Part of a series on the
|History of the Czech lands|
|Czech Republic portal|
Part of a series on the
|History of Slovakia|
|Medieval Slavic states|
|Kingdom of Hungary
(10th century – 1526)
Great Moravia (Czech: Velká Morava, Slovak: Veľká Morava), also Moravia or Great Moravian Empire, was the first West Slavic state to emerge from "the most powerful tribal area in Central Europe".[vague] Its core territories were located on the northern Morava River along the present-day border of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Although, its extent and location have been called into question. The rival theories place its centre at the south of the river Danube or the Great Hungarian Plain. The exact date of the founding of the Moravian state is controversial, but it is supposed that the state building process was completed in the early 830s under Mojmir I (r. 820s/830s–846), who is the first known Moravian ruler.
Mojmir and his successor, Rastislav (r. 846–870), initially acknowledged the suzerainty of the Carolingian monarchs, but their fights for independence caused a series of armed conflicts with East Francia beginning in the 840s. Moravia reached its largest territorial extent under Svatopluk I (r. 870–894), who was occasionally styled as king in contemporaneous sources. Although the borders of his empire cannot be exactly determined, he controlled the core territories of Moravia as well as other neighboring regions, including Bohemia and parts of present-day Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and Ukraine, for some period of his reign. Separatism and internal conflicts emerging after Svatopluk's death contributed to the fall of Moravia, which was overrun by the Hungarians. The exact date of Moravia's collapse is unknown, but it occurred in the period between 902 and 907.
Moravia experienced significant cultural development after the arrival in 863 of the mission of Saints Cyril and Methodius, initiated by Prince Rastislav, which introduced a system of writing (the Glagolitic alphabet) and Slavonic liturgy, the latter eventually formally approved by Pope Adrian II. The Glagolitic script and its successor Cyrillic were disseminated to other Slavic countries (particularly Balkan states and Kievan Rus'), charting a new path in their cultural development.
- 1 Name
- 2 Territory
- 3 History
- 4 State and society
- 5 Economy
- 6 Culture
- 7 Legacy
- 8 See also
- 9 Notes
- 10 References
- 11 External links
The meaning of the name has been subject to debate. The designation "Great Moravia" – megale Moravia (Μεγάλη Μοραβία) in Greek –  stems from the work De Administrando Imperio written by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos around 950. The emperor only used the adjective megale in connection with the polity when referring to events that occurred after its fall, implying that it should rather be translated as "old" instead of "great". According to a third theory, the megale adjective refers to a territory located beyond the borders of the Byzantine Empire. Finally, the historian Lubomír E. Havlík writes that Byzantine scholars used this adjective when referring to homelands of nomadic peoples, as demonstrated by the term "Great Bulgaria".
[There] is Belgrade, in which is the tower of the holy and great Constantine, the emperor; then, again, at the running back of the river, is the renowned Sirmium by name, a journey of two days from Belgrade; and beyond lies great Moravia, the unbaptized, which the [Hungarians] have blotted out, but over which in former days [Svatopluk] used to rule. Such are the landmarks and names along the Danube river [...].
The work of Porphyrogenitos is the only nearly contemporaneous source using the adjective "great" in connection with Moravia. Other documents from the 9th and 10th centuries never used the term in this context. Instead they mention the polity as "Moravian realm" (regnum Marahensium, regnum Marahavorum, regnum Marauorum, or regnum Margorum in Latin, and Moravьska oblastь in Old Church Slavonic), or simply "Moravia" (Marawa, Marauia, and Maraha in Latin, Morava, Marava, or Murava in Old Church Slavonic, and M.ŕawa.t in Arabic).
According to most historians, the core territories of Moravia were located in the valley of the river Morava in present-day Czech Republic and Slovakia. Large early medieval fortresses and the significant cluster of settlements growing around them suggest that an important center of power emerged in this region in the 9th century. Early sources (Alfred the Great's contemporaneous translation of Orosius's History of the World, which mentioned Moravia's neighbors, and the description of the travel of Constantine and Methodius from Moravia to Venice through Pannonia in the Life of Constantine) also substantiate the traditional view.
These Maroara have to the west of them the Thyringas and some Behemas and half the Begware, and south them on the other side of the Danube river is the land Carendre extending south as far as the mountains called the Alps. ... To the east of the land Carendre, beyond the uninhabited district, is the land of the Pulgare, and east of that is the land of Greeks. To the east of the land of Maroara is the land of the Vistula, and east of that are those Datia who were formerlly Goths
The borders of Moravia cannot exactly be determined because of the lack of accurate contemporaneous sources. For instance, the monks writing the Annals of Fulda in the 9th century obviously had limited knowledge of the geography of distant regions of Central Europe. Furthermore, Moravian monarchs adopted an expansionist policy in the 830s, thus the borders of their realm often changed.
Moravia reached the peak of its territorial expansion under Svatopluk I (r. 870–894). Lesser Poland, Pannonia, and other regions were forced to accept, at least formally and often only for a short period, his suzerainty. However, according to archaeologist Béla Miklós Szőke, the comitatus of Mosaburg in Pannonia was never part of Moravia. Neither archaeological finds nor written sources substantiate the traditional view of the permanent annexation of huge territories in his reign.
In 1784, Slovak historian Juraj Sklenár refused the traditional view on the location of Moravia and placed its core region to the region of Sirmium (now Sremska Mitrovica in Serbia), stating that it spread from that centrum to the north to present-day Slovakia, Moravia and Bohemia. Sklenár's work had a clear political background with national-defending character and his goal was to prove that the Hungarians never conquered a territory of the present-day Slovakia and thus to improve a position of Slovaks in the kingdom. Similarly, in the 1820s, Friedrich Blumenerger placed Great Moravia on the borders of Pannonia and Moesia. Their views remained isolated for centuries. The location of Great Moravia became subject to "healthy debate" in the 1970s, because the number of scholars who say that it must have been located much further south and east has been growing. Archaeologist Jiří Macháček, who refute the latter theories, emphasizes "the value of studies seeking to locate Great Moravia elsewhere within the Carpathian Basin".
After analyzing the primary sources, Imre Boba (an American historian of Hungarian-Polish origin) concluded that Moravia's core territory must have been located around Sirmium, near the river Great Morava, in his Moravia's History Reconsidered: A Reinterpretation of Medieval Sources, published in 1971. He emphasizes that Methodius, a leading figure of the Christianization of Moravia, was made archbishop of Sirmium with jurisdiction in Illyricum (to the south of the Danube). He says that the Principality of Moravia was a part of a larger territory, known as Sclavonia. Boba suggested that an early medieval church excavated in Sremska Mitrovica was identical with Methodius's cathedral, but the Yugoslavian archaeologist V. Popović, who led the excavations, immediately rejected that identification. He also says that the Humanist historian, Johannes Aventinus, obviously misinterpreted his sources when identified a town called Nitrava (which was granted, along with Brno and Olomouc, to one Pribina by Louis the German, according to Aventinus) with Nitra in present-day Slovakia, because Nitrava was in "Hunia or Avaria", to the south of Bavaria.[a][undue weight? ] Most Central European historians rejected Boba's view, but there were prominent scholars who accepted or developed it. As Marsina notices, his views found some supporters mainly among art historians and linguists but not expert medievalist.
Péter Püspöki-Nagy proposed the existence of two Moravias: a "Great" Moravia at the southern Morava river in present-day Serbia, and another Moravia on the northern Morava river in present-day Czech Republic. Toru Senga, a Japanese historian living in Hungary, likewise concludes that two polities named Moravia co-existed in the 9th century and were united under Svatopluk I. Before unification, the first (Rastislav's) Moravia was located in present-day Czech Republic. The second (Svatopluk's) Moravia was in present-day Hungary between Danube and Tisa and neighboured with Bulgars not only in the east but also in the north (present-day Slovakia). Again, none of these theories achieved wider acceptance in the academic community, particularly among European historians. Critical reactions came also from the Hungarian scholars (György Györffy, Csanád Bálint).
In the 1990s, Boba's views were further developed by Charles Bowlus, who writes that Moravia emerged in the region of the "confluences of the Drava, Sava, Drina, Tisza, and southern Morava rivers with the Danube". Bowlus also rejects the identification of Nitrava with Nitra, because the latter town was only annexed by Moravia during the reign of Svatopluk, years after Pribina's expulsion, according to a letter that Archbishop Theotmar of Salzburg and his suffragans wrote around 900 (according to Třeštík, the content of the letter can be explained as a reasonable mistake of its compilators who knew that the territory was in the past a separate realm different from Moravia; for it had been ruled by Svatopluk I, the Salzburg clerics incorrectly assumed that he had conquered it). Bowlus emphasizes that the orientation of the Frankish marcher organization was focused on the south-east territories which also supports Great Moravia's southern position.
In contrast with both the traditional view and Boba's theory, Martin Eggers writes that Moravia was initially centered in modern Banat at the confluence of the rivers Tisza and Mureș. This territory was settled by Moravians (Moravljani) who shared a common material culture (Bijelo Brdo culture) with other Southern Slavs. Moravians were also closely connected to them by the ruling dynasty. While Rastislav ruled "Moravia", Svatopluk was a Bosnian-Slavonian ruler. In 871, both principalities were unified under Svatopluk leadership and thus become a basis for a huge but short-lived empire. Svatopuk then expanded to the territory of present-day Slovakia, still inhabited by remnants of Avar groups. (Northern, Czech) Moravia belonged to the Czechs (Bohemia) at least from the third quarter of the 9th century, but in 890, Arnulf donated Bohemia to Svatopluk.
Also these works raised critical reactions. Along with other authors,  they were rejected by Herwig Wolfram who pointed to their weaknesses. Eggers depends to a large extent on Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, a source known for numerous fictions and inaccuracies. Bijelo Brdo culture is dated to more than one hundred years later than assumed by Eggers. A theory about remnant Avar group in Slovakia in the second half of the 9th century is not based on any archeological research, also earlier Avar settlements are documented only in the southernmost part of Slovakia. In the case of Bohemia, Eggers conceals mention about an occupation of Bohemia by Svatopluk by force which poses several problems for his theory. Bohemia should control Moravia, but none comparable power centers have been found in Bohemia at the time., According to Macháček, the archeological research suggests that the earliest Bohemian hillforts were inspired by Moravian and not the other way around. Archaeological research has not substantiated the existence of 9th-century power centers in these southern regions, however, as only unfortified villages from the 9th century have been unearthed. Nevertheless, as Macháček emphasizes it, "The serious problems of geo-graphical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources, which ultimately led Imre Boba and his followers to question the traditional location of Great Moravia, will have to be explained in some other way."
