Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • slovenec zrinski
    Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 385

    Having followed this thread for a long time I must say that it is an amazing and highly entertaining one. As I do not have anything to say on the subject really, feel free to delete this post if u think it derails the thread. SoM deserves a category of his own in "Best Promoter Of Macedonia 2011" A special one regarding history and enlightenment I can't understand how u can remain calm and composed. I would have gone raving mad a long time ago....

    Comment

    • Voltron
      Banned
      • Jan 2011
      • 1362

      Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
      No you can't. You can only postulate they spoke a kind of slavic language.
      Do any of these towns sound familiar ? If I didnt tell you where they were from, where would you place these towns in ? What language would you say this is from ? Number 28 & 76 is espescially interesting.

      1. Ἀράχοβα

      2. Βαλτεσινῖκον

      3. Βαλτέτσι

      4. Βάνενα

      5. Βελιγοστῆ

      6. Βέρβαινα

      7. Βερβίτσα

      8. Βερζοβᾶ

      9. Βερτζοβᾶ

      10. Βλόκος

      11. Βλυζανά

      12. Βοϊβόντα

      13. Βούτσι

      14. Γαλτενά

      15. Γαρδίκι

      16. Γαρζενῖκος

      17. Γαρούνι

      18. Γαυριά

      19. Γλανιτζιά

      20. Γλόγοβα

      21. Γορίτσα

      22. Γρανίτσα

      23. Δερμπούνι

      24. Δερνικέϊκα

      25. Δίβριτσα

      26. Δολιανά

      27. Δραγαλεβός

      28. Ἑλληνίτσα

      29. Ζάβιτσα

      30. Ζαράκοβα

      31. Ζάτουβα

      32. Ζέλι

      33. Ζέρζοβα

      34. Ζιγοβίστι

      35. Καλλιάνοι

      36. Καλτεζαί

      37. Καμινίτσα

      38. Κανδρέβα

      39. Καρύταινα

      40. Κερέσοβα

      41. Κλιβοκᾶ

      42. Κλίνιτσα

      43. Κοκορᾶ

      44. Κοπρινίτσα

      45. Κότσακας

      46. Κράβαρι

      47. Κραμποβός

      48. Λιμποβίσι

      49. Λογγάρι

      50. Λιμπόσοβον

      51. Μαγούλα

      52. Μαγούλιανα

      53. Μάσκλινα

      54. Μεληγοῦ

      55. Μερζές

      56. Μερκινέζα

      57. Μπάλα

      58. Μπεζενῖκος

      59. Μπέλεσι

      60. Μποβέρχι

      61. Μποκοβίνα

      62. Μπολιάρι

      63. Μπούζα

      64. Μπρατίτσα

      65. Νεμνίτσα

      66. Ντουμινᾶ

      67. Ξηροκαρύταινα

      68. Παλαιοβάνενα

      69. Παραλογγοί

      70. Πιάνα

      71. Πλέσια

      72. Ποδογορά

      73. Πραστός

      74. Ῥάδου

      75. Ῥεκούνι

      76. Σέρβον

      77. Σεργιανά

      78. Σίταινα

      79. Στεμνίτσα

      80. Στόλος

      81. Στρούζα

      82. Συλίμνα

      83. Συριάμον

      84. Τοπορίστα

      85. Τραγόϊ

      86. Τρεστενά

      87. Τρεστενά

      88. Τσάρνη

      89. Τσερβίκος

      90. Τσιαρέσι

      91. Τσιπιανά

      92. Χελμός

      93. Χράνου

      94. Χρυσοβίτσι

      The below is the truth. Like it or not we all have a slavic impact on us. The difference is the language and how assimilation had a higher success rate in Macedonia rather than other parts of Greece. Thus the " Slav " argument of it all.

