Croatia's borders

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Originally posted by Yugoslav Originally posted by Sarmat12 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. Yep, that would be those prior to the migration, or better said their 'cousins'. The "White Serbs" - are the Sorbs.   In fact, Russian "Primary Chronicle" also distinguish between "White Croats" and "Serbs" listing them as separate Slavic tribes.

Yes, so?

By the way, I've been looking for Nestor's Chronicle everywhere, some help in citations perhaps?

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sure. http://www.hrono.info/dokum/povest1.html   "Спустя много времени сели славяне по Дунаю, где теперь земля Венгерская и Болгарская. От тех славян разошлись славяне по земле и прозвались именами своими от мест, на которых сели. Так одни, придя, сели на реке именем Морава и прозвались морава, а другие назвались чехи. А вот еще те же славяне: белые хорваты, и сербы, и хорутане."   My humble translation:   After a long time Slavs settled on Danube where there is Hungarian and Bulgarian land now. From these Slavs the other Slavs dispersed on land and took the names for themselves from the places were they settled. So, some of them settled on the river named Morava and called themselves Morava, the other called themselves Czechs. And there are also similar Slavs: White Croats and Serbs and Horutans.

Could it be that he just missed to repead "white" saying "White Croats and White Serbs", or is there something more in it?

Hmmm....

White Croats in Rus where mentioned as such by Russian "Primary Chronicle" when they were still Pagans and later they actually converted to the Orthodox form of Christianity.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Hmmm....   I thought about it again and is seems that he actually means White Croats and (just) Serbs according to the punctuation in the Russian text. "белые хорваты, и сербы"   "White Croats, and Serbs"   I missed the coma in my English translation, but the meaning of it is supposed to be that "White" relates only to Croats.

...interesting...

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Originally posted by Yugoslav Originally posted by Sarmat12 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. Yep, that would be those prior to the migration, or better said their 'cousins'. The "White Serbs" - are the Sorbs.   In fact, Russian "Primary Chronicle" also distinguishes between "White Croats" and "Serbs," listing them as separate Slavic tribes.

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Originally posted by Sarmat12 Originally posted by Yugoslav Originally posted by Sarmat12 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. Yep, that would be those prior to the migration, or better said their 'cousins'. The "White Serbs" - are the Sorbs.   In fact, Russian "Primary Chronicle" also distinguishes between "White Croats" and "Serbs," listing them as separate Slavic tribes.     You see es_bih yet another source of the time clearly specifying an ethnic difference between Serbs and Croats. Where did you get your information about the 1800s comment you made? I'm just curious.

Oh you, you know what he meant to say!

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf Originally posted by Styrbiorn 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, Zeta and 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.   There was no Serbia as we know it today but to say there was no Serbia at all is to ignore the Emperor's "De Administrando Imperio". The Croats at the end of the 11th century did have large parts of Bosnia but a century earlier Bosnia is counted among the lands of the Serbs and would mostly be so until the advances of the Turks and the Turkification of some Serbs into "Bosniaks."

You interpret here, and use circumstantial evidence to create a wonderful theory, not a factual one however, yes a Serb tribe existed, and a Croat tribe, and a Hun tribe, and several Mongolian tribes, etc... Tribalism is a complex matter, and usually cannot be directly translated into an ethnic group especially in and around Europe at the time. You have various Germanic tribes that absorb others into their conglomerate, but it is only a few in the core that actually represent part of that tribe's core. You get the point.

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf   There was no Serbia as we know it today but to say there was no Serbia at all is to ignore the Emperor's "De Administrando Imperio". The Croats at the end of the 11th century did have large parts of Bosnia but a century earlier Bosnia is counted among the lands of the Serbs and would mostly be so until the advances of the Turks and the Turkification of some Serbs into "Bosniaks."

You misunderstood me: I merely pointed out the map is misleading as it shows Serbia as a political entity, which it was not. This map is better, showing the various principalities two decades before the Romans ran over the area. The unnamed territories corresponds pretty well to Zachlumia and the land of the Narentines. Whether or not you want to consider Bosnia, or any other of those states, Serbian is down to politics and the definition of what is Serbian.  It's pretty difficult as well as pointless to apply modern definitions upon a society that was very tribal and later feudal. Personally I see little difference between them as such.

http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1000.html

Originally posted by Yugoslav Er, for various reasons (note: no disrespect towards the makers intended!) I consider euroatlas a source worse than the Wikipedia It's just too many (huge!) errors, and it's not even questionable, but 100% certain borders, which is altogether sensible for someone who actually wants to map every 100 years of Europe....

Euroatlas is indeed ridden with errors, but this particular one is at least more accurate for the Balkans than the other map provided here. In general I can't say which one is best (or worse). I can understand the errors though, especially if you make so many maps. I've created similar (for different years) all-Europe maps and the workload is rigorous.