Macedonian Truth Forum

Macedonian Truth Forum (http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/index.php)
-   Macedonian History (http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Slavization of the Balkans (http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8669)

Stefan of Pelagonia 02-05-2017 01:17 PM

Slavization of the Balkans
 
The slavization of the Balkans should be viewed the same as the Latinization of western Europe.
Genetics and physical appearence prove that there are no real slavs in the balkans. The northern european (slavic) appearence is absent in the balkans.
The slavic speaking people of the balkans are slavicized balkaners, just like the french are latinized gauls, romanians are latinized dacians, the irish are anglified celts etc. etc.

A majority of people accepting the language of a minority is not a rare thing. It has happened many times in history. It depends on the socio-political situation and other circumstances. And it is impossible and funny to assume that the slavs had numbers great enough to colonise such a vast area of europe in the early middle ages. The same could be said about the Franks, Visigoths, Vandals etc. Owning a territory does not mean colonisation.

This is what I'm talking about:

[IMG]https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/VWkMlvNl93NRBRJRHzTK8g--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MTMxMztxPTk1O3c9MTYwMA--/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-isjbcUVXQyY/UA63zH3YLUI/AAAAAAAAADQ/TyhyPzWW5JM/s1600/y-dna_haplogroups_europe_genetic_map.png[/IMG]

[IMG]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/ff/0e/7fff0eb41f54b6e2b7599e62e6a983cb.jpg[/IMG]

I have seen some Macedonians and other balkaners supporting the idea that the ancient peoples of the balkans spoke slavic. This can be easily disproven.
The slavic languages are too close to eachother to have been separated for thousands of years. In fact the slavic branch has the closest languages, which means that the separation happened later than other branches.


Now, when the slavization happened, almost the entire balkan peninsula spoke slavic (with native balkan accents) except Hellas and Dacia (although influenced).
Albanians weren't here at that point in time. We can say this because:

1- If the albanians were always here then they would have been latinized, slavicized or grekified. No paleo-balkan language survived after the slavization.

2- If the albanians were always here then we would have seen albanian placenames all over.. instead we see albanized versions of slavic names all over kosovo and albania. Which means they came after the slavization

3. - If the albanian language was always here, we would have seen much influences from Greek - the ancient lingua franca of the east mediteranean.
And the comment above.

4- From the remains of the illyrian language we can conclude that it was on the same indo-european branch with Celtic and Italic.. And that it has no connection to the albanian language.

5- Every person from present-day albania mentioned in historical texts from the early middle ages has a slavic name. The same can be said about villages and cities.

Leave the albanians now.. back to the natives.

We can see that, like other places in the world, language has nothing to do with ethnicity and ancestry.
So what language did our ancestors speak? What are we? Ofcorse there is no pure nation in the world, but what matters is the core of a population / nation.

The ancient Macedonians were in the ''Brygian group'' together with the Paeonians, Dasseratians, Enchelaneans, Pelagonians, Epirotes, Mygdonians, Crestonians, Paphlagonians and Phrygians. That's why many of these tribes were so easily assimilated into the Macedonians.
Most of what we know about this language branch is known to us through the Phrygians in Asia Minor. But we also know that the ancient Macedonians had their own names for the gods. ''Aret'' for Zeus, ''Zeirena'' for Aphrodite etc. This language group was different from it's neighbours and people needed translators to understand eachother with Illyrians, Greeks or Thracians.

Here is a map of the language groups (families) of the ancient balkans:

[IMG]http://image.prntscr.com/image/cUXD5RUnQVe9gCA-gJo3jA.png[/IMG]

[SIZE="4"]When the word ''Slavic'' stops having a racial meaning, and starts having a linguistic and cultural meaning (like Latin), then many problems in the Balkans will be solved.[/SIZE]

Amphipolis 02-05-2017 04:05 PM

[QUOTE=Stefan of Pelagonia;166822] But we also know that the ancient Macedonians had their own names for the gods. ''Aret'' for Zeus, ''Zeirena'' for Aphrodite etc. [/QUOTE]

Who's the "we". I didn't know that. Is it common knowledge or something?

maco2envy 02-05-2017 05:21 PM

What do you guys think about this image?

[IMG]https://s27.postimg.org/fskqsoswj/R1_AGR.jpg[/IMG]

Do you think that the Greeks which resettled in Aegean Macedonia in the 1920's have close ties to the Slavs which were deported from the Balkans to Anatolia by the Byzantine Empire in the middle ages?

Amphipolis 02-05-2017 05:59 PM

All I know is that R1a is the “Polish-Russian” haplogroup.

The overall percentage in Greece is correct (around 9%) but the coloring of local areas is problematic. It is statistically impossible to have 23% in Rethymno, 20% in Lasithi and 0% in Heraclion, especially since Heraclion (like Athens) attracts population from everywhere. Scientists should take a deeper look at this. I see the potential for a huge discovery. Maybe there’s a germ over there that’s killing the R1a gene.

maco2envy 02-05-2017 06:09 PM

I agree, the 'ethno' part should be dropped when describing slavs as an 'ethno-linguistic' group. My theory to as of why the slavic migration theory is widely accepted is because the western and eastern world powers came to a common ground on it, but each having separate motives behind it. The west's promotion of it being an attempt to tarnish the majority of followers of the orthodox church as being descendants of 'invaders', and Russia's was for Moscow to claim the title of 'Third Rome', since they can be viewed as the motherland for most followers of the orthodox faith.

maco2envy 02-05-2017 06:22 PM

I think it really depends on what they sampled. When people say countries are heterogeneous in their genetic makeup, I personally don't see it as a regional thing, but more based on settlements. I mean two neighboring villages could a different genetic makeup. So I don't think results like this shouldn't come at too much of a surprise.

