and Dioclea in Dioclea.24 These lists therefore did not only belong to different
timelines, but also to different sources.
Having all this in plain sight, the DAI’s chapters regarding the South Slavs
can be approached. The story about the Croats preserved in chapter 31 consists
of eight oti sections of more or less equal length. The story about the Serbs is of
three oti sections, but of disproportional length, as the first Isteon oti covers 96%
of this chapter (145 out of 151 lines overall). This should mean that the Serb
chapter had almost been brought to its final version. The stories of the settlement
and baptism of the Serbs and the Croats are told in a similar fashion. The Croats
came from White Croatia as refugees to the Emperor Heraclius, defeated the Avars
and then settled in Dalmatia. Then, Heraclius sent priests from Rome to them to
have them baptized.25 The same pattern can be traced for the Serbs. They also
came as the refugees to Heraclius from the north (Bohemia) descending from the
White Serbs. The Serbs had first settled around Servlia (modern Servia), and asked
permission to leave after some time. Heraclius granted this permission, but they
changed their minds when they reached Belgrade and asked Heraclius, through
the strategos of Belgrade, to give them yet another place to settle in. Heraclius
therein granted them the lands of (what is now) Serbia, Pagania, Zachlumi, and
Terbounia, and thereafter ordered and sent priests from Rome to baptize them.26
Both stories contain an etymology of the names of the Croats and Serbs. While
the Serb history becomes interrupted at this spot, the Croat history contains further
information about the oaths given by the Croats to the pope of Rome where they
state that they will not attack any foreign country and in exchange will receive the
protection of Christ and Peter the Apostle.27 There is also another ecclesiastical
theme: after many years a certain pious man, named Martin, arrived among the
Croats and confirmed their oaths given two centuries before. It was in the time of
the Croat Archon Terpimer (ca. 840–855).28 The list of the kastra oikoumena also
belongs to the issue of ecclesiasticism and it comes near the end of the narrative
in both chapters.29
It appears that Constantine’s source had paid lot of attention to ecclesiastical
matters. It is interesting that Rome was marked as the center from which both the
Croats and the Serbs received their baptism. Additionally, there are the oaths by
which the Croats bound themselves to the pope – i.e. to Rome. The question is
then why the Byzantine Emperor would have invented such a story? Of course,there is no trace of Heraclius and Rome in chapter 30; rather, there is only a short
remark that the Croats received baptism from Rome during the Archon Porin (who
is the same Porga mentioned in chapter 31).30 If chapter 30 is the final version about
Dalmatia and the Croats, then it could have only been Constantine who removed
Heraclius from the story. The reason why he would have done so is obvious: in 950
the Vita Basilii, an official history of the specific period of Byzantine history, was
composed, and in this work all credit for the baptism of the South Slavs was given
to Basil I, the founder of the Macedonian dynasty. What the situation 300 years ago
had actually been was completely unimportant. Yet, traces of Constantine’s source
were preserved in the Vita Basilii as well. Constantine states that the Serbs and the
Croats fell from Christian doctrine, which would mean that he had reason to emphasize
that they had been Christians earlier.31 He knew about the earlier baptism
from his source which was the basis for chapters 31 and 32.
The narrative in the Croat and Serb chapters clearly shows traces of ecclesiastical
provenience. This is even more obvious in chapter 31 than in 32, but not due to its
different sources, but rather that the source had not been equally informed about the
Croats and the Serbs. What appears to have been used as the genuine oral tradition
about the earliest past of the Croats, served as the basis for the history of the Serbs.32
The Croat origo gentis is rich. It mentions the names of five brothers and two sisters,
while the Serb origo knows only two unnamed brothers. The Croat baptism includes
an archbishop, a bishop, priests, and deacons, while the Serbs received only priests.
The Croats defeated the Avars and settled in Dalmatia, while the Serbs wandered
from Servia to Belgrade, and then back to Dalmatia (Dalmatia in the Roman sense).
Both stories underline that the Croats and the Serbs had always been in submission
to the emperor of the Romaioi since the very beginning.33 Both stories settled them
exclusively in Dalmatia. The Croats were not under the direct rule of Byzantium in
Constantine’s time, nor in any other previous century except during a short period
from 878 to 879, when the Archon Zdeslav ruled as the Byzantine protégée.34 IfConstantine had insisted that the Serbs and the Croats ruled Dalmatia, to whom
would he have thought to allow claims on the former praefecture of Illyricum? To
the Bulgarians? Why would have Constantine described the Franks in chapter 30
as criminals 35 when he was pursuing an active policy of cooperation with Otto I
at the same time?36 The borders of Dalmatia are also incorrectly given; they match
neither the boundaries of Roman, nor Byzantine Dalmatia.37 Dalmatia extended
far to the north – to the Danube, and the Avars had allegedly ruled and lived in
such an extended Dalmatia. Archaeological evidence, even though it has been
eagerly searched for over the last century, has not provided even a tiny trace of
the Avars in Dalmatia.38 However, they did live in Pannonia and, supposedly for
Constantine’s source, Pannonia was part of Dalmatia. In that same source the
inhabitants of Dalmatia must have been called Romani as his source used the
same term in chapters 29 and 31, but never in chapter 30, which was his final
word on Dalmatia.
The ecclesiastical traces of Constantine’s source for both stories are of crucial
importance. The important role of Rome is underlined at least three times in the
Croat chapters and is an important clue to be followed. The forcible attachment of
Pannonia to Dalmatia speaks not about a political, but rather of an ecclesiastical
issue. The list of kastra oikoumena, for when these cities can be identified, shows
the distribution of the Roman Church’s bishoprics and their parishes. For Zachlumi,
Terbounia, Pagania and Croatia, the first kastra mentioned are the always well
known ecclesiastical centers: Nin, Ston, Trebinje, and Mokro – all of which were
bishoprics or at least had been the most prominent ecclesiastical centers in these
principalities since the second half of the ninth century.39 Not a single one of these
cities belonged to the ecclesiastical organization of the Byzantine church. Finally,
there is also an interesting terminology used: baptized Croatia versus unbaptized
Croatia; baptized Serbia versus unbaptized Serbia/Serbs.40
There is an interesting source which originated in 871 from the Arcbishopric of
Salzburg. It was written in the turbulent time when Rome and Salzburg competed
with one another in Pannonia and Moravia. This source, at its very end, accused
Methodius of being a trouble maker in Pannonia; a place which was considered

