NATIONALISM AND THE MIDDLE AGES: The Myth of Creation of Slavic-Bulgarian Nation...

[Petros Houhoulis]

Of course I do, because Slavic tribes never existed. Slavic is not an ethnic group, it;s a linguistic group. Macedonians have lived on that territory way before this rubbish about Slavic tribes came out. Macedonians have lived there since the beginning. Macedonians were there and you all very well know that.
There is NO archaeological prove that such Slavic tribes ever existed.
Who were the Slavic tribes? Where did they come from? Where are the facts to support this theory? Facts?

There is also no archaeologic proof that the Mongols conquered China, or an archaeologic proof that the Greeks invaded Greece, or that the Celts invaded Greece and Asia. The only evidence of the Turkish invasion in the entire Ottoman empire is some pottery...

...But why?

Archaeological evidence that a people moved from A to B means that you find some artifacts in A and some year later you find some similar artifacts in B.

Imagine the Mongols and the Turks who lived in tents or on top of horses conquering such vast empires as China and the Eastern Roman empire and still keep living in their tents and upon their horses. Does it make sense? It doesn't really.

Apart from the language, all other proof of their existence was erased when they chose to adapt to the lifestyle of the rich countries that they conquered. They actually expanded upon it: The Taj Mahal is in India, but it was built by a Muslim Mongol emperor. Why did he chose to build it as an Indian monument and not as a Mongol monument? Well, what is a Mongol monument? Do you know of a single Mongol monument? The Mongols created the largest empire ever, but you won't find Mongol architecture in any part of their former conquests, perhaps not even in Mongolia itself.

Thus, what you find from the invasion of a barbarian people into a civilized country is nothing more than signs of destruction. These exist in all of these cases, but some people prefer to interpret them as signs of internal strife. This is a possibility, albeit a slim one.

Still, all of the contemporary historians mention all of these invasions. The strongest proof of them is not the creations of the invaders themselves, but the creations of the civilized people who tried to stop them from invading, like the only monument that is visible from space, the Great wall of China...

[Petros Houhoulis]

Just an idea why some cultures left less archaeology than other cultures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period_art#Background

"...Although these kingdoms were never homogeneous, they shared certain common cultural features. Traditionally nomadic, they began to settle and become farmers and fishermen. Archaeological evidence shows no tradition of monumental artwork, such as architecture or large sculpture, preferring instead "mobile" art with a utilitarian function, such as weapons, tools and jewelry. The art of the Germanic peoples is almost entirely personal adornment, portable, and taken to the grave where it would act as an appeasement to dead spirits to protect the living...."

Nomads have only mobile art, no matter who they were. It is difficult up to impossible to trace the roots of mobile art...

[Petros Houhoulis]

The Manchou: Conquerors of China, assimilated into the Chinese culture!!! How was it possible?

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

"The Manchu people (Manchu: Manju; simplified Chinese: 满族; traditional Chinese: 滿族; pinyin: Mǎnzú, Mongolian: Манж, Russian: Маньчжуры) are a Tungusic people who originated in Manchuria (today's Northeastern China). During their rise in the seventeenth century, along with the help of Ming rebels (such as general Wu Sangui), they conquered the Ming Dynasty and founded the Qing Dynasty, which ruled China until its abolition in 1911 after the Xinhai Revolution, which established a republican government in its place.

The Manchu ethnicity have largely been assimilated with the Han Chinese. The Manchu language is almost extinct, now spoken only among a small number of elderly in remote rural areas of northeastern China and a few scholars; there are around ten thousand speakers of Sibe (Xibo), a Manchu dialect spoken in the Ili region of Xinjiang. In recent years, however, there has been a resurgence of interest in Manchu culture among both ethnic Manchus and Han. The number of Chinese today with some Manchu ancestry is quite large, and the adoption of favorable policies towards ethnic minorities (such as preferential university admission and government employment opportunities) has encouraged some people with mixed-Han and Manchu ancestry to re-identify themselves as Manchu."

It sounds crazy but it ISN'T. A common feature of all the nomadic tribes that conquered civilized cultures but ended up assimilated by them is their landscape: All of them lived in cold climates, that were not favourable to farming, did not host large populations or elaborate cultures. Thus:

The Greeks come from the NORTH, invade Greece, and assimilate into the Minoan/Aegean culture without to leave trace of their invasion.