      South Slavs

      Antes (Slavo-Sarmatian), ancestors of Ukrainians
      Berziti, ancestors of Macedonians
      Bošnjani, ancestors of Bosnians
      Braničevci, ancestors of Serbs
      Carantanians, ancestors of Slovenes and Austrians Croats
      Draguvites, same with Dregovichs, ancestors of Macedonians and Bulgarians
      Ezerites, contributary population to the ancestors of the modern Greeks
      Melingoi, contributary population to the ancestors of the modern Greeks
      Recchines, ancestors of both modern Greeks and Bulgarians
      Sagudats, ancestors of both modern Greeks and Macedonians Serbs
      Seven Slavic tribes of Moesia, ancestors of modern Bulgarians
      Smolyani, ancestors of both modern Greeks and Bulgarians
      Strymonites, ancestors both of modern Greeks and Bulgarians
      Timočani, ancestors of Bulgarians, Serbs, as well as Hungarians
      Vaiunites, ancestors of modern Greeks
      Velegesites, ancestors of modern Greeks
      Zagorites, ancestors of modern Greeks

      Comment

      • Soldier of Macedon
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2008
        • 13675

        Originally posted by slovenec zrinski View Post
        Having followed this thread for a long time I must say that it is an amazing and highly entertaining one. As I do not have anything to say on the subject really, feel free to delete this post if u think it derails the thread. SoM deserves a category of his own in "Best Promoter Of Macedonia 2011" A special one regarding history and enlightenment I can't understand how u can remain calm and composed. I would have gone raving mad a long time ago....
        There have been a couple of times when the ignorance of some people has become annoying, but I am doing my best to overcome that with logic Ultimately, this is an important message and I think it is worth the struggle, that is why I refuse to grant ignorance the last say on this matter. I would have thought that demonstrating similarities between Paleo-Balkan languages and Balto-Slavic would be of interest to people who wanted to learn more about how our languages today are related to those from antiquity, but it seems that certain people would rather seek some sort of elusive 'evidence' that doesn't exist.
        In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

        Comment

        • Soldier of Macedon
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2008
          • 13675

          Originally posted by Voltron
          Like it or not we all have a slavic impact on us. The difference is the language and how assimilation had a higher success rate in Macedonia rather than other parts of Greece. Thus the " Slav " argument of it all.
          The fusion between the invading minority and local Paleo-Balkan majority was facilitated by their linguistic similarities, something which didn't exist further south. That is your 'assimilation'. In any case, assimilation isn't always matched with language. Look up the Latin Union and tell me how many from C˘te d'Ivoire or Haiti descend from Latin-speaking people.
          In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

          Comment

          • slovenec zrinski
            Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 385

            Well it has certainly given me a new insight and understanding of how languages may evolve. And the relationship between Baltoslavic and Paleobalkan that is put forward on this forum is very fascinating... But on the other hand, I don┤t have the emotional "luggage" that some have with the term slavic, for obvious reasons So the journey to really grasp and understand (and not constantly misunderstand) what is written here might be shorter for me.
            And the evidence is out there for everyone to see....If we really WANT to see... This is a very fascinating subject and I wish I was more educated in linguistics...

            Comment

            • Pelister
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2008
              • 2742

              Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
              The fusion between the invading minority and local Paleo-Balkan majority was facilitated by their linguistic similarities, something which didn't exist further south. That is your 'assimilation'. In any case, assimilation isn't always matched with language. Look up the Latin Union and tell me how many from C˘te d'Ivoire or Haiti descend from Latin-speaking people.
              I agree that the 6th century invaders and other invaders most likely constituted a small minority in the entire region.

              I know that you can't possibly know what langauge 6th century invaders used, because there is no direct or positive evidence of it. All we have are a few anecdotes, SoM, written decades and centuries later. Assuming you knew what langauge they would speak, and assuming that they in fact 'settled' [the evidence is not clear on this either with some invasions], and assuming you have evidence you can show us of this mysterious 'Paleo-Balkan' language, what do you really know? The bigger the picture and the bigger the case you are trying to argue, the more you are going to have to 'prove', because if your case ends up resting and relying on one presupposition after another for it to stick (and that is what it looks like), it won't go anywhere. What evidence do you have of this so called 'Paleo-Balkan' language? I think it would be better for all of us if you focused on proving the existence and character of this mysterious 'Paleo-Balkan' language than throwing wild speculations around.

