File talk:Slav-7-8-obrez.png

Белград and Сисак аre completely missed on this map. --Mile (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Юра, верни влахов на историческую родину — в Дакию! — Klimenok (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ungenaue Angaben auf von Wikipedia angefertigter Karte

Diese von Wikipedianer selbst gemachte Karte sagt Slavs 7-8 Jhr., zeigt aber nicht nur Slavs Slawen, sondern auch West Balten und Ost Balten. Auch gab es im 7 -8 Jrh. noch keine Pomoranen, die gab es erstmals um das Jahr 1000 AD durch die erstmaligen Herzöge der Polanen und deren Eroberungen. MfG (50.173.166.172 22:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

Fun fact: Munich was non-existing in this time

The first document about Munich dates from 1158, several centuries after the time this map claims to show. Perhaps you could consider changing it, you could show Salzburg and Augsburg, perhaps Regensburg.--24.134.3.177 23:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Virumaa

Virumaa has two separate finno-ugric ethnic groups - Võros and Setos. I doubt they could have come from somewhere else to where Slavs lived in the 8th century. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.249.43.225 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Borders

The map shows outdated data. The Yotvingians (Ятвяги) tribe never reached the Bug river. According to the data collected by archaeologists, the settlement of the Yotvingians (Ятвяги) reached the farthest to the Narew River in the south. Bornholm (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Strange theories

There are two conflicting and incompatible theories regarding the presence of speakers of Eastern Romance languages ​​in the region between the years 275 and 1275, for a thousand years. According to one, visible here [1] (“Školski istorijski atlas, Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika SR Srbije”, Belgrade 1970), they could not have existed only in a very small area north of the Danube, and appeared in the south long after the Slavs, who upon arriving found only non-Romanized Illyrians and Thracians, despite the six centuries of presence of the Roman Empire. According to the other, visible on this map "Slav-7-8-obrez.png" as it was restored by Gyalu22, they could only have existed in a very small area south of the Danube, and are appeared in the north only long after the Magyars, who upon arriving found only scattered and nomadic Avars and Slavs, but no sedentary population in the middle Danube basin, between the Alps, the Drava and the Carpathian arc, despite the Moravian and Blatozerian attested principalities.
These two theories have in common that they consider that all the peoples of the period were able to cross the Carpathians, the Danube and the Balkans, “except” the speakers of the Eastern Romance languages ​​known as “Vlachs”. This is why secondary sources make it seem like they disappeared for a millennium and then inexplicably reappeared. These antagonistic theories ignore the linguistic works which conclude that there was a long cohabitation between peoples during this “dark millennium” on both banks of the Danube and both slopes of the Carpathians.
These are two theories influenced by the nationalisms of modern states, and there is no scientific reason to prefer one rather than the other, nor to qualify the linguistic arguments and the works of Romanian historians as "fake", on the way of some politicians with ideas as exclusive as they are extreme and vehement. 2A01:CB1C:821F:A400:FCA9:E512:C010:9FFF 15:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)