"Slavic settlements in the Balkans"

We know a bit of early Bulgaria due to their contacts with the Byzantines, but it's as foggy as many other political centers outside the "civilized" world. Even archaeologically, there are little findings which can be placed with certainty in the late 7th-early 8th century (when the Bulgars settled south of Danube and according to sources asserted their control over the Seven Tribes and over the Severi). To my knowledge there's not even a consensus on where Asparuch, the first Bulgarian khan, had his capital.

Originally posted by Yugoslav Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by es_bih Slavs came in various waves from the early 6th ct. on. Most of Bosnia proper had been settled by Slavs before the coming of the Serb tribes and the Croat tribes, the problem with the map I have is that it marginalized Slavs into two sub-groups, when those two were not so numerous as to predestine the two as the only ones or the "majority."   There was insignificant Slavic settlement south of Danube in the 6th century or early 7th - the Byzantine sources mention only the raids and when Byzantines campaign against the Sclavenes they have to cross the river.   It is uncertain when different Slavic populations arrived and also difficult to paint ethnographic maps because the information is scarce. But since many modern Slavic nations felt necessary to find their ancestors in this "sea" of Slavs, the maps were drawn as you already noticed, becoming rather symbolic reflections of the modern nations than 7-8th century realities. No this one modern no. Most say that it was influenced by the 10th century reality, rather than the actual moment of arrival of Slavs.

Yes. According to Warren Treadgold Slavonic languages were spoken all the way up to the Peloponnesos, and only generations after the reconquests of the late 700 and early 800s did those regions regain a Greek speaking majority through massive repopulation from Anatolia and Eastern border regions with the Caliphate.

One thing that happened is that Slavs never came in massive hordes, however, they came in massive numbers in very tiny bands that settled all the way through. That is exactly why it was possible for them to penetrate Imperial lands so easily. This "invasion" was so successful that most Balkan lands were not retaken and abandoned by the Empire up to two centuries. Invading tribes that had sufficient numbers were dangerous, but could be handled because they were contained generally within one region, i.e. the Goths all settled around Ravenna more or less, and same for the Franks, etc... the Slavs came in numerous groups and were part of numerous tribal associations. It was generally harder to contain them than a single group that could be decisively defeated in a battle or two.




Edited by es_bih - 05-Feb-2008 at 20:21

Originally posted by Chilbudios To my knowledge there's not even a consensus on where Asparuch, the first Bulgarian khan, had his capital.

Edited by Ioan-Assen II - 26-May-2008 at 12:49

Originally posted by Petro Invictus [QUOTE=olvios] Moreover, the ancient Macedonians used Koine as many other Mediterranean nations at the time, but were surely not ethnic Dorians or Danaans. The fact that the Macedonians were those behind the Cyrillic alphabet and the Slavic literacy should give you a clue!!!

Ok, so....Cyrillic alphabet was made by Kliment in northern Bulgaria after he was dismissed from Great Moravia by king Svatopluk.

True. They even manipulated DNA tests and linked Greeks to Ethiopians and Japanese.
Who believes this must be brainwashed or something

The point is many people in FYROM accepted it with open arms while he inernational scientific community laughed.

http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000223.html 

Edited by Chilbudios - 03-Jun-2008 at 11:42

Originally posted by Vorian From wiki, it seems to me that, the man just loves the attention and makes controversial studies just to draw the lights on him.

Vorian, eventually we all came from Africa.