              What is this mysterious 'Paleo-Balkan' language SoM? Any evidence of it?
              Last edited by Pelister; 01-23-2012, 12:31 AM.

              Comment

              • Pelister
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2008
                • 2742

                Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                In the broader sense, the Macedonian language is classified as a Slavic language, just like Russian and Polish. Collectively, Slavic languages belong to an even larger linguistic family together with Lithuanian and Latvian, which is classified as Balto-Slavic. In terms of ethno-cultural heritage, we are by definition Macedonian. Our language, although forming part of a larger family of languages, is also defined as specifically Macedonian.
                I can accept that.

                The problem is that the term 'Slavic' comes with alot of baggage for the Macedonians because it has been associated with 'foriegners' and with 'outsiders' for several centuries now. We have never used the term 'Slav' to describe ourselves SoM - foriegners have been using it and some Macedonian intellectuals have taken it on.

                Originally posted by SoM
                You know all of this already because I have repeated it to you several times. And in each response you have deliberately muddied the waters between a single language with a linguistic family, or an ethno-cultural identity with a linguistic classification. The only thing you have demonstrated by doing this is how weak and ignorant your arguments are.
                I havn't muddied the waters at all. I have in fact brought this distinction to light for you in order to demonstrate that when the term 'Slav' is associated so strongly with the negation of our historical roots - it should not be used lightly, and frankly, you have been throwing it around a bit. For hundreds of years it has been understood in Western discourse as a "negation" of our indigenous roots, because it is associated so heavily with 'invaders'.

                To be honest SoM, I think Slovak has been filling your head up with garbage.

                Originally posted by SoM
                Can you name one of those Macedonians that doubted the relationship between their language and that of Russia or Poland, or taken issue with their collective classification as Slavic languages?
                Why can I read every word and understand the King James Bible, SoM? Why is it I can read a letter written in English from the 15th century perfectly? A Macedonian today could pick a Macedonian Bible translated in the 11th or 12th centuries or earlier, and very likely understand every word in it and what it is saying! If the bible was translated into Macedonian and that was the language of Christianity throughout Eastern Europe for a thousand years, don't you think that this Macedonian langauge is going to influence the masses of Russia, or the Ukraine or Poland? I don't know for certain. Could that be possible at all? !

                I have never doubted a relationship between modern Macedonian and modern Russian on this basis, and others - but for you to claim to know what language invaders used, or what language people spoke thousands of years ago in distant lands without any evidence other than tinkering with semantic resemblances and using vague analogues is ridiculous.

                The whole idea that language originates from one source was developed by European racists - you need to ditch that idea. It has never been proven. There is no account for the strange writing systems, and strange alphabets of the Danube until we can learn what language they used.

                What if languages have have come 'closer together' over thousands of years rather that spread apart from one so called original source? Just an idea.

                Originally posted by SoM
                I have never suggested that in the manner you've written it. Macedonians today descend from the indigenous people of Macedonia. But, as a result of invasion and settlement, there are also other peoples that have contributed to our DNA. Some of them were Celtic-speakers, Germanic-speakers, Latin-speakers, etc. It is unrealistic to rule out Slavic-speakers from the regions around the Danube.
                The ancient sources say that a so called celtic tribe invaded the region at one point, but who are the Celts, SoM? There is no clear answer. More importantly what was the language this tribe brought? We have no clue.

