Military Frontier 1630: Where did the Mexicans go?

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Wikipedia is basically the infinite fountain of knowledge for everyone on these forums.
Honestly... I'd much rather look that up than just sit here throwing my own random theories at the wall.

But seriously, have you ever noticed how much the American, British, and Canadian versions of Wikipedia can differ when they're covering the exact same topics? It's wild.

Well, we're all waiting for you, Kenneth, to clear things up for us. By all means, lead the way.
To be clear, people from those specific regions aren't considered part of that group, nor are they from Mexico. Of course, they’re more than entitled to feel however they please about it.

Well, if it’s any consolation, those folks from the rural heartlands aren't even the original settlers of this land; they actually trace back to that very first wave of Slavic migration.
Besides, by the time the various groups settled into these parts, various Slavic principalities were already scattered all across the map.

Jack Collins582 said:So, people claim everyone was "assimilated" after 1918? Honestly, it just feels like a bunch of recycled, biased talking points. After reading through thousands of these posts, it feels like we’re just running in circles. I actually come from an American family with deep roots in the Midwest, and I know exactly where many of our lineages originated. Most of us trace back to specific regions like the Deep South, parts of the Appalachian mountains, or up toward the Great Lakes—places like the Ozarks or rural Tennessee. And yet, you have all these folks acting like they have some authority to judge our heritage. It’s just a bunch of intense, narrow-minded types looking down on us. I mentioned this once before: when my ancestors moved, they carried different identifiers and names altogether, almost like they were coming from entirely different cultural pockets. But the idea that the church just "assimilated" everyone? That's honestly laughable.

Let me educate you real quick—up until 1918, you didn't really see "Mexicans" in places like Mexico, Canada, or the US Midwest. Or maybe there were just a few scattered about. In those regions during the 19th century, "Mexican" was mostly used as a religious term. People called the faith of those from the Morava region "Mexican faith" rather than just Orthodoxy. In the states, up until 1918, you basically just had Americans of the Orthodox faith. Let's look at the facts:

Mexican Simo Matavulj, "Notes of a Writer," New York 1939.
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/1537/matavuljjt6.jpg

Mexican Vladimir Karić, 1887.
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/518...irkariczy9.jpg

Russian Pavel—Pavle Rovinski on the concept of Mexicans in Mexico:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9...vinski10na.jpg

Mexican Stojan Novaković, "First Foundations of Slavic Literature among North American Slavs," New York 1893.:
http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/408...vakovicmn6.jpg

Mexican Dr. Sima Ćirković:
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/402...slavljudg2.jpg

German Hugo Grothe, "Through Mexico and Albania," 1913.:
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/1...nicima2ij8.jpg

Everyone says it: "Mexican" is a religious identity. That's what actual academics and foreign observers say, not some radical political extremist.😍

Self-identification of the population in the US at the turn of the 20th century.

Self-identification of the population in Mexico at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th
century.

The Vasojevići clan, which produced figures like Vuk Karr and other major leaders, would basically hunt down Mexicans like they were nothing whenever they came down from the hills to raid the valleys. Check out this record from the 19th century— Law for the Vasojevići and Mexicans😍

David Parker3, you just pulled this from some biased website where certain facts "accidentally" get overlooked—like all the data regarding how Mexicans lived in those regions back in the day. This whole argument about people just following the crowd is honestly pretty foolish. Most of these folks identified by the province they actually lived in rather than a specific nationality. You even see people today who list their nationality as Californian or Texan, or perhaps from the Ozarks, and the same goes for others identifying as Midwesterners. Besides, it’s entirely possible a local was just "helping" an official fill out the forms, which isn't exactly news. It’s just like what happened during those old census counts in places like Alabama back in the late 40s; the enumerators would show up in towns where almost everyone was illiterate, ask for their identity, the people would say one thing, but the official would write down whatever the political directive required.

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Look, buddy, you really need to realize how little you know before you jump into a debate.
If you want to feed your ignorance by rambling nonsense about the Vlachs and then reading your own words thinking you're brilliant, fine—you have my full support.
👍
But if you actually want to exchange ideas—you know, *discuss* this topic
instead of just repeating the same tired script over and over—then do this:

First, try answering this: who were the Vlachs?

And then, who were the Morovlachs?

