I2a-Din came to the Balkans and Dinaric Alps with the Thracians, Dacians & Illyrians

[A. Papadimitriou]

That is all good,but where you find a story similar to this one,that Belocroats dwelled beyond Bavaria? that from there came to Dalmatia,let alone fighting against Avars which can be written any time.In Frankish annals Wendish or Sclavene king Samo fought also the Avars,Sclavenes in Greek sources fought also the Avars and so on.. leave that alone.
Wonomyrus Sclavus (Slav) with Eric of Friuli can be Carantanian (ancestor of Slovenes) and that is not just Croat name.
I am interested in confirming the "emperor" story of this migration in other sources.

And who is Francis Dvornik i am asking older sources not interpretation of historians.

What was former country of the Croats? who wrote that,give me sources not interpretations.

Actually the text doesn't say 'beyond Bavaria' but 'next to Bagibaria' (ΒΑΓΙΒΑΡΕΙΑ)

If Βαγιβαρεία is Bavaria, Croats, according to the text (which can be wrong), came from Carinthia or Bohemia.

(Btw the texts that are attributed to an emperor could have been written by multiple persons.)

 

[Wonomyro]

That is all good,but where you find a story similar to this one,that Belocroats dwelled beyond Bavaria? that from there came to Dalmatia,let alone fighting against Avars which can be written any time.

We'll come back to Belocroats. Why should I "let alone fighting against Avars"? This is the key element of the story which has the confirmation in the Royal Frankish Annals. Your asked for the early source and I gave it to you.

In Frankish annals Wendish king Samo fought also the Avars,Sclavenes in Greek sources fought also the Avars and so on.. leave that alone.

It is not just fighting against Avars, but their complete defeat. That was obviously said in both sources. The land we speak about is not the Samo’s realm but Dalmatia and Panonnia, two new territories taken by the Franks after the fall of the Khaganate. It was also Franks who’s role was explicitly mentioned in both sources.

Wonomyrus Sclavus (Slav) with Eric of Friuli can be Carantanian (ancestor of Slovenes) and that is not just Croat name.

This is a childish argument. What makes you think that present day Slovenes and Croats had different ancestors in the 8th century? And give me please equally valuable argument to support your “Slovene but not Croat” origin of Wonomyro. The Croats were regulary called Slavs in western sources, and today Slovenes got that ethnic name only since 19.th century. And what makes you believe that Carantanians are direct ancestors of present day Slovenians? The territory of 8th century Carantania does not even overlap with today Slovenia...(with all respect to my dear Slovenians).

I am interested in confirming the "emperor" story of this migration in other sources.

I am first trying to show you that the chapter 30. is reliable source for the Croatian history. If enough elements of the story, by comparing it with other sources, can be confirmed as truthful, that we can accept the rest of the text as credible. For the beginning do we agree that the chapter 30. was not emperor’s work, but added later as T. Živković suggested?

And who is Francis Dvornik i am asking older sources not interpretation of historians.

Haven’t I mentioned “Royal Frankish Annals”? Isn't it old enough? A comment on the source from the expert won’t hurt:

Francis Dvornik (Chomýž, 14 August 1893 – Chomýž, 4 November 1975), in Czech František Dvorník, was a priest and academic, and one of the leading twentieth-century experts on Slavic and Byzantine history, and on relations between the churches of Rome and Constantinople.

What was former country of the Croats? who wrote that,give me sources not interpretations.

First I would like you to agree with me on obvious facts that there were other earlier source(s) (RFA) which tell us about some Slavs being Frankish ally, who fought against Avars for several years, defeated them, remained Frankish vassals after the event, and created dukedoms on the territory of the former Avar possession between Adriatic see and the Danube river.

 

[Wonomyro]

That is all good,but where you find a story similar to this one,that Belocroats dwelled beyond Bavaria? that from there came to Dalmatia,let alone fighting against Avars which can be written any time.

We'll come back to Belocroats. Why should I "let alone fighting against Avars"? This is the key element of the story which has the confirmation in the Royal Frankish Annals. Your asked for the early source and I gave it to you.

In Frankish annals Wendish king Samo fought also the Avars,Sclavenes in Greek sources fought also the Avars and so on.. leave that alone.

