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  <1234 21>
Author
Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

Suspended

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
  Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: "Slavic settlements in the Balkans"
    Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 14:11
I do not presume to be the foremost authority on Albanian history. I am only offering what my research has produced on the subject. Just because I am not Albanian and from the Philippines does not mean I am incompetent about the subject. Please do not presume so.

I believe that as an outsider, I can offer an unbiased account. I was never exposed to the propaganda of the Balkans.

Here is a map of the ancient Caucasus, by the way, compared to the modern Caucasus.



Edited by Belisarius
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 18:16

OK Belisarus, i speak poor english but i understand english aniway

Causas Albanian is diferent from Albanian-Illryans

why?

1)we have different languages, we are different race and we have different cultute, are world know this. Albanet were kingom of illyrian about Dardanet,Kaonet,Ardianet,ect)

2) Albani were to great britain (to Scotland), are Scotish caucas??, Albany are to United Stade of Amerika ect

3) Albaniann fot XI were Arbreshet-Arberian and Arbesh werw Illyrian....Albania-Arberia-Illyria

4) Albanian are IE and this languages are same for Illyrians, Pelazgian some are to Thrakian and Etrusko-Pelazgian

It is factfrom all linguist evropian...and all tomponimes illyrians are to albanians...it is fact finaly over 350 years...

OK Belisarus , sorry but i speak poor english i can't to tell good you...greets

Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 18:30

 No more tripe from Albanian nationalistic websites?

 Im impressed.

A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

Suspended

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
  Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 21:03
Originally posted by AlbanianTriology

OK Belisarus, i speak poor english but i understand english aniway

Causas Albanian is diferent from Albanian-Illryans

why?

1)we have different languages, we are different race and we have different cultute, are world know this. Albanet were kingom of illyrian about Dardanet,Kaonet,Ardianet,ect)

2) Albani were to great britain (to Scotland), are Scotish caucas??, Albany are to United Stade of Amerika ect

3) Albaniann fot XI were Arbreshet-Arberian and Arbesh werw Illyrian....Albania-Arberia-Illyria

4) Albanian are IE and this languages are same for Illyrians, Pelazgian some are to Thrakian and Etrusko-Pelazgian

It is factfrom all linguist evropian...and all tomponimes illyrians are to albanians...it is fact finaly over 350 years...

OK Belisarus , sorry but i speak poor english i can't to tell good you...greets



You have different language, culture and so forth. Why is that? It is because it has mixed with the native cultures. I am not saying that you do not have Illyrian blood. What I am saying is that you are not pure Illyrian.

Others have argued for the similarity of names like Albani. The Albani were Picts who had existed there even before the Celtic migrations. Then there are people who ask that since a neighboring kingdom is called Iberia that we are perhaps suggesting that they were forced migrated as well to the Iberian peninsula. This situation is different because both were names given to the area by Greeks and Romans, not what the people called themselves.

The Albanians in Europe were not mentioned in Byzantine historical sources until 1043, although Illyria had been part of the empire for centuries. In fact the last time the Illyrians were mentioned at all as a seperate ethnic group at all was in the 7th century. The Illyrians could have well been extinct before the Albanians displaced from the Caucasus arrived and no one would be Illyrian today.

Anyway, this is what my research has produced. In the future, please do be more careful in what you say to the people who disagree with you.


Edited by Belisarius
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2005 at 08:20
I strongly suspect the theory of Caucasic origin for Albanians. My reason that a place named Albania (apparently the only "proof") is not any proof. Albania means "white country" in Latin (from albus=white) and many places have been called that way: Britain (Albion), Scotland (Alba), the city of Alba Longa (ancient capital of the Latins),  etc.  Also there's no documentary evidence of Albanians coming from anywhere nor linguistic evidence of Albanians speaking any Caucasic tongue (even IE Caucasic ones). Finally the strongest proponents of the Caucasic theory seem to be Serb historians, who are worldwide known by their nationalistic bias.
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2005 at 09:37
Originally posted by Phallanx


To be on topic, if greeks not assimilated slavs, where they are? As much as I know large numbers of slavic peoples migrated to the territory of modern Greece in the early medieval period.




