It is believed that Mavro Orbini was one of the first to describe the history of the Slavs. His book, published in 1601, is called "The Slavic Kingdom". In the original: "Il regno de gli Slavi, hoggi correttamente detti schiavoni" - "The kingdom of the Slavs, correctly called Slovenes." In one of the translations, and in the other - slaves … Yes, in modern Italian "schiavo" means "slave". But, apparently, in the time of Orbini there was another word for slaves. Can't a language be so poor that it did not find a separate word for the name of an entire people?
But as I understand it, his book is composed of quotes from other authors. So, they wrote about the Slavs before him. He, apparently, was the first of those who collected all these descriptions together. At the very beginning of the book, there is a list of authors used by him. It contains over 300 names. And, judging by the spelling, most of them are not Slavic. But representatives of the peoples who fought with the Slavs (based on the content of the book, consisting mainly of descriptions of various battles). Could the authors of this information be objective in their description of enemies? Mavro Orbini himself was a Slav (originally from Dubrovnik, Croatia) and his real name was Mavar Orbin. At the age of 15 he became a monk of the Order of Benedict and later became the abbot of that order. I think that this is what gave him access to sources of information, most of which at that time were concentrated in the hands of the Catholic Church.
The origin of the Slavs
The most interesting thing in the history of the Slavs is, perhaps, where did they come from? And what does Marvo Orbini write about this? We read the last Russian translation made in 2009, called the FULL translation (because the previous translation from 1722 was abridged):
Not quite trusting the Russian-language translations already, I look at the original source:
Fragment of the book by Mavro Orbini "Slavic kingdom", 1601. P. 130.
Promotional video:
Unfortunately, I do not speak not only old Italian, but also Italian. Therefore, I can only read the names. I see: Scandinavia, Asia, Hyperborea, Tartars, Vandals, Burgundioni, Francesi, Scythians, Alans Scythians. Perhaps the following is written here:
So to whom the tartars owe their name - Aeneas Silvio! He is also Pius II, Pope from 1458 to 1464. About mountains, in my opinion, nothing is said here. Clearly written: Hyperborei. And the word "hora" is translated as "now". In general, in terms of geography, Mavro Orbini often quotes in his book Claudius Ptolemy, the Greek astronomer, astrologer, mathematician, mechanic, optician, music theorist and geographer of the 2nd century. Therefore, maybe it is more logical to see him? The manuscripts themselves are unlikely to be understood by me, even if I saw them. But there is a map on the Internet based on his descriptions:
Printed map of the 15th century depicting Ptolemy's description of the Ecumene, (1482, Johannes Schnitzer, engraver).
This map is taken from a 1482 edition book. The book was written in 1406 and was a Latin translation of a Greek manuscript on geography written in the 2nd century by Ptolemy.
Consider the snippets:
Here I was able to find familiar names, which I highlighted in red: Sarmatia (occupying an area from about the middle of Europe to the Volga River), above - the Hyperborean Mountains (Brown stripes show mountain ranges, as I understand it). The Caucasus Mountains are shown, in my opinion, quite accurately. But the Hyperborean and Riphean Mountains continuing further to the west are now not available. But I have a mention of them in the article on Samoyed.
And the following snippet:
In this fragment, I highlighted the familiar names in green. Scythia occupies the territory from the Volga River to the easternmost borders of the depicted Earth, one must understand. The territory of present-day Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan is called Aria. And then the entire southern part is occupied by India. There is no trace of China. But one more confirmation that the Slavs, Sarmatians, Scythians, Tartars are one people. What Nikolaas Witsen points out many times in his book "Northern and Eastern Tartary", managing to wonder where the Scythian burial mounds come from in Siberia? (About finds made in Siberia)
Another way to determine who the population of a country / territory is is to look at its name. I am not a linguist, but, in my opinion, the endings "ay", "ay" are present only in Slavic languages. Does the name on the map have such an ending, which means that the Slavs inhabit this territory? And on old maps there are practically no other names. More about this in some detail in another article, but now we return to Orbini.
Why is Scandinavia called the birthplace of the Slavs?
And what was considered Scandinavia at that time?
The legendary island of Thule
Scrihnni and Karelians are originally written as "Scrihnni, & Cardi". It seems that, except in the book of Mavro Orbini, these names are not found anywhere else. Because the search gives only this source. But Thule, perhaps, has nothing to do with Scandinavia. And perhaps it does not exist at all in the physical world. Great Soviet Encyclopedia about Tula Island:
This refers to the map of Ptolemy. The above and another one:
Ptolemy's map TABVLA EVROPAE VIII. Sarmatia. General form.
It shows Norway (covered by the table), below, highlighted in red about. Scandia (some of the Danish islands?). And above it, Fr. Gothia, currently Gotland (thanks to the commentator Lada_3 for the tip). This is how it looks now:
Baltic Sea.
