Medieval Serbia before the Nemanjić

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,499
Republika Srpska
#11
Most of what you said originally came from the Dukljanin Chronicle, a notoriously unreliable piece of work. The Svevladovići are a myth.
 
Jul 2017
201
Srpska
#12
Most of what you said originally came from the Dukljanin Chronicle, a notoriously unreliable piece of work. The Svevladovići are a myth.
No. You are doing it wrong. I just told you.

1. Even De Administrando Imperio tells you there were kings before Viseslav. There were many because Viseslav lived around 800 CE in DAI, and DAI specifies there were kings going back to at least 600 CE. So even by DAI alone there is 200 years of kings before Viseslav.

2. You are by fiat transliterating the greek Βοισεσθλαβος into Viseslav without checking other sources. His name cannot be determined to be Viseslav just on the basis of Βοισεσθλαβος.


As a sidenote, the name of the source is NOT Dukljanin Chronicle. The name of the source is the Booklet about Goths, Book of Goths. Or you can call it Kingdom of the Slavs as translated.
Or you can call it History of Dalmatian Kings as titled in the republishing of Orbini if you are referring to the republishing.
Nowhere is that source called Dukljanin Chronicle. We do not even know who wrote it. The author is anonymous. However, the author gave his work a name in the preface, explicitly titled it the Booklet about Goths, and translated Kingdom of the Slavs. You should respect the authors title.

The work is reliable because it is consistent with DAI, and other sources dealing with same time, place, and events. There are no conflicts. I already said it.

That is incorrect.
The two sources are reliable because they are not connected, they tell non identical accounts, and they are mutually consistent -- they can be read without conflicts.
 
Jul 2017
201
Srpska
#13
ca. 850 - 891 - reign of prince Mutimir and the start of Christianization in Serbia and the establishment of the Ras Eparchy
892 - first Serbian prince with a Christian name, Petar Gojniković

This is also incorrect.

In accordance with both the Book of Goths and De Administrando Imperio, mass baptizing as well as royal baptazing arrived in Serbia with Svetopluk around 600 at the time of the division of Great Moravia.

1. In DAI, during the time of Roman emperor Heraclius, a portion of Serbs were explicitly baptized, DAI says so, in the early 600. So, clearly baptizing "started" much earlier than 850-891.

2. The Book of Goths tells us that Svetopluk with the help of emperor Heraclius called bishops from Rome to form bishoprics and baptize people, and that was in the 600 as well. The two sources are consistent, the baptizing although not full throughout Great Moravia happened in the 600's as well, and it happened before that as well because churches and preachers were in Dalmatia before 600. For example, the account is that Svetopluk called one of them who was traveling through the country to his court.

3. Svetopluk is the first of the Moravian kings to carry "Sveti" (Holy) in his name of his line of Moravian kings. No other ruler is attested as "Sveti" (Holy) before him. Not only that, but his son's name was Svetolik (Holy face or holy likeness), again all of a sudden carrying "holy" in his name when no other before them did. This indicates connection to church was strong and names were christianized in 600. In addition, Svetopluk's grandson, Svetolik's son's name was Tomislav (Thomas). This is further proof the dynasty during Heraclius in early 600 CE was tied to the church. So Petar Gojnikovic in 900 was not the first ruler to have a christian name. Tomislav (Thomas) was for sure, but I would say that Svetopluk being the first to have "holy" in his name is indeed the very first to have a christian name.
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,499
Republika Srpska
#14
The DAI does says that there were rulers before Višeslav but it does not name them. And the DAI was written in the 10th century. Gesta Regum Sclavorum, which is the earliest source that mentions Svevlad and others, was written in the 12th or 13th centuries yet it apparently knows more about earliest Serb rulers than the much earlier and closer to the events DAI. Orbini is much later of course. Historians are careful when using Orbini's claims about the 14th century Serbian Empire, let alone events in the 6th and 7th centuries. Just because two sources are not in conflict does not mean both are true. It just makes no sense that Constantine VII, a Byzantine Emperor, knew less about early Serb rulers than authors writing much later than him. There are simply no primary sources that tell us about the existence of Svevlad and the others, they are first mentioned centuries after their supposed existence.
 
