no its not. Modern croatia is in dialects: Hrvatska, Horvatska, Harvatska, Ervatska and 'Rvatska. In rare cases even with C instead of TS
My honest mistake.
There is no stron evidence to prove anything at all in this area for the next few hundred years. So calling it fiction because it cant be undeniable proven is extremly pathetic when you push your views the same way.
First of all, adress the whole sentence that I written, not just the second part:
"There's a theory, that intermixture of Proto-Baltic language and Scytian language gave birth to Proto-Slavic language and to Proto-Slavs in general, but there is no strong evidence to prove it."
And I'm not the one pushing my views, you are the one doing it. Maybe "fiction" was too harsh, so the correct term would be "historical theory based on scarse external sources, that has not been undeniably proven and it's not unanimously accepted". This meas while some parts are proven as historical (like Croats is Bohemia), the entire hypothesis has not been universally accepted.
This is literally what it was called in sources like DAI. You are comparing memes to primary sources and idk what to say about that
Once again, please quote entire sentence and not cherrypick a phrase:
"saing that the last name of Proto-Slavic entity was called Megali Croatia/Horvatija is big overstretch"
For White Croatians in De Administratio Imperii, read
this. It's a academic attempt to place White Croatians on the map of Europe in mid-10th century (sorry, it's Polish but you can use google translate). It's a really big topic to explain, so maybe I'll write that in another post.
lmao who is the ancestor of modern serbs then? Balkan potatoes? they just spawned there? You know that your siblings have the same ancestors like you do right? There is no way to claim an ancestor for yourself. wtf is this topic
I'm talking about
Lusatian Sorbs. Just because Balkan Serbs claim their descent from
White Serbia, doesn't mean that in late 9th century and later people living there were Balkan Serbs, and not aforementioned Sorbs, which have their own culture and even two languages of their own!
You told me before:
@ShinsukeNakamura i want sorbs to be proto-slavic just like Horvats because both fade out of the cultural picture very early. Also beacuse both are imho the true proto-slavic cultures.
You want to have
7th Serbs/Sorbs for the entirety of HIP timeframe, like the were frozen in the ice for over 700 hundred years. They cannot stay in the Proto-Slavic-like for whole time, just because 200-300 years before they were predecesors of modern Balkan Serbs. Tribes living there in 867 predecesors of modern Polabian Sorbs and that tribes should be treated as such. It's actually matter of adding Sorbian localisation, Sorbian names, and voila, we get a new culture that improves slavic immesion instead of Wendish blob, which is a old German perspective held upon western Slavs.
But some are and others are not because the people are butthurt about some stuff inside of it so they pick cherrys they like. And thats where we have an issue.
First of all, it's not cherrypicking but
source criticism. It's absolutely essential for any historian to master, because it most basic abitily they should have (of course excluding reading and writing). By using source criticism historians examine which informations provided by sources are authentic, it's genesis, meaning and so on. It's valid arguament when it comes to medieval chronicles. In 13th century Polish author Wincenty Kadłubek wrote a
Chronica Polonorum and in it's first part wrote about Lechites (supposed ancestors of Poles) waging and wining wars against Alexander the Great and Julius Cesar. Some self-proclaimed historians
(https://merlin.pl/a/janusz-bieszk/#read-more,
or this YT "historian") treated histories included there as a historical truth
(they even made a video with English captions) and this nonsense cameout from the underground into mainstream so much,
that historians had to write to counter this trend. It's important to note, because you seem to believe sources on White Croatians without critical aproach.
you completely missed the point of this mod. Did i make them south slavic croatian? or did i make them north slavic Horvatian? Croatian =/= Horvatian. get that in your head. im not trying to find a CB to conquer our land. lmao GIB BACC CROLAND
Once again I'll use this quote:
@ShinsukeNakamura i want sorbs to be
proto-slavic just like Horvats because both fade out of the cultural picture very early. Also beacuse both are imho the true proto-slavic cultures.