Origins (before c. 800)
The earliest possible reference to Slavic tribes living in the valley of the northern Morava river was made by the Byzantine historian, Procopius. He wrote of a group of the Germanic Heruli who "passed through the territory of all of the Sclavenes" while moving towards Denmark in 512. Archaeological sites yielding hand-made ceramics and objects with close analogies in southern Poland and western Ukraine appeared at the confluence of the northern Morava River and the Middle Danube around 550.
Large territories in the Pannonian Basin were conquered after 568 by the nomadic Avars who had arrived from the Eurasian Steppes. The Slavs were forced to pay tribute to the Avars and to participate in their plundering raids against the Byzantine Empire, the Franks and the Lombards. Archaeological sites in the lowlands along the Middle Danube show that a new cultural synthesis which mixed the elements of Avar and Slavic tradition emerged in the first decades of the 7th century.
The Chronicle of Fredegar narrates that a Frankish merchant named Samo stirred up a group of Slavs or Wends to revolt against the Avars in 623 or 624. Samo established an independent polity and ruled it for 35 years. Whether his realm included territories along the northern Morava river is subject to scholarly debate. For instance, the Slovak historian Stanislav J. Kirschbaum writes that "the western part of the territory of Slovakia" was the core territory of Samo's realm, but his colleague, Richard Marsina writes that this view "is not very probable", and Barford sharply rejects this theory.
A new type of ceramics – the so-called "Devínská-Nová Ves" pottery – emerged at the end of the 7th century in the region between the Middle Danube and the Carpathians. These vessels were similar to the hand-made pottery of the previous period, but wheel-made items were also found in "Devínská-Nová Ves" sites. Large inhumation cemeteries found at Holiare, Nové Zámky and other places in Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia from the period beginning around 690 show that the settlement network of the Carpathian Basin became more stable in the Late Avar period. The most popular Late Avar motifs – griffins and tendrils decorating belts, mounts and a number of other artifacts connected to warriors – may either represent nostalgia for the lost nomadic past or evidence a new wave of nomads arriving from the Pontic steppes at the end of the 7th century. According to historians who accept the latter theory, the immigrants may have been either Onogurs or Alans. Anthropological studies of the skeletons point at the presence of a population with mongoloid features.
Charlemagne launched a series of military expeditions against the Avars in the last decade of the 8th century which caused the collapse of the Avar Khaganate. The Royal Frankish Annals narrates that Avars who "could not stay in their previous dwelling places on account of the attacks of the Slavs" approached Charlemagne in Aachen in 805 for allowing them to settle in the lowlands along the river Rába. According to Eggers, who locates the core territory of Moravia to the region of the confluence of the rivers Mureș and Tisza, the northward movement of the Slavs from the valley of the southern Morava to the Great Hungarian Plain forced the Avars to depart from their homeland. On the other hand, no archaeological evidence of a migration to those regions have been produced.
Following the collapse of the Avar Khaganate, swords and other elements of Frankish military equipment became popular in territories to the north of the Middle Danube. A new archaeological horizon – the so-called "Blatnica-Mikulčice horizon" – emerged in the valley of the northern Morava river and its wider region in the same period. This horizon of metalwork represent a synthesis of "Late Avar" and Carolingian art. One of its featuring items is a sword found in a grave in Blatnica in Slovakia, which is dated to the period between 825 and 850. According to the archaeologist Florin Curta, the sword was produced by a Frankish artisan from the Carolingian Empire. On the other hand, Ján Dekan writes that it represents how Moravian craftsmen selected "elements from the ornamental content of Carolingian art which suited their aesthetic needs and traditions".
Variation in pottery implies the existence of at least three tribes inhabiting the wider region of the northern Morava river in the early 800s. Settlement complexes from the period were unearthed, for instance, near modern Bratislava, Brno, and Olomouc. Fortresses erected at Bratislava, Rajhrad, Staré Město and other places around 800 evidence the development of local centers of power in the same regions.
Development of Moravia (c. 800–846)
Moravia, the first Western Slavic polity arose through the unification of the Slavic tribes settled north of the Danube. However, its formation is scarcely described by contemporaneous sources. The archaeologist Barford writes that the first report of the emerging Moravian state was recorded in 811. In the autumn of this year, according to the Royal Frankish Annals, Avar rulers and the duces or "leaders of the Slavs who live along the Danube" visited the court of Emperor Louis the Pious (r. 814–840) in Aachen. The earliest certain reference to Moravians or Maravani is dated to 822 when the emperor "received embassies and presents from all the East Slavs, that is, Obodrites, Sorbs, Wilzi, Bohemians, Moravians, and Praedenecenti, and from the Avars living in Pannonia" at an assembly held at Frankfurt.
The late 9th-century Conversion of the Bavarians and the Carantanians makes the first reference to a Moravian ruler. It narrates that Mojmir, "duke of the Moravians" expelled "one Pribina" across the Danube. Pribina fled to Ratpot who administered the March of Pannonia from around 833. Whether Pribina had up to that time been an independent ruler or one of Mojmir's officials is matter of scholary discussion. For instance, Urbańczyk writes that Mojmir and Pribina were two of the many Moravian princes in the early 9th century, while according to Havlík, Třeštík and Vlasto Pribina was Mojmir's lieutenant in Nitra. Historians who identify Pribina as the ruler of an autonomous state, the Principality of Nitra – for instance, Bartl, Kirschbaum, and Urbańczyk – add that that "Great Moravia" emerged through the enforced integration of his principality into Moravia under Mojmir.
The 9th-century Catalogue of Fortresses and Regions to the North of the Danube – which lists the peoples along the borders of East Francia in a north-to-south order – mentions that the Moravians or Marharii had 11 fortresses or civitates. The document locates the Marhari between the Bohemians and the Bulgars, and also makes mention of the Merehani and their 30 fortresses. According to Havlík, who writes that Conversion is a consolidated version of notes made by several authors in different years, the Moravians are twice mentioned in the text: first as Marhari, and next as Merehani. He says, that the reference to the Marhari and their 11 fortresses was made between 817 and 843, and the note of the Merehani shows the actual state under Svatopluk I. In contrast with Havlík, Steinhübel together with Třeštík and Vlasto identify the Meherani with the inhabitants of the Principality of Nitra. A third view is presented by Püspöki-Nagy and Senga, who write that the reference to the Merehanii – who obviously inhabited the southern regions of the Great Hungarian Plains to the north of the Danube, but south of the territories dominated by the Bulgars – and their 30 fortresses shows the existence of an other Moravia in Central Europe.
Among the Bohemians are 15 fortresses. The [Marharii] have 11 fortresses. The region of the Bulgars is immense. That numerous people has five fortresses, since their great multitude does not require fortresses. The people called [Merehanii] have 30 fortresses.
According to a 13th-century source, the History of the Bishops of Passau and the Dukes of Bavaria, Bishop Reginhar of Passau (r. 818–838) baptized "all of the Moravians" in 831. There is no other information on the circumstances of this mass conversion. Vlasto writes that Mojmir had by that time been converted to Christianity; according to Petr Sommer and other historians, he was also baptized on this occasion. All the same, the Life of Methodius narrates that Christian missionaries had by the 860s arrived in Moravia "from among the Italians, Greeks and Germans" who taught them "in various ways". The Life of Constantine adds that missionaries from East Francia did not forbid "the offering of sacrifices according to the ancient customs", which shows that pagan rites were continued for decades even after 831.
According to the Annals of Fulda, around August 15, 846 Louis the German, King of East Francia (r. 843–876) launched a campaign "against the Moravian Slavs, who were planning to defect". The exact circumstances of his expedition are unclear. For instance, Vlasto writes that the Frankish monarch took advantage of the internal strifes which followed Mojmir's death, while according to Kirschbaum, Mojmir was captured and dethroned during the campaign. However, it is without doubt that Louis the German appointed Mojmir's nephew, Rastislav as the new duke of Moravia during this campaign.
Fights for independence (846–870)
Rastislav (r. 846–870) who initially accepted the suzerainty of Louis the German consolidated his position within Moravia and expanded the frontiers of his realm. For instance, according to Kirschbaum, he annexed the region of the Slanské Hills in the eastern parts of present-day Slovakia. Barford even writes that the development of the state mentioned as "Great Moravia" by Constantine Porphyrogennetos commenced in Rastislav's reign.
He turned against East Francia and supported the rebellion of Ratpot, the deposed prefect of the March of Pannonia, against Louis the German in 853. In revenge, the Frankish monarch invaded Moravia in 855. According to the Annals of Fulda, the Moravians were "defended by strong fortifications", and the Franks withdrew without defeating them, though the combats lasted until a peace treaty was worked out in 859. The truce is regarded as a stalemate and shows the growing strength of Rastislav's realm. Conflicts between Moravia and East Francia continued for years. For instance, Rastislav supported Louis the German's son, Carloman in his rebellion against his father in 861. The first record of a raid by the Magyars in Central Europe seems to have connected to these events. According to the Annals of St. Bertin, "enemies called Hungarians" ravaged Louis the German's kingdom in 862, which suggests that they supported Carloman.
Rastislav wanted to weaken influence of Frankish priests in his realm, who served the interests of East Francia. He first sent envoys to Pope Nicholas I in 861 and asked him to send missionaries to Moravia who mastered the Slavic language. Having received no answer from Rome, Rastislav turned to the Byzantine Emperor Michael III with the same request. By establishing relations with Constantinople, he also desired to counter an anti-Moravian alliance recently concluded between the Franks and Bulgarians. Upon his request, the emperor sent two brothers Constantine and Methodius – the future Saints Cyril and Methodius – who spoke the Slavic dialect of the region of Thessaloniki to Moravia in 863. Constantine's Life narrates that he developed the first Slavic alphabet and translated the Gospel into Old Church Slavonic around that time.
Louis the German crossed the Danube and again invaded Moravia in August 864. He besieged Rastislav "in a certain city, which in the language of that people is called Dowina", according to the Annals of Fulda. Although the Franks could not take the fortress, Rastislav agreed to accept Louis the German's suzerainty. However, he continued to support the Frankish monarch's opponents. For instance, Louis the German deprived one Count Werner "of his public offices", because the count was suspected to have conspired with Rastislav against the king.
The Byzantine brothers, Constantine and Methodius visited Rome in 867. At the end of the year, Pope Hadrian II (r. 867–872) sanctioned their translations of liturgical texts and ordained six of their disciples priests. The pope informed three prominent Slavic rulers – Rastislav, his nephew, Svatopluk, and Koceľ who administered Lower Pannonia – of his approval of the use of the vernacular in the liturgy in a letter of 869. Upon Kocel's initiation, Pope Hadrian also consencrated Methodius as archbishop to "the seat of Saint Andronicus", that is to the see of Sirmium.
Svatopluk had by that time been administering a separate principality under Rastislav's suzerainty, but contemporaneous documents does not reveal its location. Frankish troops invaded both Rastislav's and Svatopluk's realms in August 869. According to the Annals of Fulda, the Franks destroyed many forts, defeated Moravian troops and seized loot. However, they could not take Rastislav's main fortress and withdrew.