Maria Nystazopoulou - Pelekidou, "Les Slaves dans l' Empire Byzantin", The 17th International Byzantine Congress. Major Papers (Washington D.C., August 3-8, 1986) New York 1986, pp. 345-367, with the bibliography and the quotation of the sources; for the policy of Byzantium, see p. 355.

Mention that, not only did the Byzantine empire attempt to subjugate the new settlers but also forcibly transfered Slavic populations to Anatolia in order to achieve 2 things.
1) Slavic element in the Hellenic area was arithmetically weakened, and
2) assimilation was facilitated, since Slavs who were transferred to Anatolia found themselves among a flourishing and numerous Hellinic population.

This demographic measure was even applied vice-versa, that is, Hellinic populations from Anatolia were transplanted into Slavic populations, the "tactic" known as ("epi tas Sklabinias") in order to reinforce the Hellinic element in these areas.
Thus we learn, for example, that emperor Nicephorus (802-811) established in the northern Hellinic area populations which he transferred from all administrative districts ("ek pantos thematos") of Anatolia.

Beside the measures taken by the Byzantines, it is intering enough to note that during the time of Stefan Dusan (1331-1354), the Serbs expanded their domination into Makedonia but there is not one source to mention that the conquered population was Slavic.
The Serbian expansion is mentioned in contemporary sources, as a conquest of Hellinic regions and people.

As I said before, the Hellines may have a little Slavic ancestry, but they are NOT of Slavic origin. The replacement theory does not agree with the facts.

No one denies that a Slavic population was assimilated, but the numbers weren't large enough to displace or alter the 'original' population of the Hellinic area.

Ok. My main source is rather old. (D. Obolenski: The Byzantine Commonwelth)
Back to Top
Sarmata View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 314
  Quote Sarmata Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 01:54
Croats and serbs acctually settled in todays Poland and Ukriane. Serbs somewhere along where the Sorbains are now, and Croats around the Polish area of krakow and regions in ukraine. According to history emperor Heraclius invited them to fight the avars and promised them land. http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/et01.html
Back to Top
the Bulgarian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
  Quote the Bulgarian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 14:35

Actually, there are 17 different theories about the origin of the proto-bulgarians. All of them are more or less probable, but even to this day there is no surtain evidance that categoricaly proves one of them. The oficial theory, which is studyied in school by 7- year-olds and that is most likely to be true, is that they came from Central Asia.

The Macedonians (ooops, sorry FYROMians) are Bulgarians and nothing else.

However, I must dissagree with this so-called "genetic evidance". There is no such thing as a "pure nation" - a tipically nationalistic term. 47 or even more different tribes and peoples have taken part in the making of the modern Bulgarian nation over the centuries. The genetic evidance is based on the presumption that every nation has its own, typycal for it, marker genes. But to determin how many Greeks have the Greek marker genes you must study the genetic sequance of every living Greek. A few people aren't reprisentative of the hole nation! But to determine the genetic sequance of every european is practically impossible. Another thing is how much of the Ancient Greeks or the proto-bulgarians had the marker genes typycal for the modern Greeks and Bulgarians. That we shall never know. So I wouldn't trust this evidance too much. All nations are heavily mixed.Greeks have a lot of Slavic blood, especialy in the northern part. I'm not saying that they are Slavs, but that they have some Slavic blood. Bulgarians have some Greek, Turkish, blood etc.

Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
  Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 16:26


While I will agree that claims of a 'pure race' are nonesence, we can't overlook the fact that there is obviously some reason certain traits/characteristics are seen only in some 'races'.
I have personally noticed while traveling abroad that I've always seemed to 'stick out' when compared to others in appearance.(physical characteristics)

I've also noticed that I can easily point out an Albanian, Bulgarian, Romanian from our close neighboring countries or any other foreigner in general, from the rest of the people that live around me or are 'natives' in general.
I'm sure anyone that has traveled has noticed something very similar.

So it is obviously safe to say that certain physical characteristics are developed only among people that share common genes.
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Hrodger View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 14-Nov-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 61
  Quote Hrodger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 18:56
Originally posted by Raider

I think the genetic evidences are good thing, but we must take into account other things. For example the researches of the japanese scientist Hideo Matsumoto "proves" that the Japanese and the Hungarians are relatives.