The Celts come from the NORTH, invade Italy, Spain, the Balkans and Asia Minor, and assimilate into the the respective cultures, with very little trace of their invasion.

The Germanic tribes come from the NORTH, invade the Roman empire and do not assimilate into the local cultures, and leave little trace of their invasions.

The Huns invade from the NORTH, invade the Roman empire and retreat to Hungary. They leave nothing except for their language, one of the few non-Indo-European languages in Europe.

The Slavs come from the NORTH, invade the Southern Balkans, do not assimilate into the local cultures and do not leave trace of their invasions.

The Mongols come from the NORTH, invade all of Asia and Eastern Europe, retreat back or assimilate into the local cultures and all of their "architecture" are copies of Chinese, Sogdian or Indian architecture.

The Manchou come from the NORTH, invade China and assimilate into the Chinese culture, without to leave much of a trace of their existence.

It's the same story again and again and again. Other conquests like those of the era of colonialism shall have an entirely different outcome. Almost all of them result to assimilation of the local culture instead of the conqueror. In all of them, the conqueror is sufficiently developed to the point that it can finance several naval expedition in uncharted seas and accross the oceans, before the venture turns to real profit...

[Risto the Great]

I really managed to confuse you eh? Why does this Greek post an article aimed at the Bulgarians? There must be something in it for him, no doubt! But what?

Let's start giving a better shape to that confusion:

The article is more or less correct. The most frequent objection to it is the usage of the term Slav and Slavic ethnic group. Sooner or later some of you shall be offended by the term "Old church Slavonic" as well, but - alas! This is what the original sources mention. Czar Samuel was never mentioned in any of the contemporary sources as Macedonian. His opponent Basil was a member of the Macedonian dynasty of the East Roman Empire (Byzantium).

But then, even if you had any doubts, why don't you ask Misirkov to tell you what happened?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Macedonian_Matters#Can_Macedonia_turn_itself_into_a_separate_ethnographical_and_political_unit.3F_Has_it_already_done_so.3F_Is_it_doing_so_now.3F

"If the formation of the South Slav peoples was a mechanical and political process it would not be impossible that it might recur in present times. Within the South Slav language complex there are several branches outside the Serbian and Bulgarian political units; these are the Macedonian dialects. These branches, since they are closely allied, naturally have some connection linking them more closely with Bulgarian in the east and Serbian in the north. These branches have been given various names at various times but it was not until the last quarter of the nineteenth century that these names overlapped so much as to displace one another. These various names did not properly catch on, and gradually they began to give way until finally they were replaced by the natural description Slav" with a "Macedonian" reflection from the geographical area in which they were distributed. The people who spoke these dialects had once been called "Slavs" and later either "Serbs" or "Bulgarians" until the rivalry between these two names made them both alien to the Macedonian Slavs, who started calling themselves after the old geographical name of their country. The name Macedonian was first used by the Macedonian Slavs as a geographical term to indicate their origin. This name is well known to the Macedonian Slavs and all of them use it to describe themselves. Since the formation of nationalities is a political and mechanical process, all the necessary conditions exist for Macedonia to break off as an independent ethnographic region. The Macedonians have a common country which is gradually, with the reforms, breaking off into an independent political whole in which there are "several branches of the South Slav chain of languages": these branches can easily be united through a general recognition of the central one as the means of expression of the literary language of all intelligent people in Macedonia and as the language of books and schools. Thus all the conditions for the national revival of the Macedonians are clearly visible, and, even from the point of view of the other historical theory (concerning the formation of small ethnographic units from a larger unit on the Balkan Peninsula), this is completely logical.

Here is what one might say to those who claim that Macedonian as a nationality has never existed: it may not have existed in the past, but it exists today and will exist in the future."

So, ladies and gentlemen, don't fool yourselves. The references "Slavs", Slavic ethnos" and "Old Church Slavonic" are perfectly normal, Misirkov acknowledges them, and they reflected the truth until the beginning of the era of nationalism, after the French revolution. Then the South Slavs begun splitting into pieces, some of them based upon countries of the past with the same names - or rather all of them!

So, is there anything else that you find to be unusual or wrong? I'd be happy to discuss it with you...