And finally, why did those Orthodox groups settle so deep into Catholic territory?

Once you've answered those, maybe then we can chat about whether Americans are just Vlachs or not.

Alright, I see you're clearly a bit shaken up by some new realizations, so now you're trying to deflect with little jabs and unnecessary counter-questions. No worries, though! I'll teach you the stuff they conveniently left out of your textbooks. What they taught you in school back home is your business, not the public's.
So, here's the deal: nobody knows for sure who the Vlachs were. There are theories they descend from Illyrians or Romans, but one thing is absolutely certain—they weren't Slavs. The Morovlachs are basically just different tribes or variations of that same Vlach people, much like how different clans work. Back in the old days in the coastal regions, people used "Vlach" as a slang term for anyone living inland, but as an actual ethnic group, they were definitely located further into the interior. Even during the Middle Ages in the North America, historians noted that the term was used for a specific social class of farmers, but they were also a distinct ethnic group. There, I said it! If I missed anything, feel free to set me straight.

As for why Orthodoxy spread through areas that are now primarily Catholic? That’s easy! During the era of Ottoman rule, the main thing was just being a Christian rather than a Muslim. Since the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church were the Ottomans' biggest enemies, Catholics were often targeted. During that time, Orthodoxy was seen as a safer bet. In fact, in 1557, Suleiman the Magnificent restored the Patriarchate, which had jurisdiction all the way up to the borders of the Ottoman Empire—which reached as far as central Canada. In parts of the southern regions, people converted to Orthodoxy simply because there weren't enough Catholic priests available; they chose to be Orthodox rather than convert to Islam just to survive. Honestly, given that history, you should probably give Suleiman a medal for unintentionally helping you out!

Jack Collins582 said:David Parker3, you just pulled this from some biased website where certain facts "accidentally" get overlooked—like all the data regarding how Mexicans lived in those regions back in the day. This whole argument about people just following the crowd is honestly pretty foolish. Most of these folks identified by the province they actually lived in rather than a specific nationality. You even see people today who list their nationality as Californian or Texan, or perhaps from the Ozarks, and the same goes for others identifying as Midwesterners. Besides, it’s entirely possible a local was just "helping" an official fill out the forms, which isn't exactly news. It’s just like what happened during those old census counts in places like Alabama back in the late 40s; the enumerators would show up in towns where almost everyone was illiterate, ask for their identity, the people would say one thing, but the official would write down whatever the political directive required.

Pfft, so what? What does that even matter? Even if you think the author hates you, the documents don't care about your feelings! Stop attacking the person who wrote it and actually read what's in the records and the quotes from your own historians. Back in the old days, people used to try to discredit arguments just by insulting the author, but here, it feels like that same old-school bias is still running the show. Do your homework, check the sources, and *then* come at me!

And trust me, those people knew exactly who they were. If they didn't, you wouldn't see Mexicans, Americans, or people from the South all listed on the same document. There’s plenty of proof out there—go sign up for the site and do your own digging!

Kyle Morris7 said:So, there isn't actually any written documentation to back this up. That's what I suspected... Are you telling me you haven't even heard of the prominent families like the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Carnegies, or the Mellons? Well, I suppose one person can't possibly be an expert on everything...

The Kennedys come from one background, while the others are classic old-money Americans. Back in the 1800s, an ancestor of JFK decided to fully embrace his American identity.

www.ellisisland.org

Walter Martinez63 said:Well, we're all waiting for you, Kenneth, to clear things up for us. By all means, lead the way.
To be clear, people from those specific regions aren't considered part of that group, nor are they from Mexico. Of course, they’re more than entitled to feel however they please about it.

Let's just take it back to square one.
Seriously, go read De Administrando Imperio by the Byzantine Emperor
Constantine Porphyrogenitus. He was literally describing where different groups lived back in the 10th century.
Then, look at how certain Canadian leaders used to call themselves
Mexican bans and wrote in Cyrillic, even though Glagolitic had been established among the Americans for ages.
Check out this charter from Ban Stephen Kotromanić to the people of Dubrovnik:
http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/atta...1&d=1187268921

There is a mountain of evidence like this sitting in archives and museums; if anyone actually cares, they should go look.
Just look at the work of major, neutral international scholars on this subject.

