Category Archives: Origins

Can It Be True?

PublishedJanuary 12, 2016 Post authortorino

We have to admit that, when reading Ketrzynski’s claims we were skeptical. Indeed, we still are skeptical about some of his derivations and, as we said before, not every Wind or Wend may be connected with the Wends, Veneti or Slavs. Some of these may have to do with the wind or with the wending of the rivers, etc. Likewise, not every Culm strikes us as Slavic nor every –itz (although on this last point, oddly enough, the -itz names seem to be present only in those parts of Germany where Slavs were either documented or were suspected by Ketrzynski). So in that sense he may be overestimating various Slavic place names.

On the other hand, it is also the case that:

there were a number of place names in Germany that seem Slavic to us that were not included by Ketrzynski – one of the reasons for this may simply be that he did not have a computer to zoom in and out and would have included them had he known about them;

he excluded from analysis, honestly stating that he was no expert on non-Germanic names, a number of names that appear Slavic but that are in other countries such as Italy (most obviously) but also France and the Netherlands (a topic of some posts on this site);

it is likely that in Ketrzynski’s time many former Slavic names had been so altered that by the 19th century when he wrote, it’d have been impossible to recreate their Slavic character – here names with the German ending -au come to mind;

even going through his list – which is only about 150 years old – we notice that some names are no longer findable. They are listed in older sources (i.e., he did not make them up) but are impossible to locate – perhaps because they were renamed (even putting aside the Nazis’ policies on renaming Slavic names, some names may have been changed just in the course of time);

Therefore, it is just as likely that he undercounted Slavic names.

In any event, prudence, honesty and scholarship dictated that we should look at some of Ketrzynski claims to be Slavic.

We were skeptical but then we came across these.

Krakow

We will go back to this one more time. The fact that there is a Cracow in Poland surprises no one.

But there is a Krakow am See in Eastern Germany too. That Cracow counts as Slavic and that too is not questioned.

However, that there should be a Cracow on the West bank of the Rhine should surprise people. And it should surprise them not just for the similarity of sounds. It should surprise them because the name was reproduced on maps with the “classic” Slavic -ow suffix. We already posted its location but, what the heck, here is another map:

Interestingly, the Germans spell the Rheinish Crakow and the Mecklenburgian Krakow with an –ow suffix but the Polish Krakau one with an -au. Just this should be enough to ask how many -au ‘s in Germany are really Slavic. (Of course, we may have gotten this wrong – maybe the Polish Cracow is really a German town).

The three Cracows

To see that Carraca was also a town of the Beluni tribe of Venetia (or West of Venetia as Ptolemy claims) consult Ptolemy’s Geography.

On how an -ow becomes an -au see below.

Belgrad & Co

Wait, what? Belgrade, the capital of Serbia? No, not that one. The one in Pomerania that was called Belgard and after World War II became Białogard? The one on Bodensee. You know the Bodensee (the Lacus Veneticus), the home of the Vindelici who must have absolutely, positively been Celts. The Bodensee which has Bregenz on the Austrian side also has (or had) a bunch of interesting town names on the German, that is, Schwabian or as we say Suevian, side around the beautiful town of Lindau. Thus, we have Belgrad says Ketrzynski.

Naaaaaaa… no way – he must be lying…

belgrattskis Hmmm… Probably just a random fluctuation in the ether….

The three Belgrads

But surely we are not suggesting that the nearby town Allwind was Windisch, i.e., Slavic? Surely, it means it’s “all windy here”…

altwinden

Altwinden!?

Our view – this proves nothing…

And, speaking of things that prove absolutely nothing, here Grod – in the same area.

grottskis

Whether Edelitz, Engelitz or Lengatz could be Slavic (not to mention Beuren and Butzen) we leave to you. And if you really want to “conspiracy theory” here, note that Belgrad is in Gemeinde Reutin. That Reutin contains the classic Slavic -in suffix is no doubt also coincidental.

belgratt

That Kochlin is also in the same Gemeinde just shows the depth and perfidy of the Slavic conspiracy here.

kochlin

And the Kremlen has nothing to do with anything of the same name.

And the frequent references to Isner, Isiga or Isen have nothing to do with the Slavs either: reutinisa

We could go on (and so we will)

Suffice it to say that, it seems to us, that Ketrzyski was onto something here. Something that seems perhaps somewhat insane but maybe not too insane.

Do you think that Pitz is a Slavic town? It has a Slavic -itz ending but, c’m on, German names also have -itz’es (e.g., der alte Fritz).

What if the Pitz sits next to a Wiesle? Is it different then?

pitz

Is Schlewiz a Slavic mountain name?

What if it was called Ischlawitz before?

ischlawitz

Apparently, still not.

What about Granges? That is a French name and appears in a number of places in the Alps. To be clear here we are talking about the Western Alps – not somewhere next to Slovenia!

What if you knew that the town had been called Gradetz before?

granges

Strange as all this may be, it all seems like a coincidence.

Surely, a town like Obertal was, is and forever bleibt Deutsch?

Would it matter if we knew it was previously called Britznach?

britznach2

We say hell no! Makes no difference whatsoever!

But what if the Britznach had (before it was a Britznach) been recorded as a Britzina vel Brissina?

britzina

We already mentioned Krakau coming from Krakow but many such cases exist.

Fahr Out Man!

Here is a beautiful postcard of Mecklenburg. It shows, amongst other towns, the town of Warnow. The town of Warnow is said to derive its name from the Polabian Slavic tribe of Warni – a tribe that was a member of the Obodrite Confederation.

ostseeska

So far so good.

Now, here is a question, what does Warnow in Mecklenburg have to do with the town of Fahrnau which is located in the southwest corner of Germany in Baden Wurttemberg?

The two Warnows

Seemingly nothing – they could not be further apart within Germany (at least current Germany – given its many lost wars, there is only so much German territory we can work with here to make our point).

Which makes the following historic set of names of the town Fahrnau somewhat strange:

fahrnau

We are not saying that all of these are indicative of some great Slavic (really Wendish or Venetic) empire but it’s hard not to admit that Ketrzynski may have “something” here and not to complain that “mainstream” historiography has not really bothered to offer an answer to Ketrzynski’s questions for over a century and a half – its performance has been, to put it politely, dismal.

Stutgard

Stuttgart has the same etymology as Belgard (or Belgrade) and Stargard. But what does that mean? That Stuttgart is Slavic or that Stargard is not Slavic? Or are we going to split the difference? But Stuttgart has a -t not a -d, right? It does but it didn’t always:

gratten

It is supposed to have been built as a horse farm (or stud farm), i.e., Stuotengarten or Stutengarten. And what of Bebling? Berlin, Barlin? Or should these be Berling and Barling? As to the Hebrew gadar, that is way beyond our competences.

And if you think this is just too crazy, take a look at this 16th century Mercator map showing a Winada – today’s Winnenden between Schorndorf and Marbach am Neckar slightly northeast of Stuttgart.

And some links to other interesting names:

such as these -ins or these oddly familiar names (e.g., Barlin or Moskau) or these Bretonian names.

Make of it what you will but we are quite confused here.

Kętrzyński Strikes South

PublishedJanuary 11, 2016 Post authortorino

Here is Wojciech Kętrzyński’s attempt at locating Slavic place names in south Germany, Western Austria and Switzerland:

ketrinski To the East of the green line we have Slavs, Germans in parts of Austria and more Slavs in southern Austria. Ketrzynski was not interested in those areas since their Slavic history (or present) were well known.

So once we combine the North and the South, this is what we get – again West of the Elbe-Saale/Solawa line (and we now have Krakow by Duisburg in there too – see the circle). As we said before, Kętrzyński did not include any non-German speaking countries so the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France and Britain are left out of this: ketrinski3
Or:

ketrin4

We will have more to say about this. But in the meantime the Norican theory of Nestor and the Vindelici theory are looking mighty appealing.

Did we mention that there was a theory that derived Germani from Gera/Gora, i.e., mountain? That is mountain men? (e.g., Gorale).

Puzzle

PublishedJanuary 4, 2016 Post authortorino

Question 1: Why is there a Rusland on this map?

Question 2: What is the name of this lake?

Question 3: What Roman fort may have been located at the place called Waterhead up above? (hint: See the Itinerarium provinciarum Antonini Augusti – or see below*)

questions

Another interesting example from the same source (Itinerarium, again, in Britain):

Item a Calleva Isca Dumnuniorum mpm CXXXVI sic
Vindomi mpm XV
Venta Belgarum mpm XXI
Brige mpm XI
Sorbiodoni mpm VIII
Vindogladia mpm XII
Durnonovaria mpm VIII
Muriduno mpm XXXVI
Isca Dumnuniorum mpm XV

You can read more about, for example, the town of Salisbury (aka Sorbiodoni aka Sorvioduni) in the county of Wiltshire (of course!) over here. Strange, no?

* Clanoventa or Galava (i.e., Waterhead).

On the Waters of Jassa – in the West

PublishedJanuary 3, 2016 Post authortorino

We’ve already brought up some strange rivers in the East that some claim to be of “Alanic” origin here.

However, similar rivers exist in Germany too (and in between but we will get to that). Take for example, the Jossa. It is one of the few German river names that ends with an -a suffix. But, you might say a Jossa is no Jassa. True, but we have the following recorded names for the same river:

year 1358 – Iozza
1359 – Iazza
1376 – Iazza
1391 – Iosza (!)

A town nearby is also called Jossa. Its recorded history is as follows:

year 850 – Jazaha
1167 – Jazaha
1213 – Jazzaha
1239 – Iazahe
1240 – Jaza
1326 – Jaaza

The Jat is as the below citation from the source (Deutsches Gewaessernamenbuch by Albrecht Greule) an “unclear Bestimmungswort.”

jossa2

Perhaps, as the author muses, Celtic. He also relates it to Jahr and to the OCSlavonic word jado (I ride) and to the ON Jabbeke/Jatbeka (a town in Westflanders!). Then, of course, there are the Jatvingi…

and what’s with the ash?

In any event, there is also a nearby stream Josbach which – just as the Jossa – originally had an “a” in place of the “o”. Thus, its names are recorded as:

year 1196 – Jazbach
1280 – Jazpach
1350 – Jaspach

josbach

josbach2

There was also the Joessnitz (now Kaltenbach) previously Iezniz (“Eschenbach” or Ash stream).

jossnitz

And so on. And in the North we have the river Leda which, it seems, originally, was also spoken with an -a”: see Lathamuthon (the mouth of Latha).

and again what’s with the ash? not to mention Veendam

leda2

So now we have Jassa and Leda in West Germany. Remains of the Celts? Of passing Alans? Or of Suevi vel Suavi?

On Kętrzyński and His Crazy Theories

PublishedDecember 30, 2015 Post authortorino

Wojciech Kętrzyński was born Adalbert von Winkler but soon learned that the Winkler name was one his father adopted to make life easier for the family in the Polish provinces incorporated into the German Empire (the family was actually Kashubian; Winkler is a translation of the Polish Kętrzyn, Kętrzyno a town in Kashubia from which the family came which town also gave the family the Kętrzyński name). Adalbert grew up speaking German as his first language until about sixteen. It was at that time that his sister (both were now orphans) revealed the family lineage to him. This discovery sparked a rebellious streak in Adalbert, he renamed himself back to Kętrzyński and learned Polish. He became a historian, an ethnographer and later in life the director of the Lviv (Lwow or Lemberg) Ossolineum Library. During his prolific life he produced a torrent of works including some very interesting works about Germany. He was a subscriber to the theory that the Slavs were the ancient Suevi/Suavi. It will be, therefore, quite unsurprising for the reader to discover that Kętrzyński kicked the tires on some of the town and place names in Germany. As a recognition of his labours, after World War II the town of Rastenburg in East Prussia was renamed Kętrzyn.

ketrinskas

Courtesy of many hours spent mindlessly inputting these by our interns (no holidays for them this year, we fear), here is a map of the names Kętrzyński identified as Slavic in northern and western Germany only (he also produced a list for southern Germany which we will not be getting into here).

