Talk:Sclaveni

Fringe view.
During the early Middle Ages, the Byzantine historians categorized the numerous Slavic tribal unions on the early Medieval Balkans as 'Sclavinias' and often associated them with particular tribes. The Slavs were self-governing in their extended families and districts, and their tribal organization was sufficiently strong to abolish Byzantine rule in the Balkans. These Slavs however did not have sufficient state-building skills, they failed to unite them and during the 8th century they were reconquered by the Byzantines. Some contemporary Macedonian historians have seen one of these tribal unions, referred to by the Byzantines as Sclaviniai as proto–state indicative of the formation of a separate Slavic Macedonian state, but this claim is extremely doubtful, more they also spread into Thrace and Moesia, which are now not seen as part of the today Macedonia. On the other hand, according to Florin Curta describes the great Slavic invasion of the 6th and 7th century on the Balkans as a historical exaggeration. Thus, the construction of the first South Slavic states was organized by the Croats, Serbs and Bulgars and the local (Slavic) population in today Republic of Macedonia was first conquered by the Bulgars in the middle of the 9th century.

Macedonian sclavinia
In this book you'll find all the Byzantine sources concerning Slavs. There is no mention of other Slavic peoples except Macedonian Slavs: Rinhiniti, Vajuniti, Velegeziti, Ezeriti, Milingoi, Smolyani, Strumyani, Sagudati, Beresithi, Zagoricani, Draguviti etc. There is mention of Bulgars, but not in any Slavic context. Khan Tervel for instance was helping Byzanthum to defeat the Slavs. Here. Since they deleted my edit, together with the references and external links, since they multiply in numbers to obstruct the truth, I will post it again here. All the Byzantine sources concerning Slavs. Enjoy. https://archive.org/details/ByzantineSourcesForHistoryOfThePeoplesOfYugoslavia
 * Please, read No original research. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Your book with primary sources does not work without secondary and tertiary sources analyzes. Regards. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * this is a published book by serbian academy of science and arts 1955. later published as an opensource e-book. inside there are primary sources, than secondary footnotes and resources, and by all means full of modern historian analysis. if that is not reliable, how come all the things there are written by second hand historians rather than original byzantine sources, count as reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyvader (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Slavic peoples 6th century historical map.jpg

Sclaveni or Slavs or Antes
This article mistakes information about the Sclaveni with information about the Antes as well as about the Sclaveni with of the general Slavs although the Slavs are not an uniquely synonym for the Sclaveni. Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)