Slavic nations

mmmm im not quite sure how Albanians should look. But i thought Slavic was a racial sub group.

Edited by machine - 30-May-2006 at 09:52

Originally posted by dorian [/QUOT

[/QUOTE]

Oh my God...!!!!!!!!

it�s funny how discussion about slavs turned into discussion about albanians :D

"You can't - until you hear the language-slavic peoples have vey diverse appearances...slavic is not a racial term-more like linguistical\cultural one... "

"mmmm im not quite sure how Albanians should look. But i thought Slavic was a racial sub group."

Slavic is racial term ...since it referes to people with the same origins and Slavs are racial sub group ...at last as much as I understant it.

Term refers to people of the same genetic, language and cultural origin. They shared the same religion, same language, teritory and same ancestors. Of course today there are much greather diferencies between them than in 6th ct. for obvious reasons.

" " What exactly is Slavic, how do i tell if someone is Slavic or not. "

Edited by arras - 14-Jun-2006 at 13:31

Diplomat, I have to correct some things:

First, it's well known (and I believe it was already mentioned in this thread) that the Romans do have records of some Slavic tribes, which they called Venedi (which was later used for all Western Slavs, while Antes was used for Eastern Slavs and Slavini - for Southern ones).
Second, the Western Slavs were indeed converted by Rome and became Catholics, writing with the Latin alphabet. But I wouldn't say they're much more individualistic than the other Slavs. F.e. we, the Bulgarians, are also very individualistic as persons, especially today.
Third, the Eastern Slavs were christianized not by Istanbul, but by Constantinople (same city, but different names with different meanings today). And these "different letters" have a name and that's Cyrillic alphabet. Which by chance happens to be "invented" in 9th century Bulgaria (and not from the saint brothers Cyril and Methodius (as most people think), which created the Glagolitic alphabet, but presumably by their disciple St. Clement of Ohrid). And the fact that the Eastern Slavs were converted with old-Bulgarian/old-Slavonic alphabet, writing and books should bring up the question: "Who did Basil II send to convert the Rus: Greek or Bulgarian monks?" Anway... As for the Eastern Slavs' collectivism, I can't really say, as I'm not so familiar with them.
Fourth, you made a mistake, which we studied in the Logic classes in 9th grade: "Yugoslavia (or South-Slavia on English) was indeed established by Southern Slavs, but not all Southern Slavs established Yugoslavia". And - yes, the Southern Slavs were also christianized by Byzantium, although in times there were negotiations with the popes (and a union in the early 13c.; btw I wonder what would've happened if we had chosen Rome). But before the Ottoman conquest, there were actually two great South Slavic states - one of them was indeed Stefan Dushan's Serbia. But the other one and, I might say, even mightier was Bulgaria, which is also South-Slavic. And at times Croatia was also an influential country, although it never reached the imperial status, as Bulgaria and Serbia.


Back on-topic: So you (people) say that the Slavs are not so much racial, rather more linguistic group? Well, that would explaing why most of us are Mediterranean looking rather than Germanic. And also to some degree it could back up all those genetic researches. But if we are Slavs mainly by language, traditions etc., what are we (South Slavs) by ethnos? Because I could hardly believe that the Bulgarians are 60% or 40% Thracians by genes, as these researches say. Not to mention that this contradicts absolutely every historiography, unofficial or official (for which some people care about so much - it must be official and world-acknowledged). Because, while official world historiography is still back on the disputable Turkic thesis for the Bulgar's origin, ALL historiographies undisputably say that the present South Slavs are Slavs, which have replaced the ancient populations of their lands, i.e. we're not Thracians.


Edited by NikeBG - 16-Jun-2006 at 05:21

I think they (Russians, Poles, cent. Euro. Slavs) look neither Germanic nor Mediterranean, but rather like something different altogether.  I ought to know; I'm one of them.

Originally posted by RomiosArktos Bulgarians are definitely a slavic people and Serbs are also Slavs.What matters most is the culture.The culture of Bulgaria is predominantly slavic.When we say Bulgars,we refer to the Turanic people but when we say Bulgarians we mean the mixture of the Bulgars,the slavs and the pre-Bulgar and pre-slavic population into one nation.The nation of the Bulgarians was formed in the medieval times and all the non slavic racial groups were assimilated by the numerous Slavs,throughout the centuries.So,as far as I know Bulgarians are a slavic nation,although it is different from other slavic nations,the Serbs for example,due to the different substratum,linguistic or racial. The Albanians are <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> a slavic nation,although they were influenced by them.These influences can be seen in the language.

     

Originally posted by arras And I have question for all, what have Slavs to do with Illyrians and Sarmathians? I found some sources refering to Slavic people as Illyrians or Sarmatians.

I think I can answer the Illyrian part:

The time of the constituting of the Pan-Slavic idea was also (roughly) the time of intense research on the Illyrian culture. The supposed Illyrian area's extent diversed depending on the researcher. Some archaeologists and linguists of the nineteenth century  believed that Illyrians had inhabited half of Europe, others would be more moderate in their assumptions, but the supposed Illyrian area never shrank below the territory of what was to become Yugoslavia (and of course Albania, but we're discussing the Illyrian-Slavic connection here).

This came handy to promotors of the Pan-Slavic/Yugoslav idea who emphasised that Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenes, Montenegrians and Macedonians all share common cultural ancestry, i.e. Illyrian. This was a romantic and appealing idea at the time. All around former Yugoslavia we still have hotels, halls, parks, streets that bear the name Ilirija.

When I went to school we would learn about "Celts and Illyrians that had inhabited the territory of Slovenia before Slavs". After 1991 this changed to "Celts that had inhabited the territory of Slovenia before Slavs".

Our archaelogists find out that we can't really be certain if there ever were any Illyrians in present-day Slovenia.

You call us slav(e)s!
What about Shocs and Bunys?Arent they slavic too?
Most of you guys havent even heard of them,and i guess i havent heard of at least 10 more Slavic groups, but then again we are talking nations.Huh.
Albanians arent Slavs,they are Albanians.Bulgars are Bulgars. Dont mess with these too,...lol,...just kidding.Bulgars are more Slavs then Hungarians,that are also not Slavs but Hungarians.

Very dificult to say what is what........like saying" who are the Swiss"?Ger,Fra,Ita,right? Right.

Look at their flags-mostly red,white and blue(not American,lol),or a combination of 2 of these.