A few comments are in order first, however:

we do not necessarily agree with all the place names Kętrzyński designated as Slavic (e.g. the various place names containing Wind or Wend do not necessarily indicate the presence of Slavs/Wenden);

there are other names that we do think are candidates for being Slavic but that did not make Kętrzyński’s list (he admits that he could not locate some and states that a few dozen names would not move the needle on his views one way or another); after all, Kętrzyński did not have Google (but look towards Borken, Velen, Heiden, Reken on the East side of the Rhein, maybe, maybe not);

Kętrzyński did not review any place names in France or the Benelux countries stating that he was not qualified to do so (but look in Germany towards the Maas – Kerken, Straelen, Kempen – maybe, maybe not; Dutch Venlo on the Maas appears as Vendle on earlier maps);

as mentioned, Kętrzyński’s placenames below leave out southern Germany (again, he has a separate list for that); thus, for example, the Moinu-Winidi and Ratanz-Winidi (west of Nuremberg) are not shown;

since no one doubts the existence of Slavs east of the Elbe and Saale, we eliminated all the Slavic names Kętrzyński identified that were East of the Elbe-Saale (i.e., Solawa) line; consequently, what you are looking at are only the Slavic names West of the Elbe-Saale/Solawa (the line marked in light green); put differently, you may presume everything to the East of that line to have been Slavic at the relevant time (marked dark green);

Kętrzyński mentions the river Lippa/Lippe and the town of Kamen on the same river;

he also mentions a town on the left bank of the Rhein at about the place where the Ruhr joins the Rhein – a town under the name of Kraiokauwe (1480), Krakau (1493), Krackauawe (1498), Krackauwe (1541), Kracow/Cracow (1579), Craeckouw/Crackouw (1594) or Cracouwe (1598). We had our interns locate this town and show its location on a 1633 – Mercator/Hondius map – it now lies within the town of Krefeld in Germany.

ketrinskais2

Note that the above roughly jives with the following German map showing the Teuton-Slav border. Roughly, though not exactly.

And this is Cracow southwest of Duisburg on the left, i.e., Western… bank of the Rhine (there is, of course, also a Krakow in East Germany but no one questions that one as Slavic):

For the Alemannic (Suevic?) or Vandalic king Crocus see our last year’s post.

De Administrando Imperio & All of its Slavs – Part II

PublishedDecember 26, 2015 Post authortorino

Here is the other part of the Slavic stories from De Administrando Imperio. These include:

Chapter 30 – the story of Dalmatia which includes the taking of the country by the Croats (and curiously refers to a “Trojan” like entrance of disguised Avars into Salona which is reminiscent of the story of Lestek/Lethko II in the Polish chronicles (and is the same as found in chapter 29); another interesting mention is of the city of Opsara – think Psary castle of Dlugosz again);
Chapter 31 – another story of the Croats’ arrival;
Chapter 32 – story of the Serbs and their arrival and dealings with the Croats and Bulgarians;
Chapter 33 – story of the Slavic Zachlumi (including a reference to a Byzantine patrician who came form the unbaptized tribe of [?] who dwell on the Vistula and are called “Litziki”);
Chapter 35 – the story of the Diocletians (which also mentions the Croats);
Chapter 36 – the story of the Slavic Pagani who were also known as the Arentani;
Chapter 41 – the story of Svantopolk of Moravia;
Chapter 49 – the story of the Slavs around Patras;
Chapter 50 – the story of the Peloponnesian Slavs – the tribes of the Milingoi and Ezeritai;

Chapter 30

Story of the Province of Dalmatia

“If knowledge be a good thing for all, then we too are approaching it by arriving at the knowledge of events. For this reason we are giving, for the benefit of all who come after us, a plain account both of these matter and of certain others worthy of attention, so that the resulting good may be twofold.”

“They, then, who are inquiring into the taking of Dalmatia also, how it was taken but the nations of the Slavs, may learn of it from what follows; but first of all its geographical position must be told. In olden times, therefore, Dalmatia used to start at the confines of Dyrrachium, or Antibari, and used to extend as far as the mountains of Istria, and spread out as far as the river Danube. All this area was under the rule of the Romans, and this province was the most illustrious of all the provinces of the west; however, it was taken by the nations of the Slavs in the following manner. Near Spalato is a city called Salona, built by the Emperor Diocletian; Spalato itself was also built by Diocletian, and his palace was there, but at Salona dwelt his nobles and large numbers of the common folk. This city was the head of all Dalmatia. Now, every year a force of cavalry from the other cities of Dalmatia used to collect at, and be despatched from Salona, to the number of a thousand, and they would keep guard on the river Danube, on account of the Avars. For the Avars had their haunts on the far side of the river Danube, where now are the Turks [Hungarians], and led a nomad life. The men of Dalmatia who went there every year would often see the beasts and men on the far side of the river.”

“On one occasion, therefore, they decided to cross over and investigate who they were that had their abode there. So they crossed, and found only the women and children of the Avars, the men and youths being on a military expedition. Falling suddenly upon them, therefore, they made them prisoner, and returned unmolested, carrying off this booty to Salona. Now when the Avars came back from their military expedition and learnt from their losses what had happened, they were confounded, but know not from what quarter this blow had come
upon them. They therefore decided to bide their time and in this way to discover the whole.”

“And so, when according to custom the garrison was once more dispatched from Salona, not the same men as before but others, they too decided to do what their predecessors had done. So they crossed over against them, but finding them massed together, not scattered abroad as on the previous occasion, not merely did they achieve nothing but actually suffered the most frightful reverse. For some of them were slain, and the remainder taken alive, and not one escaped the hand of the enemy. The latter examined them as to who they were and whence they came, and having learnt that it was from them that they had suffered the blow aforesaid, and having moreover found out by enquiry the nature of their homeland and taken a fancy to it as far as they might from hearsay, they held the survivors captive and dressed themselves up in their clothes, just as the others had worn them, and then, mounting the horses and taking in their hands the standards and the rest of the insignia which the others had brought with them, they all started off in military array and made for Salona. And since they had learnt by enquiry also the time at which the garrison was wont to return from the Danube (which was the Great and Holy Saturday), they themselves arrived on that same day. When they got near, the bulk of the army was placed in concealment, but up to a thousand of them, those who, to play the trick, had acquired the horses and uniforms of the Dalmatians, rode out in front. Those in the city, recognizing their insignia and dress, and also the day, for upon this day it was customary for them to return, opened the gates and received them with delight. But they, as soon as they were inside, seized the gates and, signalling their exploit to the army, gave it the cue to run in and enter with them. And so they put to the sword all in the city and thereafter made themselves masters of all the country of Dalmatia and settled down in it. Only the townships on the coast held out against them, and continued to be in the hands of the Romans, because they obtained their livelihood from the sea. The Avars, then, seeing this land to be most fair, settled down in it.”

“But the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats are now. From them split off a family of five brothers, Kloukas and Lobelos and Kosentzis and Mouchlo and Chrobatos, and two sisters, Touga and Bouga, who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After they had fought one another for some years, the Croats prevailed and killed some of the Avars and the remainder they compelled to be subject to them. And so from that time this land was possessed by the Croats, and there are still in Croatia some who are of Avar descent and are recognized as Avars. The rest of the Croats stayed over against Francia, and are now called Belocroats, that is, White Croats, and have their own prince; they are subject to Otto, the great king of Francia, or Saxony, and are unbaptized, and intermarry and are friendly with the Turks. From the Croats who came to Dalmatia a part split off and possessed themselves of Illyricum and Pannonia; they too had an independent prince, who used to maintain friendly contact, though through envoys only, with the prince of Croatia. For a number of years the Croats of Dalmatia also were subject to the Franks, as they had formerly been in their own country; but the Franks treated when with such brutality that they used to murder Croat infants at the breast and cast them to the dogs. The Croats, unable to endure such treatment from the Franks, revolted from them, and slew those of them whom they had for princes. On this, a large army from Francia marched against them, and after they had fought one another for seven years, at last the Croats managed to prevail and destroyed all the Franks with their leader who was called Kotzilis. From that time they remained independent and autonomous, and they requested they holy baptism from the bishop of Rome, and bishops were sent who baptized them in the time of Porinos their prince. Their country was divided into 11 ‘zupanias‘, vz., Chlebiana, Tzenzina, Imota, Pleba, Pesenta, Parathalassia, Breberi, Nona, Tnina, Sidraga, Nina; and their ban possesses Kribasa, Litza and Gotziska. Now the said Croatia and the rest of the Slavonic regions are situated thus: Diocleia is neighbor to the forts of Dyrrachium, I mean, to Elissus and to Helcynium and Antibari, and comes up as far as Decatera, and on the side of the mountain country it is neighbor to Serbia. From the city of Decatera begins the domain of Terbounia and stretches along as far as Ragusa, and on the side of its mountain country it is neighbor to Serbia. From Ragusa begins the domain of the Zachlumi and stretches along as far as the river Orontius; and on the side of the coast it is neighbor to the Pagani, but on the side of the mountain country it is neighbor to the Croats on the north and to Serbnia at the front. From the river Orontius begins Pagania and stretches along as far as the river Zentina; it has three ‘zupanias’, Rhastotza and Mokros and that of Dalen.”

“Two of these ‘zupanias’, viz., Rhastotza and that of Mokros, lie on the sea, and possess galleys; but that of Dalenos lies distant from the sea, and they live by agriculture. Neighbour to them are four islands, Meleta, Kourkoura, Bratza and Pharos, most fair and fertile, with deserted cities upon them and many olive-yards; on these they dwell and keep their flocks, from which they live. From the river Zentina begins the country of Croatia and stretches along, on the side of the coast as far as the frontiers of Istria, that is, to the city of Albunum, and on the side of the mountain country it encroaches some way upon the province of Istria, and at Tzentina and Chlebena becomes neighbor to the country of Serbia. For the country of Serbia is at the front of all the rest of the countries, but on the north is neighbour to Croatia, and on the south to Bulgaria. Now, after the said Slavs had settled down, they took possession of all the surrounding territory of Dalmatia; but the cities of the Romani took to cultivating the islands and living off them; since, however, they were daily enslaved and destroyed by the Pagani, they deserted these islands and resolved to cultivate the mainland. But they were stopped by the Croats; for they were not yet tributary to the Croats, and used to pay to the military governor all that they now pay to the Slavs. Finding it impossible to live, they approached the glorious emperor Basil and told him all the above. And so that glorious emperor Basil ordered that all that was then paid to the military governor they should pay to the Slavs, and live at peace with them, and that some slight payment should be made to the military governor, as a simple token of submission and servitude to the emperors of the Romans and their military governor. And from that time all these cities became tributary to the Slavs, and they pay them fixed sums: the city of Spalato, 200 nomismata; the city of Tetrangourin, 100 nomismata; the city of Diadora, 110 nomismata; the city of Opsara, 100 nomismata; the city of Arbe, 100 nomismata; the city of Yekla, 100 nomismata; so that the total amounts to 710 nomismata, exclusive of wine and various other commodities, which are in excess of the payments in cash. The city of Ragusa is situated between the two countries of the Zachlumi and of Terbounia; they have their vineyards in both countries, and pay to the prince of the Zachlumi 36 nomismata, and to the prince of Terbounia 36 nomismata.”

Chapter 31

Of the Croats and of the country they now dwell in

“The Croats who now live in the region of Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized Croats, also called ‘white’, who live beyond Turkey and next to Francia, and have for Slav neighbours the unbaptized Serbs. ‘Croats’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’. These same Croats arrived to claim the protection of the emperor of the Romans Heraclius before the Serbs claimed the protection of the same emperor Heraclius, at that time when the Avars had fought and expelled from those parts the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian had brought from Rome and settled there, and who were therefore called ‘Romani’ from their having been translated from Rome to those countries, I mean, to those now called Croatia and Serbia. These same Romani having been expelled by the Avars in the days of this same emperor of the Romans Heraclius, their countries were made desolate. And so, by command of the emperor Heraclius these same Croats defeated and expelled the Avars from those parts, and by mandate of Heraclius the emperor they settled down in that same country of the Avars, where they now dwell. These same Croats had at that time for prince the father of Porgas. The emperor Heraclius sent and brought priests from Rome, and made of them an archbishop and a bishop and elders and deacons, and baptized the Croats; and at that time these Croats had Porgas for their prince. This country in which the Croats settled themselves was originally under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, and hence in the country of these same Croats the palace and hippodromes of the emperor Diocletian are still preserved, at the city of Salona, near the city of Spalato. These baptized Croats will not fight foreign countries outside the borders of their own; for they received a kind of oracular response and injunction from the pope of Rome who in the time of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, sent priests and baptized them. For after their baptism the Croats made a covenant, confirmed with their own hands and by oaths sure and binding in the name of St. Peter the apostle, that never would they go upon a foreign country and make war on it, but rather would five at peace with all who were willing to do so; and they received from the same pope of Rome a benediction to this effect, that if any other foreigners should come against the country of these same Croats and bring war upon it, then might God fight for the Croats and protect them, and Peter the disciple of Christ give them victories. And many years after, in the days of prince Terpimer, father of prince Krasimer, there came from Francia that lies between Croatia and Venice a man called Martin, of the utmost piety though clad in the garb of a layman, whom these same Croats declare to have wrought abundant miracles; this pious man, who was sick and had had his feet amputated, so that he was carried by four bearers and taken about wherever he wanted to go, confirmed upon these same Croats this injunction of the most holy pope, that they should keep it so long as their life should last; and he himself also pronounced on their behalf a benediction similar to that which the pope had made. For this reason neither the galleys nor the cutters of these Croats ever go against anyone to make war, unless of course he has come upon them. But in these vessels go those of the Croats who wish to engage in commerce, traveling round from city to city, in Pagania and the gulf of Dalmatia and as far as Venice. The prince of Croatia has from the beginning, that is, ever since the reign of Heraclius the emperor, been in servitude and submission to the emperor of the Romans, and was never made subject to the prince of Bulgaria. Nor has the Bulgarian ever gone to war with the Croats, except when Michael Boris, prince of Bulgaria, went and fought them and, unable to make any headway, concluded peace with them, and made presents to the Croats and received presents from the Croats. But never yet have these Croats paid tribute to the Bulgarians, although the two have often made presents to one another in the way of friendship. In baptized Croatia are the inhabited cities of Nona, Belgrade, Belitzin, Skordona, Chlebena, Stolpon, Tenin, Kori, Klaboka. Baptized Croatia musters as many as 60 thousand horse and 100 thousand foot, and galleys up to 80 and cutters up to 100. The galleys carry 40 men each, the cutters 20 each, and the smaller cutters 10 each. This great power and multitude of men Croatia possessed until the time of prince Krasimer. But when he was dead and his son Miroslav, after ruling four years, was made away with by the ban Pribounias, and quarrels and numerous dissensions broke out in the country, the horse and foot and galleys and cutters of the Croat dominion were diminished. And now it has 30 galleys and *** cutters, large and small, and *** horse and *** foot.”

