Medieval Serbia before the Nemanjić

Jul 2017
287
Srpska
#31
I'm done. I don't think you are scholar.

You have now called Svevlad a myth, even though historical sources use Svevlad, All Ruler, Hermanaric, Alaric -- literally the same thing in different languages -- in reference to the fall and takeover of the Roman province of Illyricum. You call him a myth.

You have attacked nationalists instead of critically approaching sources.

You have called out Mauro Orbini's ludicrous beliefs, a man who merely republished an earlier work, and honestly said so providing his preface describing it, and providing originals author's preface, meaning he republished in full someone elses work. And you call him ludicrous for having those beliefs.

You have posted some historian's work from 1970 as proof of what occured in 395, as the source.

You have posted some digital map off internet as proof of what Roman empire looked liked at the time.

You have posted Orbini's republishing of Regno de gli Slavi to prove that Selimir in that Italian text is not Zelimir in Slavic, even though the text is in Italian, and italian language has /s/ /z/ ambiguity, where if Slavic Zelimir was transliterated Zelimir it would create /dz/ /ts/ inconsistency with pronunciation, and Selimir is an okay transliteration of Slavic Zelimir.

You also posted Orbini's republishing in Italian as proof, all the while negating Orbini and the text as a myth.

You insist that Slavic Svevlad is not Sueulado in that Italian Orbini's republishing text, but rather Senutlat from some other undiscovered latin text, while you use the same Italian Orbini's republishing text to prove that Zelimir is not Selimir.

Your whole effort is a joke. It is to destroy sources. Your effort is nowhere near where it needs to be for a student, let alone a scholar.



The Svevladovići are a myth.
It is only used by Balkan nationalists who use it to prove their "claims". Besides, Orbini was notorious for having ludicrous beliefs.
(A.P. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs Into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs, pg. 20).
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,832
Republika Srpska
#32
You have now called Svevlad a myth, even though historical sources use Svevlad, All Ruler, Hermanaric, Alaric -- literally the same thing in different languages -- in reference to the fall and takeover of the Roman province of Illyricum. You call him a myth.
One source uses Svevlad, one single source. Every single reputable historian fully considers Gesta Regum Sclavorum as an extremely unreliable source that is to be used with extreme care, if used at all.

You have called out Mauro Orbini's ludicrous beliefs, a man who merely republished an earlier work, and honestly said so providing his preface describing it, and providing originals author's preface, meaning he republished in full someone elses work. And you call him ludicrous for having those beliefs.
Of course I called his belief in the fact that Alexander of Macedon fought Slavs ludicrous. He didn't only re-publish Dukljanin, he changed it.

You have posted some historian's work from 1970 as proof of what occured in 395, as the source.
It is called posting a secondary source that refers to the primary source that concerns us.

You have posted some digital map off internet as proof of what Roman empire looked liked at the time.
You on the other hand have said a complete lie: the Romans never recapture Illyricum and Goths conquered most of Europe.

You have posted Orbini's republishing of Regno de gli Slavi to prove that Selimir in that Italian text is not Zelimir in Slavic, even though the text is in Italian, and italian language has /s/ /z/ ambiguity, where if Slavic Zelimir was transliterated Zelimir it would create /dz/ /ts/ inconsistency with pronunciation, and Selimir is an okay transliteration of Slavic Zelimir.
And what about version where Selimir is called Syllimirum?
1557306136956.png


You insist that Slavic Svevlad is not Sueulado in that Italian Orbini's republishing text, but rather Senutlat from some other undiscovered latin text, while you use the same Italian Orbini's republishing text to prove that Zelimir is not Selimir.
It is not from an undiscovered text, it is from the original (or perhaps I should say older) version of your only source. But look at this. In this version it is Senudilaus.
1557306440315.png

Your whole effort is a joke. It is to destroy sources. Your effort is nowhere near where it needs to be for a student, let alone a scholar.
It is telling that you feel the need to personally attack me.
 
Likes: World Focker

Similar History Discussions