• This topic has 5 voices and 27 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #343833

    Anonymous

    I think this Chronicle deserves a topic. Why? Let's find out!

    Of course, you can find out more on Wiki, but I will say couple of words and introduce you this document.
    It has been written in the beginning of 14th century. This is the first historical document written in Czech language and that's why it's so important.
    If we can trust Dalimil, author of this chronicle (it's not recorded that somebody else changed anything he wrote), we can get a completely different view on our history.
    According to him, Serbs formed Poland country.
    He said that Czech was a name for Vlah who ruled Serbian tribe called "Hrvatska". After him all Czechs got a name.
    Also he spoke about Serbian building of Babylon.

    If all this is true, all official history is questionable, and the interesting part is that he wasn't a Serb.

    What are your opinions? You can find Chronicle of Dalimil online, check it if you would like.
     

    #392584

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    If all this is true, all official history is questionable, and the interesting part is that he wasn't a Serb.

    ::) I had to giggle on this one

    Didn't know about the chronicle, thank you for posting it. 'The first chronicle or story written in Czech language', a valuable document it seems. I however doubt that "all official history is questionable", because of that chronicle, as you put it :), for the chronicle was known before, and not much in the history changed, people only interpret it mostly following their own political agenda.

    I think this is the part you were talking about:


      [li]

    I. O BABYLONSKO VŽI.
    "Mezi jinými Srbové,
    тu kdežto bydlí Rekové,
    podle more se usadili,
    až do Ríma se rozminožili."

    I. O BABYLONSKO VŽI.
    V srbském jazyku jest země,
    jiež Charvátci jest jmě.
    V tej zemi bieše lech,
    jemuž jmě bieše Čech.
    [/li]

    #392585

    Anonymous

    What's the point of separating sentences from a context?

    Of course it was know before, but obviously it hasn't been taken as a historical source.
    Well, I meant about Slavic official history, because it really dissents with some information about Slavs that are in official history.

    The link: http://www.archive.org/download/http://archive.org/details/dalimilovakronik00dali (on the left side menu, there is pdf download)

    I would be happy to see more opinions, especially when you read it hehe.  :)

    #392586

    Anonymous

    I think this is the part you were talking about:

    That's just one of the pages, and it's a second page I think. There a lot of more, but yeah, let's take that example too.

    #392587

    Anonymous

    I think as far as Poland an Czechia is concerned it could be possible since according to one theory early Serbs were more of military class. Babylon story however sounds like bollocks no offense. Medieval world wasn't immune from weird stories and theories. Back then people also believed there are dog heads somewhere in far east. :D

    #392588

    Anonymous

    To be honest, I never earlier encountered the theory that Serbs were a military class.
    About the rest…I can't disagree. Without more proofs we can't claim anything, right? But as long as there are no proofs which were tell us opposite, we have a right to doubt.

    #392589

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    To be honest, I never earlier encountered the theory that Serbs were a military class.
    About the rest…I can't disagree. Without more proofs we can't claim anything, right? But as long as there are no proofs which were tell us opposite, we have a right to doubt.

    By theory almost every Slavic or Germanic nation was at the beginning of its ethnos a military class. Why is that, well the reason is simple, only a warrior caste of that time had the possibility to unite several tribes under their respective name. So it is nothing special or rarely seen in history, but actually common, and the only way possible.

    Angles and Saxons formed the English, the Rus formed the Russians, the Bulgars the Bulgarians etc.

    By common historiography, the Serbs and the Croats came from the area mentioned in the chronicles, so the chronicle doesn't stand aside from general historical consensus, regarding this matters.

    #392590

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    To be honest, I never earlier encountered the theory that Serbs were a military class.
    About the rest…I can't disagree. Without more proofs we can't claim anything, right? But as long as there are no proofs which were tell us opposite, we have a right to doubt.