[Louis the German] ordered the Bavarians to assist Carloman, who wished to fight against [Svatopluk], the nephew of [Rastislav]. He himself kept the Franks and Alemans with him to fight against [Rastislav]. When it was already time to set out he fell ill, and was compelled to leave the leadership of the army to Charles his youngest son and commend the outcome to God. Charles, when he came with the army with which he had been entrusted to [Rastislav's] huge fortification, quite unlike any built in olden times, with God's help burnt with fire all the walled fortifications of the region, seized and carried off the treasures which had been hidden in the woods or buried in the fields, and killed or put to fight all who came against him. Carloman also laid wast the territory of [Svatopluk], [Rastislav's] nephew with fire and war. When the whole region had been laid waste the brothers Charles and Carloman came together and congratulated each other on the victories bestowed by heaven.
Svatopluk's reign (870–894)
Svatopluk allied himself with the Franks and assisted them to seize Rastislav in 870. Carloman annexed Rastislav's realm and appointed two Frankish lords, William and Engelschalk to administer it. Frankish soldiers arrested Archbishop Methodius on his way from Rome to Moravia at the end of the year. Svatopluk who continued to administer his own realm after his uncle's fall was accused of treachery and arrested by Carloman on Louis the German's orders in 871. The Moravians rose up in open rebellion against the two Frankish governors and elected a kinsman of Svatopluk, Slavomir duke. Svatopluk returned to Moravia, took over the command of the insurgents and drove the Franks from Moravia. According to the Czech historian Dušan Třeštík, the rebellion of 871 led to the formation of the first Slavic state.
Louis the German sent his armies against Moravia in 872. The imperial troops plundered the countryside, but could not take the "extremely well-fortified stonghold" where Svatopluk took refuge. The Moravian ruler even succeeded in mustering an army which defeated a number of imperial troops, forcing the Franks to withdraw from Moravia. Svatopluk soon initiated negotiations with Louis the German, which ended with a peace treaty concluded at Forchheim in May 874. According to the Annals of Fulda, at Forchheim Svatopluk's envoy promised that Svatopluk "would remain faithful" to Louis the German "all the days of his life", and the Moravian ruler was also obliged to pay a yearly tribute to East Francia.
In the meantime, Archbishop Methodius who had been released upon the demand of Pope John VIII (r. 872–882) in 873 returned to Moravia. Methodius's Life narrates that "Prince Svatopluk and all the Moravians" decided to entrust "to him all the churches and clergy in all the towns" in Moravia upon his arrival. In Moravia, Methodius continued the work of translation started in his brother's life. For instance, he translated "all the Scriptures in full, save Maccabees", according to his Life. However, Frankish priests in Moravia opposed the Slavic liturgy and even accused Methodius of heresy. Although the Holy See never denied Methodius's orthodoxy, in 880 the Pope appointed his main opponent, Wiching as bishop of Nitra upon the request of Svatopluk who himself preferred the Latin rite.
A letter written around 900 by Archbishop Theotmar of Salzburg (r. 873–907) and his suffragan bishops mentions that the pope sent Wiching to "a newly baptized people" whom Svatopluk "had defeated in war and converted from paganism to Christianity". Other sources also prove that Svatopluk significantly expanded the borders of his realm. For instance, according to the Life of Methodius, Moravia "began to expand much more into all lands and to defeat its enemies successfully" in the period beginning around 874. The same source writes of a "very powerful pagan prince settled on the Vistula" in present-day Poland who persecuted the Christians in his country, but was attacked and seized by Svatopluk.
Upon Methodius's request, in June 880 Pope John issued the bull Industriae tuae for Svatopluk whom he addressed as "glorious count" (gloriosus comes). In the bull, the pope refers to Svatopluk as "the only son" (unicus fillius) of the Holy See, thus applying a title which had up to that time been only used in papal correspondence with emperors and candidates for imperial rank. The pope explicitly granted the protection of the Holy See to the Moravian monarch, his officials and subjects. Furthermore, the bull also confirmed Methodius's position as the head of the church in Moravia with jurisdiction over all clergymen, including the Frankish priests, in Svatopluk's realm and Old Church Slavonic was recognized as the fourth liturgical language together with Latin, Greek and Hebrew.
The longer version of Annals of Salzburg makes mention of a raid by the Magyars and the Kabars in East Francia in 881. According to Gyula Kristó and other historians, Svatopluk initiated this raid, because his relations with Arnulf – the son of Carloman, King of East Francia (r. 876–881) – who administered the March of Pannonia became tense. Archbishop Theotmar of Salzburg clearly accused the Moravians of hiring "a large number of Hungarians" and sending them against East Francia at an unspecified date.
During the "Wilhelminer War" – a civil war between two fractions of local noblemen in the March of Pannonia which lasted from 882 and 884 – Svatopluk "collected troops from all the Slav lands" and invaded Pannonia. According to the Bavarian version of the Annals of Fulda, the Moravians' invasion "led to Pannonia's being laid waste" to the east of the river Rába. Svatopluk had a meeting with Emperor Charles the Fat (r. 881–888) at Tulln an der Donau in Bavaria in 884. At the meeting, "dux" Svatopluk became the emperor's vassal and "swore fidelity to him", promising that he would never attack the emperor's realm.
Archbishop Methodius died on April 6, 885. Led by Bishop Wiching of Nitra, Methodius's opponents took advantage of his death and persuaded Pope Stephen V (r. 885–891) to restrict the use of Old Church Slavonic in the liturgy in the bull Quia te zelo. Bishop Wiching even convinced Svatopluk to expel all Methodius's disciples from Moravia in 886.
Pope Stephen addressed the Quia te zelo bull to Zventopolco regi Sclavorum ("Svatopluk, King of the Slavs"), suggesting that Svatopluk had by the end of 885 been crowned king. Likewise, Frankish annals occasionally referred to Svatopluk as king in connection with events occurring in this period. The Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea – a late 12th-century source with questionable reliability – narrates that one "Sventopelk" was crowned king "on the field of Dalma" in the presence of a papal legate.
Moravia reached the maximum of its territorial extent in the last years of Svatopluk's reign. For instance, according to Regino of Prüm, King Arnulf of East Francia "gave the command of the Bohemians to King Zwentibald of the Moravian Slavs" in 890. Bartl and other Slovak historians write that Svatopluk "probably" also annexed Silesia and Lusitania in the early 890s. According to the Annals of Fulda, King Arnulf proposed a meeting to Svatopluk in 892, "but the latter in his usual fashion refused to come to the king and betrayed his fidelity and all the things which he had promised before". In response, Arnulf invaded Moravia in 892, but could not defeat Svatopluk, although Magyar horsemen also supported the Eastern Frankish monarch.
Decline and fall (894–before 907)
Svatopluk – "a man most prudent among his people and very cunning by nature", according to Regino of Prüm – died in the summer of 894. He was succeeded by his son, Mojmir II, but his empire in short time disintegrated, because the tribes subjugated to Svatopluk's rule by force started to get rid of Moravian supremacy. For instance, the Bohemian dukes accepted King Arnulf's suzerainty in June 895, and Mojmir II attempted to restore his supremacy over them without success in the next two years. On the other hand, he succeeded in restoring the Church organization in Moravia by persuading Pope John IX (r. 898–900) to send his legates to Moravia in 898. The legates in short time installed an archbishop and "three bishops as his suffragans" in Moravia.
Conflicts emerging between Mojmir II and his younger brother, Svatopluk II gave a pretext to King Arnulf to send his troops to Moravia in 898 and 899. The Annals of Fulda writes that the "boy" Svatopluk II was rescued by Bavarian forces "from the dungeon of the city in which he was held with his men"  in 899. According to Bartl, who write that Svatopluk II had inherited the "Principality of Nitra" from his father, the Bavarians also destroyed the fortress at Nitra on this occasion.
According to most nearly contemporaneous sources, the Hungarians played a preeminent role in the fall of Moravia. For instance, Regino of Prüm writes that Svatopluk I's "sons held his kingdom for a short and unhappy time, because the Hungarians utterly destroyed everything in it". The Hungarians started their conquest of the Carpathian Basin after their defeat in the westernmost territories of the Pontic steppes around 895 by a coalition of the Bulgars and Pechenegs. Only a late source, the 16th-century Johannes Aventinus writes that the Hungarians had by that time controlled wide regions to east of the rivers Hron and Danube in the Carpathian Basin.
A letter of Theotmar of Salzburg and his suffragans evidences that around 900 the Moravians and the Bavarians accused each other of having formed alliances, even by taking oaths "by the means of a dog and a wolf and through other abominable and pagan customs", with the Hungarians. According to Liudprand of Cremona, the Hungarians already "claimed for themselves the nation of the Moravians, which King Arnulf had subdued with the aid of their might" at the coronation of Arnulf's son, Louis the Child in 900. The Annals of Grado adds that a large Hungarian army "attacked and invaded" the Moravians in 900. Facing the threat of further Hungarian attacks, Mojmir II concluded a peace treaty with Louis the Child in 901.
In lack of documentary evidence, the year in which Moravia ceased to exist cannot be determined with certainty. For instance, Róna-Tas writes that the Hungarians occupied Moravia in 902, Spinei says that this happened in 903 or 904, while according to Spiesz, the Moravian state ceased to exist in 907. The Raffelstetten Customs Regulations, which was issued in the years 903–906, still refers to the "markets of the Moravians", suggesting that Moravia still existed at that time. It is without doubt that no Moravian forces fought in the battle at Brezalauspurc where the Hungarians routed a large Bavarian force in 907.
The Moravian land, according to the prophecy of the holy archbishop Methodius, was promptly punished by God for their lawlessness and heresy, for the banishment of the orthodox fathers, and for the torments inflicted on the latter by the heretics with whom they acquiesced. In a few years the Magyars came, a people of Peonia, sacked their land and devastated it. But [Methodius's disciples] were not captured by the Magyars for they fled to the Bulgarians. However, the land remained desolate under the rule of the Magyars.— First Legend of Saint Naum
State and society
Written sources from the 9th century contain almost no information on the internal affairs of Moravia. Only two legal texts – the Nomocanon and the Court Law for the People – have been preserved. The former is a translation of a collection of Byzantine ecclesiastical law; the latter is based on the 8th-century Byzantine law code known as Ecloga. Both were compelled by Methodius shortly before his death in 885.
In addition to the study of early medieval chronicles and charters, archaeological research contributed to the understanding of the Moravian state and society. The Moravian centers at Mikulčice, Pohansko, and Staré Město were thoroughly excavated in the 1950s and 1960s. However, as Macháček writes, "the acquired huge amounts of finds and data still have to be properly processed".
