The Illyrians

[Constellation]

Interesting you are mentioning Borza.

Of course Macedonian Kings after Alexander were agents for the spread of the Greek culture and Institutions throuht the Eastern Mediterreanean
E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) page 230

And lots more...
http://history-of-macedonia.com/2006...-eugene-borza/

It is well known that (1) the Macedonian aristocracy was fond of Greek culture and literature; (2) the Macedonian aristocracy had no policy of Hellenization.

Borza's earlier opinions on the ethnic identity of the ancient Macedonians and the Hellenization policy of the Macedonian court are no longer entertained by him.

He now believes the ancient Macedonians were non-Greeks, and there was no Hellenization policy.

See this article written in 1995.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/NoHellenization.pdf

So from your point of view we must select what Herodotus says because the text is... problematic. But this does not mean that he is not trustworthy! No, wait, he is trustworthy! No, wait again.... he's both!
Clever... .

You are dodging the question. You are making up information too to muddy the waters. We are not debating the trustworthiness of Herodotus. We are not selecting information. This has nothing to do with Herodotus.

I see having a logical discussion with you is fruitless and a serious waste of time.

[spitfire]

Are you delusional?

I find it funny that you think you have answered the question.

I now see your confusion, I was telling a joke. Did you also miss my sarcasm previously when I called Alexander I a historian?

Have you not read a single page of this thread?

You are really, really missing the point.

Start thinking in an integrating way, 'cause ther is no other way Nkolaj.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with slavic (or whatever you want to call it) culture and influence.
Think about it as a plus, not a minus. Stop wondering if Alexander would drink ouzo or rakijah today.
You are missing the point altogether. Don't fall into antiquitism. It's a fascist trap trying to see that your great great great great great..... great great great great..... great great great great (are we there yet?) great great grandfather was a member of an indigenous population of the Balkans.
Most stupid!

[spitfire]

It is well known that (1) the Macedonian aristocracy was fond of Greek culture and literature; (2) the Macedonian aristocracy had no policy of Hellenization.

Borza's earlier opinions on the ethnic identity of the ancient Macedonians and the Hellenization policy of the Macedonian court are no longer entertained by him.

He now believes the ancient Macedonians were non-Greeks, and there was no Hellenization policy.

See this article written in 1995.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/NoHellenization.pdf

I see. Now he thinks otherwise? Well let's not call him untrustworthy shall we? I guess his earlier book goes down the drain. He didn't write it, nor does he accept it right?

Yes macedonian aristocracy had no Hellenization policy. Despite their fondness of greek culture and greek culture spreading across the empire by them. I see clearly now.

You are dodging the question. You are making up information too to muddy the waters. We are not debating the trustworthiness of Herodotus. We are not selecting information. This has nothing to do with Herodotus.

I see having a logical discussion with you is fruitless and a serious waste of time.

Who is making up information? Herodotus quoted Alexander I. And it's not the only quote. Is Herodotus liyng?
So how about self-determination?

[Redsun]

Spitfire - Yes Macedonian aristocracy had no Hellenization policy. Despite their fondness of greek culture and greek culture spreading across the empire by them. I see clearly now.

They used an alphabet that was recognized by the middle easterners, as it had in common the same style of lettering of the alphabet that originated from the middle east.

What examples of Greek culture were spread into the middle east?

[George S.]

The slavic influence is there for all to see.The influence of greek is obvious but is not exclusive.THe conclussions are obvious.

[Nikolaj]

Start thinking in an integrating way, 'cause ther is no other way Nkolaj.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with slavic (or whatever you want to call it) culture and influence.
Think about it as a plus, not a minus. Stop wondering if Alexander would drink ouzo or rakijah today.
You are missing the point altogether. Don't fall into antiquitism. It's a fascist trap trying to see that your great great great great great..... great great great great..... great great great great (are we there yet?) great great grandfather was a member of an indigenous population of the Balkans.
Most stupid!

I never said there's something wrong with slavic influence. It's about the principle and you've missed it... completely. I don't understand where you're getting this stupid idea that i'm speaking of purity or that I think every nation is pure and that their hasn't been cultural influence. What you are saying I've never thought or wrote about on this forum, you're lost Spitfire, very lost.

[Nikolaj]

I see. Now he thinks otherwise? Well let's not call him untrustworthy shall we? I guess his earlier book goes down the drain. He didn't write it, nor does he accept it right?