“Great Croatia, also called ‘white’, is still unbaptized to this day, as are also the Serbs who are its neighbours. They muster fewer horse and fewer foot than does baptized Croatia, because they are more constantly plundered, by the Franks and Turks and Pechenegs. Nor have they either galleys or cutters or merchant-ships, for the sea is far away; for from those parts to the sea it is a journey of 30 days. And the sea to which they come down after the 30 days is that which is called ‘dark’.” [Black Sea?]

Chapter 32

Of the Serbs and of the country they now
dwell in

“The Serbs are descended from the unbaptized Serbs, also called ‘white’, who live beyond Turkey in a place called by them Bo’iki, where their neighbour is Francia, as is also Great Croatia, the unbaptized, also called ‘white’; in this place, then, these Serbs also originally dwelt. 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 received 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. Now, after some time these same Serbs decided to depart to their own homes, and the emperor sent them off. But when they had crossed the river Danube, they changed their minds and sent a request to the emperor Heraclius, through the military governor then holding Belgrade, that he would grant them other land to settle in. And since what is now Serbia and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of the Kanalites were under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, and since these countries had been made desolate by the Avars (for they had expelled from those parts the Romani who now live in Dalmatia and Dyrrachium), therefore the emperor settled these same Serbs in these countries, and they were subject to the emperor of the Romans; and the emperor brought elders from Rome and baptized them and taught them fairly to perform the works of piety and expounded to them the faith of the Christians. And since Bulgaria was under the dominion of the Romans when, therefore, that same Serbian prince died who had claimed the emperor’s protection, his son ruled in succession, and thereafter his grandson, and in like manner the succeeding princes from his family. And after some years was begotten of them Bo’iseslav, and of him Rodoslav, and of him Prosigois, and of him Blastimer; and up to the time of this Blastimer the Bulgarians lived at peace with the Serbs, whose neighbours they were and with whom they had a common frontier, and they were friendly one toward another, and were in servitude and submission to the emperors of the Romans and kindly entreated by them. But, during the rule of this same Blastimer, Presiam, prince of Bulgaria, came with war against the Serbs, with intent to reduce them to submission; but though he fought them three years he not merely achieved nothing but also lost very many of his men. After the death of prince Blastimer his three sons, Muntimer and Stroimer and Goinikos, succeeded to the rule of Serbia and divided up the country. In their time came up the prince of Bulgaria, Michael Boris, wishing to avenge
the defeat of his father Presiam, and made war, and the Serbs discomfited him to such an extent that they even held prisoner his son Yladimer, together with twelve great boyars. Then, out of grief for his son, Boris perforce made peace with the Serbs. But, being about to return to Bulgaria and afraid lest the Serbs might ambush him on the way, he begged for his escort the sons of prince Muntimer, Borenas and Stephen, who escorted him safely as far as the frontier at Rasi. For this favour Michael Boris gave them handsome presents, and they in return gave him, as presents in the way of friendship, two slaves, two falcons, two dogs and eighty furs, which the Bulgarians describe as tribute. A short while after, the same three
brothers, the princes of Serbia, fell out, and one of them, Muntimer, gained the upper hand and, wishing to be sole ruler, seized the other two and handed them over to Bulgaria, keeping by him and caring for only the son of the one brother Goinikos, Peter by name, who fled and came to Croatia, and of whom we shall speak in a moment. The aforesaid brother Stroimer,
who was in Bulgaria, had a son Klonimer, to whom Boris gave a Bulgarian wife. Of him was begotten Tzeeslav, in Bulgaria. Muntimer, who had expelled his two brothers and taken the rule, begat three sons, Pribeslav and Branos and Stephen, and after he died his eldest son Pribeslav succeeded him. Now, after one year the aforesaid Peter, son of Goinikos, came out of Croatia and expelled from the rule his cousin Pribeslav and his two brothers, and himself succeeded to the rule, and they fled away and entered Croatia. Three years later Branos came to fight Peter and was defeated and captured by him, and blinded. Two years after that, Klonimer, the father of Tzeeslav, escaped from Bulgaria and he too came and with an army entered one of the cities of Serbia, Dostinika, with intent to take over the rule. Peter attacked and slew him, and continued to govern for another 20 years, and his rule began during the reign of Leo, the holy emperor, of most blessed memory, to whom he was in submission and servitude. He also made peace with Symeon, prince of Bulgaria, and even made him godfather to his child. Now, after the time that this lord Leo had reigned, the then military governor at Dyrrachium, the protospatharius Leo Rhabduchus, who was afterwards honoured with the rank of magister and office of foreign minister, arrived in Pagania, which was at that time under the control of the prince of Serbia, in order to advise and confer with this same prince Peter upon some service and affair. Michael, prince of the Zachlumi, his jealousy aroused by this, sent information to Symeon, prince of Bulgaria, that the emperor of the Romans was bribing prince Peter to take the Turks with him and go upon Bulgaria. It was at that time when the battle of Achelo had taken place between the Romans and the Bulgarians. Symeon, mad with rage at this, sent against prince Peter of Serbia, Sigritzis Theodore and the late Marmais with an army, and they took with them also the young prince Paul, son of Branos whom Peter, prince of Serbia, had blinded. The Bulgarians proceeded against the prince of Serbia by treachery, and, by binding him with the relationship of god-father and giving a sworn undertaking that he should suffer nothing untoward at their hands, they tricked him into coming out to them, and then on the instant bound him and carried him off to Bulgaria, and he died in prison. Paul, son of Branos, took his place and governed three years. The emperor, the lord Romanus, who had in Constantinople the young prince Zacharias, son of Pribeslav, prince of Serbia, sent him off to be prince in Serbia, and he went and fought, but was defeated by Paul; who took him prisoner and handed him over to the Bulgarians and he was kept in prison. Then, three years later, when Paul had put himself in opposition to the Bulgarians, they sent this Zacharias, who had previously been sent by the lord Romanus the emperor, and he expelled Paul and himself took possession of the rule over the Serbs; and thereupon, being mindful of the benefits of the emperor of the Romans, he broke with the Bulgarians, being not at all wishful to be subjected to them, but rather that the emperor of the Romans should be his master. And so, when Symeon sent against him an army under Marmaim and Sigritzis Theodore, he sent their heads and their armour from the battle to the emperor of the Romans as tokens of his victory (for the war was still going on between the Romans and the Bulgarians); nor did he ever cease, like the princes also that were before him, to send missions to the emperors of the Romans, and to be in subjection and servitude to them. Again, Symeon sent another army against prince Zacharias, under Kninos and Himnikos and Itzboklias, and together with them he sent also Tzeeslav. Then Zacharias took fright and fled to Croatia, and the Bulgarians sent a message to the ‘zupans’ that they should come to them and should receive Tzeeslav for their prince; and, having tricked them by an oath and brought them out as far as the first village, they instantly bound them, and entered Serbia and took away with them the entire folk, both old and young, and carried them into Bulgaria, though a few escaped away and entered Croatia; and the country was left deserted. Now, at that time these same Bulgarians under Alogobotour entered Croatia to make war, and there they were all slain by the Croats. Seven years afterwards Tzeeslav escaped from the Bulgarians with four others, and entered Serbia from Preslav, and found in the country no more than fifty men only, without wives or children, who supported themselves by hunting. With these he took possession of the country and sent a message to the emperor of the Romans asking for his support and succour, and promising to serve him and be obedient to his command, as had been the princes before him. And thenceforward the emperor of the Romans continually benefited him, so that the Serbs living in Croatia and Bulgaria and the rest of the countries, whom Symeon had scattered, rallied to him when they heard of it. Moreover, many had escaped from Bulgaria and entered Constantinople, and these the emperor of the Romans clad and comforted and sent to Tzeeslav. And from the rich gifts of the emperor of the Romans he organized and populated the country, and is, as before, in servitude and subjection to the emperor of the Romans; and through the co-operation and many benefits of the emperor he has united this country and is confirmed in the rule of it. The prince of Serbia has from the beginning, that is, ever since the reign of Heraclius the emperor, been in servitude and submission to the emperor of the Romans, and was never subject to the prince of Bulgaria.
In baptized Serbia are the inhabited cities of Destinikon, Tzernabouskel, Megyretous, Dresneik, Lesnik, Salines; and in the territory of Bosona, Katera and Desnik.”

Chapter 33

Of the Zachlumi and of the country they now
dwell in

“The country of the Zachlumi was previously possessed by the Romans, I mean, by those Romani whom Diocletian the emperor translated from Rome, as has been told of them in the story of the Croats. This land of the Zachlumi was under the emperor of the Romans, but when it and its folk were enslaved by the Avars, it was rendered wholly desolate. Those who live there now, the Zachlumi, are Serbs from the time of that prince who claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius. They were called Zachlumi from a so-called mount Chlumos, and indeed in the tongue of the Slavs ‘Zachlumi’ means ‘behind the mountain’, since in that territory is a great mountain with two cities on the top of it, Bona and Chlum, and behind this mountain runs a river called Bona, which means ‘good’. The family of the proconsul and patrician Michael, son of Bouseboutzis, prince of the Zachlumi, came from the unbaptized who dwell on the river Visla and are called Litziki; and it settled on the river called Zachluma. In the territory of the Zachlumi are the inhabited cities of Stagnon, Mokriskik, Iosli, Galoumainik, Dobriskik.”

Chapter 34

Of the Terbouniotes and Kanalites and of the
country they now dwell in

“The country of the Terbouniotes and the Kanalites is one. The inhabitants are descended from the unbaptized Serbs, from the time of that prince who came out of unbaptized Serbia and claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius until the time of Blastimer, prince of Serbia. This prince Blastimer married his daughter to Kra’inas, son of Belaes, ‘zupan’ of Terbounia. And, desiring to ennoble his son-in-law, he gave him the title of prince and made him independent. Of him was begotten Phalimer, and of him Tzouzimer. The princes of Terbounia have always been at the command of the prince of Serbia. Terbounia in the tongue of the Slavs means ‘strong place’; for this country has many strong defenses. Subordinate to this country of Terbounia is another country called Kanali. Kanali means in the tongue of the Slavs ‘waggon-load’, because, the place being level, they carry on all their labours by the use of wagons. In the territory of Terbounia and Kanali are the inhabited cities of Terbounia, Ormos, Rhisena, Loukabetai, Zetlibi.”

Chapter 35

Of the Diocletians and of the country they now dwell in

“The country of Diocleia was also previously possessed by the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian translated from Rome, as has been said in the story about the Croats, and was under the emperor of the Romans. But this country also was enslaved by the Avars and made desolate, and repopulated in the time of Heraclius the emperor, just as were Croatia and
Serbia and the country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of Kanali. Diocleia gets its name from the city in this country that the emperor Diocletian founded, but now it is a deserted city, though still called Diocleia. In the country of Diocleia are the large inhabited cities of Gradetai, Nougrade, Lontodokla.”

Chapter 36

Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the
country they now dwell in

“The country in which the Pagani now dwell was also previously possessed by the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian translated from Rome and settled in Dalmatia. These same Pagani are descended from the unbaptized Serbs, of the time of that prince who claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius. This country also was enslaved by the Avars and made desolate and repopulated in the time of Heraclius the emperor. The Pagani are so called because they did not accept baptism at the time when all the Serbs were baptized. For ‘Pagani’ in the tongue of the Slavs means ‘unbaptized’, but in the tongue of the Romans their country is called Arenta, and so they themselves are called Arentani by these same Romans. In Pagania are the inhabited cities of Mokron, Beroullia, Ostrok and Slavinetza. Also, they possess these islands: the large island of Kourkra, or Kiker, on which there is a city; another large island, Meleta, or Malozeatai, which St. Luke mentions in the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ by the name of Melite, in which a viper fastened upon St. Paul by his finger, and St. Paul burnt it up in the fire; another large island, Phara; another large island, Bratzis. There are other islands not in the possession of these same Pagani: the island of Choara, the island of Ies [!], the island of Lastobon.”

