Heirs of Byzantium

I think that the Greeks are the modern heirs of Byzantium. It was a polyglot empire but ethnically, politically, linguistically, religiously etc. the Greeks were the dominant element. Most of the Emperors were of Greek ethnicity, though a few were Armenian. Even the emperors of ethnic Armenian descent were Greek culturally though.The empire straddled Europe and Asia. Modern Turkey incorporates the Asian part as well as Rumelia in Europe which includes the old capital Constantinople . The Turks essentially started a new empire however, signified by the new name, Istanbul, which they gave to the capital. They considered it a continuation of their Turkish Ottoman Empire, though, rather than a continuation of Byzantium. I think historically it's always been the Greeks who've looked back to Byzantium. 

Originally posted by Anton That is not true actually. Neither ethnically nor linguistically Greeks were dominant. Otherwise there would be no attempts to homogenize Byzantine population by moving Slavs, Armenians, Greeks etc. here and there.

The Emperors transferred slavs to areas in Asia Minor where the greek element was dominant and Greeks from Asia Minor to the Balkans rural areas where there was a need to strengthen the greek presence.This shows that the Greeks were actually the people who run the empire, all the others were foreign population and the emperors were trying to assimilate the slavs by making them christians.For example Emperor Leon the Wise in the "Tactica" mentions the hellenisation of a small tribe of slavs by baptising them to the christian religion and teaching them to speak the greek language.


Edited by nikodemos - 26-Oct-2007 at 10:52

Originally posted by Anton  No. This shows that in numbers Slavs and Greek elements were close to each other. Because if Greek element would be dominant there would be no reason to make these traqnsfers. You also forget that there were all other sort of population transfers like constant movement of Armanian population.

The greek popluation was the majority of the population in the empire but in some areas like the rural areas of the Balkans the slavs were numerous and exceeded the population of the Greeks.In order to weaken the presence of the slavs there, these slavs were transferred to areas where there was a strong Greek presence and at the same time these slavs were replaced by greeks from Asia Minor.If the Greeks were not the majority of the population  then there would be no reason for these transfers to take place.

Originally posted by Athanasios The emperors after Maurice 6th century were mostly Greeks and Armenians. The Greek conciousness came after 1204 as we know (of course not a clearly national conciousness), with a wave of a classical studies renaissance(Palaeologian  renaissance) .

The proportion between Romans(Greeks) and non Hellenized Slavs would still cause problems, even though the proportion was 4:1 . The most massive Slav wave was about 100.000.The first Slavic settlement were near Achrid lake. Around 730 A.C the region around the lake was inhabited by the Verzites tribe. A coalition of slavic tribes was organized in the area of today's  Greek -Fyrom boarders under the rule of Hatczon. This area is said to be slavicized btw 6th-9th cent. but the slavic population was Hellenized by 10th century, creating the medieval macedonian culture .
As we know there were recorded 12 Slavic invasions(Danube boarders). This started by the early 6th century while the Byz.army was in war with Persians and OstroGoths and the northern boarders were not guarded efficiently . So the invasions were not difficult to be organized.At the beginning they only pillaged and slaughtered. Only when they realized the usage of Roman citizens as specialized workers , they moved Greek populations from Thrace and Macedonia to their homeland(northern of Danube river). Some of these captives is said to be released after the Avar invasion.
Konstas II and Justinian II made some aggressive campaigns against the Slavs who settled in the areas of modern Greece (and other emperors of course) and they slaughtered thousands of Slavs -who wanted independence - and moved about 300.000 to Asia minor. These campaigns took place in Thrace and Macedonia. I think  that in the end only two slavic tribes, who lived near the mount Taygetos ,gain independence  by the Byzantine state. An interesting incident happened near Nestos river were emperor Justinian II trusted to the local slavic population (Smolenoi) the guarding of the narrow passages near Strymon river. It seems that these slavic populations regarded the Bulgarians as enemies.

You might have right .Since the estimation comes from chronographers , it might be unreliable.

In 837, the same Smoliani tribe revolted and together with the Presian I army took the town of Philippi, cutting the road from Thessaloniki to Constantinople.

Do you have any details of this revolt's time frame?

 Therefore by my calculations the ethnic heritage of the BG and Greek nations are:

Edited by londoner_gb - 26-Oct-2007 at 18:45

 _seko you know my position that the proto Bulgars were of cimmerian/Sarmatian/Scythian stock...whether they had or not Turkic elite at some point of their history doesnt much change the whole picture..the same I could say about the turko-Mongolian genes in the Avars-far from predominant!

Originally posted by Anton I think culturally it's always been the whole Europe who've looked to Byzantium.

Originally posted by londoner_gb  _seko you know my position that the proto Bulgars were of cimmerian/Sarmatian/Scythian stock...whether they had or not Turkic elite at some point of their history doesnt much change the whole picture..the same I could say about the turko-Mongolian genes in the Avars-far from predominant!

Edited by Seko - 26-Oct-2007 at 19:44