Yes macedonian aristocracy had no Hellenization policy. Despite their fondness of greek culture and greek culture spreading across the empire by them. I see clearly now.



Who is making up information? Herodotus quoted Alexander I. And it's not the only quote. Is Herodotus liyng?
So how about self-determination?

It seems as though you've only read the quotes of Alexander I through Herodotus, but have not read the volume itself to get a grasp of Alexander I's intentions.

But you're also failing to see that Alexander I could have said he was a descendant of a chicken and Herodotus would have still quoted him, as Alexander I was the subject. It does not mean it is correct. There's conflicting views so we should throw the sources away? No. It means that we should do extensive analysis to find a logical explanation to why Alexander I said what he said or to why Herodotus does not categorise Macedonians as Greeks or within Hellenic boarders.

[George S.]

it is far from clear nikolaj you are onto it.

[Sovius]

Just some comments and observations:

Theories are based on evidence. Myths are based on belief. Many believe that the Slavic Migration Myth is a theory or a historical fact, but, as Constellation has kindly demonstrated, no one has ever been able to prove it, because it never happened. It gained weight through semantic distortion and the simple de-emphasis of key historical passages long ago. The following researchers didn't have to discredit anything really, they just chose a path of objectivity.

Lehr-Splawinski, Kostrzewski, Czekanowski, Kozlowski, Czekanowski, Stojanowski were at the forefront of the autochthonous school of thought before the Soviets did what they did best. The Nazi's destroyed quite a bit of scholarship, as well, during their brief visit to Poland. If we have to give someone credit for discrediting something that has never existed, these are the ones that I know of from Poland. Radivoje Pesic turned in some excellent work from south of the Danube and should also be mentioned, especially in this thread. There were many others who never lost touch with the past. The continued mistreatment of sloveni/sklabenoi as Slav still provides enough confusion to confuse most people, but fact still trumps fiction.

Sample size and haplogroup frequency were of little importance when researchers determined the mutational chronology of each haplogroup's subclades. You simply need to figure out which mutation came first in each region of Europe that shows intra-haplogroup variation. Parents and children are not genetically identical and either are population sub-groups that all belong to the same haplogroup. Populations carrying the I2a haplogroup to the south of Macedonia are the descendents of the same ancestral groups as contemporary I2a populations living in Bosnia and Croatia who migrated south at some point in time, perhaps in several different waves over a number of different ages. We now know that I2a populations in Greece originally came from the Western region of Southeastern Europe, because their DNA shows a later mutation that distinguishes these populations from other populations defined by I2a, similar people, but not the same. And yes, there are variations within each subclade, as well, that provide even further resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subclade

The study submitted to the Japan Society of Human Genetics was conducted before haplogroup R1a's major subclades were completely resolved, by the way. The discovery of M458 and the general location of the oldest group still defined by the M198 sublclade have thrown a few wrenches into the proverbial gears. As previously mentioned, all R1a populations to the north of the Danube ultimately came from R1a populations to the south of the Danube. Carriers of Z283 have been present across most of Europe since around 3,000 BC or so. M458 defines populations from both regions that were populated by the Sarmatians during the ancient period. If these are the "Slavs" that people are speaking of, then you're saying like what, 10 guys from Sarmatia Europa or Asiatica rode down to Macedonia during the 6th Century AD and forced everyone to speak a different language? Or was that 10 Sarmatians plus 1 Chuck Norris? To add to the complexity, M458 has been wandering around "Slavicizing" Europe since around 3,000 BC, as well. Worse yet, many populations who continue to inhabit the two Sarmatias continue to carry Z283, not M458. I2a among Sarmatian populations, like Greek I2a, is evolutionarily younger than Croatian I2a, but still ultimately originates in Southeastern Europe.

To clarify:

Populations presently classified as Slavic by nationalist revisionist academic institutions and the governments that continue to provide for their existence were not originally classified as Slavs, but mistranslations of historical documents that use the contemporary "slav" term in an anachronistic manner promote the illusion that Europe was somehow over run during the 6th Century AD by a people known as the Slavs. It's a self -fulfilling hypothesis. Erroneously translate Sklabenoi as Slav and you get instant Slavs running around slav'ing up the whole of Central and southeastern Europe, a primitive belief held together through social convention. But Sklabenoi, an adapted Greek language equivalent of 'sloveni', originally meant 'a like language speaker', someone who spoke a similar language to the Thracians and Macedonians who preserved their histories during that period in the Greek language, a descriptive term that did not carry a specific ethnic or tribal designation. The subjectivist movements of the 19th Century created a false association, blurring the past. This includes movements in Russia.

