File talk:Central and Eastern Europe around 950 AD.png

What is the source for this map? --Mladifilozof (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pozdrav Young Philosopher.

the map is based on Shepherd's construct [1]

admittedly, the borders of our region at this time cannot be known with certainty (except for certain nationalists who claim they "know" that A or B country ruled most of this or that region). However, there is general concensus that in the latter 10th century, after Symeon of Bulgaria's fall, and after Tomislav of Croatia's death, Caslav of Serbia ruled much of Bosnia and the "Serb lands" under some form of Byzantine vassalage. Eg in The early Medieval Balkans, J V A Fine suggests "Caslav found popular support and restored a Serbian state....The borders of caslav's state are unkown, though eventually he extended them well into Bosnia.

According to Curta - this must have also included Terbunia, Pagania and Zahumlje because in DAI, Porphyrogenitus states that these were part of "Serbia". [2]

Hope this helps 121.209.233.46 05:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC) (Slovenski Volk at English Wiki)

• Most importantly, Ras (!) is not part of Serbia in this map.--Zoupan (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This maps are not identical, on it Serbia goes much more west... --Čeha (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically, the map is based on an old map showing 1000 (11th century) upon which was added historiographical misconception about Časlav's expansion/size of Serbia for which there was no general scientific consensus, with different historians giving different opinions, and is not substantiated by any evidence and primary source. The biggest misconception is adding Duklja to the mix although there's no such indication nor it's people mentioned of having Serbian ancestry.

Dvornik, F.; Jenkins, R. J. H.; Lewis, B.; Moravcsik, Gy.; Obolensky, D.; Runciman, S. (1962). P. J. H. Jenkins (ed.). De Administrando Imperio: Volume II. Commentary. University of London: The Athlone Press: p. 99-100 On the other hand, at c. 32/151 C. represents Bosnia as belonging to Serbia. It is, however, most probable-and this is accepted by most historians of the period-that the territory of Bosona, as C. calls it, formed part of Croatia at the end of the 9th and in the first half of the 10th cents. The Serbian ruler Časlav could have acquired this territory only when he had re-populated and re-established his country with the help of Romanus I, and when Croat power had declined. The best time for such an annexation would have been during the disorders which followed the assassination of Miroslav, dated by Šišić ti 949. Časlav could hardly think of conquest at the beginning of his reign, since the restoration of his devastated country engrossed all his attention for at least a decade. Therefore the date of 949 would fit best for Časlav's expansion. Nor can we say that the Croat prince Kresimir II was a weak ruler: after having restored order in his country, he re-annexed Bosnia, profiting by the unrest in Serbia which followed the death of Časlav; p. 139 C.'s general claim that the Zachlumians were Serbs is, therefore, inaccurate; and indeed his later statements that the Terbouniotes, and even the Narentans, were Serbs and came with the Serbs, seem to conflict with what he has said earlier on the Serb migration, which reached the new Serbia from the direction of Belgrade. He probably saw that in his time all these tribes were in the Serb sphere of influence, and therefore called them Serbs, thus ante-dating by three centuries the state of affairs in his own day.

Fine, John Van Antwerp Jr. (1991) [1983]. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08149-7: p. 159-160 The borders of Časlav's state are unknown, though eventually he extended them well into Bosnia.

Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-81539-0: p. 210 According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Slavs of the Dalmatian zhupanias of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travounia, and Konavli all "descended from the unbaptized Serbs."51 This has been rightly interpreted as an indication that in the mid-tenth century the coastal zhupanias were under the control of the Serbian zhupan Časlav, who ruled over the regions in the interior and extended his power westwards across the mountains to the coast; p. 213 Roman us showered him with gifi:s, and with Byzantine assistance Časlav was able to restore his country, expanding into Pagania and establishing control over Terbouniotes and Kanalites

Živković, Tibor (2008). Forging unity: The South Slavs between East and West 550-1150. Belgrade: The Institute of History, Čigoja štampa. ISBN 978-86-7558-573-2: p. 257 It is important to notice that the DAI I, 32.141 – 145, does not speak about any of presumed Časlav’s military campaigns, but only that he became a ruler recognized in Constantinople.

Dzino, Danijel (2023). Early Medieval Hum and Bosnia, ca. 450-1200: Beyond Myths. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781000893434: p. 169 There is no mention of Hum, Zahumlje or Narentani in written sources for several decades, and it is not clear whether Hum and Zahumlje remained under a joint ruler. Some authors suggest that both Hum and Zahumlje became part of Serbia, which expanded significantly under the rule of Caslav (Tzeeslav), the son of Klonimir (ca. 933–950).22 However, this is difficult to believe because the DAI, including chapter 30 composed around 959, mentions Zahumlje and ‘Pagania’ as separate polities, not as a parts of Serbia, such as Bosona. Also, the statement in the DAI that Serbia borders the Croatian županijas (lordships) Cetina and Livno,23 used as an argument for Serb assumption of power over Hum, is more easily explainable if we assume that the Serbian prince at that time controlled the plains around modern Tomislavgrad and Buško blato, adjacent to županija Cetina. Whether Časlav took over some parts of Michael’s duchy certainly cannot be completely excluded, but as shown earlier, evidence is very bleak for making any definite conclusions.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Replacement

The map is very innacurate original research and synthesis of cited secondary sources, some of which not even about 10th century, which do not support such a map. Most importantly, it shows exaggerated size of the Principality of Serbia within stated borders and it's inclusion of nearby polities. No primary source gives any information about expansion during Časlav or Serbia including other polities. Cited secondary sources say the borders were "uncertain" and assume different viewpoints on expansion, hence map being a distortion of attributed sources. Distortion of much of Western Balkans, with eastern Bosnia squashing western Bosnian border at river Vrbas which river flow is not so much westward into the Croatian lands. Instead of it should be used File:Map of the Balkans in the 900s.png. Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)