Do you know of any medieval sources which refer to them as 'Greeks'?
If that is what the answer would have to be as you've indicated above, how does that fit into to your theory that today's Macedonians are genetically different to those 'pagan Slavs'?
Thus, in this instance, I am arguing if the established position were true, which is to say, the brothers were Greek, and so-called “Slavs” migrated to Macedonia, they would have presumably wiped out the existing populations. The logical conclusion from the mainstream interpretation of history is that Macedonia was Christianized in the first century. So-called “Slavs” migrated to the Balkans in the 6th and subsequent centuries, including Macedonia. These people (by logical inference and from history) were not Christened. Because they were not Christened, the mainstream interpretation of history also states that the Greek brothers sought to convert them to Christianity and create an alphabet to this end. Thus, they were the apostle to the Slavs.
What language do you think they spoke as a vernacular?
Interesting question. What is your theory on the above?
The established interpretation of history is that the so-called Slavs in Greece were absorbed by the Greeks and adopted the Hellenic language and culture. We know from genetics that the so-called Slavs in today's Greek boundaries, as far south as Greece, could not have been more than 15% or so, and yet we are supposed to believe that the Slavs were Hellenized.
And yet in Macedonia, where the so-called Slavs were about the same proportion in numbers, we are supposed to believe that their language was forced on the indigenous population. This would only make sense if the indigenous Macedonians were wiped out – a fact which contradicts DNA evidence. But considering the dominant genetics of the modern Macedonians is very similar to its southern neighbors – or put differently, Mediterranean Balkan – it is not logical to argue the so-called Slavs dominated.
So if the brothers spoke Macedonian, and this Macedonian was similar or the same as the ancient Macedonian language, it is not logical that they would not absorb and convert a small portion of the invading Slavs, similar as the Greeks did in Greece. It is very illogical to believe that they created a foreign alphabet for the invaders, when they could have easily taught them their language. And then it is even more illogical to believe that after being Christened, they became the dominant people of the region, and then forced Slavic, a foreign tongue, on ethnic Macedonians. In the 9th and subsequent centuries there is no historical data that would remotely suggest this either.
Conversely, if the brothers were Greek, and again the so-called Slavs in the region were about 15% or so, why would the Greek brothers not Hellenize them, like they did with the so-called Slavs in what is now modern day Greece? How did these Greek brothers create this alphabet for the locals in Macedonia? And why didn't they do that in Greece? Not logical.
If we start with the assumption that the brothers were ethnic Macedonians and they spoke a language similar to the ancients, and that this language was Slavic, it would make sense for them to create an alphabet to convert the so-called Slavs. But another question arises – what language did the so-called Slavs speak? Alinei and others would state Slavic. And that in the past the Slavic language migrated from the south to the north, from which it split into east and west. Maybe. But maybe not. Maybe the language the so-called Slavs spoke was not Slavic at all. And maybe this is the point of time in history that the so-called Slavs adopted Slavic. This would perhaps explain why no one seemed to think or record that the invaders spoke a similar language to the Balkan peoples. Maybe it is from here that the language only continued north and then split.
If true, I still do not believe there is an ethnic or biological ancestor between these peoples, as genetic studies do not allow it.
Comment