Serbian Medieval History

The hypotheses suggested by Decebal are strenghtened by the fact it is assumed that Slavic groups north of Danube (like Antes) were in fact a mixture of Slavic, Gothic, Iranic, Uralo-Altaic elements.

Edited by Chilbudios - 07-Jun-2006 at 17:58

Originally posted by Chilbudios The hypotheses suggested by Decebal are strenghtened by the fact it is assumed that Slavic groups north of Danube (like Antes) were in fact a mixture of Slavic, Gothic, Iranic, Uralo-Altaic elements. However, Walter Pohl (1985) observed that the ethnonym of the Croatians appeared after the fall of the Avar khaganate and suggested that the elite group giving this name to Croatians were in fact a tribe from Avar confederation. Therefore, he suggested a Turkic origin char-vata (free warriors) -> chrovatoi.

Originally posted by Chilbudios You may have misunderstood both Decebal's and my (actually Pohl's) point. We're talking about ruling elites. Slavic tribes were for some time under Avar or Bulgar dominance. Bulgars gave their name to the Slavs they settled amongst, why can't this scenario repeat for Croats? "Obri" is a late mention and possibly taken from Byzantine accounts ("Abaroi").

Originally posted by Chilbudios I don't know about croats-but Plinii Cecilii Secundi in Historia Naturalis says: "A Cimmerio accolunt Maeotici, Vali, Serbi, Zingi, Psesii".It's dated 1st century AD.SERBI-hmmm...sounds similar to....oh, i don't know-Serbs, perhaps...  One objection is that this words you quote are in an interpretatio Graeco-Romana (of Pliny and his sources), the modern term "Serbs" may reflect many others. So before equivocation one must identify the linguistic environment the words have crossed and make the correct equations. A second objection would be "yes, so?". There's one Albania in Caucasus, one Albania in Illyria, is there a connection? Is the Chinese surname Chien related to the French chien? And we know of blatant mistakes due to similarities: Jordanes holds Goths to be Getae. So a similarity (especially when there's a considerable distance in time and space) without further evidences doesn't inspire much confidence. A third objection (though rather question) would be, if Serbs are so well identified where are the others? But from that I draw a fourth objection, how do you know Pliny's account to be accurate? Confirmed by whom/what?

Originally posted by Socrates Yes-but how many people calling themselves Serbs are there?You've got us serbs, Sorbs (lusatian serbs) in germany and Sarban tribe in afghanistan.

Well, from most testimonies we don't know how they called themselves we know how they are called. In fact we know even less than that, we know a label, an assumed ethnonym, but we don't know what it covers (the people labeled by it are differentiated culturally? racially? politically?) or if it's a word derived one of the authors (i.e. the name of land, or a mountain or of a river extended to the populations inhabiting it)

It's a well-known fact that sarmatian imposed their rule to slavs

On contrary, little is known, most things are hypothesised and the evidences are not generous.

Btw - why would the croats call themselves by avars after the avars were crushed-i mean-they hated the avars...

How do you know they hated the Avars? Any written testimonies? And why hating Avars and not hating  whatever Iranian tribes that arguably had a similar relation with (as seemingly you suggest)?

assimilated by others probably-where are the huns, avars, sumerians,hurians,cimmerians, scythians...

They have their confirmed history. Can you tell the same about Vali?

Ptolemy mentions Serboi dwelling in Sarmatia in the 2nd century AD.

This is not what one can call a confirmation. Ptolemy and Pliny come from the same cultural environment, same age, they probably used the same sources (or maybe Ptolemy just consulted Pliny's work), just look at their mentions - they both talk about Vali and Serbi among other tribes (IIRC in this precise order).

Similarity between Serb/serboi/serbi/sorbs/srbi is quite obvious (the root srb)...

Yeah, together with the latin sorbere and the university of Sorbona (and you don't want me to get into "serv-" words).

but if say it's just a coincidence-then so be it-since u must have more competence then John Fine-you must be some world-authority on history...

The appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Even a reputable historian can be wrong, yet I'm not saying that, merely I'm asking for some substantial evidences. Reputation does not replace evidences or arguments.

Edited by Chilbudios - 08-Jun-2006 at 19:11

Hah, funny! You mentioned a saying about the Avars I just read in a book. There it says that as early as 11th century there's a saying in Russia: "Izumrli kao Avari!", which is the Serbian translation, I guess. And the book is "History of the Bulgarian people" ("Историjа Бугарскога народа") of the Serbian Dr. Milan Savic, originally published in 1878. Quite an interesting read! And it's on Serbian too, so I'm practicing kin languages...
Btw, he also mentions Nish among the Bulgarian cities there (with population of 16 000).

Originally posted by Sarmata Ther Germanic and Slavic tribes have a long history of bad blood, and I doubt they have ancestry between one another, unless ou mean for example eastern germans might because of Slavic settlements long ago, and the present Sorbian population. Slavs caleld germans "Niemcy" which means mute or dumb, meaning its a safe assumption to say they didnt understand one another.

    earliest neighbours of slavic people were what we today call german tribes. slavs called them nemci. even today in serbian and croatian  language germany is called namachka. in slavic languages nem means mute or unable to speak. most likly unable to speak with other slavic people and that makes a lot of sence especialy if u take in mind that even toaday some 14 ceturies from slavic expanzion thru soutern and eastern europe almost evry slav can understand almost any slavic language.

I have to make my point here. Many history records say that the area setlled by Croats and Serbs was laied to waste by the Avars, so there wouldn't be that many natives around. Also, there are numerous archeological evidence linking Croats to south Ukraine, especially the give-away red and white squares. Now south Ukraine is way too far south to be speaking of a slavic nation! Also, all archeologic evidence from the 7. century sugests Croats were horsemen. This is very unusual for Slavs, who were mainly footsoldiers. Therefore I'm inclined to believe that asimilation into slavic ethnicity happened after Croats settled in the Balkans.   

Many history records say that the area setlled by Croats and Serbs was laied to waste by the Avars, so there wouldn't be that many natives around.

Edited by Socrates - 18-Sep-2006 at 17:04

Odrin=Adrianopolis=Edirne

No. Never.