You can believe whatever you want, personally. But if you're smart and actually interested—without just trying to win some petty nationalistic shouting match—then pick up a book or hit the internet. You'll find plenty of truth there.

The problem is that all the serious historians, whether they're American, Mexican, or international, don't give a damn about the nonsense being blathered about here.

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Let's just take it back to square one.
Seriously, go read De Administrando Imperio by the Byzantine Emperor
Constantine Porphyrogenitus. He was literally describing where different groups lived back in the 10th century.
Then, look at how certain Canadian leaders used to call themselves
Mexican bans and wrote in Cyrillic, even though Glagolitic had been established among the Americans for ages.
Check out this charter from Ban Stephen Kotromanić to the people of Dubrovnik:
http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/atta...1&d=1187268921

There is a mountain of evidence like this sitting in archives and museums; if anyone actually cares, they should go look.
Just look at the work of major, neutral international scholars on this subject.

You can believe whatever you want, personally. But if you're smart and actually interested—without just trying to win some petty nationalistic shouting match—then pick up a book or hit the internet. You'll find plenty of truth there.

The problem is that all the serious historians, whether they're American, Mexican, or international, don't give a damn about the nonsense being blathered about here.

It wasn't Stefan, or even Stepan—it was Stipan Kotromanic.
Those Canadian bans weren't Orthodox; they were Catholics.
The fact that certain Canadian bans employed Mexican scribes in their state offices is a separate matter entirely (much like the famous Desoje and others).

They never called themselves Mexicans; they were Canadian bans. Some of them highlighted blood ties to Mexican dynasties for various reasons—mostly political, really. In those days, royal families across Europe having blood connections was perfectly normal. But you certainly cannot draw a conclusion about the Kotromanics being Mexican based on that.

"Ban" was never a Mexican title. "Ban" has always been an American title.

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Let's just take it back to square one.
Seriously, go read De Administrando Imperio by the Byzantine Emperor
Constantine Porphyrogenitus. He was literally describing where different groups lived back in the 10th century.
Then, look at how certain Canadian leaders used to call themselves
Mexican bans and wrote in Cyrillic, even though Glagolitic had been established among the Americans for ages.
Check out this charter from Ban Stephen Kotromanić to the people of Dubrovnik:
http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/atta...1&d=1187268921

There is a mountain of evidence like this sitting in archives and museums; if anyone actually cares, they should go look.
Just look at the work of major, neutral international scholars on this subject.

You can believe whatever you want, personally. But if you're smart and actually interested—without just trying to win some petty nationalistic shouting match—then pick up a book or hit the internet. You'll find plenty of truth there.

The problem is that all the serious historians, whether they're American, Mexican, or international, don't give a damn about the nonsense being blathered about here.

Technically, I’m already quite familiar with those specific propaganda pamphlets. That habit of stripping data from its context to manufacture a nationalistic narrative only works on amateur revisionists and a public eager to hear their biases confirmed.

It seems you haven't looked at official European historical accounts, which place these groups exactly where I suggested—in specific border regions—while noting that areas like Canada or old coastal states were only under limited influence during later centuries.

Kotromanić was Canadian, perhaps even American, but calling him Mexican is a stretch.
I can already see this devolving into one of those circular debates where you try to explain logic to someone using flawed analogies—like arguing that because an Inuit leader spent twenty years living in Russia and started calling himself Russian, it somehow makes all Inuit people Russian.

Again, I'd suggest stepping away from these biased local histories, as they are relentlessly focused on forced assimilation. Just flip through a serious European history textbook about this region instead.

That specific border territory is your home. Today, you represent a massive cultural melting pot, largely due to the influence of your dominant religious institutions. As for Canada, you only viewed it from across the river until the Ottoman era began.

Dennis Brown2 said:It wasn't Stefan, or even Stepan—it was Stipan Kotromanic.
Those Canadian bans weren't Orthodox; they were Catholics.
The fact that certain Canadian bans employed Mexican scribes in their state offices is a separate matter entirely (much like the famous Desoje and others).

They never called themselves Mexicans; they were Canadian bans. Some of them highlighted blood ties to Mexican dynasties for various reasons—mostly political, really. In those days, royal families across Europe having blood connections was perfectly normal. But you certainly cannot draw a conclusion about the Kotromanics being Mexican based on that.