Chapter 41

Of the country of Moravia

“The prince of Moravia, Sphendoplokos, was valiant and terrible to the nations that were his neighbours. This same Sphendoplokos had three sons, and when he was dying he divided his country into three parts and left a share apiece to his three sons, leaving the eldest to be great prince and the other two to be under the command of the eldest son. He exhorted them not to fall out with one another, giving them this example by way of illustration: he brought three wands and bound them together and gave them to the first son to break them, and when he was not strong enough, handed them on to the second, and in like manner to the third, and then separated the three wands and gave one each to the three of them; when they had taken them and were bidden to break them, they broke them through at once. By means of this illustration he exhorted them and said: ‘if you remain undivided in concord and love, you shall be unconquered by your adversaries and invincible; but if strife and rivalry come among
you and you divide yourselves into three governments, not subject to the eldest brother, you shall be both destroyed by one another and brought to utter ruin by the enemies who are your neighbours.’ After the death of this same Sphendoplokos they remained at peace for a year, and then strife and rebellion fell upon them and they made a civil war against one another
and the Turks [i.e., Hungarians] came and utterly ruined them and possessed their country, in which even now they live. And those of the folk who were left were scattered and fled for refuge to the adjacent nations, to the Bulgarians and Turks and Croats and to the rest of the nations.”

Chapter 49

He who enquires how the Slavs were put in servitude and subjection to the church of Patras, let him learn from the present passage

“Nicephorus was holding the sceptre of the Romans, and these Slavs who were in the province of Peloponnesus decided to revolt, and first proceeded to sack the dwellings of their neighbours, the Greeks, and gave them up to rapine, and next they moved against the inhabitants of the city of Patras and ravaged the plains before its wall and laid siege to itself, having with them African Saracens also. And when a considerable time had gone by and there began to be dearth of necessaries, both water and foodstuffs, among those within the wall, they took counsel among themselves to come to terms of composition and to obtain promises of immunity and then to surrender the city to their yoke. And so, as the then military governor was at the extremity of the province in the city of Corinth, and it had been expected that he would come and defeat the nation of the Slavenes, since he had received early intelligence of their assault from the nobles, the inhabitants of the city resolved that a scout should first be sent to the eastern side of the mountains and spy out and discover if the military governor were in fact coming, and they instructed and gave a signal to their envoy, that if he were to see the military governor coming, he should on his way back dip the standard, so they might know of the coming of the military governor, but if not, to hold the standard erect, so they might for the future not expect the military governor to come. So the scout went off and found that the military governor was not coming, and began to come back, holding the standard erect. But, as it pleased God through the intercession of the holy apostle Andrew, the horse slipped and the rider fell off and dipped the standard, and the inhabitants of the city, seeing the signal given and believing that the military governor was coming undoubtedly, opened the gates of the city and sallied forth bravely against the Slavenes; and they saw the first-called apostle, revealed to their eyes, mounted upon a horse and charging upon the barbarians, yea, and he totally routed them and scattered them and drave them far off from the city and made them to flee. And the barbarians saw and were amazed and confounded at the violent assault upon them of the invincible and unconquerable warrior and captain and marshal, the triumphant and victorious first-called apostle Andrew, and were thrown into disorder and shaken, and trembling gat hold upon them and they fled for refuge in his most sacred temple. Now when the military governor arrived on the third day after the rout and learnt of the victory of the apostle, he reported to the emperor Nicephorus upon the onset of the Slavenes and the foraging and enslaving and destroying and the plundering and all the other horrors which in their incursion they had inflicted on the regions of Achaea; and also upon the siege of many days and the sustained assault on the inhabitants of the city; and in like manner upon the visitation and aid in battle and the rout and the total victory won by the apostle, and how he had been seen revealed
to their eyes charging upon and pursuing the rear of the foe and routing them, so that the barbarians themselves were aware that the apostle had visited us and was aiding us in the battle, and therefore had fled for refuge to his hallowed temple. The emperor, learning of these things, gave orders to this effect: ‘Since the rout and total victory were achieved by the apostle,
it is our duty to render to him the whole expeditionary force of the foe and the booty and the spoils.’ And he ordained that the foemen themselves, with all their families and relations and all who belonged to them, and all their property as well, should be set apart for the temple of the apostle in the metropolis of Patras, where the first-called and disciple of Christ had performed this exploit in the contest; and he issued a bull concerning these matters in that same metropolis. These things the older and more ancient narrated, handing them down in unwritten tradition to them who lived in the after time, so that, as the prophet says, the coming generation might know the miracle wrought through the intercession of the apostle, and might rise up and declare it to their sons, that they might not forget the benefits done by God through
the intercession of the apostle. A nd from that time the Slavenes who were set apart in the metropolis have maintained like hostages the military governors and the imperial agents and all the envoys sent from foreign nations, and they have their own waiters and cooks and servants of all kinds who prepare foods for the table; and the metropolis interferes in none of these matters, for the Slavenes themselves collect the necessary funds by apportionment and subscription among their unit. And Leo, too, the ever-memorable and most wise emperor, issued a bull containing a detailed account of what these same persons who are ascribed to the metropolitan are liable to provide, and forbidding him to exploit them or in any other way
to hurt them unjustly at his whim.”

Chapter 50

Of the Slavs in the province of Peloponnesus,
the Milingoi and Ezeritai, and of the tribute
paid by them…

“The Slavs of the province of Peloponnesus revolted in the days of the emperor Theophilus and his son Michael, and became independent, and plundered and enslaved and pillaged and burnt and stole. And in the reign of Michael, the son of Theophilus, the protospatharius Theoctistus, surnamed Bryennius, was sent as military governor to the province of Peloponnesus with a great power and force, viz., of Thracians and Macedonians and the rest of the western provinces, to war upon and subdue them. He subdued and mastered all the Slavs and other insubordinates of the province of Peloponnesus, and only the Ezeritai and the Milingoi were left, towards Lacedaemonia and Helos. And since there is there a great and very high mountain called Pentadaktylos, which runs like a neck a long distance out into the sea, and because the place is difficult, they settled upon the flanks of this same mountain, the Milingoi in one part, and in the other part the Ezeritai. The aforesaid protospatharius Theoctistus, the military governor of Peloponnesus, having succeded in reducing these too, fixed a tribute of 60 nomismata for the Milingoi, and of 300 nomismata for the Ezeritai, and this they used to pay while he was military governor, as this report of it is preserved to this day by the local inhabitants. But in the reign of the lord Romanus the emperor, the protospatharius John Proteuon, military governor in this same province, reported to the same lord Romanus concerning both Milingoi and Ezeritai, that they had rebelled and neither obeyed the military governor nor regarded the imperial mandate, but were practically independent and self-governing, and neither accepted a head man at the hand of the military governor, nor heeded orders for military service under him, nor would pay other dues to the treasury. While his report was on its way, it happened that the protospatharius Krinitis Arotras was appointed military governor in Peloponnesus, and when the report of the protospatharius John Proteuon, military governor of Peloponnesus, arrived and was read in the presence of the emperor, the lord Romanus, and was found to contain news of the revolt of the aforesaid Slavs and of their reluctant obedience, or, more properly, their disobedience to the imperial commands, this same protospatharius Krinitis was instructed, since they had gone so far in revolt and disobedience, to march against them and defeat and subdue and exterminate them. And so, beginning his war upon them in the month of March and burning down their crops and plundering all their land, he kept them to defence and resistance until the month of November, and then, seeing that they were being exterminated, they begged to negotiate for their submission and pardon for their past misdoings. And so the aforesaid protospatharius Krinitis, the military governor, fixed upon them tributes greater than they had been paying: upon the Milingoi 540 nomismata on top of the 60 nomismata which they had paid before, so that their total tribute was 600 nomismata, and upon the Ezeritai another 300 nomismata on top of the 300 nomismata they had paid before, so that their total tribute was 600 nomismata, which this same protospatharius Krinitis exacted and conveyed to the Treasury of the Bedchamber guarded of God. But when the protospatharius Krinitis was transferred to the province of Hellas and the protospatharius Bardas Platypodis was appointed military governor in Peloponnesus, and disorder and strife were aroused by this same protospatharius Bardas Platypodis and by protospatharii and nobles who took his part, and they expelled the protospatharius Leo Agelastos from the province, and straight away the Slavesians made an attack upon this same province, then these same Slavs, both Milingoi and Ezeritai, sent to the lord Romanus, the emperor, requesting and praying that the increments to their tribute should be forgiven them, and that they should pay what they had paid before. And since, as has been said above, the Slavesians had entered the province of Peloponnesus, the emperor, fearing lest they might join forces with the Slavs and bring about the total destruction of this same province, issued for the latter a golden bull providing that they should pay as before, the Milingoi 60 nomismata, and the Ezeritai 300 nomismata. Such, then, is the cause of the increase of the tribute of the Milingoi and Ezeritai, and of its remission. The inhabitants of the city of Maina are not of the race of the aforesaid Slavs, but of the ancient Romans, and even to this day they are called ‘Hellenes’ by the local inhabitants, because in the very ancient times they were idolaters and worshippers of images after the fashion of the ancient Hellenes; and they were baptized and became Christians in the reign of the glorious Basil…”

De Administrando Imperio & All of its Slavs – Part I

PublishedDecember 24, 2015 Post authortorino

Earlier we posted a summary of the versions of the story about the arrival of the Croats as found in De Administrando Imperio (Of the Administration of an Empire). However, we never included the actual text or portions relevant to other Slavic peoples. We correct that here (generally following the 1967 Moravcsik/Jenkins translation except where its terminology was archaic) with all the chapters from that book that deal with Slav matters (mostly in full, except where they deviate too extensively into non-Slav stories). This first part includes:

stories of the Rus and some Slavs (chapters 2, 4 and 9);
a mention of Moravia (chapter 13);
story of Dalmatia (chapter 29, which includes the mention of an Avar/Slav ruse which is familiar to those who know the Polish chronicles of Lestko II/Lethek II – the same ruse is described in another chapter of the book – chapter 30);

The remaining DAI parts that include Slavic references are in Part II here.

Chapter 2

Of the Pechenegs and the Rus

“The Pechenegs are neighbours to and march with the Rus also, and often, when the two are not at peace with one another, raid Russia, and do her considerable harm and outrage.
The Rus also are much concerned to keep the peace with the Pechenegs. For they buy of them horned cattle and horses and sheep, whereby they live more easily and comfortably, since none of the aforesaid animals is found in Russia. Moreover, the Rus are quite unable to
set out for wars beyond their borders unless they are at peace with the Pechenegs, because while they are away from their homes, these [Pechengs] may come upon them and destroy and outrage their property. And so the Rus, both to avoid being harmed by them and because of the strength of that nation, are the more concerned always to be in alliance with them and to have them for support, so as both to be rid of their enmity and to enjoy the advantage of their assistance.”

“Nor can the Rus come at this imperial city of the Romans, either for war or for trade, unless they are at peace with the Pechenegs, because when the Rus come with their ships to the barrages of the river and cannot pass through unless they lift their ships off the river and carry them past by portaging them on their shoulders, then the men of this nation of the Pechenegs set upon them, and, as they cannot do two things at once, they are easily routed and cut to pieces.”

Chapter 4

Of the Pechenegs and the Rus and the Turks

“So long as the emperor of the Romans [i.e., the Byzantine Emperor] is at peace with the Pechenegs, neither the Rus nor Turks [i.e., Hungarians] can come upon the Roman dominions by force of arms, nor can they exact from the Romans large and inflated sums in money and goods as the price of peace, for they fear the strength of this nation which the emperor can turn against them while they are campaigning against the Romans.”

europe900

“For the Pechenegs, if they are leagued in friendship with the emperor and won over by him through letters and gifts, can easily come upon the country both of the Rus and of the Turks, and enslave their women and children and ravage their country.”