24 ŽIVKOVIĆ 2008, 19-21.
25 DAI 31.6–25.
26 DAI 32.2–29.
27 DAI 31.31–42.
28 DAI 31.42–52.
29 DAI 31.68–70; 32.149–151.
30 For the various identifications of Porga/Porin, see GRAFENAUER 1952, 26–27; HAUPTMANN,
1931, 19–20; BELKE-SOUSTAL 1995, 158; EGGERS 2007, 25 (Porga/Porin = Borna). On
the other hand, ŠIŠIĆ 1925, 386, n. 20, proposed the identification of Porin = Branimer. See,
also, FERJANČIĆ 1959, 42, n. 119. KLAIĆ 1975, 194–195; GOLDSTEIN 1995, 235 (Porin
= Borna).
31 BEKKER 1838, 288.10–289.2; 291.1–292.13.
32 This has already been noted in historiography, see GRAFENAUER 1952, 24.
33 DAI 31.58 – 60; 32.146–148.
34 According to BERTO 1999, 140: His diebus Sedesclavus, Tibimiri ex progenie, imperiali fultus
presidio Constantinopolim veniens, Sclavorum ducatum arripuit filiosque Domagoi exilio
trusit. The same source speaks about the deposition of Zdeslav in 879 (April); cf. also BERTO
1999, 142: His diebus quidam Sclavus, nomine Brenamir, interfecto Sedescavo, ipsius ducatum
usurpavit.
35 Cf. DAI 30.80–82.
36 For the politics of Byzatine to Otto I during the rule of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, see
LOUNGHIS 1980, 201–203.
37 This has been discussed by many authors; cf. NOVAKOVIĆ 1972, 11; FERJANČIĆ 1978, 77.
KLAIĆ 1985, 47–48, argued that the author of chapter 30 had had the Byzantine province of
Dalmatia in mind and not the Roman one.
38 PETRINEC 2009, passim. For the settlements of the Avars in Pannonia, see VIDA 2008, 13– 46;
STADLER 2008, 47–82.
39 Cf. ŽIVKOVIĆ 2008, 25–26.
40 Cf. DAI 31.68, 71, 86; 32.2, 5, 149.