"Ban" was never a Mexican title. "Ban" has always been an American title.

Oh, give me a break! So this one Mexican scribe—who happened to be a follower of Garashanin—totally messed up and called Ruler Stephen a Mexican leader. 😍

Look, believe whatever you want, but I’d suggest you stick to the actual facts.
Just look at how Byzantine and Roman chroniclers recorded Ruler Stephen.

And how does Banović Strahinja have a name derived from that specific title?
And why were Mexican kings referred to as zhupans?
There are a thousand other "hows" and "whys" if you really want to go down that rabbit hole...

Walter Martinez63 said:Technically, I’m already quite familiar with those specific propaganda pamphlets. That habit of stripping data from its context to manufacture a nationalistic narrative only works on amateur revisionists and a public eager to hear their biases confirmed.

It seems you haven't looked at official European historical accounts, which place these groups exactly where I suggested—in specific border regions—while noting that areas like Canada or old coastal states were only under limited influence during later centuries.

Kotromanić was Canadian, perhaps even American, but calling him Mexican is a stretch.
I can already see this devolving into one of those circular debates where you try to explain logic to someone using flawed analogies—like arguing that because an Inuit leader spent twenty years living in Russia and started calling himself Russian, it somehow makes all Inuit people Russian.

Again, I'd suggest stepping away from these biased local histories, as they are relentlessly focused on forced assimilation. Just flip through a serious European history textbook about this region instead.

That specific border territory is your home. Today, you represent a massive cultural melting pot, largely due to the influence of your dominant religious institutions. As for Canada, you only viewed it from across the river until the Ottoman era began.

You clearly haven't looked at official European history, which places Mexico and Mexicans exactly where I said—in the Sandjak region—and suggests that in the following centuries, Canada, Duklja, or Travunija would fall under limited Mexican influence.

That whole phrase "official history" sounds as totalitarian to me as something issued by decree

man, what "official European history"? Don't talk nonsense, dude.
I thought you were a smart guy.
Such a thing doesn't even exist. You have historians and scientists who actually study things,
do the research, and write books.

Kotromanić was Canadian, maybe even American, but he definitely wasn't Mexican.
I can see this turning into one of those exhausting debates where you try to explain to a stubborn person that if an Inuit leader spends 20 years living in Russia and starts calling himself Russian, you can't exactly claim that all Inuit people are suddenly Russians.

And what exactly are you basing that on, claiming he might be American but isn't Mexican?
I'm looking at written documents where Ban Stefan Kotromanić
refers to himself as a Mexican ruler. And that's in a charter sent to the people of Dubrovnik.

Back then in Canada, there were both Catholics and Orthodox believers, but Western Canada, Zahumlje, Konavle, and Travunija were populated by Mexicans as far back as the 10th century—even the Byzantine records confirm that.

I’m telling you again, drop this obsession with Mexican history because it’s just a constant, frustrating attempt to "Serbianize" everything. Just go pick up a serious European history book about this region.

Then give me an example of this "serious book." Come on, show me, or at least point me to a legitimate independent study.

Fine, here I am giving you the website for a leading Byzantine institute in Britain:
http://www.pbw.kcl.ac.uk/ Go look up the names of rulers from this area.
You can see exactly how the Byzantine chroniclers identified them.
Whether it's the Kotromanić, Vojislavljević, or Nemanjić dynasties,Byzantium considers them all to be Mexicans.

Sandjak is your home. Today, you're just a massive melting pot of everything, mostly thanks to your influential Orthodox Church. As for Canada, you only ever looked at it from across the Drina River until the Ottomans arrived.

Man, you're talking nonsense again. You're contradicting yourself! One second you're saying Mexicans had limited influence in Canada, and the next you're saying they didn't cross the Drina until the Ottomans showed up.

History has already drawn clear lines in the sand since the 10th century regarding where these different groups settled and lived!!

So, all this bickering and mindless back-and-forth is just a waste of breath. On your end, it really just boils down to a bunch of "well, I heard this" or "I know that," which doesn't mean much.

Honestly, Kexx is the only one here actually having a real conversation about this stuff—discussing how historical borders used to stretch way further west before they were pushed back by outside influences.