Chapter 9

Of the coming of the Rus in ‘monoxyla’ from Russia to Constantinople

“The ‘monoxyla’ which come down from outer Russia to Constantinople are from Novgorod, where Sviatoslav, son of Igor, prince of Russia, had his seat, and others from the city of Smolensk and from Teliutza and Chernigov and from Yyshegrad. All these come down the river Dnieper, and are collected together at the city of Kiev, also called Sambatas. Their Slav tributaries, the so-called Krivichians and the Lenzanenes and the rest of the Slavonic regions, cut the ‘monoxyla’ on their mountains in time of winter, and when they have prepared them, as spring approaches, and the ice melts, they bring them on to the neighbouring lakes. And since these lakes debouch into the river Dnieper, they enter thence on to this same river, and come down to Kiev, and draw the ships along to be finished and sell them to the Rus. The Rus buy these bottoms only, furnishing them with oars and rowlocks and other tackle from their old ‘monoxyla’, which they dismantle; and so they fit them out. And in the month of June
they move off down the river Dnieper and come to Vitichev, which is a tributary city of the Rus, and there they gather during two or three days; and when all the ‘monoxyla’ are collected together, then they set out, and come down the said Dnieper river. And first they come to the first barrage, called Essoupi, which means in Russian and Slavonic ‘Do not
sleep!’; the barrage itself is as narrow as the width of the Polo-ground; in the middle of it are rooted high rocks, which stand out like islands. Against these, then, comes the water and wells up and dashes down over the other side, with a mighty and terrific din. Therefore the Rus do not venture to pass between them, but put in to the bank hard by, disembarking the men on to dry land leaving the rest of the goods on board the ‘monoxyla’; they then strip and, feeling with their feet to avoid striking on a rock, ***. This they do, some at the prow, some amidships, while others again, in the stern, punt with poles; and with all this careful procedure they pass this first barrage, edging round under the river-bank. When they have passed this barrage, they re-embark the others from the dry land and sail away, and come down to the second barrage, called in Russian Oulvorsi, and in Slavonic Ostrovouniprach, which means ‘the Island of the Barrage’. This one is like the first, awkward and not to be passed through. Once again they
disembark the men and convey the ‘monoxyla’ past, as on the first occasion. Similarly they pass the third barrage also, called Oelandri, which means in Slavonic ‘Noise of the Barrage’, and then the fourth barrage, the big one, called in Russian Aeifor, and in Slavonic Neasit, because the pelicans nest in the stones of the barrage.”

oukleantersz

“At this barrage all put into land prow foremost, and those who are deputed to keep the watch with them get out, and off they go, these men, and keep vigilant watch for the Pechenegs. The remainder, taking up the goods which they have on board the ‘monoxyla’, conduct the slaves in their chains past by land, six miles, until they are through the barrage. Then, partly dragging their ‘monoxyla’, partly portaging them on their shoulders, they convey them to the far side of the barrage; and then, putting them on the river and loading up their baggage, they embark themselves, and again sail off in them. When they come to the fifth barrage, called in Russian Varouforos, and in Slavonic Voulniprach, because it forms a large lake, they again convey their ‘monoxyla’ through at the edges of the river, as at the first and second barrages, and arrive at the sixth barrage, called in Russian Leanti, and in Slavonic Yeroutzi, that is ‘the Boiling of the Water’, and this too they pass similarly. And thence they sail away to the seventh barrage, called in Russian Stroukoun, and in Slavonic Naprezi, which means ‘Little Barrage’. This they pass at the so-called ford of Vrar, where the Chersonites cross over from Russia and the Pechenegs to Cherson; which ford is as wide as the Hippodrome, and, measured upstream from the bottom as far as the rocks break surface, a bow-shot in length. It is at this point, therefore, that the Pechenegs come down and attack the Rus. After traversing this place, they reach the island called St. Gregory, on which island they perform their sacrifices because a gigantic oak-tree stands there; and they sacrifice live cocks.”

Khortytsia (Saint Gregory) Island

“Arrows, too, they peg in round about, and others bread and meat, or something of whatever each may have, as is their custom. They also throw lots regarding the cocks, whether to slaughter them, or to eat them as well, or to leave them alive. From this island onwards the Rus do not fear the Pecheneg until they reach the river Selinas. So then they start off thence and sail for four days, until they reach the lake which forms the mouth of the river, on which is the island of St. Aitherios. Arrived at this island, they rest themselves there for two or three days. And they re-equip their ‘monoxyla’ with such tackle as is needed, sails and masts and rudders, which they bring with them. Since this lake is the mouth of this river, as has been said, and carries on down to the sea, and the island of St. Aitherios lies on the sea, they come thence to the Dniester river, and having got safely there they rest again. But when the weather is propitious, they put to sea and come to the river called Aspros, and after resting there too in like manner, they again set out and come to the Selinas, to the so-called branch of the Danube river. And until they are past the river Selinas, the Pechenegs keep pace with them. And if it happens that the sea casts a ‘monoxylon’ on shore, they all put in to land, in order to present a united opposition to the Pechenegs. But after the Selinas they fear nobody, but, entering the territory of Bulgaria, they come to the mouth of the Danube. From the Danube they proceed to the Konopas, and from the Konopas to Constantia, and from Constantia to the river of Varna, and from Varna they come to the river Ditzina, all of which are Bulgarian territory. From the Ditzina they reach the district of Mesembria, and there at last their voyage, fraught with such travail and terror, such difficulty and danger, is at an end. The severe manner of life of these same Rus in winter-time is as follows. When the month of November begins, their chiefs together with all the Rus at once leave Kiev and go off on the ‘poliudia’, which means ‘rounds’, that is, to the Slavonic regions of the Vervians and Drugovichians and Krivichians and Severians and the rest of the Slavs who are tributaries of the Rus. There they are maintained throughout the winter, but then once more, starting from the month of April, when the ice of the Dnieper river melts, they come back to Kiev. [note: this is reminiscent of the Avars ‘sleeping over’ with the Slavs] They then pick up their ‘monoxyla’, as has been said above, and fit them out, and come down to Romania. The Uzes can attack the Pechenegs.”

Chapter 13

Of the nations that are neighbours to the Turks [“Turks” refers to the Hungarians]

“These nations are adjacent to the Turks [i.e., Hungary]: on their western side Francia; on their northern the Pechenegs; and on the south [?] side great Moravia, the country of Sphendoplokos [Svatopluk I of Moravia], which has now been totally devastated by these Turks, and occupied by them.”

Svatopluk’s name in the Industriae Tuae text

“On the side of the mountains the Croats are adjacent to the Turks. The Pechenegs too can attack the Turks, and plunder and harm them greatly, as has been said above in the chapter on the Pechenegs.”

Chapter 29

Of Dalmatia and of the adjacent nations in it

“The emperor Diocletian was much enamoured of the country of Dalmatia, and so he brought folk with their families from Rome and settled them in this same country of Dalmatia, and they were called ‘Romani’ from their having been removed from Rome, and this title attaches to
them until this day. Now this emperor Diocletian founded the city of Spalato and built therein a palace beyond the power of any tongue or pen to describe, and remains of its ancient luxury are still preserved today, though the long lapse of time has played havoc with them. Moreover, the city of Diocleia, now occupied by the Diocletians, was built by the same emperor Diocletian, for which reason those of that country have come to be called by the name of ‘Diocletians’. The territory possessed by these Romani used to extend as far as the river Danube, and once on a time, being minded to cross the river and discover who dwelt beyond the river, they crossed it
and came upon unarmed Slavonic nations, who were also called Avars. The former had not expected that any dwelt beyond the river, nor the latter that any dwelt on the hither side. And so, finding these Avars unarmed and unprepared for war, the Romani overcame them and took booty and prisoners and returned. And from that time the Romani formed two alternating garrisons, serving from Easter to Easter, and used to change their men about so that on Great and Holy Saturday they who were coming back from the station and they who were going out to
that service would meet one another. For near the sea, beneath that same city, lies a city called Salona, which is half as large as Constantinople, and here all the Romani would muster and be equipped and thence start out and come to the frontier pass, which is four miles from this same city, and is called Kleisa to this day, from its closing in those who pass that way. And from there they would advance to the river.”

Kleisa Fort

“This exchange of garrisons went on for a number of years and the Slavs on the far side of the river, who were also called Avars, thought it over among themselves, and said: «These Romani, now that they have crossed over and found booty, will in future not cease coming over against us, and so we will devise a plan against them.» And so, therefore, the Slavs, or Avars, took counsel, and on one occasion when the Romani had crossed over, they laid ambushes and attacked and defeated them. The aforesaid Slavs took the Roman arms and standards and the rest of their military insignia and crossed the river and came to the frontier pass, and when the Romani who were there saw them and beheld the standards and accoutrements of their own men they thought they were their own men, and so, when the aforesaid Slavs reached the pass, they let them through. Once through, they instantly expelled the Romani and took possession of the aforesaid city of Salona. There they settled and thereafter began gradually to make plundering raids and destroyed the Romani who dwelt in the plains and on the higher ground and took possession of their lands. The remnant of the Romani escaped to the cities of the coast and possess them still, namely, Decatera, Ragusa, Spalato, Tetrangourin, Diadora, Axbe, Vekla and Opsara, the inhabitants of which are called Romani to this day. Since the reign of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, as will be related in the narrative concerning the Croats and Serbs, the whole of Dalmatia and the nations about it, such as Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians and Arentani, who are also called Pagani ***. But when the Roman empire, through the sloth and inexperience of those who then governed it and especially in the time of Michael from Amorion, the Lisper, had declined to the verge of total extinction, the inhabitants of the cities of Dalmatia became independent, subject neither to the emperor of the Romans nor to anybody else, and, what is more, the nations of those parts, the Croats and Serbs and Zachlumites, Terbuniotes and Kanalites and Diocletians and the Pagani, shook off the reins of the empire of the Romans and became self-governing and independent, subject to none. Princes, as they say, these nations had none, but only ‘zupans’, elders, as is the rule in the other Slavonic regions. Moreover, the majority of these Slavs were not even baptized, and remained unbaptized for long enough. But in the time of Basil, the Christ-loving emperor, they sent diplomatic agents, begging and praying him that those of them who were unbaptized might receive baptism and that they might be, as they had originally been, subject to the empire of the Romans; and that glorious emperor, of blessed memory, gave ear to them and sent out an imperial agent and priests with him and baptized all of them that were unbaptized of the aforesaid nations, and after baptizing them he then appointed for them princes whom they themselves approved and chose, from the family which they themselves loved and favoured. And from that day to this their princes come from these same families, and from no other.”

chrobatia

“But the Pagani, who are called Arentani in the Roman tongue, were left unbaptized, in an inaccessible and precipitous part of the country. For ‘Pagani’ means ‘unbaptized’ in the Slavonic tongue. [note: in the Slavonic tongue!] But later, they too sent to the same glorious emperor and begged that they too might be baptized, and he sent and baptized them too. And since, as we said above, owing to the sloth and inexperience of those in power things had gone the wrong way for the Romans, the inhabitants of the cities of Dalmatia also had become independent, subject neither to the emperor of the Romans nor to anybody else.”

[note: the story here (repeated below) of the Avar subterfuge is similar to the story of “Lestek” as told in Kadlubek, the Greater Poland Chronicles and other Polish sources]

“But after some time, in the reign of Basil the glorious and ever-memorable emperor, Saracens from Africa, Soldan and Saba and Kalphus, came with 36 ships and reached Dalmatia and took the city of Butova and the city of Rossa and the lower city of Decatera. And they came also to the city of Ragusa and blockaded it fifteen months. Then in their strait the Ragusans made a declaration to Basil, the ever-memorable emperor of the Romans, saying this to him: ‘Have pity on us and do not allow us to be destroyed by them that deny Christ.’ The emperor was moved with compassion and sent the patrician Nicetas, admiral of the fleet, surnamed Ooryphas, with one hundred ships of war. When the Saracens learnt of the arrival of the patrician admiral of the fleet with his squadron, they quitted the city of Ragusa and took to flight and crossed over into Lombardy and laid siege to the city of Bari and took it. Then Soldan built a palace there and was for forty years master of all Lombardy as far as Rome. On this account, therefore, the emperor sent to Lewis, king of Francia, and to the pope of Rome, asking their cooperation with the army which he, the emperor, had sent. The king and the pope acceded to the emperor’s request, and both of them came with a large force and joined up with the army sent by the emperor and with the Croat and Serb and Zachlumian chiefs and the Terbouniotes and Kanalites and the men of Ragusa and all the cities of Dalmatia (for all these were present by imperial mandate); and they crossed over into Lombardy, and laid siege to the city of Bari and took it. The Croats and the other chiefs of the Slavs were carried over into Lombardy by the inhabitants of the city of Ragusa in their own vessels. The city of Bari and the country and all the prisoners were taken by the emperor of the Romans, but Soldan and the rest of the Saracens were taken by Lewis, the king of Francia, who carried them off to the city of Capua and the city of Beneventum. And no one saw Soldan laughing. And the king said: ‘If anybody truly reports to me or shows me Soldan laughing, I will give him much money.’ Later, someone saw him laughing and reported it to king Lewis. He summoned Soldan and asked him, how he had come to laugh? And he said: ‘I saw a cart and the wheels on it turning round and therefore I laughed because I too was once at the top and am now lowest of all, but God may raise me up again…'”

