Macedonians in the East Roman Empire

[Soldier of Macedon]

Good work TM, another set of interesting sources. This quote in particlar stands out:

"The Byzantines were Romans who happened to speak Greek, and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Romans"


How true, how true, a living contradiction, just like the title of the book "Hellenism in Byzantium", lol.

[TrueMacedonian]

Thanks SoM. I posted some of Kalledis' pages in this thread here - http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...p?t=542&page=4

And here's something I just found;

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA41&dq=romanized+slavs&lr=&id=1S5zGxF8VMoC&as_brr=3

It would appear that Maurice had intended to break down the barrier, which had been interposed in the fourth century, between the class which paid the taxes and that which recruited the national army. ' We wish,' he writes; ' that every young Roman of free condition should learn the use of the bow, and should be constantly provided with that weapon and with two javelins.' If, however, this was intended to be the first step towards the introduction of universal military service, the design was never carried any further. Three hundred years later Leo is found echoing the same words, as a pious wish rather than as a practical expedient. The rank and file, however, of the imperial forces were now raised almost entirely within the realm, and well nigh every nation contained in its limits, except the Greeks, furnished a considerable number of soldiers. The Armenians and Isaurians in Asia, the ' Thracians' and ' Macedonians'—or more properly the semi-Romanized Slavs—in Europe, were considered the best material by the recruiting officer.

The Art of War in the Middle Ages, A. D. 378-1515 By Charles William Chadwick Oman page 41

[Bratot]

Art of War in the Middle Ages A. D. 378-1515

http://www.unlt.com/art-of-war-in-the-middle-ages-a-d-378-1515_0801490626.html

[Soldier of Macedon]

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102924949

Sometime about 470, three young peasants from upper Macedonia abandoned their struggle with poverty at home and left for Constantinople, travelling on foot, with only some toasted bread wrapped up in their cloaks for food. We know their names, and two are recognizably Thracian; Zimarchus, Dityvistus. The third, Justin, was probably of Thracian origin as well. Justin, and perhaps his companions too, were from Bederiana, the name of which has survived in a village called Bader near modern Skopje in Macedonia. When these three reached the capital, they found that the emperor Leo was organizing the Excubitores as a new corps of palace guards intended to counterbalance the influence of the German federate troops, and since they were strong, healthy young men, they were promptly enrolled. Zimarchus and Dityvistus thereupon disappeared from history, but their companion was to become the emperor Justin I.

I thought it worthy to note as Serbs tend to try and claim Justin and Justinian for themselves, even though Bederiana (Bader) and Tauresium (Taor) are both in Macedonian territory, not Serbian.

[osiris]

"The Byzantines were Romans who happened to speak Greek, and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Romans"

while greek was the official language i very much doubt that many people in the empire actually spoke greek, it was a multi cultural multi lingual empire and the majority of its population would have spoken their native language only. greek would have been limited to a very small section of the population.

if greek was the language of the empire we would most likely have a similar situation that exists in the west with latin forming the basis of all the languages spoken. even constantinople was a totally multilingual city, with over 40 languages spoken by its citizens.

i would suggest that in the smaller cities the lingua franca would not have been greek, witness the remarks of the emperor who chose cyril and methodius as missionaries, didnt he say they are Thessalonians and all thessalonians speak slav. to me that suggests that slavic was the peoples language of the empires 2nd largest city and most likely throughout the whole balkan peninsula including parts of greece during the 9th to 12 centuries.

the problem is that historians are to constantinople centric and that has colored their view of cultural and linguistic makeup of the empire

[Soldier of Macedon]

Despite the lingua franca, the native languages were preserved, that in itself says alot.

[Pelister]

I thought this was interesting.

There has been a battle going on in Christianity for a long time. This appears to be one of those.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xtgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA471&dq=arians+macedonians&lr=&hl=el

Enjoy.

[Sovius]

Could the following be regarded as an accurate general summation of the re-emerging objectivist interpretation of the period in question?