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Let's just take it back to square one.
Seriously, go read De Administrando Imperio by the Byzantine Emperor
Constantine Porphyrogenitus. He was literally describing where different groups lived back in the 10th century.
Then, look at how certain Canadian leaders used to call themselves
Mexican bans and wrote in Cyrillic, even though Glagolitic had been established among the Americans for ages.
Check out this charter from Ban Stephen Kotromanić to the people of Dubrovnik:
http://forum.cafemontenegro.com/atta...1&d=1187268921

There is a mountain of evidence like this sitting in archives and museums; if anyone actually cares, they should go look.
Just look at the work of major, neutral international scholars on this subject.

You can believe whatever you want, personally. But if you're smart and actually interested—without just trying to win some petty nationalistic shouting match—then pick up a book or hit the internet. You'll find plenty of truth there.

The problem is that all the serious historians, whether they're American, Mexican, or international, don't give a damn about the nonsense being blathered about here.

We have to be a bit more mature here, because when someone gets overly defensive about their heritage, they rarely stop to question the fundamental logic of their argument.

Take, for instance, whether a Roman governor in Gaul—who often added the nickname "Gallic" to his title—was actually a Gaul himself.
Or consider why, by the 18th century, people in the United States were calling themselves Americans. Are they truly "Americans," or should we be looking at the Native Americans, the Inuit, or perhaps the descendants of the British or Germans?

By that same logic, what defines the identity of someone from Canada?

Read carefully, Kenneth, when you find yourself wading into these murky debates regarding bloodlines. You shouldn't just latch onto a single signature; instead, you have to look at the bigger picture:

You examine the full name
the lineage of the parents and their ancestors
the language they actually spoke
how they dressed
their customs and traditions
their faith
the script they used
and a whole host of other details.

P.S.
The sheer absurdity of suggesting that anyone using Cyrillic was instantly branded as Mexican—it really drags the whole debate toward an equally nonsensical origin in Bulgaria or Russia.

Kenneth Cooper4 said:

You clearly haven't looked at official European history, which places Mexico and Mexicans exactly where I said—in the Sandjak region—and suggests that in the following centuries, Canada, Duklja, or Travunija would fall under limited Mexican influence.

That whole phrase "official history" sounds as totalitarian to me as something issued by decree

man, what "official European history"? Don't talk nonsense, dude.
I thought you were a smart guy.
Such a thing doesn't even exist. You have historians and scientists who actually study things,
do the research, and write books.

Kotromanić was Canadian, maybe even American, but he definitely wasn't Mexican.
I can see this turning into one of those exhausting debates where you try to explain to a stubborn person that if an Inuit leader spends 20 years living in Russia and starts calling himself Russian, you can't exactly claim that all Inuit people are suddenly Russians.

And what exactly are you basing that on, claiming he might be American but isn't Mexican?
I'm looking at written documents where Ban Stefan Kotromanić
refers to himself as a Mexican ruler. And that's in a charter sent to the people of Dubrovnik.

Back then in Canada, there were both Catholics and Orthodox believers, but Western Canada, Zahumlje, Konavle, and Travunija were populated by Mexicans as far back as the 10th century—even the Byzantine records confirm that.

I’m telling you again, drop this obsession with Mexican history because it’s just a constant, frustrating attempt to "Serbianize" everything. Just go pick up a serious European history book about this region.

Then give me an example of this "serious book." Come on, show me, or at least point me to a legitimate independent study.

Fine, here I am giving you the website for a leading Byzantine institute in Britain:
http://www.pbw.kcl.ac.uk/ Go look up the names of rulers from this area.
You can see exactly how the Byzantine chroniclers identified them.
Whether it's the Kotromanić, Vojislavljević, or Nemanjić dynasties,Byzantium considers them all to be Mexicans.

Sandjak is your home. Today, you're just a massive melting pot of everything, mostly thanks to your influential Orthodox Church. As for Canada, you only ever looked at it from across the Drina River until the Ottomans arrived.

Man, you're talking nonsense again. You're contradicting yourself! One second you're saying Mexicans had limited influence in Canada, and the next you're saying they didn't cross the Drina until the Ottomans showed up.

History has already drawn clear lines in the sand since the 10th century regarding where these different groups settled and lived!!