baptism of the Carantanias served as the pattern for the Croats and the model of the
baptism of the Pannonian Slavs served as the pattern for the Serbs. The role of the
emperor was crucial for the author of the DCBC, and this is why the anonymous
author had had to use the same pattern. In the DCBC, Salzburg had been looking
for political power to rely on in Pannonia – and this is why the anonymous author
made the choice of the Bavarians and the Carantanians, as both were backed by
the Frankish emperor. For this anonymous author, who was obviously in Rome,
his political powers were the Croats and the Serbs, also backed by an emperor –
the Byzantine one. This is why Constantine wrote that the Croats and the Serbs
were in the servitude of and in submission to the emperor of the Romaioi. It had
simply been stated in his source.
Speaking about the establishment of the ecclesiastical organization in Carantania,
the author from Salzburg mentions the three most prominent churches. He
thereafter mentions another 13 places in which churches had been consecrated in
Pannonia.44 This was, most probably, the main reason why the anonymous author
supplied his list of kastra oikoumena for all the principalities of the Southern
Slavs, as to show that the Roman Church had established its organization there
quite some time prior.
Speaking about the Carantanian dukes, the DCBC knows only four of their
names. The anonymous author also only knew the names of four Serbian rulers.
This could have been accidental, but gains more ground when the whole context
is seen: their names are given merely to strengthen the statement of both authors
that these dukes/archontes had been subjugated and had been in servitude to the
emperor – the Carantanians to the Frankish emperor and the Serbs to the Byzantine
one:
E) DCBC: Tunc primus ab imperatore constitutus est confini comfini comes
Goterammus, secundus Werinharius, tertius Albricus, quartus Gotafridus, quintus
Geroldus. Interim vero dum praedicti comites orientalem procurabant plagam,
aliqui duces habitaverunt in illis partibus ad iam dictam sedem pertinentibus. Qui
comitibus praefatis subditi fuerunt ad servitium imperatoris; quorum nomina
sunt Priwizlauga, Cemicas, Ztoimir, Etgar (DCBC 11.13–18).
DAI: Μετὰ δὲ χρόνους τινὰς ἐγεννήθη ἐξ αὐτῶν ὁ Βοϊσέσθλαβος, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ
ὁ Ῥοδόσθλαβος, καὶ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου ὁ Προσηγόης, καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνου ὁ Βλαστίμηρος, καὶμέχρις αὐτοῦ τοῦ Βλαστιμήρου μετὰ τῶν Σέρβλων εἰρηνικῶς διετέλουν οἱ Βούλγαροι,
ὡς γείτονες καὶ συνορῖται ἀγαπῶντες ἀλλήλους, ἔχοντες δὲ δούλωσιν καὶ ὑποταγὴν
εἰς τοὺς βασιλεῖς τῶν Ῥωμαίων καὶ εὐεργετούμενοι παρ’ αὐτῶν (DAI 32.33–38).
At this point, it can be safely concluded that Constantine’s source about the
earliest history of the Croats and Serbs had been titled the De conversione Croatorum
et Serborum (DCCS). This is why even the chapters in the DAI follow
an order of appearance where the Croats come first and the Serbs come second,
as it is strange that the chapter on the Serbs (who were by far more important
for Byzantium in the first half of the 10th century) come after the two Dalmatian
chapters and the Croat one. The future research of chapters 30, 31, and 32 could
perhaps provide a definite answer about the composition of the DCCS. Through
the research of these chapters, it would be possible to see what had been originally
placed in this source, and what Constantine’s conclusions were. Furthermore, the
entire perception of the earliest history of the Serbs and Croats must be changed,
since it was not the invention of the Byzantine emperor, but rather of an author
who was based in Rome ca. 877/878. The literary genre intended to describe the
conversion of a pagan natio to Christianity simply did not exist in Byzantium; it
only existed in the Latin West. This is the strongest evidence as to why the authorship
of this kind of source must be sought in the West. On the other hand, the
futile discussion about the „ideology” of Constantine Porphyrogenitus as being
the main generator for his approach to the history of the Southern Slavs should
finally be annulled. Furthermore, another barren discussion – that about a different
authorship of chapter 30 – should also be placed ad acta.

