Croatia's borders

I was in a discussion with a Croatian concerning Krajina and he said something along the lines that Croats had migrated to the Balkans before the Serbs and that the Croatian empire reached down to the boarders of Greece. I've searched to find a map like this and this person has not provided it for me either. I was wondering if anyone knew of such map.

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf I was in a discussion with a Croatian concerning Krajina and he said something along the lines that Croats had migrated to the Balkans before the Serbs and that the Croatian empire reached down to the boarders of Greece. I've searched to find a map like this and this person has not provided it for me either. I was wondering if anyone knew of such map.

Well, yes, there is a belief that Croats migrated before the Serbs, about perhaps several months before. This is accepted by Serbian historians, while many Croatian historians point it out as a blatant fact (I call dips! on the Balkans), however beyond belief in a sketchy and a not quite reliable story from the mid 10th century, there is nothing at all to speculate this.

There was no Croatian empire ever, and the theory you are talking about is population, and not statehood. It did not reach all the way to there, various Slavic tribes bearing the Croat name from the North Sea to the Pelopponesis peninsular settled various regions, just like the Slav tribes bearing the Serb name.

The only real promoter of that theory ever is a national romantic 19th century Croatian historian Ljudmil Hauptmann, who argued that there are no Serbs really, but that the Serbs were created from Croats, but he also believed that the Montenegrins are Red Croats, that Slovenes are Alpine Croats, that most of Austria and Albania are Croatian historical territories, that Bosnia is a core Croatian national province...and although he didn't go really into Bulgaria much, he did on one occasion speculize that they are Bulgarized Croats...

Here is a map of the first Croatian state:



Note hawever that  the regions of 13, 14 and 15 were gained after in due time because of territorial expansion (or so it is believed).

The Croats have that same "theory" of being Iranic. I don't put much stock into either of them being so. Either way I don't put much stock into either ethnic group's purity - as Slavic settlement in the Yugoslav lands have been populated by numerous Slavic groups for the first part, aside from the various Germanic and Turkic groups that passed and stayed. The Illyrian settlements are what composes most of the gene pool of Yugoslavia- then the slavic and others in sucession. Anyway, as far as Croatia's borders, I think they have not been even close to Greece, Tomislav? defeated the Bulgars in the Bosnian highlands where he had nominal and in some parts actual rule over the various Bosnian warlords and princes. I don't think it ever passed much more south-east, and stretched into Dalmatia. The present borders are more accurate of Croatian control than any of these nationalistic inspired maps. 

Much much later. There were states of the nominal tribes, like Croatia, or a kingdom of Serbia later than that, like a kingdom of Bosnia, but I sense that the ethnic makeup was a mix of slavs and illyrians and much more localized in their affiliations. The current ethnic identities emerged in the late 1800s.

That's a foreigner - not an actual source of the region - nor is it supported by a few others - especially once again numerous others. You keep re-quoting the same phrase for all your arguments lately. 

A local source has more credibility in defining the actual ethnic makeup of the poeple that source is a part of - much more so than some distant obeserver who relies moreso on already unrealiable hearsay-proxy based sources rather than actual intel. Does not actually mention anything distinct, it is a vague source - as you have already proven by posting it numerous times. I love your little Delusion-land you live in, one day I wish to join, it seems there constrains of facts and ethics and such things get lost in the clouds... 

Hmmm... and people were still being called Scythians in some account in some relatively contemporary accounts...but this particular one seems to be "right?" Enjoy your dellusions, they seem to serve you well. For me... no thanks... for I see you have a quarrel when a Croat claims that everyone is a Croat, but you are pulling the same bulls--t right now, too... of course your infine wisdom is right once again... yes even the Byzantines were proto-Serbs...

I guess Croat identity is quite old. "White Croats" were a part of Ancient Rus tribal confederation and are described in the Primary Chronicle of Russian monk Nestor written in the 12th century AD.

"Free Bulgarians" are simply Bulgarians of Samuil's Bulgaria.

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Europe_1000.jpg   Found this map and I see a Serbia and a Croatia though Bulgaria is further west. Perhaps those were the "free Bulgarians" at the time.

Not a good map, as far as political boundaries go. There was no Serbia at that time, merely a bunch of principalities, Rascia being the most prominent, but also several other, eg Bosnia and Dioclea. In the year 1000 they were all under Roman control at that.

Croatia was under its height in the end of the 11th century just before it was incorporated into the Hungarian crown. It covered pretty much todays borders plus most of modern B&H.


Edited by Styrbiorn - 24-Sep-2008 at 11:10