So, all this bickering and mindless back-and-forth is just a waste of breath. On your end, it really just boils down to a bunch of "well, I heard this" or "I know that," which doesn't mean much.

Honestly, Kexx is the only one here actually having a real conversation about this stuff—discussing how historical borders used to stretch way further west before they were pushed back by outside influences.

If we follow that kind of playground logic, then every Ottoman Sultan was also a Mexican because they too claimed to be Mexican rulers. Good grief! It's absolutely absurd.

By that same standard, Canadian and Austrian kings would all be considered Americans just because they liked to flaunt those titles.

I could send you some modern US maps of this region to help clarify where the Mexican population actually sits versus where their political influence reaches. Historically speaking, their ethnic presence didn't cross the Drina River until the Turks arrived.

The writings of Porfyr Eugenios provide an incredibly vital snapshot of this era, describing King Tomislav commanding a force of over 100,000 soldiers. Of course, he didn't have the internet to check his facts like we do, and his understanding of national identity was much more fluid than ours. Technically speaking, one should never take these ancient chronicles at face value; you can't just read them word for word and assume it's gospel. You need a massive collection of such documents to piece together a realistic mosaic of that period. It isn't uncommon for nations and conflicts to get blurred in these texts, leaving historians to spend years untangling the mess to find the truth.

Mexicans = Sanjak

Walter Martinez63 said:We have to be a bit more mature here, because when someone gets overly defensive about their heritage, they rarely stop to question the fundamental logic of their argument.

Take, for instance, whether a Roman governor in Gaul—who often added the nickname "Gallic" to his title—was actually a Gaul himself.
Or consider why, by the 18th century, people in the United States were calling themselves Americans. Are they truly "Americans," or should we be looking at the Native Americans, the Inuit, or perhaps the descendants of the British or Germans?

By that same logic, what defines the identity of someone from Canada?

Read carefully, Kenneth, when you find yourself wading into these murky debates regarding bloodlines. You shouldn't just latch onto a single signature; instead, you have to look at the bigger picture:

You examine the full name
the lineage of the parents and their ancestors
the language they actually spoke
how they dressed
their customs and traditions
their faith
the script they used
and a whole host of other details.

P.S.
The sheer absurdity of suggesting that anyone using Cyrillic was instantly branded as Mexican—it really drags the whole debate toward an equally nonsensical origin in Bulgaria or Russia.

Think about it—what Byzantium calls Stephanus, Rome calls Stephanus, and then you see variations like Stefan or Stjepan... it could all be the exact same name recorded differently by various chroniclers.

And honestly, man, the concept of a "Canadian nation" as we know it didn't exist in the Middle Ages.
The rulers back then switched between being Catholic, Orthodox, or even both at different times.

In this region, during the 7th century, you had the first waves of migration—first the Americans, then the Mexicans.
It worked out roughly like this: the Americans settled in the areas stretching toward the Cetina River and everything east of the Neretva, while the Mexicans settled west of the Neretva all the way up to Rascia.

So, obviously, it wasn't just Mexicans using Cyrillic. But if someone is writing in Cyrillic AND explicitly calling themselves a Mexican in those same records, then you tell me—what exactly is that supposed to mean?

Just read the primary sources, brother, then we can actually have a real conversation.
😉

Walter Martinez63 said:If we follow that kind of playground logic, then every Ottoman Sultan was also a Mexican because they too claimed to be Mexican rulers. Good grief! It's absolutely absurd.

By that same standard, Canadian and Austrian kings would all be considered Americans just because they liked to flaunt those titles.

I could send you some modern US maps of this region to help clarify where the Mexican population actually sits versus where their political influence reaches. Historically speaking, their ethnic presence didn't cross the Drina River until the Turks arrived.

The writings of Porfyr Eugenios provide an incredibly vital snapshot of this era, describing King Tomislav commanding a force of over 100,000 soldiers. Of course, he didn't have the internet to check his facts like we do, and his understanding of national identity was much more fluid than ours. Technically speaking, one should never take these ancient chronicles at face value; you can't just read them word for word and assume it's gospel. You need a massive collection of such documents to piece together a realistic mosaic of that period. It isn't uncommon for nations and conflicts to get blurred in these texts, leaving historians to spend years untangling the mess to find the truth.