And yet despite claimed Proto-Slavic-ness, in your mod, Horvatians have: 1. Croatian-based CoA, 2. Croatian localisation, 3. Croatian-like (or south Slavic-like) given names, 4. Croatian-like (or south Slavic-like) last names, 5. Croatian landed titles (or south Slavic-like), 6. Croatian council position names (or south Slavic-like). Do see now why I consider them to be watered-down Balkan Croatians?
and yet he is mentioned in an historic document. Its not about this one person its about the fact that there was talked (like in many other places) about Horvatians
Gesta Hungarorum has the same problem I described above, which is mixing actual history, old legends and straight up fiction. This is why source criticism is so important.
Hurr Durr Croatia is everywhere gib bacc. Invasion now reee
Oof, didn expect meme response in this one ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯ Or is it kind of meltdown, dude? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
yeah right and it doesnt matter how they call themselves. I actually talked to some online and they were very open about it and showed me some school material they use. very interesting stuff. But there is no evidence so dont let them be what they are i guess.
Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. I would like to see those books, so I can read it for myself.
you can learn a little about linguistics yourself. Example: "Eastern (Slovak) dialects are considerably different from Central and Western dialects in their phonology, morphology and vocabulary, set apart by a stronger connection to Polish and Rusyn"
I even found the Wiki article you quote, but source provided there had expired and I can't read it
I found this text right
here and it only had reinforced what had knew before. Eastern Slovak dialects being different from rest of Slovakian is caused by many centuries of peaceful coexistence of Slovaks, Poles and Rysyns, not suspected Horvatski (White Croatian) substratum.
"True, but the tribe's name was Polanie, Poljani is a Croatian version."
Im afraid its proto slavic. "poľe" is the exact same pronounciation like "polje". we just write it like this.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstructionroto-Slavic/poľe
"First of all "Polanie", not "Poljani"."
No its Poľani(e). The meaning does not change. What are you arguing against?
Honestly, it's just spelling. "Poljani" is a Croatian version of "Polanie". With this logic, I could write "Chorwaci", "Serbowie", "Biała Chorwacja" and so on. Let's be historically (and linguistically) accurate.
"First part is true, but there were no Proto-Slavs at the end of 10th century, and Veneti were long gone by that time."
And i never said something different? I explained slavic origins there. Not polish history which starts in the 1000s lol
I hate "
you forgot Poland" rhetoric, but Poland was baptised in 966 therefore it couldn't start in the 1000s
But medieval Polish state
has been growing for a few decades before the baptism. And tell me, how's Polish history different from Slavic origins?
"I didn't know that Polish has additional Baltic features. Also, Old Polish was a emerging language back then, so it couldn't be "created"."
Well it has. And fine say emerged.
Please, tell me which features in Polish come from Baltic and if, how much it makes Polish standout among other Slavic languages. Or are there any features that come from Baltic, that other slavic languages (i.e. Russian or Croatian) don't have? I'm asking, because my "Historical grammar of Polish language" doesn't mention it and as an academic book it's a reliable source of information.
Also, if any slavic language was influenced by (or had some features) Baltic, it's probably Belorussian or even Old Russian.
Doesnt change the fact that the north influenced the south and not the other way around.
Slavs being result of intermixing between Balts and Scythians it's still a theory. More widely acceppted theory is that Slavs originated from the area that is now
a Belarusian-Ukrainian border. If you look up the map above, you'll see that southernmost border ends around modern Kiev and aforementioned border. Scythians were the pontic steppe people and at he time area of Slavic homeland was covered with dense forests. But of course there were contacts between them, and here you can read about
Iranian borrowings in Slavic (under "Zapożyczenia irańskie"),
Balto-Slavic only specific vocabulary,
Balto-Slavic-Iranian and
Slavic-Iranian. So it would seem it's "the other way around" as you said.
"It's true that Bohemia owned Silesia and Lesser Poland at the time, but Sorbs never controlled Lebus, and the
link you provided confims that."
Poland had to conquer it and this happend at the same time sorbs got attacked by saxons. The same thing happend to the czechs who lost silesia and southern poland. A Polish-german alliance against them. Also stuff like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/BOGUSŁAWSKI(1861)_Das_Siedlungsgebiet_der_Sorben_vom_7._bis_11._Jahrhundert_in_Mitteldeutschland.jpg
My bad, I had mistaken Kostrzyn for Lubusz. But it's doesn't change anything within your setup, because in the map above Sorbs had counquered western bank of Odra where Lubusz is (red dot), while Kostrzyn (yellow circle) lays on opposite side of the river:
"There are parts of Czech history, but I'm not an expert in this topic, so I won't discuss it."