                Of course, when you use the term 'Celtic' today it has its own specific meaning and is specifically associated with the Gaelic speaking culture of Ireland, Wales and Scotland. But is it fair to use this meaning to hypothesize that the 'Celts' of Eastern Europe were also Gaelic speaking people? NO

                It is precisely what you are doing with the term 'Slav'. You cannot possibly know the identity let alone the language (which is the criteria you are using) of invaders - when there is no postive evidence! You call them 'Slavs' for the same reason Nicholas Martis, in his book 'The Falsification of Macedonian History' calls them 'Slavs', because Western historiography calls the invaders "Slavs"! When a Western linguistic created the IR family tree and located a language on it which he called 'Slavic' - the die was cast. Using one term to identify 6th century invaders and using the exact same term to define the language of people south of the Danube, naturally, made people think that there must be a connection. Can you see the mischief in this analogy of events?


                What did you mean by 'Slavic', Pelister?
                ]

                What is your point here?

                I have used the term 'Slavic' before, but I have never hidden that fact. But since then new evidence has crossed my path, and I have read more widely which is why I will never use it if I can help it although that might not always be possible.
                Last edited by Pelister; 01-23-2012, 12:30 AM.

                Comment

                • Soldier of Macedon
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 13675

                  Originally posted by Pelister
                  What is this mysterious 'Paleo-Balkan' language SoM? Any evidence of it?
                  It is not one language and there is no mystery. There are several Paleo-Balkan languages, such as Thracian, Illyrian, anc. Macedonian, etc.
                  We have never used the term 'Slav' to describe ourselves SoM - foriegners have been using it and some Macedonian intellectuals have taken it on.
                  I don't see a need to go in circles on this point. You need to actually start reading these texts which you directly and indirectly reference.
                  I havn't muddied the waters at all.
                  You've definetly made a number of attempts at muddying the waters to conceal your own ignorance.
                  To be honest SoM, I think Slovak has been filling your head up with garbage.
                  I find the notion that I can be persuaded in the manner you're suggesting laughable. But Slovak has certainly assisted with information concerning historical linguistics, and in this respect your knowledge on the topic is akin to the average layman. At the moment it really is largely beyond you.
                  Why can I read every word and understand the King James Bible, SoM? Why is it I can read a letter written in English from the 15th century perfectly?
                  If there were more written documents in vernacular Macedonian from the same period it would also be quite close to modern Macedonian.
                  A Macedonian today could pick a Macedonian Bible translated in the 11th or 12th centuries or earlier, and very likely understand every word in it and what it is saying!
                  No, they wouldn't. Nor would an Englishman understand English so well from the same period.
                  If the bible was translated into Macedonian and that was the language of Christianity throughout Eastern Europe for a thousand years, don't you think that this Macedonian langauge is going to influence the masses of Russia, or the Ukraine or Poland? I don't know for certain. Could that be possible at all? !
                  That is exactly what happened, but its influence varied and in many areas kindred languages were already spoken.
                  I have never doubted a relationship between modern Macedonian and modern Russian on this basis, and others - but for you to claim to know what language invaders used, or what language people spoke thousands of years ago in distant lands without any evidence other than tinkering with semantic resemblances and using vague analogues is ridiculous.
                  Explain the reason for the different placenames in Macedonia and the rest of the Balkans after the 6th century invasions.
                  What if languages have have come 'closer together' over thousands of years rather that spread apart from one so called original source? Just an idea.
                  Even languages within the same family can drift apart and/or come together at some point, but the similarities between Macedonian and Russian are too fundamental to be a result of mere language contact.
                  The ancient sources say that a so called celtic tribe invaded the region at one point, but who are the Celts, SoM? There is no clear answer.
                  The Celts are a collection of various peoples who speak (or spoke) languages which belong to the same linguistic family.
                  More importantly what was the language this tribe brought? We have no clue.
                  They brought Celtic languages, but they were unlike the local languages and lacked socio-political influence, so they had no real impact.
                  Of course, when you use the term 'Celtic' today it has its own specific meaning and is specifically associated with the Gaelic speaking culture of Ireland, Wales and Scotland. But is it fair to use this meaning to hypothesize that the 'Celts' of Eastern Europe were also Gaelic speaking people? NO
                  Welsh isn't Gaelic, it is Brythonic, which is another branch of Celtic along with Gaulish and Celtiberian, all of which are considered Celtic in historical linguistics.
                  You call them 'Slavs' for the same reason Nicholas Martis, in his book 'The Falsification of Macedonian History' calls them 'Slavs', because Western historiography calls the invaders "Slavs"!
                  You need to cease with these deceitful and idiotic analogies.
                  In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                  Comment