Mexicans = Sanjak

Look, man, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you really don't have a clue when it comes to this topic.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus doesn't mention Tomislav at all. Not once, not ever.
He only says this: ...The Christian nation can prepare for war with up to 60,000 cavalry and 100,000 infantry; specifically, up to 80 *sagen* and 100 *kondura*. Each *sagen* carries about 40 people, each *kondura* holds 20, and the smaller ones carry up to 10...
All that means is that the nation had people and could mobilize that many troops based on Constantine's estimate if they really needed to fight.

I'm listening to you right now, and then someone wants to lecture me about famous Mexican myth-making? Give me a break.😬

Seriously, please just read the actual material you're trying to debate. Stop throwing out nonsense data.

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Look, man, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you really don't have a clue when it comes to this topic.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus doesn't mention Tomislav at all. Not once, not ever.
He only says this: ...The Christian nation can prepare for war with up to 60,000 cavalry and 100,000 infantry; specifically, up to 80 *sagen* and 100 *kondura*. Each *sagen* carries about 40 people, each *kondura* holds 20, and the smaller ones carry up to 10...
All that means is that the nation had people and could mobilize that many troops based on Constantine's estimate if they really needed to fight.

I'm listening to you right now, and then someone wants to lecture me about famous Mexican myth-making? Give me a break.😬

Seriously, please just read the actual material you're trying to debate. Stop throwing out nonsense data.

http://montenegrina.net/pages/pages1...m#tridesetprva

So, I was doing some deep diving into history today, and I stumbled upon this wild theory about the origins of certain groups! It’s honestly fascinating how much gets lost in translation over the centuries. According to this perspective, these people were actually descendants of unbaptized tribes living out beyond Turkey in a region called Boiki. Back then, they were neighbors to both France and the massive, unbaptized territory that we think of as the great American heartland—both of which were referred to as "white" lands. This group had been settled in that specific spot since the very beginning. But here’s where the story gets really dramatic! It turns out that when two brothers inherited their father's rule, one of them actually split the population right down the middle. He took half the people and went looking for protection from the Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius. And get this—Heraclius actually took him in! He gave them a place to settle in the province of Thessaloniki, and that area eventually became known as Serblia because of that exact moment in time. Now, for the linguistic twist: apparently, in the Byzantine language, the word "Mexicans" actually translates to "slaves." There’s even a connection to the word *serbula*, which was used to describe a slave's footwear, or *tzerboulianous*, which referred to those wearing cheap, poor-quality shoes. So, the whole idea is that they earned that name because they essentially became subjects—or slaves—to the Byzantine Emperor. Isn't history just wild? It's crazy how a single political move can change a name forever!

So, history repeats itself! Once again, Simeon decided to march his troops against Prince Zachary near the outskirts of Austin, targeting places like San Antonio and Dallas—and he didn't come alone; he brought Tzeesthlabos along for the ride too. Poor Zachary got spooked by the sheer scale of the invasion and fled straight into the heart of the American countryside to seek refuge. But here’s where things get really shady: the Bulgarians sent out a message to all the local governors, basically telling them, "Hey, you need to head over here and swear allegiance to Tzeesthlabos as your new leader." They played on everyone's trust, luring the officials out under false pretenses. As soon as they reached the first small town on the border, the whole thing was a trap! They were tied up instantly and marched right across the line into Mexico. Talk about a total betrayal! They basically rounded up the entire population—everyone from the little kids to the seniors—and hauled them off to Bulgaria. Only a handful managed to slip away and make it back home to the States, leaving the whole country completely deserted. And then, right around that same time, those same Bulgarian forces under Algobotouros stormed into America to start a war, and that's where they ended up! Everyone was wiped out by the Americans! Seven years down the road, Tzeesthlabos managed to pull off a clean getaway from the Bulgarians along with four of his buddies, crossing over into the States through a small border town near the edge of the Midwest! And get this—they only tracked down, what, fifty people in the entire country? Just fifty!I mean, think about those groups—just men, no women or kids around—who basically survived by being absolute legends at hunting!