    It is realy interesting that you didn't know about military class theory. Oh well no problem with that. As far as Babylon is concerned i think, altho i don't know much about Babylon and i never was interested, that the Babylonian-Serb connection could be disproved quite easily.

    #392591

    Anonymous

    No document can move some country from one place to another.
    But this document tell us, among other things, that Croats were a Serbian tribe with Serbian language spoken there, and that Serbs established Poland and Czech…
    I don't have intention to sound chauvinist, really that's not my goal.
    Since this is not a Serbian document, I just want to see your opinions, so please take it easy with the comments. Cheers.

    #392592

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    It is realy interesting that you didn't know about military class theory. Oh well no problem with that. As far as Babylon is concerned i think, altho i don't know much about Babylon and i never was interested, that the Babylonian-Serb connection could be disproved quite easily.

    If you give me some sources, that would be awesome ;)
    Also disproving this Chronicle would be a great scientific work, let's do it.

    #392593

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    It is realy interesting that you didn't know about military class theory. Oh well no problem with that. As far as Babylon is concerned i think, altho i don't know much about Babylon and i never was interested, that the Babylonian-Serb connection could be disproved quite easily.

    The building of the tower of Babylon is I believe more of a stilistic figure related to varieties of languages, people then learned from Christian sources, I doubt they meant that the actual tower was built by Slavs. However I still have to read the document, before commenting.

    #392594

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    The building of the tower of Babylon is I believe more of a stilistic figure related to varieties of languages, people then learned from Christian sources, I doubt they meant that the actual tower was built by Slavs. However I still have to read the document, before commenting.

    I see. Well as i say i am not expert. :D

    Quote:
    If you give me some sources, that would be awesome ;)
    Also disproving this Chronicle would be a great scientific work, let's do it.

    Sorry but as i say i am not realy well acquainted with Babylon so i can't help much but i think that first (altho i am not sure) mentioning of Babylon is several centuries older than earliest mentioning of Serbs. Am not 100% sure ofc. :)

    #392595

    Anonymous

    Understood…hmm well, again don't get me wrong. History is my hobby.
    During my researches I got too much material to start doubting in official history.
    This Chronicle was one of the interesting things I came on.
    For lazy ones I will copy some parts of it here so we can discuss.
    Also I will post some other interesting things I came on, if you don't mind.

    #392596

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Understood…hmm well, again don't get me wrong. History is my hobby.
    During my researches I got too much material to start doubting in official history.
    This Chronicle was one of the interesting things I came on.
    For lazy ones I will copy some parts of it here so we can discuss.
    Also I will post some other interesting things I came on, if you don't mind.

    Mate your contribution is great. Ofc there is nothing wrong with this. If it proves to be realistic then this is great but i am sure there are many arguments against some elements of this chronicle. If it would be that easy to rely on this chronicle there would be widespread support for it but ofc. this doesn't mean that it is necessarily wrong.

    I think you should first start to study history of Poland, Czechia and Babylon to comprehend all this better. Maybe then you will find out if this is true or not. :)

    #392597

    Anonymous

    Exactly that ;)

    I think you should first start to study history of Poland, Czechia and Babylon

    The life is short, so I doubt than one who is not a professional historian can go that much in the matter, and by that I mean, it's hard to research history of too many peoples. But that's why this forum is valuable! We are from various Slav countries and we can discuss from own points of view and get a conclusion together.

    Alright, back to the topic.

    Sorry but as i say i am not realy well acquainted with Babylon so i can't help much but i think that first (altho i am not sure) mentioning of Babylon is several centuries older than earliest mentioning of Serbs.

    Well, I strive to prove the opposite and I don't hide that.
    From that time, we don't have much data. That's a fact.
    First mention of Serb name, is believed, is found at Herodot, Ptolomeus, Strabon, etc…Even that is true, that's a lot after Babylon building time. But it's believed that Serbs ancestors built it.
    Well, that's a history as science. Names vary from author to author, names changes through time, languages get changes…
    So it can refer to same people even it's not called with same name as today.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.