Moravia was ruled by monarchs from a "wider kinship" known as the House of Mojmir. The throne rarely passed from father to son. Actually, Svatopluk I was the only ruler who was succeeded by his son. Rastislav ascended the throne through the East Frankish monarch's intervention, and Slavomir was elected as duke when the Franks captured Svatopluk in 871. The latter case reveals the strong claim of the Mojmir dynasty to the throne, because Slavomir was an ordained priest at the time of his election. The Moravian monarchs were regularly styled as ducis ("dukes"), occasionally as regis ("kings") in 9th-century documents. Tombs within a church have only been unearthed at Mikulčice, implying that royals had exclusive right to be buried in such a prestigious place.
The Annals of Fulda never refers to the Moravian monarchs as rulers of a state, but as heads of a people - dux Maravorum ("duke of the Moravians"). Accordingly, Macháček writes that "Great Moravia was not primarily organized on a territorial basis [...], but more likely on the foundation of real or fictitious kinship bonds within the tribal structure". On the other hand, Havlík says that Moravia was divided into counties each headed by "rich, honourable and well-born noblemen" whom he styles as zhupans; he even adds that the number of counties increased from 11 to 30 by the second half of the 9th century. Štefan adds that the existence of scattered groups of farmer warriors, which is suggested by archaeological research, implies the existence of administrative territorial units, because without such a system the monarchs could not organize their campaigns.
Svatopluk incorporated a number of Slavic tribes (including the Bohemians and Vistulans) into his empire. The subjugated tribes were administered by vassal princes or governors, but they preserved their autonomy, which contributed to the quick disintegration of Svatopluk's Moravia after his death. According to Bartl, Kirschbaum, Štefan, and other historians, Great Moravia had two centers. For instance, according to Havlík the terms "Moravian lands" (Moravьskskyję strany), "Upper Moravias" (vyšnьnii Moravě, vyšnьneję Moravy) and "Moravian realms" (regna Marahensium, regna Marauorum) which were used in 9th-century documents refer to the dualistic organisation of the Moravian state, consisting of the "Realm of Rastislav" (regnum Rastizi) and the "Realm of Svatopluk" (regnum Zwentibaldi). He and other historians identify the former with modern Moravia in the Czech Republic, and the latter with the Principality of Nitra in present-day Slovakia. However, this view is not universally accepted: Svatopluk's realm has also been identified with the wider region of Staré Město, or with the lands between the Danube and the Tisza or east of the Tisza.
The known sources contain records about 65 events related to warfare and Great Moravia. The most details is known from Frankish sources and are related Svatopluk's period. The structure of Great Moravian army was based mainly on an early feudal conception of military service, performed primary by the ruling elites.
The core of the Great Moravian army was a princely retinue composed of professional warriors, who were responsible for collecting tribute and punishing wrongdoers (družina). The družina consisted of members of aristocracy ("older retinue") and members of princely military groups ("younger retinue"). A part of members formed a permanent armed guard of the prince, the rest was garrisoned in the centres of the castle system or in other strategic points. The družina was probably relatively loyal and provided stable support for the prince since none information about its dissatisfaction or uprising is known. The stable part of the army had expressly cavalry character. The Great Moravian heavy cavalry emulated the contemporary Frankish predecessors of knights, with the expensive equipment that only the highest social strata could afford (a contemporary Arab traveler Ahmad ibn Fadlan reported that Svatopluk I had plenty of riding horses). A total size of družina is estimated by Ruttkay to 3.000-5.000 men. In the case of larger mobilisation, cavalry was enstrengthen by additional smaller units recruited from retinues of local magnates and from traditional communities (občina). The second part of armed forces (pohotovosť) consisted of lower classes of free citizens who were not in the most cases professional warriors. However, thanks to their large numbers and knowledge of the prevalent types of weapons they represented a serious military power. They played decisive role mainly during defence of Great Moravian territory, their participation on expansion wars was less usual. The army was led by the prince or, in case of his absence, by a commander-in-chief called voivode. A maximal size of the army can be estimated to 20.000-30.000 men. In the case of external aggression, ordinary people participated on the defence and diversion actions.
Typical weapon of a West Slavic infantryman was an axe with a specific shape, so called bradatica. Spears were used as universal weapons both by infantry and cavalry. The weapons associated with a nomadic (Avar) culture like sabres, reflexion bows and specific types of spears are missing. On the other hand, a military equipment became more influenced by western types and new types of weapons like double-edged swords (rare before the 9th century) became popular. Archers, unlike the previous period, were already a part of infantry.
Facing larger and better equipped Frankish armies, Slavs often preferred ambushes, skirmishes, and raids to regular battles.[verification needed] An important element of Great Moravian defense was to hide behind strong fortifications, which were difficult to besiege with the then prevailing forms of military organization. For example, a Frankish chronicler wrote with awe about the size of Rastislav's fortress ("firmissimum, ut feritur, vallum").
The existence of a local aristocracy is well documented: contemporaneous sources refer to "leading men" (optimates or primates), and nobiles viri or principes. However, these documents do not reveal what was the basis of the Moravian chiefs' power. Richly furnished graves – with the exception of the one at Blatnica, which is "an old and disputable find", according to Štefan – have only been unearthed in Mikulčice and other large fortifications controlled by the monarchs. Štefan writes that the concentration of prestige goods in the towns shows that "immediate contact with the sovereign, who certainly travelled between the centres, was apparently the best winning strategy for the top elite". On the other hand, the optimates had an important role in the government: the monarchs did not make important decisions without discussing it in a council formed by the Moravian "dukes".
Archaeological researches indicate that the Moravian population had ties with Iranian and Middle-Eastern territories. The ornaments and motives of the jewelries originated from the Near East, similar analogies were found in Syria, Egypt and Iran. The foot-wears were similar to the boots of Tabaristan. The buttons belonged to the Caucasian and Iranian types. The style of the abodes and types of domesticated animals, like horses, cattle and goats, were Middle Asian. The Moravian (glagolitic) script also carried eastern features. Some hypotheses propose that the Moymirid dynasty was of an Alanic stock. Muslim geographers, when describing the inhabitants of Great Moravia, mentioned that:
They are a numerous people and their dress resembles that of the Arabs, consisting of turban and shirt and overcoat. They have cultivated lands and seeds and vineyards (...).
They state that their number is greater than that of the Rum and that they are a separate nation. The greater part of their trade is with Arabia.
The analysis of early medieval cemeteries in Moravia shows that 40 percent of men and 60 percent of women died before reaching the age of 40. More than 40 percent of the graves contained the remains of children aged one to twelve. However, the cemeteries also document rich nutrition and advanced health care. For instance, a third of the examined skeletons had no caries or lost teeth, and bone fractures healed without dislocation.
The large 9th-century fortresses unearthed at Mikulčice and other places were located in the wider region of the confluence of the rivers Morava and Danube. Two important trade routes crossed this region in this period, the Danube and the ancient Amber Road, implying that these settlements, all lying on rivers, were important centers of commerce. Finds of tools, raw materials, and semi-manufactured goods show that quarters inhabited by craftsmen also exised in these settlements. The large fortresses were surrounded by a number of small villages where the locals were engaged in agriculture. They cultivated wheat, barley, millet and other cereals, and farmed cattle, pigs, sheep, and horse. Their animals were relatively small: for instance, their horses were not larger than modern Przewalski horses.
The existence of a general exchange medium in Moravia has not been proven: there is no sign of local coinage and foreign coins are scarce. According to Bialeková and other archaeologists, the axe-shaped ingots unearthed in great number in fortresses served as "premonetary currencies". This theory has not universally been accepted, because these objects have also been interpreted as "intermediate products intended for further treatment". The lack of coins caused, according to Macháček, that Moravian monarchs could not "effectively collect taxes, customs and fines", which weakened their international position.
Iron metallurgy and smithery were the most important branches of local industry. An example of highly developed tool production are asymmetrical plowshares. There is no sign of silver, gold, copper or lead mines in Moravia, but jewellery and weapons were produced locally. Accordingly, their prime material was acquired as loot or gift or brought to Moravia by merchants. Archaeological research also evidences the import of prestige goods, including silk, brocade and glass vessels. According to Štefan and Macháček, the Moravians primarily provided slaves, acquired as prisoners of war during their raids in the neighboring regions, in exchange for these luxury goods. For instance, Archbishop Thietmar of Salzburg accused the Moravians of "bringing noble men and honest women into slavery" during their campaigns in Pannonia. Slave trading is also well documtented: the First Legend of Naum narrates that many of Methodius's disciples "were sold for money to the Jews" after 885, and the Raffelstetten Customs Regulations makes mention of slaves delivered from Moravia to the west.
The Slavic princes partially owed their growing power to the well-defended fortresses of Moravia. In the 9th century Mikulčice, the central fortified area or Acropolis was set on an island in the Morava and surrounded by a stone-faced rampart that enclosed an area of 6 hectares. Another example is the fortress at Thunau am Kamp near Gars am Kamp, overlooking the river Kamp in Lower Austria. The defences here re-utilised banked defences of the Bronze Age and were only slightly smaller (fifty acres) than the area of the contemporary Frankish Emperor's capital of Regensburg. Though the only castles which are mentioned by name in written texts are Nitrawa (828; identified with Nitra), Dowina (864; sometimes identified with Devín Castle) and perhaps Brezalauspurc (907; sometimes identified with Bratislava Castle). Some sources claim that Uzhhorod in Ukraine (903) was also a fortress of the country.
Although location of the Great Moravian capital has not been identified, the fortified town of Mikulčice with its palace and 12 churches is the most widely accepted candidate. Devín Castle is sometimes identified with a "fortress of Prince Rastislav" mentioned in the Annales Fuldenses.
The population of Mikulčice lived off trade and crafts. Mikulčice was also a foremost religious centre, with the first stone churches built around 800. The largest among them was a three-nave basilica with the inside dimensions 35 m by 9 m and a separate baptistery. The only church safely identified as Great Moravian and at the same time still remaining above ground is Church of St. Margaret of Antioch in nearby Kopčany.
Nitra, the second center of the Empire, was ruled autonomously by the heir of the dynasty as an appanage. Nitra consisted of five large fortified settlements and twenty specialized craftsmen's villages, making it a real metropolis of its times. Crafts included production of luxury goods, such as jewelry and glass. The agglomeration was surrounded by a number of smaller forts and religious buildings (e.g. in Dražovce and Zobor).
Bratislava Castle had a stone two-story palace and a spacious three-nave basilica, built in the mid-9th century. Excavations of the cemetery situated by the basilica brought findings of the Great Moravian jewelry, similar in style and quality to that from Mikulčice. The castle's name was first recorded in 907, during the fall of Great Moravia, as Brezalauspurc. This name literally means either "Predslav's Castle" after a son of Svatopluk I who is mentioned in the Cividale del Friuli, or "Braslav's Castle" after Braslav of Pannonia, who was a count appointed by King Arnulf of East Francia.