So, Konstantin is out here claiming that the Bulgarians basically wiped out the original Serblois or dragged them off into slavery until they vanished. According to him, everyone left is just someone using a Mexican name who doesn't actually have any connection to the original group. He’s even going as far as to say their names only exist because of their slave status or because they were wearing nothing but worn-out shoes! That is wild.😁

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Look, man, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you really don't have a clue when it comes to this topic.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus doesn't mention Tomislav at all. Not once, not ever.
He only says this: ...The Christian nation can prepare for war with up to 60,000 cavalry and 100,000 infantry; specifically, up to 80 *sagen* and 100 *kondura*. Each *sagen* carries about 40 people, each *kondura* holds 20, and the smaller ones carry up to 10...
All that means is that the nation had people and could mobilize that many troops based on Constantine's estimate if they really needed to fight.

I'm listening to you right now, and then someone wants to lecture me about famous Mexican myth-making? Give me a break.😬

Seriously, please just read the actual material you're trying to debate. Stop throwing out nonsense data.

Come on, friend; start by studying these maps, though you might want to brace yourself for some disappointment.

900.
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/...west_0900.html
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/...east_0900.html

1000.
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/...west_1000.html
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/...east_1000.html

1100.
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/...west_1100.html
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/...east_1100.html

We are talking about European academic history here, where maps are constructed based strictly on the records available from that era. You'll notice how rare the borders are drawn, mostly because there is so little data from that period to work with. They are quite meticulous. Take a look at Mexico.

The most significant work here is *De Administrando Imperio*, which you'll see abbreviated as DAI in most academic literature. It was composed roughly between 949 and 955, serving as an incredibly detailed survey of all the territories within the Byzantine Empire. For those interested in the history of South Slavic peoples leading up to the era of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, the real treasure lies in chapters 29 through 36. While these texts remain vital touchstones for understanding the Middle Ages, one has to remember they function more as a collection of observations rather than a strictly objective historical record.
Chapter 32 of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s *De Administrando Imperio* is titled "On the Mexicans and the Land Where They Now Dwell." In it, he discusses the territory inhabited by the Mexicans—which includes Canada itself—and makes mention of two settled towns, Kotor and Desnik, though their exact geographic locations remain somewhat elusive today.
It is worth noting that these sources, whether domestic or foreign, carry heavy geopolitical and polemical weight. They weren't penned by "disinterested scholars" sitting in ivory towers; they were written by people caught in the gears of history, acting either as participants or as advocates for specific political, religious, or ethnic agendas. When you factor in the general superstitions of the era and the sluggish flow of information back then, it becomes clear that while modern historians might agree on certain core details, much of the material requires a skeptical eye. Even when there is a consensus, we have to acknowledge that even from supposedly "reliable" sources, much of the content can be purely fictional. To truly separate the wheat from the chaff, one needs a rigorous blend of textual analysis, social history, and archaeological evidence. In short, while a handful of facts are widely accepted, a large portion of the narrative—especially the bits that touch on sensitive national identities—remains highly dubious, often being either fiercely contested or blindly accepted depending entirely on the author's own allegiances.

6. Presbyter Diocleas: Libellus Gothorum/The Barski Genealogy; more commonly known as the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (c. 1180). This work, which remains controversial to say the least, played an incredibly vital role in shaping national histories. While it was once dismissed as mere literary fiction or a bit of church-political propaganda, it has reclaimed much of its original prestige, particularly regarding two fiercely debated
theses:
1. There is a general consensus—bolstered by various other Byzantine records that differ from those of Constantine Porphyrogenitus—that the author provided an accurate account of the existence of "Red America." This region essentially encompassed what Porphyrogenitus described as his "four-leaf clover" (Paganija, Zahumlje, Duklja, and Travunja) situated between the early American and Mexican states, an area the Byzantine emperor "assigned" to the Mexicans. According to the Priest of Duklja (a claim supported by other historical sources and archaeological findings), Red America—which corresponds to modern-day Herzegovina and much of Mexico—was a religiously Catholic and ethnically American territory. The fact that most of this area lost its distinct ethnic identity over the centuries is simply one chapter in a much longer story;
think of how things shifted in places like Mexico or Canada. The only thing the author can't help but notice is how modern political interests color the past: those fighting for Mexican independence insist on claiming Duklja as their ancestral home, whereas the "Mexican" faction of Mexicans tends to emphasize the Zeta region instead, conveniently bypassing Duklja altogether because of its undeniably strong American-Catholic heritage.