44 DCBC 12.32–13.2. Item in eadem civitate ecclesia sancti Iohannis baptistae constat dedicata, et
foris civitatem in Dudleipin, in Ussitin, ad Businiza, ad Bettobiam, ad Stepiliperc, ad Lindolveschirchun,
ad Keisi, ad Wiedhereschirichun, ad Isangrimeschirichum, ad Beatuseschirichun, ad
Quinque basilicas temporibus Liuprammi ecclesiae dedicatae sunt; et ad Otachareschirchun
et ad Paldmunteschirchun, ceterisque locis ubi Priwina et sui voluerunt populi. Quae omnes
temporibus Priwinae constructae sunt et consecratae a praesulibus Iuvanensium.

Bibliography
Sources
BEKKER, Immanuel, ed. (1838), Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon
Magister, Georgius Monachus, Bonnae.
BERTO, Luigi Andrea, ed. (1999), Giovanni Diacono Istoria Veneticorum, Bologna.
DAI = MORAVCSIK, Gyula – R. H. M. JENKINS (1967), Constantine Porphyrogenitus
De administrando imperio, Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik, English translation
by R. J. H. Jenkins, New Revised Edition, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae I,
Washington.
DCBC = De conversione Bagoariorum et Carantanorum libellus, ed. D. W. Wattenbach,
Monumenta Germaniae Historica, SS XI, ed. G. H. Pertz, Hannoverae, 1854.
FERJANČIĆ, Božidar, ur. (1959), Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije,
sv. II, Beograd.