The sturdy Devín Castle, in vicinity of Bratislava, guarded Great Moravia against attacks from the West. Although some authors claim that it was built only later as a stronghold of the Kings of Hungary, excavations have unearthed an older Slavic fortified settlement founded in the 8th century. During the Great Moravian period, Devín Castle was a seat of a local lord, whose retainers were buried around a stone Christian church. These two castles were reinforced by smaller fortifications in Devínska Nová Ves, Svätý Jur, and elsewhere.
Most Great Moravian castles were rather large hill forts, fortified by wooden palisades, stone walls and in some cases, moats. The typical Great Moravian ramparts combined an outer drystone wall with an internal timber structure filled with earth. The fortifications usually formed several contiguous enclosures, with the elite buildings concentrated in the center and crafts in the outer enclosures. Most buildings were made of timber, but ecclesiastical and residential parts were made of stone. Sometimes, earlier, prehistoric (Devín Castle) or Roman (Bratislava Castle) fortifications were integrated. At least some churches (e.g. in Bratislava, Devín Castle, and Nitra) were decorated by frescoes, plausibly painted by Italian masters since the chemical composition of colors was the same as in northern Italy. In Nitra and Mikulčice, several castles and settlements formed a huge fortified urban agglomeration. Many castles served as regional administrative centers, ruled by a local nobleman.[page needed] For example, Ducové was the center of the Váh river valley and Zemplín Castle controlled the Zemplín region. Their form was probably inspired by Carolingian estates called curtis. The largest castles were usually protected by a chain of smaller forts. Smaller forts (e.g. Beckov Castle) were also built to protect trade routes and to provide shelter for peasants in case of a military attack.
The archaeological evidence for the destruction and abandonment (lasting for a century or so in many cases) of the Moravian strongholds at this time is eloquent. Only a few examples of Great Moravian architecture are fully preserved or reconstructed. The only building still standing is the church in Kopčany, though several other early medieval churches (for example in Kostoľany pod Tribečom, Michalovce, and Nitra) may be Great Moravian too. Two open air museums, in Modrá near Uherské Hradiště and in Ducové, are devoted to Great Moravian architecture.
Due to the lack of written documents, very little is known about the original Slavic religion and mythology. Several cult places used prior the Christianization of Moravia are known from Moravia (Mikulčice and Pohansko). However, we do not know what these objects, such as a ring ditch with a fire, a horse sacrifice, or human limbs ritually buried in a cemetery, meant for Great Moravians. A cult object in Mikulčice was used until the evangelization of the Moravian elite in the mid-9th century and idols in Pohansko were raised on the site of a demolished church during the pagan backlash in the 10th century. The period of the Great Moravian ascent in European history is associated more with the spread of Christianity.
The territory of Great Moravia was originally evangelized by missionaries coming from the Frankish Empire or Byzantine enclaves in Italy and Dalmatia since the early 8th century and sporadically earlier. The first Christian church of the Western and Eastern Slavs known to the written sources was built in 828 by Pribina in Nitra. The church, consecrated by Bishop Adalram of Salzburg, was built in a style similar to contemporaneous Bavarian churches, while architecture of two Moravian churches from the early 9th century (in Mikulčice and Modrá) indicates influence of Irish missionaries. Despite the formal endorsement by the elites, the Great Moravian Christianity was described as containing many pagan elements as late as in 852. Grave goods, such as food, could be found even in church graveyards. The Church organization in Great Moravia was supervised by the Bavarian clergy until the arrival of the Byzantine missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius in 863.
In 880, the pope ordained a Swabian monk, named Wiching, to be the bishop of the newly established see of Nitra ("sancta ecclesia Nitriensis"). Some experts (e.g. Szőke Béla Miklós) say that the location of the seat of 9th century diocese is dissimilar from the present-day Nitra. Big three-nave basilicas unearthed in Mikulčice, Staré Město, Bratislava, and Nitra were the most important ecclesiastical centers of the country, but their very construction may have predated the Byzantine mission.[page needed] Nitra and Uherské Hradiště are also sites where monastic buildings have been excavated. A church built at Devín Castle is clearly inspired by Byzantine churches in Macedonia (from where Cyril and Methodius came) and rotundas, particularly popular among Great Moravian nobles, also have their direct predecessors in the Balkans.[page needed]
But yields of the mission of Cyril and Methodius extended beyond the religious and political sphere. The Old Church Slavonic became the fourth liturgical language of the Christian world. However, after Methodius's death (885) all his followers were expelled from Great Moravia and the use of the Slavic liturgy in Great Moravia was an episode in its history which lasted only about 22 years. Its late form still remains the liturgical language of the Russian, Bulgarian, Polish, Macedonian and Serbian Orthodox Church. Cyril also invented the Glagolitic alphabet, suitable for Slavic languages. He translated the Gospel and the first translation of the Bible into a Slavic language was later completed by his brother Methodius.
Methodius wrote the first Slavic legal code, combining the local customary law with the advanced Byzantine law. Similarly, the Great Moravian criminal law code was not merely a translation from Latin, but it also punished a number of offenses originally tolerated by the pre-Christian Slavic moral standards yet prohibited by Christianity (mostly related to sexual life). The canon law was simply adopted from the Byzantine sources.
There are not many literary works that can be unambiguously identified as originally written in Great Moravia. One of them is Proglas, a cultivated poem in which Cyril defends the Slavic liturgy. Vita Cyrilli (attributed to Clement of Ohrid) and Vita Methodii (written probably by Methodius' successor Gorazd) are biographies with precious information about Great Moravia under Rastislav and Svatopluk I.
The brothers also founded an academy, initially led by Methodius, which produced hundreds of Slavic clerics. A well-educated class was essential for administration of all early-feudal states and Great Moravia was no exception. Vita Methodii mentions bishop of Nitra as Svatopluk I’s chancellor and even Prince Koceľ of the Balaton Principality was said to master the Glagolitic script. Location of the Great Moravian academy has not been identified, but the possible sites include Mikulčice (where some styli have been found in an ecclesiastical building), Devín Castle (with a building identified as a probable school), and Nitra (with its Episcopal basilica and monastery). When Methodius’ disciples were expelled from Great Moravia in 885, they disseminated their knowledge (including the Glagolitic script) to other Slavic countries, such as Bulgaria, Croatia, and Bohemia. They created the Cyrillic script, which became the standard alphabet in the Kievan Rus' (modern day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus). The Great Moravian cultural heritage survived in Bulgarian seminaries, paving the way for Christianization of Kievan Rus'.
In the first half of the 9th century, Great Moravian craftsmen were inspired by contemporary Carolingian art. In the second half of the 9th century, Great Moravian jewelry was influenced by Byzantine, Eastern Mediterranean, and Adriatic styles. But, in the words of Czech archaeologist Josef Poulík, "these new forms and techniques were not copied passively, but were transformed in the local idiom, establishing in this way the roots of the distinctive Great Moravian jewellery style." The typical Great Moravian jewelry included silver and golden earrings decorated by fine granular filigree, as well as silver and gilded bronze buttons covered by foliate ornaments.
Great Moravian centers (e.g., Bratislava (Pozsony, Pressburg), Nitra (Nyitra), Tekov (Bars), and Zemplín (Zemplén)) also retained their functions afterwards, although the identification of Bratislava, Tekov and Zemplín as Great Moravian castles is not generally accepted.[clarification needed] Several sources suggest that the Hungarian rulers followed the contemporary German or Bulgar patents when they established the new administrative system in their kingdom, or they introduced a new system.
Social differentiation in Great Moravia reached the state of early feudalism, creating the social basis for development of later medieval states in the region. The question what happened to Great Moravian noble families after 907 is still under debate. On the one hand, recent research indicates that a significant part of the local aristocracy remained more or less undisturbed by the fall of Great Moravia and their descendants became nobles in the newly formed Kingdom of Hungary. The most prominent example are the powerful families of Hunt and Pázmán. On the other hand, both Anonymous and Simon of Kéza, two chroniclers of the early history of Hungary, recorded that the prominent noble families of the kingdom descended either from leaders of the Magyar tribes or from immigrants, and they did not connect any of them to Great Moravia. For example, the ancestors of the clan Hunt-Pázmán (Hont-Pázmány), whose Great Moravian origin has been advanced by Slovak scholars, were mentioned by Simon of Kéza to have arrived from the Duchy of Swabia to the kingdom in the late 10th century.
Many Slavic words related to politics, law, and agriculture were taken into the Hungarian language as loanwords, however, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether a certain word was borrowed from which Slavic language; e.g., the Hungarian word for county ("megye") was borrowed from a South Slavic language, but it may have taken either from the Slovene or from the Serbo-Croatian.
The territories mentioned as "Tercia pars regni" (literally "one-third part of the Kingdom of Hungary") in the medieval sources are referred to as the "Duchy" in Hungarian scholarly works and as the "Principality of Nitra" in Slovak academic sources. These territories were ruled autonomously by members of the Árpád dynasty residing in Bihar (today Biharea in Romania) or in Nitra - a practice reminiscent of the Great Moravian appanage system, but also similar to that of some other dynasties in the Early Middle Ages (e.g., the Ruriks in the Kievan Rus'). The existence of an autonomous political unit centered around Nitra is often considered by Slovak scholars an example of political continuity from the Great Moravian period.
There are also documents indicating that the Church organization survived the invasion of the pagan Magyars at least to some degree.
Great Moravia also became a prominent theme of the Czech and Slovak romantic nationalism of the 19th century. The Byzantine double-cross thought to have been brought by Cyril and Methodius is part of the symbol of Slovakia until today and the Constitution of Slovakia refers to Great Moravia in its preamble. Interest about that period rose as a result of the national revival in the 19th century. Great Moravian history has been regarded as a cultural root of several Slavic nations in Central Europe and it was employed in attempts to create a single Czechoslovak identity in the 20th century.
Although the source cited above and other sources mention that Great Moravia disappeared without trace and that its inhabitants left for the Bulgars, with Croats and Magyars following their victories, archaeological research and toponyms suggest the continuity of Slavic population in the valleys of the rivers of the Inner Western Carpathians. Toponyms may prove that the semi-nomadic Magyars occupied the Western Pannonian Plain in present-day Slovakia, while the hills were inhabited by a mixed (Slav and Hungarian) population, and people living in the valleys of the mountains spoke Slavic language.
Moreover, there are sporadic references to Great Moravia from later years: in 924/925, both Folkuin in his Gesta abb. Lobiensium and Ruotger in Archiepiscopi Coloniensis Vita Brunonis mention Great Moravia. In 942, Magyar warriors captured in Al Andalus said that Moravia is the northern neighbor of their people. The fate of the northern and western parts of former Great Moravia in the 10th century is thus largely unclear.