[more adventures of Soldan the Saracen follow here which we will ignore]

“… The city of Ragusa is not called Ragusa in the tongue of the Romans but, because it stands on cliffs, it is called in Roman speech ‘the cliff, lau’; whence they are called ‘Lausaioi’, i. e. ‘those who have their seat on the cliff’. But vulgar usage, which frequently corrupts names by altering their letters, has changed the denomination and called them Rausaioi. These same Rausaioi used of old to possess the city that is called Pitaura; and since, when the other cities were captured by the Slavs that were in the province, this city too was captured, and some were slaughtered and others taken prisoner, those who were able to escape and reach safety settled in the almost precipitous spot where the city now is; they built it small to begin with, and afterwards enlarged it, and later still extended its wall until the city reached its present size, owing to their gradual spreading out and increase in population. Among those who migrated to Ragusa are: Gregory, Arsaphius, Victorinus, Vitalius, Valentine the archdeacon, Valentine the father of Stephen the protospatharius. From their migration from Salona to Ragusa, it is 500 years till this day, which is the 7th indiction, the year 6457. In this same city lies St. Pancratius, in the church of St. Stephen, which is in the middle of this same city.”

maps

“The city of Spalato which means ‘little palace’, was founded by the emperor Diocletian; he made it his own dwelling-place, and built within it a court and a palace, most part of which has been destroyed. But a few things remain to this day, e. g. the episcopal residence of the city and the church of St. Domnus, in which lies St. Domnus himself, and which was the resting-place of the same emperor Diocletian. Beneath it are arching vaults, which used to be prisons, in which he cruelly confined the saints whom he tormented. St. Anastasius also lies in this city. The defence-wall of this city is constructed neither of bricks nor of concrete, but of ashlar blocks, one and often two fathoms in length by a fathom across, and these are fitted and joined to one another by iron cramps puddled into molten lead. In this city also stand close rows of columns,
with entablatures above, on which this same emperor Diocletian proposed to erect arching vaults and to cover over the city throughout, and to build his palace and all the living-quarters of the city on the top of those vaults, to a height of two and three stories, so that they covered little ground-space in the same city. The defence-wall of this city has neither rampart nor
bulwarks, but only lofty walls and arrow-slits.”

opsara

“The city of Tetrangourin [Tetrangurium or Trau] is a little island in the sea, with a very narrow neck reaching to the land like a bridge, along which the inhabitants pass to the same city; and it is called Tetrangourin because it is long-shaped like a cucumber. In this same city lies the holy martyr Lawrence the archdeacon.”

“The city of Decatera means in the language of the Romans ‘contracted and strangled’, because the sea enters like a contracted tongue for 15 or 20 miles, and the city is on this marine appendix. This city has high mountains in a circle about it, so that the sun can be seen only in summer, because it is then in mid-heaven, and in winter it cannot be seen at all. In the same
city lies St. Tryphon entire, who heals every disease, especially those who are tormented by unclean spirits; his church is domed.”

“The city of Diadora is called in the language of the Romans ‘iam era’, which means, ‘it was already’: that is to say, when Rome was founded, this city had already been founded before it; it is a big city. Vulgar usage gives it the name Diadora. In the same city lies in the flesh St. Anastasia, the virgin, daughter of Eustathius, who was on the throne at that time; and St. Chrysogonus, monk and martyr, and his holy chain. The church of St. Anastasia is a basilica like the church of the Chalcopratia, with green and white columns, and all decorated with encaustic pictures in the antique style; its floor is of wonderful mosaic. Near it is another church, a domed one, Holy Trinity, and above this church again is another church, like a triforium, domed also, into which they mount by a spiral staircase.”

“Under the control of Dalmatia is a close-set and very numerous archipelago, extending as far as Beneventum, so that ships never fear to be overwhelmed in those parts. One of these islands is the city of Vekla, and on another island Arbe, and on another island Opsara [Ozar?; recall Dlugosz’ Psary castle where Lech was said to have originated from], and on another
island Lumbricaton, and these are still inhabited. The rest are uninhabited and have upon them deserted cities, of which the names are as follows: Katautrebeno, Pizouch, Selbo, Skerda, Aloep, Skirdakissa, Pyrotima, Meleta, Estiounez, and very many others of which the names are not intelligible.”

“The remaining cities, on the mainland of the province, which were captured by the said Slavs, now stand uninhabited and deserted, and nobody lives in them.”

Maurice’s Strategikon

PublishedDecember 1, 2015 Post authortorino

“Maurice’s Strategikon” was written in the late 6th century by, most likely, Byzantine Emperor Maurice (Emperor 582-602). It contains wonderful descriptions of the Slavs at war (or, rather, Byzantines at war with Slavs) as well Slavs more generally that have been frequently cited as some of the earliest descriptions of Slav military tactics (or lack thereof). We thought it only fair to include it here. As a point of reminder, the Slavs here are the Slavs of Procopius who showed up on Byzantine doorstep at the beginning of the 6th century (consistent with Procopius’ description, the writer here too provides a rather measured description of the Slavs). The translation comes from George T. Dennis – the latest English translation in existence that we’re aware of. References to Slavs come in Book IX and, more extensively, in Book XI.

Book IX

Surprise Attacks

Chapter 3: Incursion Into Hostile Territory; Security While on the March in It; Plundering It Without Suffering Damage

“One can safely attempt an incursion into hostile territory under two conditions: if the assault is made after the enemy has been defeated in battle or if we know that they are unprepared or unfit for action should they be attacked without warning. This is true even if the enemy forces are more numerous, and certainly if they are undisciplined disorganized, such as the Slavs, Antes, and other undisciplined, disorganized peoples. Or our men can seize and hold a position, such as a riverbank or mountain pass, from which they can hurt the enemy without being touched by them…”

Book XI

Characteristics and Tactics of Various Peoples

[Note: This latter book discusses tactics for dealing with various peoples (as the title suggests). As a point of interest we include some nice generalities of Maurice’s (not the entire chapters). First, comes a description of the Persians, then the Scythians, then the Franks, Lombards and other “Light-Haired” people and, finally, the longest section – on the Slavs.]

Chapter 1: Dealing with the Persians

“The Persian nation is wicked, dissembling, and servile, but at the same time patriotic and obedient. The Persians obey their rulers out of fear, and the result is that they re steadfast in enduring hard work and warfare on behalf of their fatherland…”

Chapter 2: Dealing with the Scythians, That is, Avars, Turks, and Others Whose Way of Life Resembles That of the Hunnish Peoples

“These nations have a monarchical form of government, and their rulers subject them to cruel punishments for their mistakes. Governed not by love but by fear, they steadfastly bear labors and hardships. They endure heat and cold, and the want of many necessities, since they are nomadic peoples. They are very superstitious, treacherous, foul, faithless, possessed by an insatiate desire for riches… They give special attention to training in archery on horseback. A vast herd of male and female horses follows them, both to provide nourishment and to give the impression of a huge army. They do not encamp within entrenchments, as do the Persians and the Romans [Byzantines], but until the day of battle, spread about according to tribes and clans, they continuously graze their horses both summer and winter… Also in the event of battle, when opposed by an infantry force in close formation they stay on their horses and do not dismount, for they do not last long fighting on foot. They have been brought up on horseback, and owing to their lack of exercise they simply cannot walk about on their own feet…”

Chapter 3: Dealing with the Light-Haired Peoples, Such As the Franks, Lombards, and Others Like Them

“The light-haired races place great value on freedom. They are bold and undaunted in battle. Daring and imperious as they are, they consider anuy timidity and even a short retreat as a disgrace. They calmly despise death as they fight voliently in hand-to-hand combat either on horseback or on foot… Whether on foot or on horseback, they draw up for battle, not in any fixed measure and formation, or in regiments or divisions, but according to tribes, their kinship with one another, and common interest… Either on horseback or on foot they are impetuous and undisciplined in charging, as if they were the only people in the world who are not cowards. They are disobedient to their leaders. They are not interest in anything that is at all complicated and pay little attention to external security and their own advantage. They despise good order, especially on horseback. They are easily corrupted by money, greedy as they are. “

Although they possessed bold and daring spirits, their bodies were pampered and soft

“They are hurt by suffering and fatigue. Although they possess bold and daring spirits, their bodes are pampered and soft, and they rnot able to bear pain calmly. In addition they are hurt by heat, cold, rain, lack of provisions, especially wine, and postponement of battle. They are easily ambushed along the flanks and ot the rear of their battle line, for they do not concern themselves at all with scouts and the other security measures. Their ranks are easily broken by a simulated flight and a sudden turning back against them. Attacks at night by archers often inflict damage, since they are very disorganized in setting up camp…”

Chapter 4: Dealing with the Slavs, the Antes, and the Like

“The nations of the Slavs and the Antes live in the same way and have the same customs. They are both independent, absolutely refusing to be enslaved or governed, least of all in their own land. They are populous and hardy, bearing readily heat, cold, rain, nakedness, and scarcity of provisions.”

“They are kind and hospitable to travelers in their country and conduct them safely from one place to another, wherever they wish.”

“If the stranger should suffer some harm because of his host’s negligence, the one who first commended him will wage war against that host, regarding vengeance for the stranger as a religious duty They do not keep those who are in captivity among them in perpetual slavery, as do other nations. But they set a definite period of time for them and then give them the choice either, if they so desire, to return to their own homes with a small recompense or to remain there as free men and friends.”

Slavs – kind, hospitable

“They possess an abundance of all sorts of livestock and produce, which they store in heaps especially common millet and Italian millet. Their women are more sensitive than any others in the world. When , for example, their husband dies, many look upon it as their own death and freely smother themselves, not wanting to continue their lives as widows.”

“They live among nearly impenetrable forests, rivers, lakes, and marshes, and have made the exits from their settlements branch outing many directions because of the dangers they might face. They bury their most valuable possessions in secret places, keeping nothing unnecessary in sight They live like bandits and love to carry out attacks against their enemies in densely wooded narrow, and steep places. They make effective use of ambushes, sudden attacks, and raids, devising many different methods by night and by day.”

“Their experience in crossing rivers surpasses that of all other men, and they are extremely good at spending a lot of time in the water. Often enough when they are in their own country and are caught by surprise and in a tight spot, they dive to the bottom of a body of water. There they take long, hollow reeds they have prepared for such a situation and hold them in their mouths, the reeds extending to the surface of the water. Lying on their backs on the bottom they breathe through them and hold out for many hours without anyone suspecting where they are. An inexperienced person who notices the reeds from above would simply think they were growing there in the water. But a person who has had some experience with this trick, recognizing the reeds by the way they are cut or their position, either shoves them down further into their mouths or pulls them out, which brings the men to the surface, since they cannot remain under water any longer without them.”

This Byzantine chopper pilot did not expect an underwater Slav to attack

“They are armed with short javelins, two to each man. Some also have nice-looking but unwieldy shields.”

“In addition, they use wooden bows with short arrows smeared with a poisonous drug which is very effective. If the wounded man has not drunk an antidote beforehand to check the poison or made use of other remedies which experienced doctors might know about, he should immediately cut around the wound to keep the poison from spreading to the rest of the body.”

“Owing to their lack of government and their ill feeling toward one another, they are no acquainted with an order of battle. They are also not prepared to fight a battle standing inclose order, or to present themselves on open and level ground. If they do get up enoughcourage when the time comes to attack, they shout all together and move forward a shortdistance. If their opponents begin to give way at the noise, they attack violently; if not, theythemselves turn around, not being anxious to experience the strength of the enemy at close range. They then run for the woods, where they have a great advantage because of their skill in fighting in such cramped quarters. Often too when they are carrying booty they will abandon it in a feigned panic and run for the woods.”

Feigning panic, Slavs pretend to flee back into their woods

“When their assailants disperse after the plunder, they calmly come back and cause them injury. They are ready to do this sort of thing to bait their adversaries eagerly and in a variety of ways. They are completely faithless and have no regard for treaties, which they agree to more out of fear than by gifts. When a difference of opinion prevails among them, either they come to no agreement at all or when some of them do come to an agreement, the others quickly go against what was decided. They are always at odds with each other, and nobody is willing to yield to another. In combat they are hurt by volleys of arrows, sudden attacks launched against them from different directions, hand-to-hand fighting with infantry, especially light-armed troops, and having to fight on open and unobstructed ground.”

“Our army, therefore, should comprise both cavalry and infantry, especially light-armed troops or javelin throwers, and should carry a large amount of missiles, not only arrows, but also other throwing weapons. Bring materials for building bridges, the kind called floating, if possible. In this way you may cross without effort the numerous and unfordable rivers in their country. Build them in Scythian manner, some men erecting the framework, others laying down the planks. You should also have oxhide or goatskin bags to make rafts, and for use in helping the soldiers swim across for surprise attacks against the enemy in the summer. Still, it is preferable to launch our attacks against them in the winter when they cannot easily hide among the bare trees, when the tracks of fugitives can be discerned in the snow, when their household is miserable from exposure, and when it is easy to cross over the rivers on the ice.”