Well i am. Not only czech but all slavic history.
Well, then lecture me about Pomeranians and Polabians, I'll wait.
This is why its pointless to argue against someone who only knows the history of his very own special homeland. You are not able to put historic events into a bigger context of surrounding events. Your inner timeline of events starts in the 1000s and is centered around modern poland while slavic history started long before the 500s.
Or maybe I know Polish history because I'm Polish and I'm interested in medieval history of my country? Isn't it the thing you are doing? It's like you read this one and only book and you got so overwhelmed with it, that you are on a complete confirmation bias, not me? Great part about "bigger context" and "inner timeline". Why do you think that my timeline starts in 11th century? Is it just because I have my votum separatum and I'm asking questions?
I'm not questionig Slavic history as a whole, but 500s where long gone before year 867 (300 years!). You criticise setup of historical setup of Galicia-Volynia form 1199 being put in 867, but you have no problem with putting vague Old Croatia from at most year 562 and fast forwarding it to almost 300 years later.
"To summarize, I think that it comes to White Croats as a single ethnicity insted of separate west, east and south tribes and and insertion of a de jure kingdom between Poland and Russia with remade croatian CoA is ahistorical, because it mixes separate historical facts with fiction. It would be fine in a standalone submod, but it's not a good choice to be inclided in historical one."
Denying the existence of H(a/o)rvatians in for example bohemia is not even worth a discussion. you are so biased about this entire croatia thing that you straight up ignore everything connected to it. Also this ethnicity talk is some next level idiocy i am not willing to continue. I am not croatias chancellor on my mission to fabricate a claim on southern poland.
I never said that I deny exictence of White Croats in Bohemia, Southern Russia or anywhere else. The thing I'm opposed to is drawing a big kingdom, that even if existed in the past, doesn't belong in 867 setup, and it's rather expression of your wishful thinking and "whataboutism" (which BTW accused me of in the past), coined into this game. I'm opposed to making all this H(a/o)rvatians into one big culture blob - second largest slavic culture in the game. As you said in another topic:
The "kingdom" is not white croatia its the earlier Horvatija Megali/Great "Croatia". Its just a de jure leftover as its the best contigous title for 867 in that place.
The culture is indeed a stretch in this extend but i think "Polish" and "Russian" are far bigger stretches.
It means that you agree that this big blob is a strech. I see the problem with Russian culture, but users are working on this issue. But really don't see why Polish culture is bigger strech than unattested in linguistic sources Horvatian culture.
Great Horvatijas "de jure" territory had to get some CoA so i gave them a slightly different checkerboard. Those are very common in czech, sliesian and polish heraldry. Or does croatia have some sort of claim over all of them?
The
chequy CoA was popular in all of Europe back then, but not earlier than 11th century. I saw that you put Kolovrat on checkerboard which historically plausible, but the latter doesn't really belong in 867 setting.
Do you really think that 1199 Galicia is a better fitting de jure kingdom in 867? If yes idk what to say.
Yes, I do, because IMO it's more historical than suspected and historically unproven kingdom from mid 6th century. Or there should be de jure kingdom of Old Saxony, which ceased to exist less than 100 before 867 setup? Or Kindom of Frisia that fell to the Franks in 734, and it is far more histotically attested than White Croatia.
So you obviously dont like the setup. Draw me some cultural map how you think it looked like in 867 and explain why. My popcorn is ready.
Yes, I do not like the setup. I'll write another post, because this one is already very long.
I agree that my already long introduction isnt long enough and that i need to collect more sources. One day i will. However you can start with
this.
Please be patient, so I could learn Russian language and Cyrillic script and only then I will be able to read this book. Sadly, I can't even paste the content of this book into google translate, because it's a scan (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Holy s.. that's a really long post that took me a entire day to write. I have a one request - please adress everything i have written here and don't quote separate phrases, but whole sentences.