Originally posted by Phallanx

Wasn't it the Pechenegs or some other Mongol tribe that was assimilated by the Hungarians?
If so, Prof. Matsumoto's claims are obviously backed up by historic facts, so why the suprise when he claims a genetic relation to the Japanese?

There is a similar strange relation between Berber and Saami, too.
Back to Top
Red_Lord View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 19-May-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 166
  Quote Red_Lord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2005 at 19:26

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 slave is fighting for freedom,free is fighting for perfectness"
Yane Sandanski
Back to Top
anchorcheck View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote anchorcheck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 19:20
Very interesting discussion board.

I am fascinated by ancient European history, and particularly ancient slavic history.

Recently I read some studies about prehistoric europe, that suggested, based upon genetic studies, that at the glacial maximum, habitable areas of europe were reduced in size. One of these areas may have been southern France and the Iberian penninsula, and another area centering on Coatia and the western pontic area, around Moldavia today, possibly. I have not seen any maps on this information, and I had only quickly read much of this information, so I am not entirely clear on this theory.

Essentially, the theory is that as the glaciers retreated, the peoples who inhabited these refuges, gradually repopulated the areas the glaciers were retreating from. But, again, I am not real familiar with this theory. Certainly, the differences between the physical types in Scandinavia and Spain are quite striking, so there must be more population differences than just this factor.

I also had read in my meanderings that the ancient slavs were nordic, in the long headed shape, but that they changed to brachycephalic (round headed) as the centuries progressed. This was taken from ancient skulls found in Bohemia, if I recall. It showed a constant change to more and more brachycephalic readings through the centuries.

Also, there is information I recall reading that immigrants to the US change their skull shape. Thus, the children of immigrants are more long headed than round headed. That was always a head scratcher for me. Also, the information about the Czech skull shape was considered to be a head scratcher by the scholars who recognized this change in head shape over time.

Now, the idea posted by someone here about the change to round headed measurements in the Slavic populations being the result of difficult economic circumstances, is interesting. I'm not sure if this makes sense, either, but  it might. Particularly in view of the change in head shape of American immigrants.

Are the head shapes changing as better food is being eaten? Could head shape be effected by the soil where food is raised? I know that people seem to be getting larger. In America, I see many different people from around the globe. It is a fact that Asians become taller if they are raised in the US. I am sure that the easy availability of food is making people larger. Even when I was a child 50's, we were not allowed to eat whenever we wanted. We were told to not eat between meals, as this would ruin our appetite for the meal.

And, I know that weight lifters live by the rule that in order to get big, you must eat big. Thus, the observations about people being small in ancient times likley depends upon what the economic circumstances were.

Ancient Viking warriors averaged about 5 foot 8 inches. The Cromagnon people of Southwest France were quite large, with men averaging around 5 foot 10", I recall. And women around 5 foot 7", I think. I have read that natural selection made the physiques of these ancient people similar to those of professional atheletes. In other words, exceptionally robust. They can tell this from the bones, and the wear pattern that the ligamnets have upon the bones. This trait has diminished as populations became agriculturally based, and no longer needed to be selected for physical rugedness.

Thus, the ancient finding of skeletel remains in Bugaria of very large people, and the 2 metter tall man in Poland is not so unusual, possibly. I read of one Cromagnon man who was 6 foot 5". So, the idea is that people can be quite large, if the genetics is there, and the access to high quality and large amounts of food.

I believe the tallest people in Europe, are in Northern Europe, but possibly this is changing, as Eastern Europe gets better nutrition. I recall this information from demographic maps made on the soldiers being recruited into the armies of the first world war. Another very tall region was Montenegro, which was an independent country prior to WWI.

Blondness and blue eyes is a trait centered around the Baltic Sea, I have read. When did people become blond and blue eyed? Possibly this was a trait that developed somewhat recently (thousands of years?). Maybe when people repopulated the north after the glaciers receded.