Slavic shields may have been unwieldy but they sure stopped this Byzantine sword

“Most of the animals and superfluous equipment should be left behind in a very safe place with a suitable guard and officer in charge. The dromons should be anchored at strategic locations. A moira of cavalry under outstanding officers should be stationed in the area as a protection so that the army on the march shall not be distracted in the event of hostile ambushes, and also to spread rumors that an attack against the enemy is being planned in some other location. By means of such a rumor and the anxiety of their chiefs, each of whom will be worried about his own problems, they will not have the opportunity to get together and cause trouble for our army. Do not station these troops close to the Danube, for the enemy would find out how few they are and consider them unimportant. Nor should they be very far away, so their will be no delay, if it becomes necessary, to have them join the invading army. They should stay about a day’s march from the Danube. This army should cross over into enemy territory suddenly and make its invasion on clear and level ground. Immediately a competent officer should ride ahead with some picked men to take captives from whom it will be possible to get information about the enemy. As far as possible, avoid marching through rough or wooded terrain during summer until thorough reconnaissance has been made, and, in case the enemy is present in force, until they have been driven away by our infantry or cavalry. If we have to march through a narrow pass, and if we expect to return by the same route, measures must be taken, as explained in the book dealing with this matter, to clear the way, widen the road, or to leave a relatively strong force behind in the area to prevent the enemy from hiding and making surprise attacks which could overwhelm our army on its return when it is likely to be encumbered with plunder.”

The Slav poison darts

“As much as possible, avoid making camp in thickly wooded areas or pitching your tents near such places. For they can easily serve as a base for launching attacks or for rustling horses. The infantry force should encamp in order and within the fortification. The cavalry should encamp outside, with sentinels posted in a wide circle around the grazing horses, unless it is possible to bring in forage for the horses, so they can stay inside day and night. If an opportunity for battle occurs, do not make your battle line against them too deep. Do not concentrate only on frontal attacks, but on the other sectors as well. Suppose that the enemy occupy a fairly strong position and have their rear well covered so that they do not allow us an opportunity to encircle them or to attack their flanks or their rear. In that event it is necessary to post some troops in concealment, have others simulate a flight before their front, so that, lured by the hope of pursuit, they may abandon their good defensive position, and then our men will turn back against them, while those in hiding come out and attack them.”

“Since there are many kings among them always at odds with one another, it is not difficult to win over some of them by persuasion or by gifts, especially those in areas closer to the border, and then to attack the others, so that their common hostility will not make them united or bring them together under one ruler. The so-called refugees who are ordered to point out the roads and furnish certain information must be very closely watched. Even some Romans have given in to the times, forget their own people, and prefer to gain the good will of the enemy. Those who remain loyal ought to be rewarded, and the evildoers punished.”

“Provisions found in the surrounding countryside should not simply be wasted, but use pack animals and boats to transport them to our own country. The rivers there flow into the Danube, which makes transportation by boat easy. Infantry are necessary not only in narrow passes and fortified places, but also in rough country and along rivers. Even in the face of the enemy it is then possible to bridge over them. When a small force of infantry, both heavy and light, has been secretly brought across at nipht or during the day and immediately drawn up in formation, keeping their backs to the river, they provide enough security to put a bridge across the river. In cramped river crossings or in defiles it is necessary for the rear guard to be ready for action at all times, disposed according to the terrain. For one may expect attacks to occur whenever the force is divided, and the troops who are advancing cannot aid those in the rear. Surprise attacks against the enemy should be carried out according to standard procedure. One detachment approaches their front and provokes them, while another detachment, infantry or cavalry, is posted secretly in the rear on the route by which they are expected to flee. The enemy then who avoided action or who flee from the first attacking force will unexpectedly run right into the other detachment. In summer there must be no letup in hurting them. During that time of year we can pillage the more open and bare areas and aim at entrenching ourselves in their land. This will aid the Romans who are captives among them to gain their freedom, after escaping from them. The thick foliage of summer makes it fairly easy for prisoners to escape without fear.”

Slavs chasing a Byzantine scout

“The procedures of the march, the invasion, and the pillaging of the country, and other more or less related matters, are dealt with in the book on invading hostile territory. Here the subject will be summarized as best as possible. The settlements of the Slavs and Antes lie in a row along the rivers very close to one another. In fact, there is practically no space between them, and they are bordered by forests, swamps, beds of reeds. As a result, what generally happens to invasions launched against them is that the whole army comes to a halt at their first settlement and is kept busy there, while the rest of the neighboring settlements, on learning of the invasion, easily escape with their belongings to the nearby forests. Their fighting men then come back ready for action, seize their opportunities, and attack our soldiers from cover. This prevents the invading troops from inflicting any damage on the enemy. For these reasons we must make surprise attacks against them, particularly in unexpected places. The bandons or tagmas must be so arranged beforehand that they know which one is first, which second, which third, and they should march in that order through very constricted areas, so they do not get mixed up and lose time in reorganizing themselves. When a crossing has been made without detection, if there are two suitable places which can be attacked, the army ought to be divided in two, with the lieutenant general taking one part, ready for battle and without a baggage train, and advance a distance of fifteen to twenty miles through unsettled land on their flanks with a view to launching an attack from the more mountainous areas. Then on approaching the settlements there, he should begin the pillaging, continuing until he meets the units with the general. The general, keeping the other part of the army, should invade and pillage from the other end of the settlements. Both should be advancing, destroying, and pillaging the settlements between them until they meet up with one another in a determined place. On arriving there they should pitch camp together toward evening. In this way the attack is successfully carried out. The enemy running away from one detachment will unexpectedly fall right into the hands of the other, and they will not be able to regroup. If there is only one suitable road by which it is possible to invade the settlements, the army should still be divided. The lieutenant general must take half or even more of it, a strong force and ready for battle, without a baggage train. His own bandon, with himself in his proper place, should advance at the head of the whole force, and accompanying him should be all the tagma commanders. When his force approaches the first settlement, he should detach one or two bandons so, while some go about pillaging, others may keep guard over them. It is wise not to detach too many bandons for the first settlements, even if they happen to be large ones. For when our army arrives, there is no time for the inhabitants to organize any resistance. The lieutenant general should continue his advance rapidly, while still carrying out the same procedure at the rest of the settlements along the way as long as there are enough tagmas under his command. The lieutenant general himself ought to stay clear of all these actions. He should retain for himself three or four bandons, up to a thousand capable men, until the invasion is completely finished, so he can see to reconnaissance and security for the rest of the troops.”

The settlements of the Slavs and Antes lay along the rivers such as the Danube (pictured here during the wet season)

“While the lieutenant general is discharging these duties, the general should follow along, have the pillaging troops join him, and keep moving up toward the lieutenant general. For his part, the lieutenant general should turn back and gather up the pillagers along his line of march. In the place where the two encounter each other they should set up camp together that same day. These surprise incursions made by the two units should not advance more than fifteen or twenty miles, so that both may get there, do their pillaging, and pitch camp on the same day. In these expeditions those of the enemy able to put up resistance need not be taken alive, but kill everyone you encounter and move on. When you are marching along do not let them delay you, but take advantage of the opportunity.”

On the Nation of the Suavs

PublishedNovember 22, 2015 Post authortorino

The discussion about the origin of the Slavs or Suavs is often conducted between the “academics” and “commoners”. This has led to a lot of confusion – primarily by reason of the former who purposefully mislead the latter as to what is the subject of the discussion. We’ve made this point before but think it is worth reiterating it.

Not the Customs

Some of it goes back to the question what is an “ethnicity”. The latter is defined by the academics (e.g., Anthony Smith)* as follows.

First, the academics claim that an ethnicity is “not inherent” but “created;
Second, they list factors that contribute to “ethnicity” as so defined; for example, Anthony Smith lists the following as defining an ethnicity:
- collective name
- common myth of descent
- shared history
- distinctive shared culture
- an association with a specific territory
- a sense of solidarity

(Although, oddly, Smith leaves it out here, others see language as the primary “ethnic” criterion.)

* Who is Anthony Smith? Just a guy with an opinion. His opinion is not half bad. For example, in his book Ethnic Origins of Nations he argues against the theses that nationalism is a modern phenomenon – an argument that is a bit like trying to ram an open door, but ok, we’ll take what we can. Nevertheless, Smith presumably had to be careful. He operated in a post-WWII world in a coterie of privileged, elitist intellectuals.

[The only activity such snobs find more pleasing than putting down the unwashed masses is being snarky to one another. One of Smith’s teachers, Ernest Gellner, managed to do both in one breath (discussing prior department head, Morris Ginsberg): “Ginsberg… was totally unoriginal and lacked any sharpness. He simply reproduced the kind of evolutionary rationalistic vision which had already been formulated by Hobhouse and which incidentally was a kind of extrapolation of his [Ginsberg’s] own personal life: starting in Poland [Lithuania, actually, but, hey, all Eastern Europe looks the same] and ending up as a fairly influential professor at LSE. He evolved, he had an idea of a great chain of being where the lowest form of life was the drunk, Polish, anti-Semitic peasant and the next stage was the Polish gentry, a bit better, or the Staedtl, better still. And then he came to England, first to University College under Dawes Hicks, who was quite rational (not all that rational—he still had some anti-Semitic prejudices, it seems) and finally ended up at LSE with Hobhouse, who was so rational that rationality came out of his ears. And so Ginsberg extrapolated this, and on his view the whole of humanity moved to ever greater rationality, from drunk Polish peasant to T.L. Hobhouse and a Hampstead garden.” To what extent he was influenced by Gellner and the likes is unclear. (alas Gellner ultimately ended up working for Soros’ Central European University).]

All of these above “factors”, however, are not what the “commoners” mean when they ask the question of “from where came the Suavs”. The “commoners” in seeking the “origin of the Suavs” understand something much simpler. They understand themselves to be the Suavs of today and are merely seeking their ancestors or the primary groups comprising those.

Thus, while their view of the ethnic may certainly include the above factors (and language), these are merely attachments to the true ethnic determinant – blood relationships. With the latter, the factors listed above (and language) are attachments and expressions of shared family connection – reinforcers of sameness or the “familial glue”, if you will.

Nor the Language

As regards language, suffice it to say that anyone can learn as many languages as one wants to – doing so makes him or her a polyglot but it does not make him a member of any specific nation. Neither are mute people condemned to the limbo of no nation. Surely, the ancestors of many Spanish-only-speaking Mexicans were not Spaniards but local Mayans, Aztecs, Toltecs and the like. Likewise, the ancestors of Caribbean Britons (in a geographic sense) were not from London (or the Caribbean for that matter) even if they only speak English. Of course, language can be a glue of sorts (along with other such glues) but it is merely an overlay.

Since we’re talking about ancestry when we talk about ethnicity here and since ancestry reduces to “blood”, the notion that ethnicity is “created” rather than “inherited” must be declared deeply and irretrievably wrong.

Nor the State

For the “commoners” ethnicity – or what they seek – is better defined by “nationhood”. But even here academia intrudes. Academics are not favorably disposed towards “nation-states” in the classic sense of the word “nation” (and as the term is understood by commoners). Thus, not content with defining “ethnicity” their own way, the academics have attempted to define the “nation” too. They pull this trick by conflating the nation with the state or, if you will, conflating nationality with citizenship. Thus, in their “view”, any “citizen” of a state is part of a “nation” – all it takes is a piece of paper issued by someone in power. If the criteria for obtaining that piece of paper can be set up so that most or even all of the above factors are not included among such criteria, then the only thing that makes a man a member of our nation is that piece of paper.

If that seems too radical, you – as the state – might ask some basic history questions or, at least, some basic language skills. Yet even that has recently gone by the wayside as states begin to hand out residence – then citizenship certificates – to anyone who comes through so as to hide the fact that they have lost complete control of their borders. This rather pathetic activity is as much an act of legitimizing the migrants as a feeble attempt to preserve some appearance of state control (“yeah, we let them in, yeah, but that is because we wanted to and t was by our grace that they are here, bla, bla.”).

Aside from the destructive effect of this state behaviour on the actual nation, the notion that it is the state that determines your “nationhood” is deeply dangerous. It fosters an environment where the state decides who “your people” are. This is eerily reminiscent of the Communist times where another basic societal unity – the family – was seen as a competitor and the enemy of the state (as surely it was in fact with respect to an all intrusive state such as any communist dictatorship) with wives and husbands and children spying on one another (in fact some married based on the orders of the state… (though their spouses were not always aware of that)).

In any event, once again when the commoner speaks of a nation he or she does not speak of a piece of paper granted by the whim of some corrupt or intoxicated bureaucrat operating on the orders of an ivory tower professor who legitimized legislation defining citizenship for the bureaucrat to enforce while operating in the false consciousness of Marxist pseudo-science and funded with the money of überrich yet primitive elitists.