                  • Voltron
                    Banned
                    • Jan 2011
                    • 1362

                    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                    The fusion between the invading minority and local Paleo-Balkan majority was facilitated by their linguistic similarities, something which didn't exist further south. That is your 'assimilation'. In any case, assimilation isn't always matched with language. Look up the Latin Union and tell me how many from C˘te d'Ivoire or Haiti descend from Latin-speaking people.
                    SOM, if they were indeed minority invaders why do we have so many toponyms ? Whats your take on that ? They are literally all over the place. The numbers must of been much higher than just a small rogue group spreading their language all over the balkans.

                    Comment

                    • Soldier of Macedon
                      Senior Member
                      • Sep 2008
                      • 13675

                      Originally posted by Voltron View Post
                      SOM, if they were indeed minority invaders why do we have so many toponyms ? Whats your take on that ? They are literally all over the place. The numbers must of been much higher than just a small rogue group spreading their language all over the balkans.
                      Not necessarily. You fail to take into account the socio-political influence the invaders had over the linguistically related peoples they came to govern, not just in their own enclaves but beyond.

                      Egypt today is literally full of Arabic placenames because of the socio-political (and religious) influence of invading Arabs during the Islamic conquest. The original language of the land was essentially displaced by a distant yet related language, however, that doesn't suggest that middle-eastern Arabs outnumbered the indigenous Egyptians in Egypt, then or now.

                      It is not all black and white, Voltron. Your argument is too simplistic and doesn't consider a number of other factors. Modern Greece would have had as much Slavic placenames as the rest of the Balkans at some point, and it very easily could have remained that way. Imagine it did. Would that make you 'Slavic' or mean that most of your ancestors today were at one point invading 'Slavs'?
                      In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                      Comment

                      • Bill77
                        Senior Member
                        • Oct 2009
                        • 4545

                        Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                        Modern Greece would have had as much Slavic placenames as the rest of the Balkans at some point, and it very easily could have remained that way. Imagine they did. Would that make you 'Slavic' or mean that most of your ancestors today were at one point invading 'Slavs'?
                        Now you are torchering him with common sense. Now in his mind, there is a lack of consistency in his belief and perception. This is where Hysteria kicks in (in most cases) with these people.
                        Last edited by Bill77; 02-02-2012, 07:10 PM.
                        http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=120873#post120873

                        Comment

                        • Carlin
                          Senior Member
                          • Dec 2011
                          • 3332

                          The following is a quote from eminent historian Edward Gibbon, "History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire" (publication date 1776ľ89):