It is not just fighting against Avars, but their complete defeat. That was obviously said in both sources. The land we speak about is not the Samo’s realm but Dalmatia and Panonnia, two new territories taken by the Franks after the fall of the Khaganate. It was also Franks who’s role was explicitly mentioned in both sources.

 

[Wonomyro]

Wonomyrus Sclavus (Slav) with Eric of Friuli can be Carantanian (ancestor of Slovenes) and that is not just Croat name.

This is a childish argument. What makes you think that present day Slovenes and Croats had different ancestors in the 8th century? And give me please equally valuable argument to support your “Slovene but not Croat” origin of Wonomyro. The Croats were regulary called Slavs in western sources, and today Slovenes got that ethnic name only since 19.th century. And what makes you believe that Carantanians are direct ancestors of present day Slovenians? The territory of 8th century Carantania does not even overlap with today Slovenia...(with all respect to my dear Slovenians).

I am interested in confirming the "emperor" story of this migration in other sources.

I am first trying to show you that the chapter 30. is reliable source for the Croatian history. If enough elements of the story, by comparing it with other sources, can be confirmed as truthful, that we can accept the rest of the text as credible. For the beginning do we agree that the chapter 30. was not emperor’s work, but added later as T. Živković suggested?

And who is Francis Dvornik i am asking older sources not interpretation of historians.

Haven’t I mentioned “Royal Frankish Annals”? Isn't it old enough? A comment on the source from the expert won’t hurt:

Francis Dvornik (Chomýž, 14 August 1893 – Chomýž, 4 November 1975), in Czech František Dvorník, was a priest and academic, and one of the leading twentieth-century experts on Slavic and Byzantine history, and on relations between the churches of Rome and Constantinople.

What was former country of the Croats? who wrote that,give me sources not interpretations.

First I would like you to agree with me on obvious facts that there were other earlier source(s) (RFA) which tell us about some Slavs being Frankish ally, who fought against Avars for several years, defeated them, remained Frankish vassals after the event, and created dukedoms on the territory of the former Avar possession between Adriatic see and the Danube river.

 

[Milan.M]

This is a childish argument. What makes you think that present day Slovenes and Croats had different ancestors in the 8th century? And give me please equally valuable argument to support your “Slovene but not Croat” origin of Wonomyro. The Croats were regulary called Slavs in western sources, and today Slovenes got that ethnic name only since 19.th century. And what makes you believe that Carantanians are direct ancestors of present day Slovenians? The territory of 8th century Carantania does not even overlap with today Slovenia...(with all respect to my dear Slovenians).

I am not speaking of different ancestors here,i am saying that if he had a name Wonomyros doesn't mean he was Croat.He can be anything if you want him to be Croat i am fine with that.

I am first trying to show you that the chapter 30. is reliable source for the Croatian history. If enough elements of the story, by comparing it with other sources, can be confirmed as truthful, that we can accept the rest of the text as credible. For the beginning do we agree that the chapter 30. was not emperor’s work, but added later as T. Živković suggested?

You said you can bring a source that will state the same that Croats came from beyond or near Bavaria,so where is it?
In my opinion all those chapters are added later if you read carefully you can see that.

Haven’t I mentioned “Royal Frankish Annals”? Isn't it old enough? A comment on the source from the expert won’t hurt:

Your comment from Frankish annals speak of Croats fighting against Avars,and not of what i asked from you that is the Croat migration from beyond or near Bavaria in other sources.

Document from "expert" but 100 historian 100 interpretations,so i don't ask for comments from experts,i can always bring other ones with different opinions.

First I would like you to agree with me on obvious facts that there were other earlier source(s) (RFA) which tell us about some Slavs being Frankish ally, who fought against Avars for several years, defeated them, remained Frankish vassals after the event, and created dukedoms on the territory of the former Avar possession between Adriatic see and the Danube river.

I agree that dukedoms were created,but i did not wrote about this.


For last time;
I am requisting a source that describe the same story like in the DAI,but being older than 16/17th century,not fights against Avars,but the same confirmation about the Croat migration,the chapter which you believe to be true.

Also i am not saying that Croats were border guards of the Avars like some "experts" Garrick listed and were not Slavs and for that reason you brought Slavic name like Wonomyros into question.
Also i do not care about national bickering here.

 

[LABERIA]

For example if Croatian ethnonym is Avarian than there is a high probability that Croats, or maybe better Proto-Croats, were Avarian elite surrounded by Slavs. Austrian researcher Kronsteiner highlights Croats were warrior class of Avar Khaganate, responsible for guarding the borders and controlling the Slavs, who made the defense belt of the center of Avarian state.