As the Gothic Insurrection, which Procopius had recorded earlier, swept through the Eastern Roman Empire, dividing populations into authoritarian loyalists (Romans) and egalitarian separatists (Sklavenes), colonial rule among the Romans had come to be eclipsed by indigenous leaders, who often shared the same ethnic backgrounds as those who continued to oppose the ruling class and those who this ruling class governed. Political divisions, once fairly absolute, blended together in certain areas, with economic and political interests blurring sides in military conflicts, producing the Antic division among the indigenous military democracies, for example. Religious division continued to further fragment the region’s populations, as well, with belief systems such as Arianism, which was adopted by Getic populations earlier on, prying away at political uniformity.

________________________

St. Columban

“the land of the Veneti, who are also called Sclavi.”

“the land of the Venetians, who we also now refer to as Sklavi, because they fought alongside the Thracians.”

“The land of the Americans, who are also informally called Yankees, because they rejected British subjugation in favor of independence.”

The Yankee Language Group?

The Ethnogenesis of the Yankees?

The New York Slavs?

_______________________

What I thought was really interesting when I was reading these passages was that, what had come to be viewed as a gradual collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire due to (uncivilized) external forces during the 19th Century by Western European nationalist scholars was actually viewed as more of an internal implosion by those who actually experienced these events; a classic case of class struggle that arose out of a previous period of more isolated waves of rebellion and non-Roman (Venetic,etc.) military interventions in many ways.

An excellent collection of research material, many thanks to many people.

[Soldier of Macedon]

As the Gothic Insurrection, which Procopius had recorded earlier, swept through the Eastern Roman Empire, dividing populations into authoritarian loyalists (Romans) and egalitarian separatists (Sklavenes), colonial rule among the Romans had come to be eclipsed by indigenous leaders, who often shared the same ethnic backgrounds as those who continued to oppose the ruling class and those who this ruling class governed.

And often shared the same origins as the 'Slavs' from the Danube, what you suggest is very probable indeed.

[Sovius]

The Danube River represented an equator of sorts for populations archeologically defined as the Neolithic Balkan Painted and Impressed Pottery cultures, which also extended well into Northwestern Anatolia. The Getae regained Dacia from the Romans, the northernmost region of this Neolithic zone of cultural uniformity, in 292 AD. The Dacians were regarded as a kindred people to the Thracians, who existed largely on the other side of the Danube and spoke a language similar to the Dacian language.

Looking through the eyes of the Romans, we have a political border defined by a water system, but through Gothic eyes, this river represented a partition of their motherland, if we are to incorporate genetic evidence demonstrating population continuity in the region since before the Neolithic Period.

It’s within the general region of Dacia, where archeologists have found evidence of admixture between both Linear Pottery cultures and Trypolye-Cucuteni cultures to the Northwest and Northeast respectively. Beyond the Carpathians, a period of admixture occurred between populations representing Linear Pottery and Trypolye-Cucuteni material traits during the Neolithic Period, as well.

It’s interesting to note that the region of Dacia was an early cultural center during what has been generically classified as Europe’s Urnfield Period. It may well come to be that what was left unwritten during the Ancient Period may be of more value to contemporary historical researchers in terms of gaining a more complete understanding of the cultural and political dynamics during this era than the written record. There was a motivation displayed in the military conflicts recorded during this period that remains defined by this region’s archeological record. Before the Romans conquered the Dacians, who conquered the Romans?

[osiris]

sovius please post more i am learning much from your posts.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Looking through the eyes of the Romans, we have a political border defined by a water system, but through Gothic eyes, this river represented a partition of their motherland, if we are to incorporate genetic evidence demonstrating population continuity in the region since before the Neolithic Period.

Well said, I would also include available historical data of the people in the region.

[TrueMacedonian]

[Soldier of Macedon]

Another good source TM, keep em' coming, this thread has some excellent reference material.

[TrueMacedonian]

I have a bunch of goodies coming this threads way SoM. Like these for instance;






Macedonia and Greece by John Shea