Secondary literature
ANČIĆ, Mladen (1999), Imperij na zalasku: Nestanak bizantske vlasti na istočnoj obali
Jadrana u 9. stoljeću, Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 41, 1-20.
BELKE Klaus – Peter SOUSTAL (1995), Die Byzantiner und ihre Nachbarn: Die De Administrando
Imperio genannte Lehrschrift des Kaisers Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos, Wien.
BURY, John Bagnell (1906), The treatise De administrando imperio, Byzantinische Zeitschrift
15/2, 517–577.
ĆIRKOVIĆ, Sima (1989), „Naseljeni gradovi” Konstantina Porfirogenita i najstarija teritorijalna
organizacija„, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 37, 9–32.
DABINOVIĆ, Antun (1941), Državnopravni odnos Hrvata prema istočnom carstvu, Rad
HAZU 270, 49-148.
DZINO, Danijel (2008), ‘Becoming Slav’, ‘Becoming Croat’: New approaches in research
of identities in post-Roman Illyricum, Hortus Artium Medievalium, 14, 195-206.
EGGERS, Martin (2007), Das De administrando imperio des Kaisers Konstantinos VII.
Porphyrogennetos und die historisch-politische Situation Südosteuropas im 9. und 10.
Jahrhundert, Ostkirchliche Studien 56, 15-100.
FERJANČIĆ, Božidar (1978), Struktura 30. glave spisa De administrando imperio, Zbornik
radova Vizantološkog instituta 18, 61-80.
FERJANČIĆ, Božidar (1996), Dolazak Hrvata i Srba na Balkansko poluostrvo, Zbornik
radova Vizantološkog instituta 35, 117-154.
FERJANČIĆ, Božidar (1997), Vasilije I i obnova vizantijske vlasti u IX veku, Zbornik
radova Vizantološkog instituta 36, 9-30.
FERLUGA, Jadran (1967), Vizantija i postanak najranijih južnoslovenskih država, Zbornik
radova Vizantološkog instituta 11, 55-66.
FERLUGA, Jadran (1971), Vizantijsko carstvo i južnoslovenske države od sredine X veka,
Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 13, 75 – 107.
FINE, John V. A. Jr. (1991), The Early Medieval Balkans, Ann Arbor.
GOLDSTEIN, Ivo (1995), Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, Zagreb: Zavod za hrvatsku povijest
Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.
GRAFENAUER, Bogo (1952), Prilog kritici izvještaja Konstantina Porfirogenita o doseljenju
Hrvata, Historijski sborni 5, 1-56.
HAUPTMANN, Ljudmil (1925), Dolazak Hrvata, u: Zbornik kralja Tomislava, Zagreb,
86 – 127.
HAUPTMANN, Ljudmil (1931), Konstantin Porfirogenit o porijeklu stanovništva Dubrovačkog
zaleđa, Zbornik iz Dubrovačke prošlosti M. Rešetara, Dubrovnik.
HAUPTMANN, Ljudmil (1937), Seobe Hrvata i Srba, Jugoslovenski istorijski časopis
3, 30-61.
JENKINS, Romilly J. H. (et al.), ed. (1962), Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando
Imperio vol. II – Commentary, London.
KLAIĆ, Nada (21975), Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
KLAIĆ, Nada (1984), O problemima stare domovine, dolaska i pokrštavanja dalmatinskih
Hrvata, Zgodovinski časopis 29/4, 253-270.
KLAIĆ, Nada (1985), Najnoviji radovi o 29, 30. i 31. poglavlju u djelu De administrando
imperio cara Konstantina VII. Porfirogeneta, Starohrvatska prosvjeta 15, 31 – 60.
KOS, Milko (1936), Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, Ljubljana.
KOŠĆAK, Vladimir (1981), Pripadnost istočne obale Jadrana do splitskih sabora 925 –
928, Historijski zbornik 33–34, 291 – 355.
LEMERLE, Paul (1971), Le premiere humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques su enseignement
et culture à Byzance des origines aux Xe siècle, Paris.
LITAVRIN, G. G. – A. P. NOVOSELCEV (1989), Konstantin Bagrjanorodnyj: Ob upravlenii
imperiej, Tekst, perevod, kommentarij, Moskva.
LOUNGHIS, T. C. (1980), Les ambassades byzantines en Occident depuis la fondation
des états barbares jusqu’ aux Croisades (407 – 1096), Athenes.
MACARTNEY, C. A. (1968), The Magyars in the Ninth Century, Cambridge.
MAKSIMOVIĆ, Ljubomir, (1982), Struktura 32 glave spisa De administrando imperio,
Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 21, 25–32.
MAKSIMOVIĆ, Ljubomir (1996), Pokrštavanje Srba i Hrvata, Zbornik radova
Vizantološkog instituta 35, 155–174.
MANOJLOVIĆ, Gavro (1902), Jadransko pomorje 9. stoljeća u svjetlu istočno-rimske
(bizantinske) povijesti, Rad JAZU 150, 1 – 102.
MARGETIĆ, Lujo (1977), Konstantin Porfirogenet i vrijeme dolaska Hrvata, Zbornik
Historijskog zavoda JAZU 8, 5-88.
NOVAKOVIĆ, Relja (1972), Neka zapažanja o 29. i 30. glavi De administrando imperio,
Istorijski časopis 19, 5-54.
OSTROGORSKI, Georgij (1948), Porfirogenitova hronika srpskih vladara i njeni
hronološki podaci, Istorijski časopis 1-2, 24-29.
PETRINEC, Maja (2009), Groblja od 8. do 11. stoljeća na području ranosrednjovjekovne
hrvatske države, Split.
STADLER, Peter (2008), Avar Chronology Revisited, and the Question of Ethnicity in
Avar Qaganate, The Other Europe in the Middle Ages, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and
Cumans, ed. F. Curta – R. Kovalev, Leiden, 47-82.
ŠEVČENKO, Ihor (1995), Re-reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus, u: Byzantine Diplomacy,
ed. J. Shepard – S. Franklin, Ipswitch, 167 – 195.
ŠIŠIĆ, Ferdo (1925), Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, Zagreb 1925
VIDA, Tivadar (2008), Conflict and Coexistence: The Local Population of the Carpathian
Basin Under Avar Rule (Sixth to Seventh Century), The Other Europe in the Middle
Ages, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, ed. F. Curta – R. Kovalev, Leiden, 13-46.
ŽIVKOVIĆ, Tibor (2008), Constantine Porhyrogenitus’ kastra oikoumena in the South
Slavs Principalities, Istorijski časopis 58, 9-28.
ŽIVKOVĆ, Tibor (2010), De conversione Croatorum et Serborum – A Lost Source, (in
print in the Byzantinoslavica).
WOLFRAM Herwig (1995), Salzburg, Bayern, Österreich: Die Conversio Bagoariorum
et Carantanorum und die Quellen ihrer Zeit, Wien – München.