The question of what happens to the original population of an area when there is a mass migration out or in always was interesting to me, also. For instance, Bohemia was named after the Celtic tribe known as the Boii, who were written about by the Romans. Next came Germanic tribes in Bohemia. Then, I believe Bohemia was settled by the Slavs after Germanic tribes left. But, did portions of the Boii remain in Bohemia, and portions of the Germanic tribes remain in Bohemia as the Slavs moved in?

Much of what is today modern Germany was inhabited by Slavic tribes. I have heard that Western Germans are a bit dismissive of the eastern Germans, saying they are from these Slavic backgrounds.

But, the Slavs who inhabited much of Germany, right up to Southern Denmark, were obviously absorbed into what became the population of Germany, I think. I believe that what was all of eastern Germany, was inhabited by various tribes collectively known of as the Wends. The Obradites were a powerful tribe located around what is today Hamburg, just south of Denmark. The island of Rugen, just east of Denmark, on the North coast of Germany, was an ancient religious center for the Slavic tribes. These Wendic tribes were apparently quite powerful. They did not want to accept Christianity. It was forced upon them by the growing strength of the German states. But, even after they were initially conquered, they soon revolted, and returned to Pagan ways. So, northern and eastern Germany was esentially Slavic, to around the year 1000 to maybe as late as the 1200's, I think it was. I recall these revolts were in the 1200's, possibly.

The Lithuanians were the last to be Christianized. This was in the 1400's.

I have also read that Christianity was a bit of a thin veneer across much of the European peasantry for many centuries. Few could read, and religion was disemminated from above, and the pagan beliefs took long to die away.

The name Prussia comes from a Baltic tribe (sililar to Lithuanians). They were considered to be a handsome people. Were they absorbed or obliterated (killed and sold into slavery). I don't know. The name Pomeranian, I think also comes from a Baltic Tribe.


Eastern Europe is a place with much historic movements of peoples. So, there is much admixture. Isolated places, such as Norway, are likley much less affected.

The ancient Steppe people were not asiatic. They were caucasian. The Alans, Sarmatians, Sycthians, etc. The Steppe culture was nomadic. But, Caucasian peoples dominated the Steppes, up to the time of the Mongols. The turkic peoples were probably a different breed.


I'm just throwing out a bunch of things that I have read over many years. Different facts I've come accross.

Tthe origins of the Slavs is interesting. I remember a history teacher who said it was a mystery regarding how the Slavs exploded on the scene. The Slavic population seemed to have been very large, and where did they come from, to have blanketed so vast an area of Europe.

I have read that the Slavs did conquer most of the Balkans. They even went out into the Aegean Sea, I recall reading. I recall reading that part of the remote inland area of the Peleponisian Peninisula (where Sparta was located) was speaking a Slavic dialect into the 1700s. I have read that the Slavs dominated much of the countryside of Greece, after their invasions, but the cities remained hellenic.

Sorry for the rambling. Most of this is not specific to Ancient Slavic Warriors, but it touches on the fringe of the subject.

My perception of the Slavic history is that the Slavs were warlike, and probably quite formidable. They have been called a docile and peaceful people by some historic accounts. I think this may be true to the extent that the ancient history, when the Slavic peoples were forming, they may have been so isolated, and the country so vast, that there was little need for much in the way of organized warfare. However, the Slavs seemed to explode upon the scene, and they seemed to absorb other groups, such as the Finnic tribes to the North and East.  Also, the Slavic expansion which followed the ELbe river, all the way up to the border of Denmark, and the creation of very strong tribal presence. And finaaly, the explosion across the whole of the Balkans, doen to the Aegean sea, seems to be quite remarkable, and the Slavic tribes must have been quite organized and warlike. Charlemagne and the Germans had to fight for many generations to conquer what is now much of Germany. And, as some posted here, Austria was probably in the hands of the Slavic tribes, as well, and may have had the same Germanization as did Eastrn Germany. Surely, I assume many Germanic people  came into Austria and Estern Germany. But, I imagine that a very strong substrata of Slavs remained.


Regards,

Anchor


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 20:51
Originally posted by Agema

"Macedonian is Bulgarian, the two are slavic languages, which probably differ in dialect. Am I wrong? Cant Bulgarians pretty much understand Serb, Croat and Bosnian? Along with upper Slavic nations with more difficulty?"

