. Most authors have the name of the source readily available in the bibliography, strange that Curta does not.
Its not my job to disprove you. Its your job to prove your positive statement.
I claim there are not many ( if any) in depth historical sources that detail the migration of the Slavs to the Balkans other than the DAI , certainly not predating it.
My position is doubtful.
Then you say yes there are many sources. At this point its up to you to come up with evidence to support your positive claim.
Giving me pages to a contemporary book means nothing unless that book can be sourced to something tangible. It's up to you to find that tangible link and present it.
Does this make sense to you?
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Dec 20, 2010 4:50:36 GMT -5
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 20, 2010 5:04:57 GMT -5
Other sources : (pre-DAI) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_MonemvasiaMiracles of St Demetrius I Miracles of St Demetrius II The siege of Thesaloniki is very informative about Sagudates, Vojnici, Dragocevci, etc... (Serbian tribes), many references to women fighting, first accounts of migrations of slav families, in the the greek penisula, etc... Its a puzzle actually. IMO, even known and successful scientists have not discovered yet all the "problems"/"questions" (not to talk about "answers") regarding slav migrations to the balkans. There several issues, untouched. The fact that Curta in his book "Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, ca. 500-1250" in the chronology of events, completely skips the byzantine invasion to Crete in 961, shows that he failed to touch a very important event. Now, in Crete there are villages with explicitly bulgarian names, and a plethora of old byzantines churches near them, and the only way to explain this, is by studying the campaign 961 AD. If Curta a balkanian, fails to do that, then i cannot imagine what to expect from "more western" "scholars". EVERYTHING, present, past or just memory, must be EXPLAINED, satisfactory. That is "history" for me. Trying to solve, rather than ... accept and speculate. I follow a strict orthological philosophy derived from the world of mathematics/logic/comp science, and this area of slavic migrations in greece (or even slavic departures from Greece) is very interesting for 3 reasons 1) slavic matters are kind of forbidden nowadays - extra challenge 2) the evidence is simply there, today, for even totally irrelevant tourists to witness 3) no satisfactory answers exist
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 20, 2010 5:07:38 GMT -5
LMAO dude, your searches are very .... targeted, i must admit!! What happened? Did you find any "croats" in the stratigikon? ;D
|
|