Is this your personal theory? Do you have any source to support your claims? Because i know an other story:

"Each year the Avars came to the Serbs to spend the winter and slept with the wives and daughters of the Serbs. The Serbs tolerated other perfidies as well, and also paid tribute to the Avars. The sons, however, which the Avars had fathered with the women and daughters of Serb menfolk, would not tolerate this brutal oppression and refused to subject themselves to Avars.
The Avars humiliated the Serbs, forcing them to draw their carts like pack horses."

Source:
-From the Chronicles of Fredegarius

'Visual History of the World', by Douglas G. Brinkley

Some people think about DAI as Holy Scripture, however scientists (as Dr Borri) clearly gave essential interpretation of DAI. There will always be some worshipers of DAI who will treat it as sacred book and reject science but we see worshipers in many other things, for example people who worship earth as flat.

But fortunately, what enter in the world's knowledge base are rigorous scientific papers and books (what is basis for human progress), not illusions.

There are different reasons why you attack DAI. One of the reason is this:

But when two brothers succeeded their father in the rule of Serbia, one of them, taking one half of the folk, claimed the protection of Heraclius, the emperor of the Romans, and the same emperor Heraclius recieved him and gave him a place in the province of Thessalonica to settle in, namely Serbia, which from that time has acquired this denomination. 'Serbs' in the tongue of the Romans is the word for 'slaves', whence the colloquial 'serbula' for menial shoes, and 'tzerboulianoi' for those who wear cheap, shoddy footgear. This name the Serbs acquired from their being slaves of the emperor of the Romans.

Source:
"DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO" by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, paragraph 32, written between the years AD 948-952.

 

[Milan.M]

Actually the text doesn't say 'beyond Bavaria' but 'next to Bagibaria' (ΒΑΓΙΒΑΡΕΙΑ)

If Βαγιβαρεία is Bavaria, Croats, according to the text (which can be wrong), came from Carinthia or Bohemia.

(Btw the texts that are attributed to an emperor could have been written by multiple persons.)

Thanks Papadimitriou.

 

[Wonomyro]

The historic sources you listed here my friend are not at all similar to one another,as far i know in both Historia Salonitana and Chronicle of Dioclea the Slavs are Goths in reality.In real world today they aren't neither are in DAI.

True, these sources are not similar to one other, and that is good news, that means that the authors didn’t copy from each other so we can compare their stories and try to find out what is true.

True again, they were named “Slavs” much later due to the ideological reasons. But that doesn’t mean that these migrants were real Goths either. When we already mention Historia Salonitana there is one crucially important sentence which gives the answer to all naming problems that we have:

The people called Croats...Many call them Goths, and likewise Slavs

They were indeed Croats. Goths and Slavs were synonyms used by others. Luckily, Thomas the Archdeacon gave us the key how to read ancient medieval texts from Dalmatia. I don’t understand why many keep trying to invent any fantastic alternative explanations including conspiracy theories.

I also wrote prior who edited Historia Salonitana,Venetian Johannes Lucius and published it along with the new "translation" of DAI by Johannes Meursis(perhaps to support his new theory) in the regno Dalmatiae and Croatiae,but the Goths still remained Slavs in Historia Salonitana,still much was need to be done to be changed that.

See above.

 

[Wonomyro]

Actually the text doesn't say 'beyond Bavaria' but 'next to Bagibaria' (ΒΑΓΙΒΑΡΕΙΑ)

If Βαγιβαρεία is Bavaria, Croats, according to the text (which can be wrong), came from Carinthia or Bohemia.

(Btw the texts that are attributed to an emperor could have been written by multiple persons.)

Thank you, Papadimitriou. This map shows Bavaria in 10th century:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Karte_Herzogtum_Bayern_im_10._Jahrhundert.png

One can see that the most eastern border of Bavaria at that times touched Morawa river, which is the present border between Czechia and Slovakia. More northern were Bohemia and Poland.

De Administrando Imperio ("On the Governance of the Empire") is the Latin title of a Greek work written by the 10th-century Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine VII.

The viewpoint might be easily in Dalmatia.

 

[Milan.M]

True, these sources are not similar to one other, and that is good news, that means that the authors didn’t copy from each other so we can compare their stories and try to find out what is true.