As for the eastern part of the Great Moravian core territory (present-day Slovakia) fell under domination of the Hungarian Árpád dynasty. The northwest borders of the Principality of Hungary became a mostly uninhabited or sparsely inhabited land. This was the Hungarian gyepűelve, and it can be considered as a march that effectively lasted until the mid-13th century. The rest remained under the rule of the local Slavic aristocracy and was gradually integrated into the Kingdom of Hungary in a process finished in the 14th century. In 1000 or 1001, all of present-day Slovakia was taken over by Poland under Boleslav I, and much of this territory became part of the Kingdom of Hungary by 1031.
- Boba also claimed that none of the modern names of Nitra could develop from a "Nitrava" form  (see also etymology of Nitra). The problem of shortening Nitrava to Nitra was addressed by several etymologists already before publication of Boba's work, including a Hungarian linguist of the Slovak origin János Melich. His theory was under discussion with other etymologists already in the 1930s. Boba's linguistic approach is not compliant either with later onomastic research which suggests that Nitra was the primary form of the place name and "Nitrava" is only the secondary name. Both forms were recorded already in the 9th century. The Nitrava form was recorded in a note to the Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, written around 870; it says that the Moravians occupied the town already during the reign of Mojmir I of Moravia, in the 830s. The other form (civitas Nitrensis) was mentioned in a letter written also by Salzburg clerics around 900, which says that it was conquered only by Mojmir's third successor, Svatopluk I. The Czech historian Dušan Třeštík says that the association of Nitra with Nitrava cannot be challenged. Along with other arguments, the name of the location is derived from Nitra River, which fits well into the system of Indo-European toponyms; other rivers with similar names are not known.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 1.
- Barford 2001, pp. 108-112.
- Curta 2006, pp. 124-133.
- Bartl et al. 2002, p. 237.
- Drulák 2012, p. 91.
- Rogers 2010, p. 293.
- Collins 2010, p. 402.
- Elvins, Mark Twinham (1994). Towards a People's Liturgy: The Importance of Language.
- Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (ch. 13., 38., 40.), pp. 64-65., 172-173., 176-177.
- Barford 2001, p. 109.
- Štefan 2011, p. 333.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 10.
- Goldberg 2006, p. 138.
- Havlík 2004, p. 227.
- Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (ch. 40), p. 177.
- Bowlus 2009, p. 312.
- Havlík 2013, p. 354-355.
- Macháček 2009, p. 261.
- Curta 2006, pp. 126-128.
- Curta 2006, p. 130.
- Betti 2013, pp. 144-145.
- King Alfred's Anglo-Saxon Version of Orosius (ch. 1.1.12), pp. 35-37.
- Betti 2013, p. 145.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 35.
- Macháček 2012, p. 11.
- Curta 2006, p. 128.
- Barford 2001, pp. 109-110.
- Barford 2001, p. 110.
- Poulík 1978, p. 160.
- Szőke 2007, p. 412.
- Marsina 2000, p. 156.
- Meřínský 2006, p. 743.
- Marsina 2000, p. 157.
- McCornick 2001, p. 189.
- Macháček 2009, p. 263.
- Bowlus 2009, pp. 312-313.
- Macháček 2009, p. 261-262.
- Curta 2006, pp. 126, 128-129.
- Boba 1993, pp. 86-103.
- Boba 1993, p. 26.
- Štefanovičová 2000, p. 6.
- Betti 2013, p. 32.
- Boba 1993, p. 134.
- Hladký 2008, pp. 77.
- Krajčovič 2005, p. 20.
- Závodný 2008, pp. 49-51.
- Hladký 2008, pp. 76-79.
- Bowlus 1994, pp. 105, 194.
- Třeštík 2010, p. 123.
- Betti 2013, p. 189.
- Marsina 2000, p. 154.
- Püspöki-Nagy 1978, pp. 60-82.
- Senga 1983, pp. 307-345.
- Senga 1982, p. 535.
- Marsina 1995, p. 9.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 32.
- Bowlus 2009, p. 194.
- Třeštík 2010, p. 116.
- Bowlus 2009, p. 313.
- Macháček 2009, p. 262.
- Eggers 1995, p. 358.
- Eggers 1995, p. 286.
- Třeštík 1996.
- Marsina 1999.
- Štefanovičová 2000.
- Macháček 2009.
- Herwig 1995, pp. 3-15.
- Třeštík 1996, p. 87.
- Marsina 2000, p. 163.
- Zábojník 2009, p. 10.
- Odler 2012, p. 50.
- Třeštík 1996, p. 91.
- Curta 2006, pp. 132-133.
- Macháček 2009, p. 265.
- Bartl et al. 2002, p. 18.
- Barford 2001, pp. 53, 291.
- Spiesz & Caplovic 2006, p. 17.
- Barford 2001, pp. 53, 63-64.
- Curta 2006, pp. xii, 62-63.
- Barford 2001, pp. 57-58.
- Barford 2001, p. 79.
- Kirschbaum 2005, pp. 18-19.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 19.
- Spiesz & Caplovic 2006, pp. 17, 310.
- Marsina 1997, p. 18.
- Barford 2001, pp. 79-80.
- Barford 2001, p. 78.
- Curta 2006, pp. 92-93.
- Curta 2006, p. 92.
- Kristó 1996, p. 93.
- Havlík 2004, p. 228.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 20.
- Spiesz & Caplovic 2006, p. 19.
- Royal Frankish Annals (year 805), p. 84.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 57.
- Bowlus 2009, p. 317.
- Macháček 2009, p. 264.
- Barford 2001, pp. 108-109.
- Spiesz & Caplovic 2006, p. 20.
- Dekan 1981, p. 10.
- Barford 2001, p. 108.
- Angi 1997, p. 360.
- Poulík 1978, p. 159.
- Royal Frankish Annals (year 811), p. 94.
- Bowlus 1994, pp. 60-61.
- Royal Frankish Annals (year 822), pp. 111-112.
- Havlík 1992, p. 229.
- Vlasto 1970, pp. 24, 326-327.
- Bowlus 2009, pp. 314-315.
- Spiesz & Caplovic 2006, p. 310.
- Bowlus 2009, pp. 106-107.
- Curta 2006, pp. 133-134.
- Bowlus 2009, pp. 101, 104.
- Urbańczyk 2005, p. 145.
- Havlík 2013, p. 103.
- Třeštík 2010, p. 131.
- Vlasto 1970, p. 24.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 25.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 11.
- Goldberg 2006, pp. 135-136.
- Havlík 2013, p. 109.
- Steinhübel 2011, p. 54.
- Třeštík 2010, pp. 132-35.
- Vlasto 1970, p. 20.
- Püspöki-Nagy 1978, p. 15.
- Senga 1983, pp. 318.
- Goldberg 2006, p. 136.
- Opačić, Zoë, Great Moravia, retrieved 2014-10-12
- Bowlus 1994, p. 159.
- Sommer, Třeštík & Žemlička Opačić, p. 221.
- The Life of Methodius (ch. 5.), p. 111.
- Poulík 1978, p. 161.
- The Life of Constantine (ch. 15.), p. 69.
- The Annals of Fulda (year 846), p. 25.
- Goldberg 2006, p. 140.
- Vlasto 1970, p. 25.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 26.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 27.
- Goldberg 2006, p. 242.
- Spiesz & Caplovic 2006, p. 20-21.
- The Annals of Fulda (year 855), p. 37.
- Bartl et al. 2002, pp. 19-20.
- Barford 2001, p. 115.
- Mahoney 2011, p. 25.
- Budd, Joseph P. (2009). "We do know English: Philadelphia’s Czechoslovak Presbyterian Church of Jan Hus, 1926-1967" (PDF). University of Delaware. Retrieved 2013-09-17.
- Bartl et al. 2002, p. 20.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 126.
- Kristó 1996, p. 133.
- The Annals of St-Bertin (year 862), p. 102
- Obolensky 1994, p. 44.
- Vlasto 1970, p. 37-39.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 30.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 140.
- The Annals of Fulda (year 864), p. 51.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 29.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 155.
- The Annals of Fulda (year 865), p. 53.
- Vlasto 1970, pp. 55-56.
- Vlasto 1970, p. 66.
- The Life of Methodius (ch. 8.), p. 117.
- Vlasto 1970, p. 67.
- Goldberg 2006, p. 284.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 161.
- The Annals of Fulda (year 869), p. 60.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 31.
- Bartl et al. 2002, p. 21.
- Havlík 2004, p. 232.
- Goldberg & Macháček 2009, p. 257.
- Goldberg 2006, p. 312.
- The Annals of Fulda (year 874), p. 75.
- Goldberg 2006, p. 325.
- The Life of Methodius (ch. 10.), p. 119.
- Poulík 1978, pp. 161-162.
- Curta 2006, p. 126.
- Vlasto 1970, p. 78.
- Poulík 1970, pp. 71-73.
- Poulík 1970, pp. 71, 73-74.
- Bowlus 1994, pp. 194, 337.
- Spiesz & Caplovic 2006, p. 24.
- The Life of Methodius (ch. 11.), p. 119.
- Curta 2006, pp. 129-130.
- Bowlus 1994, pp. 192, 194.
- Kirschbaum 1995, p. 29.
- The Sts. Cyril and Methodius Parish
- Kristó 1996, pp. 150, 175.
- Kristó 1996, p. 150.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 238.
- Bowlus 1994, pp. 238, 338.
- The Annals of Fulda (Regensburg version, year 884), p. 109.
- Bowlus 1994, pp. 208-216.
- The Annals of Fulda (Regensburg version, year 884), p. 110.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 212.
- Bartl et al. 2002, p. 22.
- Havlík 2004, p. 234.
- Vlasto 1970, p. 81.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 189.
- Curta 2006, p. 14.
- The Chronicle of Regino of Prüm (year 890), p. 207.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 222.
- The Annals of Fulda (year 892), p. 123.
- Kristó 1996, p. 175.
- The Chronicle of Regino of Prüm (year 894), p. 218.
- Spiesz & Caplovic 2006, p. 25.
- Vlasto 1970, p. 83.
- Barford 2001, p. 253.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 34.
- Bartl et al. 2002, p. 23.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 337.
- Sommer, Třeštík & Žemlička Opačić, p. 324.
- The Annals of Fulda (year 899), p. 159.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 243.
- Štefan 2011, p. 344.
- Curta 2006, pp. xviii, 178-179.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 175-176.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 338.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 178, 198.
- Liudprand of Cremona: Retribution (2.2), p. 75.
- Kristó 1996a, p. 200.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 246.
- Bowlus 1994, p. 250.
- Spinei 2003, p. 69.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 338.
- Havlík 2013, p. 297.
- Petkov 2008, pp. 106-107.
- Macháček 2012, p. 7.
- Štefan 2011, p. 334.
- Havlík 2004, p. 233.
- Štefan 2011, p. 335.
- Macháček 2012, p. 12.