Thanks for your efforts. You did not confuse me, but I wanted to be sure of what you were trying to say.
I have wondered the same thing too.
Like the Slavic races that dominated and occupied Morea ... would we really call them Macedonians in the modern sense if they still existed? Simply because they were Slavic? I think not. We might have called them Moreans and thought of them as kindred but ones who went a different direction over hundreds of years. So if I attempt to fully understand your direction, you feel it is inappropriate to measure the Macedonian identity as one which is a logical progression over many hundreds/thousands of years. That it needs to be some kind of bizarre throwback into antiquity in order to justify its existence.

From this, we can assume Hungarians are Finnish under your ideology. I see no difference in your argument. Please tell me if you feel the Hungarians deserve a place under the sun and what distinguishes their identity from that of the Macedonians.

[Petros Houhoulis]

Thanks for your efforts. You did not confuse me, but I wanted to be sure of what you were trying to say.
I have wondered the same thing too.
Like the Slavic races that dominated and occupied Morea ... would we really call them Macedonians in the modern sense if they still existed? Simply because they were Slavic? I think not. We might have called them Moreans and thought of them as kindred but ones who went a different direction over hundreds of years. So if I attempt to fully understand your direction, you feel it is inappropriate to measure the Macedonian identity as one which is a logical progression over many hundreds/thousands of years. That it needs to be some kind of bizarre throwback into antiquity in order to justify its existence.

From this, we can assume Hungarians are Finnish under your ideology. I see no difference in your argument. Please tell me if you feel the Hungarians deserve a place under the sun and what distinguishes their identity from that of the Macedonians.

I can see that you prefer the Ottoman name of the Peloponesse (Morea) probably because it has a Slavic origin. No surprise! The Melingi would probably still be Melingi in our times, but they were assimilated already since the Medieval era, and there was no forced assimilation back then. They were not the only invaders that we assimilated over time.

My reasoning goes even further than yours. This article is a huge trap waiting to suck you all. Alas, you haven't seen it yet...

[Struja]

I can see that you prefer the Ottoman name of the Peloponesse (Morea) probably because it has a Slavic origin. No surprise! The Melingi would probably still be Melingi in our times, but they were assimilated already since the Medieval era, and there was no forced assimilation back then. They were not the only invaders that we assimilated over time.

My reasoning goes even further than yours. This article is a huge trap waiting to suck you all. Alas, you haven't seen it yet...

The Ottomans over run “Morea” in 1460AD but the name it self is mention in a number of 9th and 10th ct Byzantine chronicles. So how would you label it as an Ottoman name?

So from 700AD until 1460AD the Melingi and the Ezeritae held their own ground in Morea with a cultural heritage that we call today “Slavic”

Oh those Dame Slav’s are everywhere!

[Petros Houhoulis]

The Ottomans over run “Morea” in 1460AD but the name it self is mention in a number of 9th and 10th ct Byzantine chronicles. So how would you label it as an Ottoman name?

So from 700AD until 1460AD the Melingi and the Ezeritae held their own ground in Morea with a cultural heritage that we call today “Slavic”

Oh those Dame Slav’s are everywhere!

Well, when I make discussions I always mention *Official* names. It is well known that the Melingi showed down there some time after the 6th century, and it is equally well known that the official name of that area until 1100 A.D. was "Theme of Hellas and Peloponessus"

http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/europe_south_east_1100.html

Some Chronicles might mention a Morea - no surprise - but the official documents of the Eastern Roman empire (aka Byzantium) do not.

The Meliti got assimilated long before 1460 my dear. I cannot give you an exact year, but it was over when the Latins overrun Byzantium at 1204.

P.S.

Ooops! As it seems, it wasn't an official name for the Ottomans either!

At 1500 they use Sanjak of Mistra:

http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/europe_south_east_1500.html

The Venetians used the term Morea! This is the only instance on the map:

http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/europe_south_east_1700.html

So it was the *Official* name for the Venetians. My apologies for the mistake!

[Struja]

read those dame chronicles again will ya!

Perhaps you should check out the Turkish achieves with regards to the Melingi and the Ezeritae of Morea in 1460. These people were never assimilated they were still living there until the Ottomans over run the place.

and with regards to the 1100AD Theme of Hellas the so-called “Re-Hellenization” of Morea. Yeah we know this as the failed attempt by the Byzantines of that era to re-colonize the region with so-called Greeks or maybe they were just plan Christians from different cultures!

Oh those Dame Slav’s are everywhere!

