Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

"Slavic settlements in the Balkans"
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 21>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: "Slavic settlements in the Balkans"
    Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 08:37
Originally posted by Athanasios

Most likely for the Bessoi tribe(due to specific reasons) to have kept the Thracian language until Late Roman period, but in a sea of Latin and/or Greek speaking population they were rendered linguistically as a living museum.Pretty sure this linguistic elements were lost short after the Slavic invasions.

 Your analysis of demographics based only on inscriptions would account for probably less than 10% of the population
 
This metaphors are proven by nobody Athanasios. In contrast, sources (I repeated this many times but what can I do?) say us that those "museum" is frequently met in Byzantine chronicles.
 

I'm pretty sure that in the towns of the older civilizations (Latin and eastern Mediterranean )this percentage was high enough so that we can regard these inscriptions as trustworthy.
I am pretty sure that since 9th century till 13th and even later century you have thousands Bulgarian inscriptions and none Vallachian inscription. Nevertheless, Vallachs were not "Bulgarized". They are still there.


Edited by Anton - 15-Sep-2007 at 08:56
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 08:52
Originally posted by Brainstorm


Inscriptions=4
Toponyms...so what? even "Corinth" is non-hellenic toponym/word-do u think Corinth was not "hellinized" ?
 
It depends on what you call Hellenization. If this is substitution of local culture and language by Greek ones than Corinth was definitely not hellenized. 
 
Your problem is that you construct your logic only on the fact that at late Roman time there were many inscriptions in Latin and Roman but not in local language. This however is a mistake since prior to Roman conquest there were many Greek inscriptions and again almost none in local language. Same characteristics but no  hellenization of Thracians. Total Hellenization and/or Romanization is a myth invented during national revivals of Balkan nations.


Edited by Anton - 15-Sep-2007 at 08:55
.
Back to Top
Athanasios View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546 		  Quote Athanasios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 09:22
I have a perception that byzantines didn't make any serious attempt to write history( chronographers ) with historical methodology as it is known today, but they only describe events of their lifetime, or even worse, they try to describe the world's history from the of Adam and Eve's era, as Malalas did, mixing in his masterpiece biblical and imaginary elements. As  for Prokopios, even if his work is very interesting and rich in content, he is dubious as historian (see secret history).

Vlachs are supposed to be latinized Thraces, but DNA studies have shown that they are different racial teams from region to region, right?

Total Hellenization and/or Romanization is a myth invented during national revivals of Balkan nations.

Now you make absolute conclusions...

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 09:29
Originally posted by Athanasios



Total Hellenization and/or Romanization is a myth invented during national revivals of Balkan nations.

Now you make absolute conclusions...
 
Well you and Brainstorm are my teachers Smile However I am talking about total hellenization and romanization. I do not see any reason to suppose that it happened. And I do not see any reason to not believe Malala and Procopius either since linguistic studies of south slavonic languages suggest that they have local substrate different from Latin or Greek. You can suggest that population around seas were Greek and Latin speaking but local people actually never lived close to seas were they?
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 09:29
I'm pretty sure that in the towns of the older civilizations (Latin and eastern Mediterranean )this percentage was high enough so that we can regard these inscriptions as trustworthy.
What is high enough? On let's say a reference for the average as the already given 10% (estimated literacy rate, not the percentage of lapicides, not every literate was carving in stone!) the regional ups and downs cannot vary too much and especially for a large region like the entire Balkans. Also, the fact that they represent the most educated layer of that society, it is almost certainly the others spoke sometimes "barbarized" version of Greek/Latin, if not a barbarian language. I do not deny the obvious assimilation, I'm simply noting it was not complete, it was not a Latin/Greek speaking nation, though these languages were the most widespread, basically the only written languages and with most expansion and development.
 