You again seem to not understand and comprehend,if that book was available to historians since the 10th century,many other historians will have used it instead until Johannes Lucius in the 17th century for first time.
Many were dealing with origins of Slavs earlier why would they avoid it when using the same book,they will skip this chapters.

True again, they were named “Slavs” much later due to the ideological reasons. But that doesn’t mean that these migrants were real Goths either. When we already mention Historia Salonitana there is one crucially important sentence which gives the answer to all naming problems that we have:



They were indeed Croats. Goths and Slavs were synonyms used by others. Luckily, Thomas the Archdeacon gave us the key how to read ancient medieval texts from Dalmatia. I don’t understand why many keep trying to invent any fantastic alternative explanations including conspiracy theories.

Whatever they was forget it,you had no answer neither sources i was asking.

 

[Wonomyro]

I am not speaking of different ancestors here,i am saying that if he had a name Wonomyros doesn't mean he was Croat.He can be anything if you want him to be Croat i am fine with that.

I do not "want" to prove anything about Vojnomir. I am proving that the elements of the story of 30th chapter of DAI are supported with older sources,like Frankish Royal Annals. I took only one sentence fom the text and found at least three good parallels that support my claim.

You said you can bring a source that will state the same that Croats came from beyond or near Bavaria,so where is it?
In my opinion all those chapters are added later if you read carefully you can see that

Please, take a look at the map that I replied to Papadimitrou. That is Bavaria in 10th century, which was at the time spreading to present day Slovakia. That is Austria today. In order to get to Czechia or Poland from Dalmatia, the easiest way is through Austria.

Your comment from Frankish annals speak of Croats fighting against Avars,and not of what i asked from you that is the Croat migration from beyond or near Bavaria in other sources.

My comment about fighting the Avars has a purpose to show that many elements of the 30th chapter of DAI regarding the early Croatian history are supported in other sources.

Is Bavaria case also closed?

Document from "expert" but 100 historian 100 interpretations,so i don't ask for comments from experts,i can always bring other ones with different opinions.

I agree that dukedoms were created,but i did not wrote about this.

Again. Information about Slavic commander Vojnomir is the original information, not anyone’s interpretation.

For last time;
I am requisting a source that describe the same story like in the DAI,but being older than 16/17th century,not fights against Avars,but the same confirmation about the Croat migration,the chapter which you believe to be true.

Do you also want a list of personal names and birthdays of all migrants? And their favourite weapons? There is no such a consistent story. We must do it harder way.

Also i am not saying that Croats were border guards of the Avars like some "experts" Garrick listed and were not Slavs and for that reason you brought Slavic name like Wonomyros into question.
Also i do not care about national bickering here.

Regarding the -mir suffix, there is something more to say on it. It probably has the same meaning as -slav, but in Germanic language. It has something to do with fame or glory. Here is what I found on Vandalic language:

*mir/mer - *mērijaz - cf. Mär(chen), Mer- (in names) - mere (famous)

-slav - slavan - famous.

 

[Wonomyro]

You again seem to not understand and comprehend,if that book was available to historians since the 10th century,many other historians will have used it instead until Johannes Lucius in the 17th century for first time.
Many were dealing with origins of Slavs earlier why would they avoid it when using the same book,they will skip this chapters.

What do you mean? That the chapter 30 was written much later? I don't believe it because geography is consistent with the 10th century and earlier time.

Whatever they was forget it,you had no answer neither sources i was asking.

I've answered it already. Even if I haven't, that would not change anything. And I managed to compare just one sentence...

 

[hrvat22]

No, chronicles from 7th and 8th century speak only about Slavs.

First time Croatian name is mentioned in Latin charter in 9th century (Dux Chroatorum).

Scientists argue if Croatian identity in Dalmatia and surrounding emerged in 9th century or 10th century, but not before.

De Administrando Impero is not chronicle, it is written in 10th century, much after arrival of Slavs.

It is manual for the use of son of Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine VII.

Dr Francesco Borri and other experts of Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science, explained essence of DAI, narrative and legendary elements, and motives of Emperor to have Croats as allies against Bulgars.

Science explained but of course always will be worshipers about DAI as Holy Scripture, as there are worshipers who think that earth is flat.

I'm telling you that Italians today Croats call as Slavs, you talking about Croatian identity.