On the “Blood” Nation

The meaning of the word Nation is quite simple – all you have to look up is its Latin origin – natio = birth. Unsurprisingly, the same holds for Suavic words and thus Narod, i.e., a derivative of rodzic = to give birth. A family becomes a tribe and a tribe becomes a nation. (Duh)

This does not, of course, imply some need for a red herring “purity” (here it may be appropriate to quote Mussolini’s remark about the Germans) but it does require an exchange of fluids, you might say. Why? Because if two groups of people live right next to each other but do not engage in sexual relations (or at least do not procreate together) then the question must be put as to “why”.

Their geographic closeness may give them knowledge of one another. They may engage in trade relations. They may even have their neighbors over for coffee but if it is clear that the children of one group will not marry the children of the other then they can hardly be called one group. The very fact that two groups of people can be so close and not merge is unnatural.

There may be a whole host of reasons for this state of affairs (we look down upon them, they look down upon us, they want to preserve their traditions, we want to preserve ours, all of the above, and so forth) but the point is that just because the two groups are not at war and occupy the same territory does not mean they are of the same nation (indeed, over time, this can also result in social classes becoming separate quasi-nations and sometimes they even start out that way). In fact, there are examples of this from Central Europe where researchers are finding some ancient villages that were populated by two different groups – seemingly, as crazy as it sounds, for generations.

In fact, this very point can be made about the word ethos, Slav/Suav and Suev and Sueb. All these, according to Zbigniew Golab simply mean “one’s own” people but also “people apart” from others (suebha = according to Pokorny, “frei, zum eigenen Volke gehoerig”). Thus, svoboda (freedom) translates into being apart, free from the others or if you will being able to do your own thing (and, yes, boda is cognate with “body” and “to be”). Ultimately, the same direction of “exchange of fluids” occurs too to Golab who says that while the word denoted “affines”, this affinity is necessary for consanguinity. While anyone who’s ever been to a pub can attest that ethnos is not an absolute prerequisite for consanguinity (in fact, in a bar situation, the “exotic” may be attractive), it is difficult to see the former without the latter. Thus, the word “suovo” (“word”) may have come from the same root as the word “Suavs” but that may be the extent of the relationship (so to speak) between the two (i.e., rather than the ethnonym “Suavs” coming from “slovo”). Moreover, as noted, Golab also connected the same svoi/Suav/suebha with the word “ethnos” and ethnicity.

Finally, note that once you have a consanguinity then much of what of the rest follows. After all, people who are blood relations are much more likely to use a particular language and share particular customs and religion. Otherwise we would have to cut out of the Tribe people who share our blood/ancestors but who, perhaps, no longer speak the original language (how many Irish speak Gaelic? Are they not Irish then?) or who have different, even drastically, political views (Republican, Whig, Tory, progressive but also Marxist or fascist, anarchist or monarchist/royalist – politics may not be discussed at the Thanksgiving table but there is still a Thanksgiving table and every family member should get an invite) or who have converted to a different faith (even the Calvinists deserve a seat at the table). In fact, the only person who may have to be excluded is the person who acts so much against the tribe’s group interest as to completely and irretrievably negate that person’s group connection.

Wrong Questions and The Nation of the Suavs

With the above in mind we have to observe that the problem of the “Origin of the Suavs” is not simply a problem of shared “traditions” or shared “language” or a shared “state”. The Suavs existed without a state (e.g., Poles in the 19th century) and they may have to exists without a state platform in the future. Suavic emigrants to North America, Australia, Brazil or, more recently, the UK and Ireland and their children are Suavs – whether or not they cultivate any “Suavic” traditions, speak the Suavic language or identify with the local (or other) culture. For so long as they have Suavic blood in their veins. Conversely, Suavic-speaking foreigners even if they like pyerogi are not Suavs (though their children are – if the other parent is a Suav).

A lot of historians, linguists and archeologists when discussing Suavs talk about one of two things:

material culture
language

They do so among themselves which is fine because they know what it is that they are talking about but they also do this when discussing the topic with lay people. This, however, is duplicitous. Why? Because the same academics know full well that their interlocutors do not use the term in the same way. The commoner merely wants to know about his or her ancestors – but the academic answers about “culture” or “language” (e.g., “Suavs came from somewhere East” or “Suavic identity ‘formed’ on the outskirts of the Byzantine Empire”), i.e., the question he wants to answer with the answer he wants to give. These kinds of answers are, again, duplicitous but, more simply, are simply inapposite and nonresponsive to the question being asked. They are irrelevant.

We are thus fully prepared to accept a number of hypotheses about the origin of the Suavic language or the origin of the Suavic culture. Either or both of these may (may!) have come from the East. BUT that does not mean the ancestors of most Suavs had. It may, for example, be that the Suavs really are a mix of the Suevi and the Sarmatians (more on that here though it is a topic that we will, of course, return to).

A lot of academics, for example, sneer at the suggestion of a full population replacement as naive. Their “sophisticated” theorizing has them say “well, of course, some people stayed behind and were ‘assimilated’ by the Suavs.” But they never say how many?

What percentage? 10%? 30%? 90%? And what are these %s of? I think most people would want to know the relative % of the autochtons and the newcomers – at the time of the arrival of the newcomers but also later (those relative %s can change, of course). There is also the question of who the autochtons were: if the Germanics came from Scandinavia then what was their % of the “autochtonous” population at the time the Suavs “arrived”? What if the other “autochtonous” population were also Suavs? Just different ones (or, for that matter, Veneti, Balts, Aestii (same as Balts?), Illyrians, whatever you may want to call them).

The answer to these questions does seem to matter, no?

Certainly, once you admit that a full population exchange has not taken place, it behooves you to specify what actually did take place. If you say that “some” people stay and the percentage you have in mind more than 50% then your sneering answer begins to look like merely covering one’s ignorance of the underlying question.

In other words, one would think that you can’t say “Suavs came from the East and the autochtonic theories are wrong, nationalistic and discredited” then be asked about all the evidence suggesting the ancestors of Suavs lived precisely where current Suavs live and then respond to that by saying “duh, of course, there was never a full population exchange” when by “there was never a full population exchange” you mean that 90% of the population actually predates the arrival of the Suavs. That would be completely misleading and disingenuous.

But maybe you justify this flip-flopping to yourself with, “I am talking about the linguistic or cultural ancestors of the people we call today Suavs.” However, since you know that your interlocutor is talking about his or her physical ancestors and not any hypothetical linguistic or cultural “ancestors” then your answer is more than Clintonian.

And I am not suggesting that the Suavs’ language or culture came from the East at all. We’re merely pointing out that assuming they did that still does not answer the question that is actually being asked.

The question about the Suavs is and has always been a question about “blood” or, if you will, genes. We explore Suavic beliefs and culture as ways of finding more about our ancestors – this “familial glue” is a clue on the road to the ultimate goal – but it is not a goal in and of itself.

On the one hand, as we have said before, such a question cannot be crudely asked to identify the Suavs with, e.g., a particular gene. For example, it is not clear whether the so-called “Suavic” gene – R1a – was associated with the Suavs or was, e.g., one of only a number of genes associated with historic Suavs. Or it may turn out that the original speakers of Suavic were the ones who were not carriers of R1a. (Other (male) haplogroups associated with the Suavs include R1b, I1 and I2.) What then? That is why one has to be careful at this early time with placing too much emphasis on genetic information. This, quite aside from the fact that there are apparently different clades of the same Y DNA and just because some ancient person was R1a does not mean that his clade was the same as the R1a of most of today’s inhabitants of the same area (not to mention autosomal differences).

On the other hand, anyone who is not completely blind can see that the physical differences between at least the Northern Suavs (and some Southern Suavs) are staggeringly few – they are some of the most physically monolithic peoples in the world (on par with the Japanese and Koreans). Such differences seem few even when compared with much of the Eastern “Germans”, the Balts, the Finns and many, many of the Scandinavians.

Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with who your friends or enemies are – in fact interfamilar squabbles are sometimes the worst and friendships can and do span multiplicity of ethnic, racial, religion and all kinds of other groups – it is merely a recognition that there is a blood and tradition (of course!) “Kern” that provides an ancestral connection and that should create some obligation (not a slavish one though) to the past as opposed to merely a selfish look to one’s own future.

Maybe the Suavs will change over time though, for now, the description of the Suavs/Slavs from Procopius continues to remain generally applicable:

“For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are all slightly ruddy in color.”

Wends in Denmark?

PublishedNovember 1, 2015 Post authortorino

That the Polabian Slavs raided the Danes and the Danes raided the Polabian and Pomeranian Slavs is not exactly news. However, the Danes – unlike the Germans – never settled Slavic territories and Slavs, certainly, never settled Danish territories.

Or did they?

Mit einer banier rôtgevar,
daß was mit wîße durch gesniten
hûte nâch wendischen siten

Huh?

Well, we did write already about potential Veleti Slav presence in Holland here and here and, most recently, here. So why not Denmark?

We have previously briefly mentioned the German place names with the suffix -levo or -lebo in our discussion of the North Suavi. That such suffixes are not only Slavic but also Germanic may perhaps be inferred from that discussion. Further proof for this seems to be shown by a presence of similar suffixes also in Denmark. Specifically, the suffix – slev or -lev is present all over Denmark as in, e.g., Haslev or Brandelev. See this map.

On the other hand, we note that such forms of suffixes, apparently once common in parts of Germany and currently present in Denmark do not appear anywhere in Sweden (except the very, very south) or Norway. Does that mean anything?

And then there are the -ovs. If one were to find an -ov or -off or -ow ending in eastern Germany, the presumption would be that it is Slavic. But in Denmark? See, for example, Nakskov or Klodskov or Bøgeskov. But we know that skov means forest in Danish… Thus, Askov may mean ash forest? So what does this mean then?

That Bøgeskov is a purely Danish name?

Does that then mean that Pskov in Russia is a purely Danish name too?

But, one might say, the Slavic endings -skov are few in number – instead, they are mostly of the form –ov, -ow, -off. Thus, we have the German Pankow. Ok, but what about Mørkøv or Måløv? That is with an ø. Ok, but what about Taulov?

Here are the -ovs (mostly -skovs):

But they are not alone. Thus we have:

Kramnitze (typical Slavic -itz ending) or
Gorke, or
a number of “Wend” names like Vindeby

Here is Kramnitze:

But one can say, that is just one place and it is directly across from the Wendland territories in today’s eastern Germany. One place name does not prove anything major – perhaps it was a lone settlement.

True, that is possible. Or maybe it was one of the few left where the name survived?

Here are the names that have a rather “Wendish” sound (e.g., Vindesby):

On top you can see Vendsyssel – Wendish syssel (ancient Scandinavian administrative subdivision – whether it has anything to do with the Slavic tribe of Susli/Susili is another matter). That name suggests a Wendish source but it could be Vandalic too as its name varied throughout history:

Wendila (Adam of Bremen)
Wendel (Ailnoth of Canterbury)
Vendill (Icelandinc sagas)
Wændlesysæl, Wendelsysel, Wændil (King Valdemar’s census book)

Another possibility, of course, is that the Vandals were “Scandinavianized” Wends… After all Gallus Anonymous claims that Boleslaw Chrobry aspired to “Selentia” which can, perhaps, be equated with the island of Seeland which, in turn, was likely the home of the Silingaeans (who may have become Vandals at some point). Now, Seeland is not Vendsyssel, of course. But who knows what secrets Denmark holds – after all, it was the main route of Scandinavians into “continental” Europe.

For more information on this fascinating topic see the following:

“Stednavne af slavisk oprindelse på Lolland, Falster og Møn” (i.e., “Slavic city names on the islands of Lolland, Faster and Mon”) by Friederike W. Housted (1994) which you can order from here;

“Venderne på Lolland-Falster” (“Wends on Lolland-Falster”) also by Friederike W. Housted (2002) in Jensen, A.-E. (editor) “Venner og fjender. Dansk-vendiske forbindelser i vikingetid og tidlig middelalder” (“Friends and Enemies – the Danish-Wendish connections during the Viking Age and in the early Middle Ages”), 28-32. Naestved;

“Historie, arkaeologi og vendere – hvad kilderne ikke siger om Svantevits tempel i Arkona og om venderne i Danmark” (“History, archaeology and the Wends – what sources do not say about the Svantevit temple on Arkona and the Wends in Denmark”) by Poul Grinder-Hansen (2002) in Jensen, A.-E. (editor) “Venner og fjender. Dansk-vendiske forbindelser i vikingetid og tidlig middelalder”, 5-16. Naestved.

A more comprehensive list of sources can be found in Jens Ulriksen’s short report “The Late Iron Age and Early Medieval Period in the Western Baltic”