Croatia's borders

you check the reference at the bottom of the page?
http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-cg/povijest/vlahovic.html

not that it matters, Im just basing this off what i read from the site but why do you say not western Poland? did professor Vlahovic make an error? (just wanna know where you're getting your information from and why this piece of information should be disregarded)

To precise my point: western Poland- no, while between Nysa and Laba(German y)  -yes. Why? As far as i know the only traces after serbs in Poland are the names of villages. But if we take it's proof for settlement we should also believe in Hungarian, Moravian, Venice, Russian, and few othwers settlements. Of course If we talk about condensed settlement - the subject tribe forms vast majority in population.

There's condensed area still populated by Serbs, Łużyce, that has little if any with polish territory.

I think Norman Davies would disagree with you on the point you made about the "sarb" "serb" names left behind in Polish villages, in his book "Gods Playground" he actually mentions the White Croatians and White Serbians in Poland and as proof of the names of villages and such he hints that they may show proof that Poland was more than just a settlement for western slavs but for slavs in general. Check it out, I can quote it in Polish if you'd like but I dont know if you'd get anything from that. Maybe check it out at the library in my book its on page 65. Yes Polabians settled along the Elbe so I agree with you on that one.

As per toponyms:there are very limited Chorvat - like toponyms whough presence of horvats are better proven; while there's much more toponyms like Serb/Sarb.

As per Norman Davies i read this book few years ago and that was quite interesting, perhaps I'll come back to initial chapter

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."

Who told you that ? Bosniaks were way before the turks came, they also were the ones that were resisting the turks the most. Dont forget the Bosnian Church, Bosancica that is a cyrilic script that serbia uses today and the language Bosnian that serbs and croats today say its their Croatian, Serbian or Serbo-Croatian..

Balkan spam tread&post...Are you not tired after all those wars and poverty in your countries after conflicts?!?Western countries in Ex-Yugoslavia had income per capita over 1000Eu montly...Now you have unemployment and heads full with alusions.Period.

..and after they had been tired by their fullish behavior they run away from there.Most of them say:Turks left us couse we "cought them on condition" after 500 years!!!!