                          The fame of a great enterprise excited the bravest warriors from all the Vandalic states of Germany, many of whom are seen a few years afterwards combating under the common standard of the Goths. The first motions of the emigrants carried them to the banks of the Prypec, a river universally conceived by the ancients to be the southern branch of the Borysthenes. The windings of that great stream through the plains of Poland and Russia gave a direction to their line of march, and a constant supply of fresh water and pasturage to their numerous herds of cattle. They followed the unknown course of the river, confident in their valor, and careless of whatever power might oppose their progress. The BastarnŠ and the Venedi were the first who presented themselves; and the flower of their youth, either from choice or compulsion, increased the Gothic army. The BastarnŠ dwelt on the northern side of the Carpathian Mountains: the immense tract of land that separated the BastarnŠ from the savages of Finland was possessed, or rather wasted, by the Venedi; we have some reason to believe that the first of these nations, which distinguished itself in the Macedonian war, and was afterwards divided into the formidable tribes of the Peucini, the Borani, the Carpi, &c., derived its origin from the Germans. With better authority, a Sarmatian extraction may be assigned to the Venedi, who rendered themselves so famous in the middle ages. (The Venedi, the Slavi, and the Antes, were the three great tribes of the same people. Jornandes, c.24) But the confusion of blood and manners on that doubtful frontier often perplexed the most accurate observers. As the Goths advanced near the Euxine Sea, they encountered a purer race of Sarmatians, the Jazyges, the Alani, and the Roxolani; and they were probably the first Germans who saw the mouths of the Borysthenes, and of the Tanais. If we inquire into the characteristic marks of the people of Germany and of Sarmatia, we shall discover that those two great portions of human kind were principally distinguished by fixed huts or movable tents, by a close dress or flowing garments, by the marriage of one or of several wives, by a military force, consisting, for the most part, either of infantry or cavalry; and above all, by the use of the Teutonic, or of the Sclavonian language; the last of which has been diffused by conquest, from the confines of Italy to the neighborhood of Japan.

                          Comment

                          • Voltron
                            Banned
                            • Jan 2011
                            • 1362

                            Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                            It is not all black and white, Voltron. Your argument is too simplistic and doesn't consider a number of other factors. Modern Greece would have had as much Slavic placenames as the rest of the Balkans at some point, and it very easily could have remained that way. Imagine it did. Would that make you 'Slavic' or mean that most of your ancestors today were at one point invading 'Slavs'?
                            Greece still has a lot of toponyms in place. Its perfectly normal, I myself have posted numerous times of how many we have here. Its even on two of my earlier posts on the thread. Remember I said that Greece could of in fact been another member of the south slavic countries ?

                            Now would that of made me Slav or my country Slavic ? Of course if would. If the language I speak is derived from those very people that settled the balkans in the 6th century (more or less) than thats the ethnos that I would be aligned to. Language to me is where the difference lies and I dont believe that the Byzantine Empire had organized sunday schools for the Slavs to learn it. I do not think they were a minority, I think they were more in numbers than most would like to believe and had spread out throughout the balkans by Byzantines setteling them here or forced incursions.

                            Comment

                            • Voltron
                              Banned
                              • Jan 2011
                              • 1362

                              Carlin, the Sarmations are most likely today's Ukranians and Polish nobility even stated the descent from them. Although the latter is a debate. The Poles today represent the best example of a Slavic ethnos.

                              Comment

                              • Mygdon
                                Junior Member
                                • May 2009
                                • 90

                                Originally posted by Voltron View Post
                                Greece still has a lot of toponyms in place. Its perfectly normal, I myself have posted numerous times of how many we have here. Its even on two of my earlier posts on the thread. Remember I said that Greece could of in fact been another member of the south slavic countries ?

                                Now would that of made me Slav or my country Slavic ? Of course if would. If the language I speak is derived from those very people that settled the balkans in the 6th century (more or less) than thats the ethnos that I would be aligned to. Language to me is where the difference lies and I dont believe that the Byzantine Empire had organized sunday schools for the Slavs to learn it. I do not think they were a minority, I think they were more in numbers than most would like to believe and had spread out throughout the balkans by Byzantines setteling them here or forced incursions.
                                dienekes pontikos

                                4. Interestingly, the Slavs of FYROM have an R-M458 frequency of 3.8%, barely different from that of Greeks at large, suggesting that (i) the claims of some Greek nationalists that they Slavs of FYROM are newcomers to the Balkans are wrong, just as (ii) the claim of some FYROMian nationalists that they are markedly different from Greeks are wrong. The actual truth is that the Slavs of FYROM are largely of old Balkan (pre-Slavic) stock who adopted a non-Balkan Slavic language, just as the modern Turks are largely of old Anatolian (pre-Turkish) stock who adopted a non-Anatolian Turkic language.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X