- Štefan 2011, p. 339.
- Marsina 1997, p. 15.
- Senga 1983, p. 321.
- Püspöki-Nagy 1978, p. 9.
- Ruttkay 1997, p. 177.
- Barford, P. M. (2001). The early Slavs : culture and society in early medieval Eastern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
- Ruttkay 1997, p. 181.
- Dvořáková, Daniela (2007). Kôň a človek v stredoveku: K spolužitiu človeka a koňa v Uhorskom kráľovstve. Budmerice: Rak.
- Havlík, Lubomír E. (1989). "Great Moravia between the Franconians, Byzantium and Rome". In Champion, T. Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. London, Boston: Routledge. pp. 227–237.
- Ruttkay 1997, p. 184.
- Curta, Florin (2001). History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Goldberg 2006, p. 245.
- The Annals of Fulda (years 864 and 901), pp. 51., 142.
- Bowlus 1994, pp. 140, 248.
- Macháček 2012, p. 13.
- Champion 1995, p. 232.
- László, Gyula (1996). The Magyars - Their Life and Civilisation. Corvina. p. 194. ISBN 963-13-4226-3.
- Dvornik, Francis (1956). The Slavs: their early history and civilization. Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
- Barford 2001, p. 114.
- Štefan 2011, p. 342.
- Macháček 2009, p. 252.
- Barford 2001, p. 185.
- Štefan 2011, p. 340.
- Barford 2001, pp. 155, 157.
- Barford 2001, p. 157.
- Barford 2001, p. 182.
- Macháček 2012, pp. 12, 15.
- Štefan 2011, p. 343.
- Macháček 2012, p. 15.
- Petkov 2008, p. 106.
- Goldberg 2006, p. 145.
- Goldberg 2006, p. 122.
- Bartoňková Dagmar; et al., eds. (1969). "Libellus de conversione Bagoariorum et Carantanorum (i.e. Conversio)". Magnae Moraviae fonts historic III. Praha: Statni pedagogic nail.
- Kristó 1994, p. 553
- Annales Fuldenses, sive, Annales regni Francorum orientalis ab Einhardo, Ruodolfo, Meginhardo Fuldensibus, Seligenstadi, Fuldae, Mogontiaci conscripti cum continuationibus Ratisbonensi et Altahensibus / post editionem G.H. Pertzii recognovit Friderious Kurze ; Accedunt Annales Fuldenses antiquissimi. Hannover: Hahn. 1978. Retrieved 2009-10-09.
- Špiesz, Anton (2001). Bratislava v stredoveku. Bratislava: Perfekt.
- Bruce-Mitford, Rupert Leo Scott; Poulík, Josef; Holmqvist, Wilhelm (1975). Recent Archaeological Excavations in Europe. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0-7100-7963-X.
- Poulík, Josef (1975). Mikulčice: Sídlo a pevnost knížat velkomoravských. Praha: Academia.
- Čaplovič, Dušan; Viliam Čičaj; Dušan Kováč; Ľubomír Lipták; Ján Lukačka (2000). Dejiny Slovenska. Bratislava: AEP.
- Poulik, Josef (1978). "The Origins of Christianity in Slavonic Countries North of the Middle Danube Basin". World Archaeology 10 (2): 158–171. doi:10.1080/00438243.1978.9979728.
- Tibenský, Ján (1971). Slovensko: Dejiny. Bratislava: Obzor.
- "Kostol sv. Margity Antiochijskej v kopčanoch". Retrieved 2007-06-21.
- Marsina, Richard (1997). "Ethnogenesis of Slovaks". Human Affairs 7 (1): 15–23.
- Štefanovičová 1989, p. 89-90.
- Kristó, Gyula (1993). A Kárpát-medence és a magyarság régmultja (1301-ig) (The ancient history of the Carpathian Basin and the Hungarians - till 1301). Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely. ISBN 963-04-2914-4.
- Havlík 2013, p. 301.
- Štefanovičová 1989, p. 92.
- Kristó 1994, p. 167
- Engel, Pál (1996). Magyarország világi archontológiája (1301-1457) I. Budapest: História - MTA Történettudományi Intézete. p. 300. ISBN 963-8312-44-0.
- Štefanovičová 1989, pp. 115,119.
- Štefanovičová 1989.
- Štefanovičová 1989, p. 96, 100.
- Štefanovičová 1989, p. 120.
- Sommer, Petr; Dusan Trestik; Josef Zemlicka (2007). "Bohemia and Moravia". In Berend, Nora. Christianization and the rise of Christian monarchy : Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' c. 900-1200. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 214–262.
- Stanislav, Ján (1934). Životy slovanských apoštolov Cyrila a Metoda. Panonsko-moravské legendy. Bratislava, Praha: Vydané spoločne nakladateľstvom Slovenskej ligy a L. Mazáča. Retrieved 2009-10-09.
- Cibulka, Josef (1958). Velkomoravský kostel v Modré u Velehradu a začátky křesťanství na Moravě. Praha: ČSAV.
- Philip Schaff. History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073. CCEL. pp. 161–162. ISBN 978-1-61025-043-6. Retrieved 15 June 2013.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 32.
- Hosszú 2012, p. 317.
- Štefanovičová 1989, p. 111.
- Naklada Naprijed, The Croatian Adriatic Tourist Guide, pg. 114, Zagreb (1999), ISBN 953-178-097-8
- Milan Strhan, David P. Daniel, Slovakia and the Slovaks: a concise encyclopedia, Encyclopedical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1994 , p. 229
- Kristó 1994, pp. 84, 553, 743
- Kristó 1988, pp. 21–100
- Kučera, Matúš (1974). Slovensko po páde Veľkej Moravy. Bratislava: Veda.
- Lukačka, Ján (2002). Formovanie vyššej šľachty na západnom Slovensku. Bratislava: Mistrál.
- Kristó 1988, p. 269
- Fügedi, Erik (1986). Ispánok, bárók, kiskirályok (Counts, barons and petty kings). Budapest: Magvető Könyvkiadó. pp. 12, 24. ISBN 963-14-0582-6.
- Benda, Gyula; Bertényi, Iván; Pótó, János (editors) (2004). Anonymus: A magyarok cselekedetei – Kézai Simon: A magyarok cselekedetei (Anonymous: The Deeds of the Hungarians – Simon of Kéza: The Deeds of Hungarians). Budapest: Osiris. pp. 120–122. ISBN 963-389-606-1.
- Kristó 1994, p. 646
- Kristó 1994, pp. 103, 261
- Heller, Mihail (2000). Orosz történelem - Az Orosz Birodalom története (Russian History - A History of the Russian Empire). Budapest: Osiris Kiadó. p. 37. ISBN 963-379-243-6.
- Ján, Steinhübel (2004). Nitrianske kniežatstvo: Počiatky stredovekého Slovenska. Budmerice: Rak. ISBN 80-224-0812-3.
- Kirschbaum 2005, p. 130.
- Kristó 1996a, pp. 131–132, 141
- Kniezsa 2000, p. 26
- Kniezsa 1998, Map
- Pástor, Zoltán (2000). Dejiny Slovenska: Vybrané kapitoly. Banská Bystrica: Univerzita Mateja Bela.
- Kirschbaum 2005.
- Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (Greek text edited by Gyula Moravcsik, English translation by Romillyi J. H. Jenkins) (1967). Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies. ISBN 0-88402-021-5.
- "King Alfred's Anglo-Saxon Version of Orosius" (1852). In Giles, J. A. The Whole Works of King Alfred the Great, with Preliminary Essays Illustrative of the History, Arts, and Manners, of the Ninth Century, Volume 2 (Jubilee Edition, 3 vols). J.F. Smith for the Alfred Committee.
- "Liudprand of Cremona: Retribution" (2007). In: The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona (Translated by Paolo Squatriti); The Catholic University of Press; ISBN 978-0-8132-1506-8.
- The Annals of Fulda (Ninth-Century Histories, Volume II) (Translated and annotated by Timothy Reuter) (1992). Manchaster University Press. ISBN 0-7190-3458-2.
- The Annals of St-Bertin (Ninth-Century Histories, Volume I) (Translated and annotated by Janet L. Nelson) (1991). Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-3426-8.
- The Chronicle of Regino of Prüm (2009). In: History and Politics in Late Carolingian and Ottonian Europe: The Chronicle of Regino of Prüm and Adalbert of Magdeburg (Translated and annotated by Simon MacLean); Manchester University Press; ISBN 978-0-7190-7135-5.
- "The Life of Constantine" (1983). In Medieval Slavic Lives of Saints and Princes (Marvin Kantor) [Michigan Slavic Translation 5]. University of Michigan. pp. 23–96. ISBN 0-930042-44-1.
- "The Life of Methodius" (1983). In Medieval Slavic Lives of Saints and Princes (Marvin Kantor) [Michigan Slavic Translation 5]. University of Michigan. pp. 97–138. ISBN 0-930042-44-1.
- "The Royal Frankish Annals" In Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard's Histories (Translated by Bernhard Walter Scholz with Barbara Rogers) (2006). The University of Michigan Press. pp. 35–126. ISBN 0-472-06186-0.
Primary documents can be found in the following volumes:
- Havlík, Lubomír E. (1966–1977). Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici I.-V., Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
- Marsina, Richard (1971). Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae I., Bratislava: Veda.
- Ratkoš, Peter (1964). Pramene k dejinám Veľkej Moravy, Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied.
- Angi, János (1997). "A nyugati szláv államok [=Western Slavic states]". In Pósán, László; Papp, Imre; Bárány, Attila; Orosz, István; Angi, János. Európa a korai középkorban ["Europe in the Early Middle Ages"]. Multiplex Media - Debrecen University Press. pp. 358–365. ISBN 963-04-9196-6.
- Barford, P. M. (2001). The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-3977-9.
- Bartl, Július; Čičaj, Viliam; Kohútova, Mária; Letz, Róbert; Segeš, Vladimír; Škvarna, Dušan (2002). Slovak History: Chronology & Lexicon. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Slovenské Pedegogické Nakladatel'stvo. ISBN 0-86516-444-4.
- Betti, Maddalena (2013). The Making of Christian Moravia (858-882): Papal Power and Political Reality. Brill. pp. 27–34. ISBN 978-9-004-26008-5.
- Boba, Imre (1971). Moravia's History Reconsidered: A Reinterpretation of Medieval Sources. Martinus Nijhoff. ISBN 978-90-247-5041-2.
- Bowlus, Charles R. (1994). Franks, Moravians and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788–907. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3276-3.
- Bowlus, Charles R. (2009). "Nitra: when did it become a part of the Moravian realm? Evidence in the Frankish sources". Early Medieval Europe (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd) 17 (3): 311–328. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0254.2009.00279.x. Retrieved 2013-08-27.
- Champion, Tim (1995). Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-203-98515-1.