Also as I've been showing to Brainstorm, we have clear testimonies other languages were spoken. However the inscriptions do not offer a correspondending evidence of the other languages, which mean just that they were not written.
Back to Top
Ypnos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 05-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Ypnos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 02:08
Originally posted by Red_Lord

Could some one tell me why germans hate us(the slavs) so much?

And about macedonian problem:

First the macedonia of Alexander the great is a mix of thracians+greeks

of course not slavianic empire as claims FYRM.In fact when proto-bulgars came on the Balkans they came with plan to assimilate tha slavianic population.

1)Not only Asparukh came to Dunabe but also his brother Kubber(in todays FYRM).They want to siege Constantinopole with a some kind of big ring.And in 680-800 the population of macedonians region became clear bulgars(it was to 1918).So the slavianik element in Greece is not small.My grand grand Father was born in Solun(Thessaloniki) and he was a bulgar but after WWI the region falls under greek ruling.

2) In fact the name of penisua is "Balkan" a plain in Bulgaria.So I can say that the name comes from Bulgaria(the first slavianic country with the richest history).

3)Balkans are mix of ants but we like that

 
The word "Balkan" is a Latin word for the Greek god Haephestus (Ηφεστος). So the name does not come from Bulgaria and it is not a Bulgarian word. The Balkans are named so after the mountain range that goes through Bulgria (but not just Bulgaria) and it is part of the Dinarotauric Arc which stretches from Russia to the South Western Med.
 
As regards the claims of the self-proclaimed FYROMians being "Makedons", please see any 1940's Yugoslavian stamp. You will clearly see that "FYROM" was actually called Vardar.
There is simply no historical precedent for a "Republic of Macedonia".
 
Anyone who has been paying close attention to the news, will see that the naming issue is coming to a close and "FYROM" will not be allowed the name "Macedonia". Several US Senators have ruled that the name is part of a propaganda campaign and are taking steps to reverse the Clinton/Bush unilateral decision to name Vardar, "Republic of Macedonia".
 
The fact that your Grandfather was born in Thessaloniki, is of no consequence to every single Bulgar's roots. That is merely anecdotal.
 
In 600AD, the Macedonia region was very much a part of the East Roman Empire's territory and any claim that Slavic tribes were dominating the region is false. Slavs were allowed to intermarry with Macedonians (officially Greek subjects in the 12th cent. AD), but under strict control from Konstantinoupoli. Slavs did gradually move down the Epirotan side of the Empire, down to the Pelloponese (Moria) but not in any great numbers.
 
Θαρσήν Χρεί
Back to Top
Ypnos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 05-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Ypnos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 02:13
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Brainstorm


Inscriptions=4
Toponyms...so what? even "Corinth" is non-hellenic toponym/word-do u think Corinth was not "hellinized" ?
 
It depends on what you call Hellenization. If this is substitution of local culture and language by Greek ones than Corinth was definitely not hellenized. 
 
Your problem is that you construct your logic only on the fact that at late Roman time there were many inscriptions in Latin and Roman but not in local language. This however is a mistake since prior to Roman conquest there were many Greek inscriptions and again almost none in local language. Same characteristics but no  hellenization of Thracians. Total Hellenization and/or Romanization is a myth invented during national revivals of Balkan nations.
Latin was used in the East Roman Empire purely for administrative purposes. It was the "language of the officials". However, Greek had always been used (first under the allowance of the Romans due their enormous respect of the Greeks and later autonomously) as the lingua franca of the ERE (Byzantium). In fact, in the 12th cent. AD, the Byzantine Empire started to act, think and regard itself as a country, rather than a collection of territories. Not only that, but it regarded itself as Hellenic and finally started to acknowledge itself as descended from the ancient Hellenes.
Θαρσήν Χρεί
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 10:38

Actually there are many private inscriptions in Latin. Hellenization of Byzantine Empire happened much later than slavonic settlement in Balkans. Cyril Mango suggests it happened somewhere in 10-12 centuries  as far as I remember.