Macedonian is closest to Bulgarian, but is also close to Serbo-Croat, there isn't officialy a Bosnian language, and Macedonian is an official language, besides, if the Slavs occupied the Balkans brought there dialects to the local populace the language was already there before the real Bulgars(Tatars) came, it was wrong calling "Old Church Slavonic" a Bulgarian language when the language was already there prior the Slav influx. But a lot of Byzantine chronicles do mention that Macedonians and Serbs as Bulgarians, something to think about because chronogicaly it doesn't add up:

*5-6 AD- Slavs arrive in Balkans (intermingle with Hellenes, Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians & etc.)

7-8 AD - Bulgars arrive in the Balkans (adopt a language that is common all around them), and then modern scholars call this Bulgarian, why call it bulgarian when it was a Slavic dialect to start with....and prior to that nobody ever heard of Bulgarians....

  

 
There is officially a Bosnian language and there has been one for centuries. The language, and alphabet accordingly had been developed as the Bosnian aristocrats, and their overlords, bans, under allegiance to Croat kings, then Hungarians began to centralize, and by Ban Kulin's time mobilize for autonomy.
 
 
 
The modern Bosnian language uses the Latin alphabet. However, ancient scripts other than Latin were used much earlier, most notably the indigenous Bosnian Cyrillic called Bosančica, which is literally translated as Bosnian language and dates back to the 10th/11th century.
 
Wiki
 

Some other early mentionings include one from July 3, 1436, where, in the region of Kotor, a duke bought a girl that is described as: "Bosnian woman, heretic and in Bosnian language called Djevena"

 
Wiki
 
In addition, one of the oldest South Slavic documents is the Bosnian statehood charter from 1189 , written by Bosnian ruler Kulin Ban (in Bosnian Cyrillic).
 
Wiki
 

The irony of the Bosnian language is that its speakers are, on the level of colloquial idiom, more linguistically homogenous than either Serbs or Croats, but failed, due to historical reasons, to standardize their language in the crucial 19th century. The first Bosnian dictionary, a rhymed Bosnian-Turkish glossary authored by Muhamed Hevaji Uskufi, was composed in 1631 . But unlike e.g. Croatian dictionaries, which were written and published regularly, Uskufi's work remained an isolated foray. At least two factors were decisive:

  • The Bosniak elite wrote almost exclusively in foreign (Arabic, Turkish, Persian) languages. Vernacular literature, written in modified Arabic script, was thin and sparse.
  • The Bosniaks' national emancipation lagged behind that of the Serbs and Croats, and since denominational rather than cultural or linguistic issues played the pivotal role, a Bosnian language project didn't arouse much interest or support.

Prescriptions for the language of Bosniaks in the 19th and 20th centuries were written outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Probably the most authentic Bosniak writers (the so-called "Bosniak revival" at the turn of the century) wrote in an idiom that is closer to the Croatian form than to the Serbian one (western tokavian-Ijekavian idiom, Latin script), but which possessed unmistakably recognizable Bosniak traits, primarily lexical ones. The main authors of the "Bosniak renaissance" were the polymath, politician and poet Safvet-beg Baagić, the "pote maudit" Musa Ćazim Ćatić and the storyteller Edhem Mulabdić.

 
wiki
 
Back to Top
Shisharki View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 12-Aug-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Shisharki Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 15:27
You are correct. So called "Macedonian" is south-western Bulgarian dialect. It did not exist until 1945 when it was legalized by a decree of the local communist party (a branch ot Tito's Yugoslavian Communist Party).

The claims that Bulgarians are Tartar-Slavs and Macedonians are Macedonian-Slavs are funny, because Macedonia was part of Bulgaria for hundreds of years, and the people there claimed themselves as Bulgarians. And most still do. Ohrid used to be the capital of the Bulgarian Kingdom when the ruler was Tzar Samuil. Its normal for the communist yugoslav historians to say that bulgarians are tartars from china etc - this is their trick to attempt to distinguish macedonians from the rest of the bulgarians; the main goal is political - serbians are willing to establish control over FYROM.