Croatian identity was not recorded in 7th century but it not mean that Croatians was not there.

Genetics will say when exactly Croats are coming and it will be final. If genes say that Croats coming in 5th century so it will be.

 

[hrvat22]

List that chapter and give me other source with such elements but from earlier works and not later works which can be copied or influenced from this one.
Source ealirer than Johannes Meursis edition that is 16/17th century.

DAI 10th century

there came from Francia (610. - 641.), which lies between Croatia and Venice, a man named Martin, devoted to greatest extent, and dressed in a fame dress

From file Vitae romanorum pontificum, library IX century.

This ( Pope Ivan IV 640-642) sent in his time all over Dalmatia and Istria, a holy man named Martin, to redeem captives captured by the pagans

Heraklije I (610. - 641.), who are these pagans from year 640-642 which Porphyrogenits called as Croatians.?

 

[hrvat22]

Milan.M;

.

What was former country of the Croats? who wrote that,give me sources not interpretations.

I am interested in confirming the "emperor" story of this migration in other sources.

Not all historians from 6 and 7th century in Europe writte about Croatians and their migration.

We have Historia Salonitana, De administrando imperio, Vatican documents with Slavs in Istria and Dalmatia..and genetics that confirms De administrando imperio.

What else do we need, God's Word?

 

[hrvat22]

Milan.M

You said you can bring a source that will state the same that Croats came from beyond or near Bavaria,so where is it?
In my opinion all those chapters are added later if you read carefully you can see that.

http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree and Map for Hg I.pdf

 

[Wonomyro]

OK, let's debunk another mystification. What does it mean if some text was "added later" to a document. That means just that: the text was added later. It doesn't mean that the text itself was created later nor that the version of the story was the later version of the same.

However, it is very likely that the content of the 30th chapter might represented the original version based on which Constantine created his own "more actual" histories of the "nations" in Dalmatia. Later someone decided to add it to the whole.

If anyone wants, I can demonstrate that the story of Croats in the 30th chapter is very likely the older version then the one written by Constantine.

 

[Sile]

Wonomyro@
With all due respect but i trust none of those "chapters",and i believe they are later edition added by late readers,like i said there is no indication that that story was known to any historian prior the Dutch Johannes Meursis edition in Latin in the 16/17th century.
Find me any historian prior him that used this source and many did used the book.
Just a bit later like i said firstly Johannes Lucius a Venetian from Trogir will use this in his De regno Dalmatiae and Croatiae published in Amsterdam.
Any coincidences?
Why would "mythomans" from South Slavic origin tell different stories like priest of Dioclea,like Mauro Orbini and even foreign like Dandolo than a bit later Venetian from 17th century.
Political reasons might be the cause,but why i should trust them more than the said above?
And you alone can choose what the "truth" can be for you.

One needs to consider the works of lucius, with the earlier and later works by Andrea Navagero, Andrea Dandolo and Marcantonio Sebellico ........who where all combined in the work of Diedo and the book Illyricum Sacrum pub 1751, in which it states that the only true Illyricum was Dalmatia and nothing else and that the croats absorbed the Dalmatians ( illyrians ) into croat and hence slav society.
missing was Ragusa at this time, they avoided the early absorption of the croats

 

[Wonomyro]

Now it realy looks like some conspiracy theory: we don’t know what they changed, when they did it, what motives did they have. We don't even know who they realy were...!

But we are pretty much confident that they did it, and still use it against us!

etrified:

 

[Garrick]

There are different reasons why you attack DAI.

No, you didn't read earlier pages, or didn't understand, or maybe don't want understand.

What attack (?), it is not essence, what in DAI write about Serbs is not important for this discussion, about Serbian ethnonym (probably it is an endonym) there are hundred theories and sources, this issue is not solved, and therefore everyone can think what he or she wants among many different possibilities and efforts of scholars.

What is essence for this thread scientists of Institute of Medieval Research in Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science, including Dr Francesco Borri researcher of this Institute, analyzed in detail all of the relevant facts about DAI and Croats and practically set the standard, which historians high respect now.

Some Croatian historians, even if they do not agree, do not want to contradict much to experts of Institute of Medieval Research in Vienna, and it is clear, because nobody of scientists want to be "quasi" scientist.

Unfortunately, we can see here that some people (amateurs) laugh at scientists and experts, what is senseless.