 
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 10:45
Originally posted by Ypnos

The fact that your Grandfather was born in Thessaloniki, is of no consequence to every single Bulgar's roots. That is merely anecdotal.
 
You will be surprized how many Bulgarians have roots from Greek and FYROM parts of Macedonia.
 
 
 Slavs were allowed to intermarry with Macedonians (officially Greek subjects in the 12th cent. AD), but under strict control from Konstantinoupoli.
I didn't get it. Every single marriage between Slavs and Byzantines was controlled in Constaninopolis? I would say it was not controled it was very much appreciated in order to homogenize the population of the country.


Edited by Anton - 05-Oct-2007 at 10:46
.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813 		  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 11:37
Originally posted by Anton

Actually there are many private inscriptions in Latin. Hellenization of Byzantine Empire happened much later than slavonic settlement in Balkans. Cyril Mango suggests it happened somewhere in 10-12 centuries  as far as I remember.

 


In what sense? I would say the 6th century already, language wise. Was for example Crete Hellenized? Or Caria? Or maybe Byzantium itself which was a city founded by Greeks at 600BC?

In the 10-12th century i would regard it as the de-Hellinization since the last pagans dissappeared. So, the Hellenization in the Byzantium is relative.



Edited by Flipper - 05-Oct-2007 at 11:52


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 11:49
Originally posted by Flipper



In what sense? I would say the 6th century already, language wise.

In the 10-12th century i would regard it as the de-Hellinization since the last pagans dissappeared. So, the Hellenization in the Byzantium is relative.

 
I sense of language. Latin and Greek was used by people for communication between different nations but people spoke majorly their own languages: Greek, Thracian, Slavonic, Armenian, Turkic, Gothic etc. etc. The whole empire at the time of arrival of slavs and later was a mosaic of different nations.
.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813 		  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 11:59
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Flipper



In what sense? I would say the 6th century already, language wise.

In the 10-12th century i would regard it as the de-Hellinization since the last pagans dissappeared. So, the Hellenization in the Byzantium is relative.

 
I sense of language. Latin and Greek was used by people for communication between different nations but people spoke majorly their own languages: Greek, Thracian, Slavonic, Armenian, Turkic, Gothic etc. etc. The whole empire at the time of arrival of slavs and later was a mosaic of different nations.


Yes, I agree. But again there we have to take the area as a consideration. At some time when the largest part was Greek speaking, latin was forced as an official language. Later, when new areas incorporated the Phrygians spoke Phrygian until the 6th century. Later they become "Minor Asians" and share the tongue. Then the area gets bigger or smaller and incorporates other nations or looses them. In that sense, I mean it is relative.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 12:07
Well, yes, you are right of course. It is area dependent.

Edited by Anton - 05-Oct-2007 at 12:56
.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 12:22
The population of Balkans was in great measure bilingv and even trilingv in 3-7t centuries. In some areas Greek was spoken more than Latin, in other areas Latin predomined and in some areas Thracian, Illyrian and Gothic was the most spoken.


In Constantinopolis I think that in 4th century Latin predomined, than Greek returned as most spoken.

In 7-8th centuries even at Rome, Greek was most spoken language.


Do someone know what language predominated at Adrianopolis?


I'm interested because is an event, at the beginning of 9th century ~10.000 Adrianopolitans have been colonized in Wallachia.

Back to Top
Ypnos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 05-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Ypnos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 18:53
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Flipper



In what sense? I would say the 6th century already, language wise.

In the 10-12th century i would regard it as the de-Hellinization since the last pagans dissappeared. So, the Hellenization in the Byzantium is relative.

 
I sense of language. Latin and Greek was used by people for communication between different nations but people spoke majorly their own languages: Greek, Thracian, Slavonic, Armenian, Turkic, Gothic etc. etc. The whole empire at the time of arrival of slavs and later was a mosaic of different nations.
Source?
Θαρσήν Χρεί
Back to Top
Ypnos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 05-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Ypnos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 19:11
Originally posted by Anton

Actually there are many private inscriptions in Latin. Hellenization of Byzantine Empire happened much later than slavonic settlement in Balkans. Cyril Mango suggests it happened somewhere in 10-12 centuries  as far as I remember.

