View Single Post
Old 04-25-2013, 05:42 PM   #132
Senior Member
Carlin's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,149
Carlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud of

Hi Eric. I will address only the following points for now.

Originally Posted by EricTheRed View Post
I will address the points Carlin made.

1) and 3): I understand that from your point of view no native greek elite existed. I have to ask again then: if the Armenians were such a great elite within the Empire, why didn't they push for their native tongue to gain influence among their subjects.

I ask the same question about Thracians and Illyrians(not really sure if they actually had a written language though).
Why would they push for their native tongue ? Romania (the real and true name of "Byzantium" or "Eastern Roman Empire"), was a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural empire -- Common language needed to be used for administrative, religious, or similar purposes.

Historical reports and facts clearly show that during the rule of Armenian emperors, the elite engaged in massive population transfers of their own kin to various regions of the empire. Ethnic Armenians were settled in significant numbers in Thrace, Crete, Cyprus, Sicily, Calabria, Sparta, even Macedonia and Epirus - just to mention a few regions. Many areas of the these regions were depopulated, especially the rural ones. In addition to Armenians, many Syrians, Persians and other 'Easterners' were brought over as well.

If these rulers were of Greek origin (or had Greek identity), why did they settle ethnic Armenians in such large numbers? Were ethnic Greeks in short supply?

If anything, these Armenian rulers regarded themselves as "Romans" and Christians, while the elite, and churchmen used Greek for high-level communication and similar needs. Many were illiterate, however, I do not deny that Greek was not a spoken language - it was, but it was largely spoken by 'bilingual' and 'trilingual' elite and merchants of diverse origins. These facts are readily available for anyone to verify. I have already stated in my previous post that in the Middle Ages 'Greek' was a poor indicator of ethnicity. Overall, "Romania's" mission was to Christianize people - and continue the rule of the Roman empire, which was perceived as a 'global state'.

As far as the Thracians and Illyrians are concerned, by the 4th century AD they were Latin-speakers and regarded themselves as Romans. There was admixture of course from other regions of the empire, and even outside it (and these people gradually assimilated into the dominant Roman culture and empire).

Many certified historians like Ostrogosky, Moravsick, Browning, Norwich etc share the same view. And I dont want to hear the bs that these esteemed scientists were on someone's payroll, its insulting towards them.
They were not on anyone's payroll. However, views of historians can be challenged and updated (if they are outdated). These views are not static.

I have posted many facts on this forum, which directly challenge what (for example) Ostrogorsky stated. What is shows though, is that any 'authority' can be subject to scrutiny and analysis. Their works are not bibles to be taken as gospel.

Many modern Greek authors and historians have started to realize the (painful) truth, and are writing themselves about the diverse origins of modern Greeks. This is not something that I just conjured up - I read it, and posted their views and comments on this forum.
Carlin is offline   Reply With Quote