Talk:Vlastimir/Archive 1

So-called "Serbian lands"
Pagania, Bosnia, Zachlumia and Dioclea, along with Rascia and Travunia are what Serbian nationalists keep to call "Serbian lands". It is not contestable that all of them at some point have found themselves under the Serbian rule and that rule lasted more or less time, from region to region. But, the Serbian nationalists persist to present them as originally Serbian lands, although they are even not able to tell what exactly the term "Serb" originally was referring to. They present their own romantic fables as references. (Or their references refer to such fables.) Furthermore, there is no evidence that prior to Stefan Nemanja Pagania had been subject to Serbian princes in any way. One diplomatic encounter can only prove good relations and good will, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornjaca (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * So what exactly are you contesting? The historiographical basis of the early medieval "Serbian lands", as I understand it, is information found in De Administrando Imperio. The Royal Frankish Annals's mention of Serbs inhabiting the greater part of Dalmatia (822) seems to support the notion that the territory of the early Serbs indeed ended at Neretva, where the early Croats' territory began (as mentioned by DAI). The secondary sources used are not authored by "Serbian nationalists".--Z oupan 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WHO GAVE YOU A RIGHT TO REMOVE THE POV TAG!!!?
First, De Administrando Imperio is an anachronistic source preserved in different, contradicting, editions. Second, what precise "Dalmatia" they were referring to? The notion of "Dalmatia" changed a lot during history. Until it stuck to what it is now, about 300 years ago, the Europe regarded basically the whole Western Balkans as "Dalmatia". Did the medieval authors refer to the administrative unit inside its precise borders at the specific moment (what moment?) or to the entire region that was commonly known as "Dalmatia"? Did the term refer to both Dalmatia inferior and Dalmatia superior (in which case it would comprise not only Dioclea, but, most of Rascia too)? Moreover, the fact they spoke about "Serbs" (the same may apply to Croats too) doesn't explain who the Serbs actually were. The people? A people? One of the peoples in the area? A military class? The people that provided most of the military class in the area? A dynasty? Even today, in France, for example, they tend to call anybody who looks a bit darker "an Algerian". In Italy - "Moroccan". They often call any foreign worker from East Europe "Albanian", or "Romanian", or "Pole" etc. depending on what group has the major public exposition at the moment. If nowadays there is often such a little care to make a distinction among "strange" peoples, let alone how much Romans or Franks bothered about it! That citation only shows that there has been in existence some source of power (although it's not very clear what extent of power) that both Franks and Romans called "Serbs". And that was all they were interested in - who detains the power in the region. If they mention territories that, in certain moment, have been under rule of Serbian princes (either directly, or through subordinates), it doesn't imply they were inhabited by Serbs. It doesn't actually necessarily mean that, in that period, there have been any territories inhabited by Serbs at all, since we don't know what the term "Serbs" really meant. If we suppose that some land (say - Rascia) had indeed been inhabited (in part, or completely) by a people called "Serbs", and if a close relative of the Rascia's ruler ruled another land, it doesn't imply the another land had been inhabited by Serbs. Finally, if the source say the early Serbs "ended at Neretva", it doesn't mean the entire Neretva was the border. It means - at some point, somewhere at Neretva. (Of course, Neretva may have been the border by its whole length, but, the source doesn't say so.) And even if it ended anywhere at Neretva, I really don't understand what would you like to prove with that citation. With only exception of the Delta and maybe the narrow strip by the river, Pagania was - on another side of Neretva! So, if they "ended at Neretva", it would mean - they ended before Pagania. Just because the secondary sources are not authored by Serbs, it doesn't mean they are quality sources? Kornjaca (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not use caps – You used the wrong tag. Roman Dalmatia (map). Clarification: Zahumlje ended at the Neretva, while Paganija was further north. Well, as part of the Migration Period, Slavs absorbed other peoples. The Paganians may have been called Serbs from the beginning, we don't know. The DAI did explicitly call the Paganians "Serbs who were not baptized when the rest of the Serbs were", hence the exonym. If the "Serbs" were originally merely the warlords (elite), it doesn't refute DAI's use of "Serbs" when describing the Paganians. Franks may have called southern Dalmatia "Serb" because it was ruled by Serbs or inhabited by Serbs; in either way I believe the terminology is part of that period's perceived ethnogenesis. What exactly would you change? Perhaps you could direct me to some quality sources?--Z oupan 04:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Russian fantasy roman
There is a Russian fantasy roman titled Vlastimir (1996), by Galina Romanova, about a Rus' knyaz.--Z oupan 02:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)