Jul 2017
201
Srpska
#15
The DAI does says that there were rulers before Višeslav but it does not name them. And the DAI was written in the 10th century. Gesta Regum Sclavorum, which is the earliest source that mentions Svevlad and others, was written in the 12th or 13th centuries yet it apparently knows more about earliest Serb rulers than the much earlier and closer to the events DAI. Orbini is much later of course. Historians are careful when using Orbini's claims about the 14th century Serbian Empire, let alone events in the 6th and 7th centuries. Just because two sources are not in conflict does not mean both are true. It just makes no sense that Constantine VII, a Byzantine Emperor, knew less about early Serb rulers than authors writing much later than him. There are simply no primary sources that tell us about the existence of Svevlad and the others, they are first mentioned centuries after their supposed existence.
Okay, first, calling it Gesta Regum Sclavorum is fine.

Second, let's NOT call it "Orbini's claims." He did not write Gesta Regum Sclavorum, he simply republished it.

There are other primary sources on Svevlad, mentioned as the sacker of Rome in Gesta Regum Sclavorum. Svevlad lived during the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, 395 CE. He sacked it.
In the same time period multiple other sources, from Orosius to Jordanes, report of Alaric who sacked Rome around 395 CE.
Alaric is Svevlad, the name means the same thing, and they did the same thing according to multiple sources, they sacked Rome, and at the same time around 395 CE, and from the same place, the Danube in Moesia (Thrace).
Gesta Regum Sclavorum is consistent with other sources, as I already told you above.

Ths statement by you is incorrect and irresponsible:

The Svevladovići are a myth.
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,499
Republika Srpska
#16
There are other primary sources on Svevlad
, mentioned as the sacker of Rome in Gesta Regum Sclavorum.
Gesta Regum Sclavorum says that Svevlad lived during the reign of emperor Anastasius "Regnante in urbe Constantinopolitana imperatore Anastasio". Anastasius I lived during the late 5th century, decades after Alaric.

Alaric is Svevlad, the name means the same thing
Except the name Svevlad comes from Orbini and Marulić. In the Gesta Regum Sclavorum it is not Svevlad, but rather Senudslav.
"filii regis Senudslavi"

But besides, as I said, Gesta Regum Sclavorum is not the most reliable source.
 
Jul 2017
201
Srpska
#17
Gesta Regum Sclavorum says that Svevlad lived during the reign of emperor Anastasius "Regnante in urbe Constantinopolitana imperatore Anastasio". Anastasius I lived during the late 5th century, decades after Alaric.


In the Gesta Regum Sclavorum it is not Svevlad, but rather Senudslav.
"filii regis Senudslavi"
.
1. True. Gesta Regum Sclavorum is titled to start with the year 495. However, we know that is incorrect from other sources. GRS describes events of the fall of the Roman province of Illyricum, from Danube, by the Goths, and we know that occured in 395 and not 495.
In addition we have further support in the document itself, by reconstructing the timeline of the family tree of Svevlad, going backward from 1161 back to Svevlad, we know that the events could not have started in 495 during Anastasio, but rather during 395. The timeline does not fit. So, the events and the timeline described in GRS tell us that the events started in 395 rather than 495 as the title suggests.

2. The work is in italian, the name is SUEULADO. It means the same thing as Alaric. Just as Gesta Regum Sclavorum means the same thing as the Kingdom of the Slavs. It's the same thing.

 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,499
Republika Srpska
#18
1. True. Gesta Regum Sclavorum is titled to start with the year 495. However, we know that is incorrect from other sources. GRS describes events of the fall of the Roman province of Illyricum, from Danube, by the Goths, and we know that occured in 395 and not 495.
So we should ignore the text of the source in order to fit a narrative?

Plus, in the original Gesta Regum Sclavorum it is not Sueulado, but Senudslav as I have already said.
 
Jul 2017
201
Srpska
#19
So we should ignore the text of the source in order to fit a narrative?
.
We are not fitting the narrative. We are fitting historical events described in multiple sources. The fall of Rome happened! It happened in 395! Alaric (Svevlad) was one of the leaders! Those events are described in sources other than GRS -- independently! GRS describes the same events with an error in year, which is obvious. We are reconciling multiple sources.
We are not ignoring the source. We know and admit what the source says. We are reconciling it.
 

Similar History Discussions