 
 
Wrong, sorry. The poet, Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso - 43BC-17AD) clearly shows that the Greeks living in Magna Grecia (today, Southern Italy) since the 8th cent. BC still spoke Greek during Ovid's time ("...since the land of Italy was Greater Greece"). Thus, following the Gothic War (535-554AD), waves of Byzantines who fled to Magna Grecia found a common cultural and linguistic root with the inhabitants of Southern Italy ("eredi ellenofoni") as they were speaking a combination of Doric, Byzantine Greek and Italian, known as Griko. Records of Magna Grecia speaking Griko date to as late as the 11th cent. AD.
 
Source such as the above, show us that the Greek language was alive and well throughout the ERE and even the WRE. I think that you are confusing "Hellenisation" with "Hellenic National Identity", which indeed came about in the 12th cent. AD.
 
So, the Byzantines, had the language, a lot of the culture/philosophy and the genetic roots of the ancients throughout their history, but all they lacked was an actual national identity. Most historians acknowledge that Byzantines considered themselves "Greek citizens of the Roman Empire" (Romioi - Ρωμαίοι).
Θαρσήν Χρεί
Back to Top
Tar Szernd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384 		  Quote Tar Szernd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 19:29
Originally posted by Menumorut

The population of Balkans was in great measure bilingv and even trilingv in 3-7t centuries. In some areas Greek was spoken more than Latin, in other areas Latin predomined and in some areas Thracian, Illyrian and Gothic was the most spoken.


In Constantinopolis I think that in 4th century Latin predomined, than Greek returned as most spoken.

In 7-8th centuries even at Rome, Greek was most spoken language.


Do someone know what language predominated at Adrianopolis?


I'm interested because is an event, at the beginning of 9th century ~10.000 Adrianopolitans have been colonized in Wallachia.
 
Yes, those were called "macedon"-s in one of the first scripts where the ugri (hungarians) were mentioned. In the early 830's the bulgarians called the hung-s for help against the settlers. (tomorrow reply in the Med. Transylw. topic:-)
 
TSZ
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813 		  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 19:36
Originally posted by Ypnos

Most historians acknowledge that Byzantines considered themselves "Greek citizens of the Roman Empire" (Romioi - Ρωμαίοι).


Ypnos the Romaioi (Ρωμαίοι) were the westerners, the Romans. The Greeks of the eastern empire called themselves Romioi as you pointed out. After the equation Hellen = Pagan, the Helladic area was called Ρωμανία for a period of time.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196 		  Quote londoner_gb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 22:09
Originally posted by Menumorut


In 7-8th centuries even at Rome, Greek was most spoken language.


Do someone know what language predominated at Adrianopolis?


I'm interested because is an event, at the beginning of 9th century ~10.000 Adrianopolitans have been colonized in Wallachia.
 
- They spoke greek of course,otherwise the bulgarian Khan Krum wouldn't  send them so far away from home;
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 22:25
Originally posted by Ypnos

Wrong, sorry. The poet, Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso - 43BC-17AD) clearly shows that the Greeks living in Magna Grecia (today, Southern Italy) since the 8th cent. BC still spoke Greek during Ovid's time ("...since the land of

It's a bit early in respect to the time of arrival of Slavs but it is good that youremind us about Ovid. He also mentioned that when he exiled in Tomis, people around him spoke neither Latin nor Greek but Thracian so he even learned the language and wrote a poem in Thracian. This clearly showswhat was the languages in the north of Balkan. Other languages (whether Greek or Latin) were used as Lingua Franka.

Edited by Anton - 05-Oct-2007 at 22:26
.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 21>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.152 seconds.