Tibor Živković - Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ Source on the Earliest History of the Croats and Serbs”

Trag će razumeti „sintezu”...možda to stalno ponavljanje istorije nije samo ucenicki, karmicki proces, već na podseca na nešto sto trebamo ispraviti...sada znam da je vezano za sorbe...

vremenski dvojnici mogu biti precice u ublazavanju..ili, ubrzanju, te promene sudbine...recimo,
karadjordje-vic,
vuk,
milos.

valjda zato što duboko u sebi verujem da, kao što se snishodjenje iz onostranog u ovostrano odigrava putem geometrije i simetrije, sklada, tako i u istoriji, ma koliko se ona haoticno cinila postoje odredjene zakonitosti, dakle, red. sto bi znacilo da pogledom na sadasnjost ostvarujemo uvid u nepoznatu na proslost.
primer:

Od obnove Drugog trijumvirata 56. godine pre nove ere, do dolaska Septimija Severa na čelo Rimskog carstva 193. godine nove ere, proteklo je oko 248 godina (ili dva puta po 124 godine) rimske istorije. U tom periodu smenjivali su se na vlasti trijumviri (56 – 30 god. pre n.e) i vladari više vladarskih rodova: Julijevci-Klaudijevci (30 god. pre n.e – 68 god.), Flavijevci (69 – 96 god.) i Antonini (96 – 192. god.). Pored ovih dinastičkih vladavina, povremeno su (68 – 69. godine i 192 – 193. godine) vlast preuzimali i nedinastički vladari.



1. Trijumviri (vladali oko 26 godina)



Gnej Pompej (Prvi trijumvirat)

Julije Cezar (Prvi trijumvirat)

Marko Antonije (Drugi trijumvirat)



2. Julijevci-Klaudijevci (vladali oko 97 godina)



Oktavijan (prelazni period)

Oktavijan Avgust (Druz Stariji)

Tiberije

Kaligula

Klaudije

Neron



3. Nedinastički vladari (vladali nepune 2 godine)



Galba

Oton

Vitelije



4. Flavijevci (vladali oko 26 godina)



Tit Vespazijan (stariji)

Tit Vespazijan (mlađi)

Domicijan



5. Antonini (vladali oko 97 godina)



Nerva

Trajan

Hadrijan

Antonin Pije

Marko Aurelije (i Lucije Ver)

Komod

6. Nedinastički vladari(vladali nepune 2 godine)



Petrinaks

Didije Julijan

Pescenije Niger



Već površnim uvidom u ovu šestočlanu podelu vladara Rima, zapažaju se dve neobičnosti: vladavine prve i četvte, druge i pete i treće i šeste grupe vladara su trajale približno isti broj godina; vladavine vladara četvrte, pete i šeste grupe, počinjale su i završavale se oko 124 godine posle vladavina vladara prve, druge i treće grupe.

Najneobičnije je to, što su se u većini slučajeva i pojedinačne vladavina u okviru uparenih grupa, ponavljale po istom vremenskom ritmu od oko 124 godine.

Treći period



Treći period od 124 godine istorije Rima, počeo je vladavinom dinastije Severa. Septimije i njegovi sinova Geta i Karakala (uz jednogodišnju vladavinu Makrina), vladali su približno koliko i Flavijevaci – Vespazijan i njegovi sinovi.



69 – Početak vladavine Flavijevaca.

293 – Početak vladavine Severa.

Međuvreme: 124 godine.



96 – Kraj vladavine Flavijevaca.

217/8 – Kraj vladavine Severa (i Makrina).

Međuvreme: 124 (-2) godine.



96 – Smrt Domicijana.

217/8 – Smrt (Karakale i) Makrina.

Međuvreme: 124 (-2) godine.



Ovaj period se završio Dioklecijanovom smrću 316. godine. Dioklecijan je rođen 124 godine posle Marka Aurelija, preuzeo je vlast 124 godine posle Marka Aurelija i okončao je vladavinu oko 124 godine posle Marka Aurelija. Umesto Dioklecijana, oko 124 godine posle smrti Marka Aurelija, umro je Dioklecijanov mlađi savladar, car (ili avgust) Konstancije Hlor, otac Konstantina Velikog. Dioklecijan je umro je 124 godine posle smrti Markovog sina, cara Komoda.