- Collins, Roger (2010). Early Medieval Europe, 300-1000. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-113-7014-28-3.
- Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4.
- Dekan, Ján (1981). Moravia Magna: The Great Moravian Empire, Its Art and Time. Control Data Arts. ISBN 0-89893-084-7.
- Drulák, Petr (2012). "Czech geopolitics: struggling for survival". In Guzzini, Stefano. The Return of Geopolitics in Europe? - Social Mechanisms and Foreign Policy Identity Crises. Cambridge University Press. pp. 77–100. ISBN 978-1-107-02734-3.
- Goldberg, Eric J. (2006). Struggle for Empire: Kingship and Conflict under Louis the German, 817–876. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-7529-0.
- Havlík, Lubomír E. (2013). Kronika o Velké Moravě [=Chronicle of Great Moravia]. Jota. ISBN 80-85617-04-8.
- Havlík, Lubomír E. (1994). Svatopluk Veliký, král Moravanů a Slovanů [Svatopluk the Great, King of the Moravians and Slavs]. Jota. ISBN 80-85617-19-6.
- Havlík, Lubomír E. (2004). "Great Moravia between the Franconians, Byzantium and Rome". In Champion, T. C. Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. Routledge. pp. 227–237. ISBN 0-415-12253-8.
- Hosszú, Gábor (2012). Heritage of Scribes: The Relation of Rovas Scripts to Eurasian Writing Systems. Dr Gábor Hosszú. p. 317. ISBN 9789638843746.
- Kirschbaum, Stanislav J. (2005). A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival. Palgarve Macmillan. ISBN 1-40396929-9.
- Kristó, Gyula (1996). Hungarian History in the Ninth Century. Szegedi Középkorász Műhely. ISBN 1-4039-6929-9.
- Kučera, Matúš (1974). Slovensko po páde Veľkej Moravy, Bratislava: Veda.
- Lukačka, Ján (2002). Formovanie vyššej šľachty na západnom Slovensku, Bratislava: Mistrál.
- Macháček, Jiří (2009). "Disputes over Great Moravia: chiefdom or state? the Morava or the Tisza River?". Early Medieval Europe (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd) 17 (3): 248–267. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0254.2009.00276.x. Retrieved 2013-08-30.
- Macháček, Jiří (2012). ""Great Moravian state"–a controversy in Central European medieval studies". Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana (Saint-Petersburg, RU: Publishing House of the History Department of the Saint-Petersburg State University) 11 (1): 5–26. Retrieved 2013-08-30.
- McCornick, Michael (2001). Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, AD 300-900. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-66102-1.
- Mahoney, William M. (2011). The History of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313363054.
- Marsina, Richard (1997). "Ethnogenesis of Slovaks" (PDF). Human Affairs (Bratislava, SLO: Slovak Academy of Sciences, Department of Social & Biological Communication) 7 (1): 15–23. Retrieved 2013-08-31.
- Marsina, Richard (1995). Nové pohľady historickej vedy na Slovenské dejiny. 1. Najstaršie obdobie slovenských dejín (do prelomu 9.-10. storočia) (in Slovak). Bratislava: Metodické centrum mesta Bratislavy. ISBN 80-7164-069-7.
- Marsina, Richard (1999). "Najstaršia poloha Veľkej Moravy". Slovensko a európsky juhovýchod: medzikultúrne vztahy a kontexty (zborník k životnému jubileu Tatiany Štefanovicovej) (in Slovak). Bratislava, SLO: Katedra všeobecných dejín a Katedra archeológie FFUK. ISBN 809673914X.
- Marsina, Richard (2000). "Where was Great Moravia". In Kováč, Dušan. Slovak Contributions to 19th International Congress of Historical Sciences. Bratislava: VEDA, Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied. ISBN 80-224-0665-1.
- Meřínský, Zdeněk (2006). České země od příchodu Slovanů po Velkou Moravu II. [The Czech Lands since the arrival of the Slavs to Great Moravia] (in Czech). Prague: Libry. ISBN 80-7277-105-1.
- Obolensky, Dimitri (1994). Byzantium and the Slavs. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. ISBN 0-88141-008-X.
- Odler, Martin (2012). "Avarské sídliská v strednej Európe: problémová bilancia" [Avar Settlements in Central Europe: the Balance of the Problem]. In Klápště, Jan. Studia mediaevalia Pragensia 11 (in Slovak). Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze – Nakladatelství Karolinum. ISBN 978-80-246-2107-4.
- Petkov, Kiril (2008). The Voices of Medieval Bulgaria, Seventh-Fifteenth Century: The Records of a Bygone Culture. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-16831-2.
- Poulík, Josef (1975). Mikulčice: Sídlo a pevnost knížat velkomoravských, Praha.
- Poulík, Josef (1978). "The origins of Christianity in Slavonic countries north of the Middle Danube Basin". World Archaeology (Taylor&Francis) 10 (2): 158–171. doi:10.1080/00438243.1978.9979728. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
- Püspöki-Nagy, Péter (1978). "Nagymorávia fekvéséről [=On the location of Great Moravia]". Valóság (Tudományos Ismeretterjesztő Társulat) XXI (11): 60–82.
- Rogers, Clifford, ed. (2010). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-019-5334-03-6.
- Róna-Tas, András (1999). Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: An Introduction to Early Hungarian History. CEU Press. ISBN 978-963-9116-48-1.
- Ruttkay, Alexander (1997). "O veľkomoravskom vojenstve s osobitným zreteľom na obdobie vlády Svätopluka" [About the Great Moravian Warfare With a Special Attention to the Reign of Svätopluk]. In Marsina, Richard; Ruttkay, Alexander. Svätopluk 894 - 1994. Nitra. ISBN 80-88709-34-2.
- Sedlák, Vincent (2005). "Onomastika a historiografia". In Fábrová, Karin. Príspevky k slovenským dejinám. Prešov. pp. 17–28. ISBN 80-8068-330-1.
- Senga, Toru (1983). "Morávia bukása és a honfoglaló magyarok [=The fall of Moravia and the Hungarians occupying the Carpathian Basin]". Századok (Magyar Történelmi Társulat) (2): 307–345.
- Sommer, Petr; Třeštík, Dušan; Žemlička, Josef; Opačić, Zoë (2007). "Bohemia and Moravia". In Berend, Nora. Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus', c.900-1200. Cambridge University Press. pp. 214–262. ISBN 978-0-521-87616-2.
- Spiesz, Anton; Caplovic, Dusan (2006). Illustrated Slovak History: A Struggle for Sovereignty in Central Europe. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. ISBN 978-0-86516-426-0.
- Spinei, Victor (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century. Translated by Dana Badulescu. ISBN 973-85894-5-2.
- Steinhübel, Ján (2011). "The Duchy of Nitra". In Teich, Mikuláš; Kováč, Dušan; Brown, Martin D. Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 15–29. ISBN 978-0-521-80253-6.
- Steinhübel, Ján (2011). Kapitoly z najstarších dejín českých 531–1004 [=Chapters from the oldest Czech history 531–1004]. Spolok Slovákov v Poľsku – Towarzystwo Słowakow w Polsce. ISBN 978-83-7490-370-7.
- Štefan, Ivo (2011). "Great Moravia, Statehood and Archaeology: The "Decline and Fall" of One Early Medieval Polity". In Macháček, Jiří; Ungerman, Šimon. Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt. pp. 333–354. ISBN 978-3-7749-3730-7. Retrieved 2013-08-27.
- Štefanovičová, Tatiana (1989). Osudy starých Slovanov [=Fate of the Ancient Slavs]. Osveta.
- Štefanovičová, Tatiana (2000). "K niektorým mýtom o počiatkch našich národných dejín" [To some myths about the beginnings of our national history] (PDF) (in Slovak). Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského.
- Senga, Toru (1982). "La situation géographique de la Grande-Moravie et les Hongrois conquérants" [The geographical location of Great Moravia and the Hungarian conquerors]. Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas (in French) (Franz Steiner Verlag) 30 (4). ISSN 0021-4019.
- Senga, Toru (1983). "Morávia bukása és a honfoglaló magyarok [=The fall of Moravia and the Hungarians occupying the Carpathian Basin]". Századok (Magyar Történelmi Társulat) (2): 307–345.
- Szőke, Béla Miklós (2007). "New findings of the excavations in Mosaburg/Zalavar (Western Hungary)". In Henning, Joachim. Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium: The heirs of the Roman West. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 411–428. ISBN 978-3-110-18356-6.
- Třeštík, Dušan (2010). Vznik Velké Moravy. Moravané, Čechové a štřední Evropa v letech 791–871 [=The Emmergence of Great Moravia. Moravians, Czechs and middle Europe in the years 791–871]. Nakladatelství lidové noviny. ISBN 978-80-7422-049-4.
- Urbańczyk, Przemysław (2005). "Early State Formation in East Central Europe". In Curta, Florin. East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The University of Michigan Press. pp. 139–151. ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.
- Vlasto, A. P. (1970). The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-10758-7.
- Wieczorek, Alfried and Hans-Martin Hinz (Hrsg.) (2000). Europas Mitte um 1000, Stuttgart. ISBN 3-8062-1545-6 or ISBN 3-8062-1544-8
- Wolfram, Herwig (1995). "Historické pramene a poloha (Veľkej) Moravy" [Historical sources and the location of Great Moravia]. Historický časopis (in Slovak) (Bratislava: Historický ústav Slovenskej akadémie vied) 43 (1). ISSN 0018-2575.
- Zábojník, Jozef (2009). Slovensko a avarský kaganát [Slovakia and the Avar Khaganate] (in Slovak). Bratislava: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Komenského. ISBN 978-80-89236-62-6.
- Benda, Kálmán (editor) (1981). Magyarország történeti kronológiája ("The Historical Chronology of Hungary"). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 963-05-2661-1.
- Kniezsa, István (2000). Magyarország népei a XI. században. Lucidus Kiadó. ISBN 963-85954-3-4.
- Kristó, Gyula (editor) (1994). Korai Magyar Történeti Lexikon (9-14. század) (Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History - 9-14th centuries). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 963-05-6722-9.
- Kristó, Gyula (1988). A vármegyék kialakulása Magyarországon ("The formation of counties in Hungary"). Budapest: Magvető Könyvkiadó. ISBN 963-14-1189-3.
- Kristó, Gyula (1996a). Magyar honfoglalás - honfoglaló magyarok ("The Hungarians' Occupation of their Country - The Hungarians occupying their Country"). Kossuth Könyvkiadó. ISBN 963-09-3836-7.
- Tóth, Sándor László (1998). Levediától a Kárpát-medencéig ("From Levedia to the Carpathian Basin"). Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely. ISBN 963-482-175-8.
- Great Moravian reenactment and experimental archeology, articles, timeline, primary sources, original findings (Czech)
- Articles about Great Moravia and text of many primary sources (Czech)
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Great Moravia.|