[Petros Houhoulis]

read those dame chronicles again will ya!

Perhaps you should check out the Turkish achieves with regards to the Melingi and the Ezeritae of Morea in 1460. These people were never assimilated they were still living there until the Ottomans over run the place.

and with regards to the 1100AD Theme of Hellas the so-called “Re-Hellenization” of Morea. Yeah we know this as the failed attempt by the Byzantines of that era to re-colonize the region with so-called Greeks or maybe they were just plan Christians from different cultures!

Oh those Dame Slav’s are everywhere!

From my point of view "assimilated" implies "speak Greek". Of course they kept their tribal name. That does not mean that they kept using the language.

[Risto the Great]

I can see that you prefer the Ottoman name of the Peloponesse (Morea) probably because it has a Slavic origin. No surprise! The Melingi would probably still be Melingi in our times, but they were assimilated already since the Medieval era, and there was no forced assimilation back then. They were not the only invaders that we assimilated over time..

I will go into assimilations another time.
But you missed the point, the Macedonians were not assimilated. Although it might happen soon in the occupied part. I used Morea to state a point about the changing landscape of the region. You didn't quite understand the significance.

Will you answer my question about the Hungarians please. Why did you avoid it?

[Petros Houhoulis]

I will go into assimilations another time.
But you missed the point, the Macedonians were not assimilated. Although it might happen soon in the occupied part. I used Morea to state a point about the changing landscape of the region. You didn't quite understand the significance.

Will you answer my question about the Hungarians please. Why did you avoid it?

You want an answer? I'll give you an answer.

You said:

"...So if I attempt to fully understand your direction, you feel it is inappropriate to measure the Macedonian identity as one which is a logical progression over many hundreds/thousands of years...."

My answer was:

"...My reasoning goes even further than yours. This article is a huge trap waiting to suck you all. Alas, you haven't seen it yet..."

As for the Hungarians being Fins, based upon the language, of course it is wrong and the Hungarian and Finnish languages are not mutually intelligible anyway. You assumed wrong and this was not my ideology. If that was my ideology, I could have used a much better example, I would have called you Bulgarians according to the proximity of the language - the exact opposite of what I did with the first article.

So, do you want to see my point after all, or you want me to keep the suspense?

P.S.

You stated:

"...Although it might happen soon in the occupied part...."

I like your optimism. Tell me dear how many people do you think that still speak the language?

[Risto the Great]

Petros, your sense of drama is compelling.
I will remind you that saying you have a "huge trap waiting to suck me" is not actually an answer. I hope it not an offer BTW.

Many linguistic experts can point to Hungarians and identify the language as having a coonection to the Ugric/Finnic languages near the Ural mountains. You see, this is the apparent root of the Hungarian language. Therefore using your logic, the Hungarians will never deserve an ethnic identity. Don't you think this is a little precious? I suspect a quick DNA test will show they are quite similar to other people in their proximity. Their language evolution precludes them from having a modern ethnic identity according to your logic.

Are the French/Italians etc. safe under your theories?

[Petros Houhoulis]

Petros, your sense of drama is compelling.
I will remind you that saying you have a "huge trap waiting to suck me" is not actually an answer. I hope it not an offer BTW.

Many linguistic experts can point to Hungarians and identify the language as having a coonection to the Ugric/Finnic languages near the Ural mountains. You see, this is the apparent root of the Hungarian language. Therefore using your logic, the Hungarians will never deserve an ethnic identity. Don't you think this is a little precious? I suspect a quick DNA test will show they are quite similar to other people in their proximity. Their language evolution precludes them from having a modern ethnic identity according to your logic.

Are the French/Italians etc. safe under your theories?

What are you talking about? What logic are you talking about? When did I imply something like that?

The Germans and the English both speak variants of the Germanic languages (so do the Dutch and the Frisians and many others). Should they be classified as a unique ethnicity because of the language? More or less all of the Indo-European languages are related to each other, so, should we create a super-ethnicity from the British islands all the way to the Ganges river?

I think that you are the ones who are trying to use a language affinity with the Slavophone Greeks (those who identify themselves as such) as an excuse for having a common ethnic identity...

[Risto the Great]

What are you talking about? What logic are you talking about? When did I imply something like that?

The Germans and the English both speak variants of the Germanic languages (so do the Dutch and the Frisians and many others). Should they be classified as a unique ethnicity because of the language? More or less all of the Indo-European languages are related to each other, so, should we create a super-ethnicity from the British islands all the way to the Ganges river?