Marko Aurelije i Komod – Dioklecijan i Konstancije





121 – Rođen Marko Aurelije.

245 – Rođen Dioklecijan.

Međuvreme: 124 godine.



161 – Početak vladavine Marka Aurelija.

284 – Početak vladavine Dioklecijana.

Međuvreme: 124 (-1) godina.



180 – Kraj vladavine Marka Aurelija.

305 – Kraj vladavine Dioklecijana.

Međuvreme: 124 (+1) godine.



180 – Početak (samo)vladavine Komoda.

305 – Početak carske vladavine Konstancija Hlora.

Međuvreme: 124 (+1) godina.



180 – Smrt Marka Aurelija.

306 – Smrt Konstancija Hlora.

Međuvreme: 124 (+2) godine.



192 – Smrt Komoda.

316 – Smrt Dioklecijana.

Međuvreme: 124 godine.



Smrti ostalih Antonina i careva trećeg perioda



98 – Smrt Nerve.

222 – Smrt Elegabala.

Međuvreme: 124 godine.



117 – Smrt Trajana.

238 – Smrt Maksimina Tračanina.

Međuvreme: 124 (-3) godine.



138 – Smrt Hadrijana.

260 – Smrt Valerijana.

Međuvreme: 124 (-2) godine.



161 – Smrt Antonina Pija.

285 – Smrt Karina.

Međuvreme: 124 godine.















Četvrti period



Pobedivši u građanskom ratu 316. godine, Konstantin je svoje starije sinove Krispa i Konstantina IIproglasio cezarima i savladarima. NJihovim vladavinama počinje četvrti period od 124 godine rimske istorije. Vladali su približno koliko Septimije Sever i njegovi sinovi Geta i Karakala. Konstantin je rođen oko 124 godine posle Septimija, pobedio je u građanskom ratu 124 godine posle Septimijeve pobede, okončao je vladavinu 124 godine posle Septimija i umro je oko 124 godine posle Septimija. Konstantivnov sin i naslednik Konstantin II, ubijen je oko 124 godine posle ubistva Septimijevog sina i naslednika Karakale.









146 – Rođen Septimije Sever.

271 – Rođen Konstantin Veliki.

Međuvreme: 124 (+1) godinu.



193 – Početak vladavine Septimija i sinova (vladali oko 24 godine).

317 – Početak vladavine Konstantina i starijih sinova (vladali oko 24 godine).

Međuvreme: 124 godine.



211 – Kraj vladavine Septimija Severa.

337 – Kraj vladavine Konstantina Velikog.

Međuvreme: 124 (+2) godine.



211 – Smrt Septimija Severa.

337 – Smrt Konstantina Velikog.

Međuvreme: 124 (+2) godine.



*



217 – Smrt Septimijevog sina i naslednika Karakale.

340 – Smrt Konstantinovog sina i naslednika Konstantina II.

Međuvreme: 124 (-1) godina.



Smrti ostalih vladara trećeg i četvrtog perioda



235 – Smrt Aleksandra Severa.

361 – Smrt Konstancija II.

Međuvreme: 124 (+2) godine.



238 – Smrt Maksimina Tračanina.

363 – Smrt Julijana Apostate.

Međuvreme: 124 (+1) godina.



251 – Smrt Decija Trajana.

375 – Smrt Valentinijana I.

Međuvreme: 124 godine.



253 – Smrt Trebonija Gala.

378 – Smrt Valensa.

Međuvreme: 124 (+1) godine.



260 – Smrt Valerijana.

383 – Smrt Gracijana.

Međuvreme: 124 (-1) godina.



268 – Smrt Galijena.

392 – Smrt Valentinijana II.

Međuvreme: 124 godine.



270 – Smrt Klaudija Gotskog.

395 – Smrt Teodosija I Velikog.

Međuvreme: 124 (+1) godina.



284 – Smrt Numerijana.

408 – Smrt Arkadija.

Međuvreme: 124 godine.

oni milinzi sa peolponeza, kad bi bili milincani - bili bi sorbi, te po datumu od kada se tamo spominju, deo neke treće seobe ?????
:)