Carlin 02-05-2017 09:31 PM

Check out this interesting book - from page 22 and onwards, "Migration and Invasion" google books.
[I]
"The invasion hypothesis is dead and buried. No longer would we even want to litter the prehistoric and first-millenium Europe with a succession of ancient 'peoples' carving out their chosen niches via a lethal cocktail of large-scale movement and ethnic cleansing."[/I]

[url]https://books.google.ca/books?id=gbUlnaHlHS0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Empires+and+Barbarians&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTuefOtPrRAhUlwYMKHfCkCAIQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=Empires%20and%20Barbarians&f=false[/url]

[url]https://www.amazon.ca/Empires-Barbarians-Fall-Birth-Europe/dp/0199892261[/url]

Some good reviews/comments from Amazon readers.

[I]Similar tribes (i.e. Angles and Saxons) invaded Britain in [B][U]large enough groups[/U][/B] that they [B]displaced the local elites and destroyed their economic systems; eventually, they instilled their language into the local populace[/B], as women could teach the children their original languages, they [B]replaced local languages[/B], including Latin and Celtic. [B]This was a pattern that was often repeated in Europe until 1000 CE[/B], when the principal language patterns that survive with few exceptions (Turkish in Anatolia being a rather big one) to this day.

As western Roman economic structures declined, new power centers arose in northern Europe for the first time, in 7 C CE. Though the level of socio-economic and political sophistication were far below those of the Romans, the new entities were proto-modern states nonetheless. They learned to create military organizational structures, monopolizing the means of force in order to maintain the elites that eventually became entrenched in land ownership and hence became the grand royal and aristocratic families that ruled for the next 1500 years. [B]Heather also covers the Vikings and Slavs;[/B] [B]the origins of the latter remain murky and unknowable from the archaeological record[/B]. [B]The Slavs, interestingly, conquered much of central Europe because [U]elite Germans seem to have migrated West[/U], leaving poorly armed and disorganized Germanic peasants, who were then [U]absorbed into the newly dominant Slavic elites and tended to adopt their languages[/U]. [/B]Due to their lack of ability to tax and build viable cities, these semi-nomadic groups faced inherent limits: once they expanded to large size based on pillage and forced tribute, they could no longer pay their forces enough to keep them together and so these mini-empires disintegrated; so the Carolingians, Merovingians, Ottonians, and scores of others succeeded each other a few generations after the charismatic founder disappeared.[/I]




[I]In "The Fall of the Roman Empire," Heather presented what was to me a new and original explanation for the dissolution of the empire, one of history's great questions. Heather believes that technological developments and wealth leached out from the Roman borders to allow the Germanic tribes living in northern and eastern Europe to develop a greater level of material and political sophistication and more efficient agricultural methods. This increase in sophistication led to a population rise among the Germanic tribes, and in turn an increase in political and military heft, which allowed the tribes to encroach on an overextended Roman empire, teetering from civil war and war on its Persian front. In a fascinating passage in "Empires & Barbarians," Heather speculates that the Hunnic invasion form the steppes led by Attila was a crucial precipitating cause in the collapse of the empire, as the increasingly powerful Germanic tribes would probably have done no more than annex certain Roman provinces, letting the Empire continue on. Heather supports his theory principally through a review of recent archaeological research from Germany and eastern Europe with less emphasis placed on Roman historical writings.[/I]



PS:

Did a similar process take place in the Balkans?

Did the Slavic Elite conquer much of Balkans because Elite Romans fled and migrated elsewhere, leaving poorly armed and disorganized Romance-speaking and other native Balkan peasants and shepherds, who were then absorbed into the newly dominant Slavic elites and adopted the Slavic language?

maco2envy 02-05-2017 11:45 PM

[QUOTE]Did the Slavic Elite conquer much of Balkans because Elite Romans fled and migrated elsewhere, leaving poorly armed and disorganized Romance-speaking and other native Balkan peasants and shepherds, who were then absorbed into the newly dominant Slavic elites and adopted the Slavic language?[/QUOTE]

I think that is a plausible explanation. The rich/elite could afford to migrate away, while the wealth of the poor was generally their land, which some couldn't afford to leave behind.

Stefan of Pelagonia 02-12-2017 07:13 PM

Put a Russian or a Pole next to a Macedonian. You don't have to be an expert to see that we have nothing in common.
Macedonians are a mediterranean people of Brygian stock.

maco2envy 02-12-2017 08:34 PM

[QUOTE=Stefan of Pelagonia;166931]Put a Russian or a Pole next to a Macedonian. You don't have to be an expert to see that we have nothing in common.
Macedonians are a mediterranean people of Brygian stock.[/QUOTE]

Also I've heard now and then that the Macedonian language is the most unintelligible out of all the slavic languages of the Balkans when spoken to Poles/Russians or any non-Balkan slavic speakers.

Can anyone confirm if this is true? Or does it narrow down to regional dialects?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Macedonian Truth Organisation