The writings of Theophylact Simocatta and Adam of Bremen clearly demonstrate that the original "sklabenoi" and "slaven" terms were colloquial in nature and used as informal references to Dacians and Vindelicians, Getae and Wends respectively, populations now referred to as Romanians and Germans. The political and military conflicts taking place in these regions when these terms came in to use demonstrate that they were initially used as derogatory generalizations in place of formal ethno-nationalistic terms. By formally re-classifying the Illyro-Sarmatian language family as the Slavic languages, Western scholars reinforced the false notion that Sklabenoi and Slaven were somehow authentic ethno-linguistic terms, de-emphasizing previous anthropological models, such as the Renaissance Period Model, which fell into obscurity during Europe's nationalist revisionist period during the 19th Century.

The word "slave" is based on a slang word that came to be used for Sarmatians, vindelicians and Getians, among other groups of people who brought on the downfall of the Roman Empire and resisted assimilation into the Frankish Empire.

As previously mentioned a while back, Macedonia's present struggles against ethnocide are part of a larger history and campaign of ethnic cleansing that has been going on since the Middle Ages, starting with the Vindelicians, who once spoke a Venetic language very similar to Polish and Slovenian, who now speak a language based on the Frankish lingua franca that was introduced into the region. Millions of Germans remain largely unaware of that chapter that has been written out of their history through this semantic distortion by 19th Century revisionists. Thousands upon thousands of their ancestors died during the Wendish Crusade for the cause of freedom, but they, unfortunately, they did not prevail. Very sad, really. Heroes in every sense of the word. It's known as the Drive East. As Germany has often been to Poland historically post-assimilation, Greece is presently to Macedonia. Greece does what it does because it was programmed to do what it has always done since it became something that it previously wasn't.

[Redsun]

Sovius that was informative.

I have been reading information on the Roman Empire and its provinces in south-eastern Europe recently because I wanted to know how exactly did they lose power.

Dalmatia
Moesia
Thracia
Macedonia
Pannonia
Dacia

I don't understand the absence of Latin in south-eastern Europe, it doesn't exist.

Did the Romans push Latin onto the populations within the provinces they controlled or was Latin kept exclusive for Roman use, no foreigner could speak their tongue?

Roman colonization
Capitals, towns, barracks and military forts.

How many Roman blooded citizens where present in south-eastern Europe?
Tens of thousands?

Aristocates, politicians, generals and master craftsmen they were given lands to settle in, they had native people work on their lands as servants.

Constantine the Emperor, founder of Constantinople he was born Naissus, Moesia Superior.
He was born into a wealthy family that owned lands in Moesia, how big was the villa he spent his childhood within, how many servants did their family own?

How many wealthy Roman families distributed the lands amongst themselves?

I don't think that Rome ever totally controlled the populations within the provinces of south-east Europe.

During the Roman period of south-east Europe, there were native speakers and Latin speakers.

I would like to know more about the "free Dacians" and the "native Dacians." If these names are put into a Google search, there are results but I would like to know where the source for this is.

What word did the Roman's use to define non-latin speakers?

What I find strange is the amount of written history on south-eastern European provinces, where is all the Latin literature?

I believe the Romans and their Latin language was removed violently by the suppressed native populations that lived within the provinces out of the Roman scope.

Who would want to be a foederati/auxillary serving the people that have occupied their lands, how long would it take for a foedarati force of men of the same blood to revolt against a foreign blooded ruler? Why pay these suppressors taxes?

[makedonche]

Sovius

Thanks once again for your invaluable input, the following quote sums up Greece and it's history very nicely!

Myths are based on belief.

[Nikolaj]

Is it just me, or does Sovius need to write a thick article covering the slavic migration myth from top to bottom?

I for one would pay good money for that.

[makedonche]

Is it just me, or does Sovius need to write a thick article covering the slavic migration myth from top to bottom?

I for one would pay good money for that.

Nikolaj

If you read all his posts on the forum it probably ads up to a thick article!

[George S.]

Sovius is a marvelous person and seems to know a lot about history.He's like a walking encyclopaedia at your fingertips.

[Nikolaj]

Nikolaj

If you read all his posts on the forum it probably ads up to a thick article!

You're right about that as I have read most of his stuff. Maybe i'll just compile all his works into a single doc haha.