The Baltic Sea is called the ocean. At the very top of the map is the parallel Thyle. Actually, it would be more correct to write "Thiele". Well, as translated into modern language. Theodosius is already on the map of Ptolemy. And Crimea is called Tavrika. Don River - Tanaisom.
So, perhaps, Scandinavia was only an intermediate point in the advancement of the Slavs from more northern regions to more southern ones?
The biblical version of the origin of the Slavs
But the Catholic sources of Mavro Orbini tell a completely different story, putting forward their version of the origin of the Slavs:
This version of the advancement of the Slavs seems to me less logical: leaving the Caucasus, the Slavs went directly to Scandinavia, and this is almost 3000 km, and even straight to the north - from a favorable subtropical climate into a cold dank haze. And then, having multiplied there, they spread back to the south. Straight like migratory birds. But from this description it can be concluded that all Europeans, at least the white population of Europe, were Slavs.
Location of the Slavs in Europe
Anty - is it supposedly Western Ukraine? Heruls - Scythians, Alans - also Scythians and Sarmatians, Skirs - Germans, Sirbs - probably Serbs, Dacians - a Thracian tribe that lived in the Balkans:
Paleo-Balkan languages in Eastern Europe in the V - I centuries BC eh..
The Prussians are clear where they lived. Vandals are Vendians, are they Balts? Burgundians are Scandinavians. The Goths are also Scandinavians, Germans. The Getae are relatives of the Dacians, also the Balkans, the territory of modern Romania and Moldova. So, the current Romanians and Moldavians once came there, displacing the indigenous population? Romanians and Moldavians belong to the Romance group - a group of peoples of various ethnogenetic origins, united by the use of Romance languages. These also include the Portuguese, French, Spaniards and Italians. In general, southern Europeans differ from northern Europeans in darker skin, hair and eyes. Markomaniacs are roughly the modern Czech Republic:
The Orange Region corresponds to the spread of the Suevi tribes in the 1st century AD. e. Territories of the Markomaniac in the center.
You must understand that everything that is white above the Roman Empire on the map is all the territory inhabited by the Slavs. Quads - Germans, Avars - the territory of Hungary, Austria. Although Vicki says that there was such an Avar Kaganate, which occupied the territories of modern Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, Serbia, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Macedonia and Belarus. It was founded by the Avar kagan Bayan. The Silesians are the territory of Poland and the Czech Republic. Races or Rashans here mean, probably, the Yugoslav peoples, because he already named the Russians and Muscovites above. Pyatigorsk - Caucasians, Circassians - from the same place, i.e. Slavs who lived in the Caucasus. Podolia - Western Ukraine, Polyny - Poles. Pomorians, too, it turns out, Poles:
Kashubians and Silesians are also Poles. The Luzhicans, or Lusatian Serbs, currently reside in Luzec, Germany. Moravians and Bohemians are now Czechs.
The lifestyle of the Slavs in the description of Roman historians
Marvo Orbini gives a description of the lifestyle of the Slavs from various sources, but mostly, these are Roman:
So, the Slavs, according to Pomponius Mela, are nomads who live in tents and move from one pasture to another. As well as tartars - that part of the Slavs, which, having separated from the first in Scandinavia, went to Asia.
Another description:
So the Slavs roamed all their vast territories, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean from west to east and from the Arctic to the Indian from north to south. And in Africa too:
Interestingly, from whom did they conquer Europe, if no one else lived in it? The Romans? So, in general, by and large, both the Greeks and the Romans were also Slavs. Mavro Orbini does not write anything about this, but a lot of other sources write. For example:
The Slavs were so militant that they were not even under the rule of the Roman Empire:
According to the authors of these lines, as well as many other authors cited in this book, the Slavs were militant (apparently, because they did not want to be under someone's authority?). And that was their hunger for fame. And maybe that's why the Romans called the slaves glory?
Etymology and interpretation of the name "Slavs"
Mavro Orbini about the origin of the name of the Slavs:
"I think also that this can be explained by the hostility of Italians, especially those who live on the Adriatic coast, since in the past they suffered greatly from the Slavs and were almost completely ruined by them" - perhaps this is the answer why in many modern European languages to designate two different concepts "Slav" and "slave" there is only one word? Slave in English, Norwegian, Swedish, slaaf in German and Dutch, eslavo in Spanish, in French, slave - esclave, Slav - Slave.
According to Fomenko and Nosovsky (Slavic conquest of Eurasia and North Africa in the XIV century. Book of Mavro Orbini "On the expansion of the Slavic people") Orbini gives an explanation for this fact:
But I didn't find him. Nothing in the book of Mavro Orbini says anything about the Etruscans. Although they are also Slavs and lived in the territory that is now called Italy, long before the Roman Empire was formed there. Apparently, because his book was compiled mainly from Roman sources. Which, apparently, did not want to mention it.
Author: i_mar_a