 
However, the term "slavs" is not very clear, since it was introduced in the Russia through its imperialistic claims - the whole truth is that Russian Empire in the late middle ages. Russia was trying to establish control over Eastern Europe through influencing common origin, language. And of course, presenting itself as the big brother of all slavs. Slavs as a separate tribes or nations do not exist and never did, except in the books. Slavs are people who speak similar languages and that is due to its location.
 
You will also be surprised to know that Romanian language contains hundreds of bulgarian words. The lands between the Carpathian mountains and Danube River and the Black see used to be a part of the Bulgarian kingdom for a long, long time. Romanians used Bulgarian alphabet and religious books until the beginning of 20th century. Romania and Bulgarian did not come into a federation after the WWII mainly because Stalin did not allow them to do so. An intensive allienation (for political reasons) between these two countries followed during the communist era. I don't want to say the Romanians are Bulgarians. I jsut want to say that these two nations were very, very closely related in the past.


Edited by Shisharki - 12-Aug-2007 at 15:32
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: 12-Aug-2007 at 16:48
Romanians are Dacian, Roman, and Slavic


I think Romanian are a very mixed people. In Moldavia, in some regions the Slav genetical contribution is big, mazbe we can speak in fact about romanized Slavs. In Transylvania too, Germans (Gots, Gepids), Slavs have had a great contribuiton. In Southern Moldavia Magyars (before passing to Pannonia), Cumans and Tatars were romanized, in Eastern Muntenia (Prahova) a group of population from Adrianople which settled at the begining of 9th century left anthropological charactericts which differentiate Romanians from here from the others.




Romania and Bulgarian did not come into a federation after the WWII mainly because Stalin did not allow them to do so. An intensive allienation (for political reasons) between these two countries followed during the communist era. I don't want to say the Romanians are Bulgarians. I jsut want to say that these two nations were very, very closely related in the past.


The fact that Romania and Bulgaria are the lands of the Thracians makes to have many similitudes. The phonetic of the two languages is close. Most of the words of Bulgarian origin in Romanian are not very old, they are from middle and late medieval period, so not from the time of the first and second Bulgar empire.







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: 13-Aug-2007 at 14:28
Originally posted by Agema

Iskender they are not just my views, these web sites explained more detailed, you do know that the Illyrians & Thracians(Phrygians, Dacians) were a very numerous group in the Balkans. The ancient Hellenes described these people as the biggest populace in the Balkans, and if they were joined, which they weren't, they would have destroyed the Hellenic civilisation.

LOL Its the same thing with a different name...Was the "Hellenic" civilization lost when Philippos the Makedon conquered the rest of Greece? I don't think so...

Originally posted by Agema

to misplace these populations you would need a big influx migrations which i think didn't happen on a scale some historians think

Balkans were full of Hellenic cities - colonies...

Originally posted by Agema

but there only influence was the language, and even that isn't pure Slavic, modern day South Slavic Languages are mixed with ancient Thracian, Illyrian and even ancient Hellenic words, that is how the linguists showed similarities between these languages, not forgeting even Modern Albanian. These languages Modern Macedonian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek & Romanian have common bond even though they all belong to a different group of languages.





"Thracian, Illyrian and even ancient Hellenic words."
Why you want to make your life difficult... Hellenic is enough. Almost
the absolute majority of the Balkan population was hellenised during the Hellenistic world era and then adopted elements of the Roman culture.
Originally posted by Agema




[QUOTE=Agema]

If there was a big influx of Slavic tribes in Greece were are they, unless they mixed with the locals forming today modern Greeks, but on this forum some people write about other people being of Slavic descent, when in fact they are also....but they have there opinion, that's fine.



the majority of the Slavic population which was placed in Greece was exterminated by the plague of the early 9th century which caused a significant population reduce in the southern balkans. Emperor Nikiphoros I replaced this population with civilians from Minor Asia.

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: 13-Aug-2007 at 15:16
Originally posted by Athanasios


Balkans were full of Hellenic cities - colonies...

