Talk:Grand Principality of Serbia

Rascia

Suggest a move to Rascia. The name of the principality was that. It was that famous at the time that the drap d'Arras seems to have been derived from drap de Rascia (the word drap we have it as bed sheet in the English wiki), rather than from the French city of Arras, see etymology from Wiener here in p234. --MorenaReka (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The name of the principality was Serbia, an exonym was Rascia. The Arras story makes no sense.--Zoupan 05:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It is exactly because it was an exonym, that it is important. Western sources called it Rascia, and that's how it was known to the western world. Besides, what are the sources that the endonym was Serbia? The etymology of the drap de Rascia shows how the western world knew Rascia/Serbia at that time. This is the English Wikipedia and naming is important. The name Serbia has been recorded in the 9th century for the first time, but in the 12th century when this principality existed, no one called it Serbia.MorenaReka (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You must know that basing this on drap d'Arras seems to have been derived from drap de Rascia is the weakest of arguments. Western sources at that time may have used Rascia, Rassa, Rasie, etc, alongside Serbia, but Serbs and Byzantines called it Serbia. but in the 12th century when this principality existed, no one called it Serbia I would like to see sources on that, please. In modern historiography, Serbia is predominantly used for the state.--Zoupan 02:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you don't like fashion, I do. But Laurențiu Rădvan says in p89 : Latin sources in the 11th and the 12th centuries associated the Serbs with the town of Ras and thus validated the name of Rascia for Westerners, and not Serbia, a name which the Byzantines kept.. So for the Westerners it wasn't Serbia, it was Rascia. This is the English Wikipedia not the Serbian/Byzantine one, so the article should have the name with which it was known to the Western world in the 12th century, because Rascia was notable then too, it didn't become notable now. However if Wikipedia goes with modern historiography, you have to be right, and not me. I just don't see many sources that call it "Grand Principality of Serbia". I see Principality of Serbia (Rascia) in most modern sources. And some precisations need to be made: The kings of Rascia wanted to invade parts of Serbia, I read plenty of sources about this, and it is not true that Rascia had the whole jurisdiction into Serbia: the borders were continuously varying during that period, thus that map is misleading. --MorenaReka (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Papal sources in the 11th and 12th centuries did not use "Rascia" for the state. Rădvan clearly says that the Latin sources in the 11th-12th century associated the town with Serbs, not that Serbia was known as Rascia — it would later be known as such in western sources (hence his terming "validated the name of Rascia for Westerners"). What you're doing here is synthesis. This is the English Wikipedia not the Serbian/Byzantine one (?) The title is descriptive. The rulers were "Grand Prince of all Serbia/Serbs". It was known as Serbia at that time, and in modern historiography, alongside Rascia/Raška (although erraneously). I don't see the problem in having "Rascia" in the introduction, which has clear information on the naming. And some precisations need to be made: The kings of Rascia wanted to invade parts of Serbia, I read plenty of sources about this what are you trying to say here? and it is not true that Rascia had the whole jurisdiction into Serbia where is this even claimed?--Zoupan 06:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Ajdebre made the map in 2010, but the map is unsourced. Btw back then he called it Principality of Rascia (Serbia). --MorenaReka (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed that incorrect map now. I will request from PANONIAN that a new map be made based on sources. Are we clear on the points you made?--Zoupan 14:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)