I think that you are the ones who are trying to use a language affinity with the Slavophone Greeks (those who identify themselves as such) as an excuse for having a common ethnic identity...

I will be honest, I have no idea what you are trying to imply. I think I agree with you, Germans and the English deserve their place under the Sun. Macedonians do. Even Greeks do.

I REALLY don't believe in super ethnicities. Do you?

I will remind you that I would fit the definition of a "Slavophone Greek" under your skewed outlook on life. The language affinity you speak of is quite compelling. But so are numerous other traits which ultimately define ethnic character. Do you think that the Metaxas hurricane really created the Slavophone Greeks overnight? These people are Macedonians living in a country that does not let you be an ethnic Macedonian.

[Petros Houhoulis]

I will be honest, I have no idea what you are trying to imply. I think I agree with you, Germans and the English deserve their place under the Sun. Macedonians do. Even Greeks do.

I REALLY don't believe in super ethnicities. Do you?

I will remind you that I would fit the definition of a "Slavophone Greek" under your skewed outlook on life. The language affinity you speak of is quite compelling. But so are numerous other traits which ultimately define ethnic character. Do you think that the Metaxas hurricane really created the Slavophone Greeks overnight? These people are Macedonians living in a country that does not let you be an ethnic Macedonian.

My skewed outlook in life doesn't really matter, but if these people don't want to associate with you, I think that you have no choice really, and you cannot impose it upon them for sure.

The language affinity is indeed quite compelling, but not only south of your border. The same can be said east of your border all the way to the Black sea. Be careful what you wish for.

In the end, as they say, "language is a dialect with an army."

From my point of view, the real obstacle in your "unification" was not Metaxas and his policies, but something by far more subtle. It was not a unification, but rather a schism:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Macedonian_Matters#Can_Macedonia_turn_itself_into_a_separate_ethnographical_and_political_unit.3F_Has_it_already_done_so.3F_Is_it_doing_so_now.3F

If the formation of the South Slav peoples was a mechanical and political process it would not be impossible that it might recur in present times. Within the South Slav language complex there are several branches outside the Serbian and Bulgarian political units; these are the Macedonian dialects. These branches, since they are closely allied, naturally have some connection linking them more closely with Bulgarian in the east and Serbian in the north. These branches have been given various names at various times but it was not until the last quarter of the nineteenth century that these names overlapped so much as to displace one another. These various names did not properly catch on, and gradually they began to give way until finally they were replaced by the natural description Slav" with a "Macedonian" reflection from the geographical area in which they were distributed. The people who spoke these dialects had once been called "Slavs" and later either "Serbs" or "Bulgarians" until the rivalry between these two names made them both alien to the Macedonian Slavs, who started calling themselves after the old geographical name of their country. The name Macedonian was first used by the Macedonian Slavs as a geographical term to indicate their origin. This name is well known to the Macedonian Slavs and all of them use it to describe themselves. Since the formation of nationalities is a political and mechanical process, all the necessary conditions exist for Macedonia to break off as an independent ethnographic region. The Macedonians have a common country which is gradually, with the reforms, breaking off into an independent political whole in which there are "several branches of the South Slav chain of languages": these branches can easily be united through a general recognition of the central one as the means of expression of the literary language of all intelligent people in Macedonia and as the language of books and schools. Thus all the conditions for the national revival of the Macedonians are clearly visible, and, even from the point of view of the other historical theory (concerning the formation of small ethnographic units from a larger unit on the Balkan Peninsula), this is completely logical.

Here is what one might say to those who claim that Macedonian as a nationality has never existed: it may not have existed in the past, but it exists today and will exist in the future."

As one can conclude, the locals didn't have an objection at being called Serbs or Bulgarians, until a rivalry broke out between the Serbs and the Bulgarians, that forced you to despise and abandon both of them.

If that rivalry did not exist, if Serbs and Bulgarians (and Greeks) had managed to agree with each other on how to divide the land and its' peoples without rivalry, you wouldn't despise them and you would not rush to form a separate identity.

Thus, linguistically you might have been related (much like the Germans and the Austrians) but special historical circumstances forced you to split.

Metaxas' impact upon the issue was minimal and too late, just as was Titos' impact upon the issue minimal and too late...