"Thracian, Illyrian and even ancient Hellenic words."
Why you want to make your life difficult... Hellenic is enough. Almost
the absolute majority of the Balkan population was hellenised during the Hellenistic world era and then adopted elements of the Roman culture.



Linguistic studies suggest that when Slavs came to Balkans there were Thracian and/or Illirian speaking populations. You overestimate hellenization of Balkan population.
.
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: 13-Aug-2007 at 16:00
I'm not saying that the Balkans were a peninsula which was populated by a static hellenised mass of population. Colonies were widespread in Balkans and especially in the shores . During the ancient period, before 3 cent. B.C. it would be possible for the people who lived in mainland not to be influenced linguistically by the Hellenes. Just put aside the Illyrians who were a brother tribe to the hellenic... Thrace was a huge region to say that it was influenced culturaly by one tribe only. I do thing that the one who builds cities , is the one who imposes his culture to the others. During the Hellenistic period , the whole Mediterranean was forced to speak the Attic dialect(indirectly of course, since it was the trading language) . It was the first step to  homogeneity. The second , and most important was the Roman domination. Roman culture prevailed for more than 7 centuries in the Balkans, until the Roman territory got shrunk and the main forming "ethnicity " became the Greek speaking one (mainly focused in Anatolia). So until the slavic tribes have reached the Balkans, logically there were not many chances for these dialects to survive, were they? I do not have any evidence about unique dialects of Thracian tribes who survived until the 6 century.

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: 13-Aug-2007 at 21:01
Well, there are actually mentions of thracian language (particularly Bessian) at 6th century. Then 7 centuries of domination does not necessarily mean homogenisation of a population. Few examples are Ottoman domination and Russian Empire. Or Byzantine empire who constantly made attempts to homogenize the population over centuries and it seems it didn't succeed. Finally, as far as I understand Roman politics it was not directed to homogenize the population. Romans simply didn't care of people beliefs, language and culture. Otherwise they would start with making Greek speaking population Latin speaking.



Edited by Anton - 14-Aug-2007 at 05:44
.
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: 14-Aug-2007 at 08:28
Oh yes Vessoi the draft-evaders. I think them and Paiones were the only unconquered Thracian populations (talking about Alexander's and diadohoi period) . Into the same frontiers under the same central goverment (Ottoman empire most recently) shows us that there is a relaxed interconnection btw the populations and their cultures, since language customs and populations are not  objects strongly connected with spatial correlation or strictly limited inside the frontiers.
Of course the Roman plans were everything else than omogenisation(divide and rule).Omogenisation was a process which came as a physical consequense due to the time it had taken (of course there was a "clear" ground due to the fact that the macedonian kingdoms did the work a century before the Romans, for the Romans). Surely we cannot talk about absolute omogenisation but only about some elements as religion(for example Egyptian godess Isis was worshipped in Cyclades islands) , trading goods, architecture and linguistics.
 
Byzantine empire always wanted to rule indirectly its surrounding kingdoms(using religion and diplomacy) . Partly imposed the Greek language into the slavic church because it was the only one which could describe ,back then,some of the abstract meanings of the bible. In Kiev, the patriarch worked hardly to translate some very delicate meanings into Russian language and he accieved to create some new words in Russian- very lyrical as they say-. Now , if you're talking about the populations who inhabited inside the empire's frontiers(after the 7th century) they were homogenised due to the common religion(which was the major factor of internal stability) , language. Armenia could be an exception because of some dogmatic differences and geopolitical significance... the unstable frontiers never helped the Byzantines to consider Armenia as an original part of their territory(plus the disloyalty of the nobles). Anyway, it seems a success for the byzantine empire that everyone wanted to take a part of its glorius history and history. I can see two-headed eagles until today. (not to refer the orthodoxy...)
 
As for the Romans, the relationship with the Greek civilisation was special. It is said that Greece had lived its most prosperous era(since the Roman authority was consolidated)back then.
 
As for the languages, as we know until 20 century religion was used as a tool of language learning or imposition since a significant percent of population was illiterate and the only relationship with the grammar was the bible and religious books(specifically in balkans during and after the Ottoman domination, because until then, classic studies were something the usual in the cities).
 
 
 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 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 0.173 seconds.