Претражи овај блог

Основни подаци о мени

Моја слика

Campo Belo São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

...As you read about Bosnia and Kosovo in your daily newspapers I remind you of the words of Socrates spoken at his trial in his own defence: "I do not know what effect my accusers have had upon you gentlemen but for my own part I was almost carried away by them; their arguments were so convincing. On the other hand scarcely a word of what they said was true."....

уторак, 08. фебруар 2011.

Slavic Unity • View topic - The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 centurie

Slavic Unity • View topic - The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 centurie

The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 centurie


Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Tue 01 Feb, 2011 07:57

Why? Because, you know, it contradicts a theory that Illyrians were romanised and the Aromanians are leftover of this Illyrian, romanized population?


Aromanians are descendants of romanized population, but they doesn't prove that Illyrians were non-Slavic.

So Vlach could mean anything, despite modern usage is predmoninantly associated with Romanic-speaking people. But Illyrian surely always meant Slavs. Nice logic.


Yes, term Vlach have many meanings, while Illyrian was always used for South Slav.

Actually, you are not even wrong. Look at the Russia; Look at the Poland (bambers, assimilated even though we were under GERMAN occupation, and it took only some four or three generations). Morevoer, your assumption is based on the fact, that Veneti are Slavs. Because if Veneti are not Slavs, then in fact Slavs assimilated Veneti in Poland, they assimilated Balkans etc. You see the flaw in your logic, or not? You are assuming something (Veneti and Illyrians were Slavs) and basing on that you draw conclusion "Slavs hadn't assimilated none" and then you use this as "proof": "Slavs couldn't assimilate Illyrian, because they couldn't assimilate anyone". The same logical flaws are in most of other your reasoning.


I was talking about period when Slavs didn't have organized state to impose official language and culture.

You think we should assume that Ptolemei was writing about Slavs and therefore, Slavs lived in Volga, right?


Well name and region their inhabit Suovenoi indicate their Slavic origin, but I'm not sure.

You know, i do not understand you. So you believe that Illyrians weren't Slavs? Since the name appeared only in 5th century or something?


I was sarcastic.

No, they are not.


Yes they are.

Dr Radivoje Pesic was expert indeed, and "vast majority of Etruscan and classical academics" didn't accept his findings, so what? There is their main proof - majority proof, and Pesic was nationalist bigot, great.

No. This is another flaw in your logic.
The question: "Are Venets always associated with Slavs?" Assumption "Venets were Slavs". Conclusion "Because Venets were always associated with Slavs, they were Slavs".


Yes, they were always associated with Slavs, and their language prove that.

It is not proven by langauge; it is not proven by history; and it can't be proven by anthropology at all since antropology can't deduct language spoken by people.


It is proven by language and history, but most of modern historians choose to ignore that. And antropology sugest us that there wasn't any great migration or replacement of population.
In ancient times, "West of Macedonia live Dardani and Illyrians, two names for the same people - the Serbs, John Campbell, one of the most serious British historians of the 19th century...

Except that no one seriously claims that population was annihilated and replaced. You are fighting the position not even considered by any serious modern scientists.


That's how it's represented here, Slavs come, kill Illyrians and drive away Albanians to guard sheeps.

It depends from the writer. In history basic rule is that you should always consider primary sources first, compare them, and only later took later sources. The source written 500 years after the event is basically worthless.


But modern historians that claim otherwise is priceless.

And while mentioning that Slavs were speaking barbarous tongue, somehow none noticed that this tongue was the same as local.


At that time, they were posible at distance like modern Serbian and modern Luzicke Serbian.
But I send email to Slavist prof. dr Jovan I. Deretic, about that Procopius claim and he reply: "Sir, all old writers were censored from 17 century onwards. That claim you find in Procopius is simply nonsense. How language can be utterly barbaric? The Greeks called barbarians of all nations who did not speak Greek. Such nonsense Procopius could not write, but that someone later added."

But they were really, really few -- and most of Spaniard were males, most of them were dying because of bad climate. Yet most of population speaks Spanish. And it took until now even not 500 years.


Yes, but it's official state language, and this is modern time.

Except "Romanic" interpretation is widely accepted. Usually in science when trying to displace accepted theory, one must show very strong proofs.


That "widely accepted" proof "don't drink" water for many scientists.

Bogumir, if you will again try to use 16th century chroniclers to prove something happened in 6th century, I will simply stop the discussion.


They are more accurate than modern "Slavic newcomers" stories.

So those writers were wrong, and the writer of GRS was wrong too.


There is posible reason for doing it. I read about that, but can't find that book.

When those chronicles were written? 5th century? 6th century? If later than 200 years after the period, they are basically worhtless.


I don't see how they are worthless, they are not contemporary source

Bogumir, why you keep repeating the same and the same things, when since at lleast several weeks I am trying to show you that are simply flawed?


That is not flawed, it's just not widely accepted in modern times as it was earlier.

So Illyrian and Thracians have their separate armies? Yes or No?


Slavs didn't fight in Balkan interior against Illyrian and Thracian warlike tribes, nor their present is recorded in medieval manuscripts.

A lie. Ancient writers do not equate Balkan natives with Slavs.


Start from Herodotus, than 3rd century BC State of Illyrian king Agron (correctly Argon) Zonara called Serbian empire (Sardianorum regi), Aimoini Floriacensis in Historie Francorum: "...in Sclavorum patriam, qui etiam Winidi dicuntur,.." (11 century)...

A lie, since modern scientists do not claim that -- one of accepted theories is that Albanians are descended from one of Thracian (or maybe Illyrian) groups.


Yes it is accepted in 19th century, so what? Albanian scientists claim that they are descendants of Pelasgians also. We can only accept that and cover ourself with ears...
While Ioanis Kinamos, in XII, said: "The Serbs, who are as people Dalmatians (Illyrian tribe), they built a fort Ras.

They are.


They are not. Prof. dr Radivoje Pesic was recognized paleolinguist and expert. His only flaw was his Slavophilia and book "Conspiracy of denial" about Slavic ancient history.

So, it is possible for entire huge group of thousands of people to migrate in XI (!!!!) century to migrate across whole Europe without anyone noticing it in between -- but there is impossible for Slavs to migrate in great numbers in 6th century, despite chroniclers wrote that Slavs arrived in great numbers and settled in Balkans. This is exactly what I wanted you to wrote, to show you how absurd is your logic. Albanians, shepherds, low-technology people, could somehow assimilate local population and travel across whole continent, but Slavs NONONO, for Slavs it is impossible, seems Slavs in your opinion are some retarded backward bunch of wimps, at least compared to Albanians.


No, Byzantine writer from 11th century Michael Ataliota describe that Albanians came in Drach (modern Albania) with Roman army, from Sicily.
(Stefanq Pollo and Arben Puto: THE HISTORY OF ALBANIA, Routledge & Kegan, London, Boston and Henley 1981. page 37.)
Between the "disappearance" of the Illyrians on Balkan and appearance of Albanians gaping void of at least five centuries.

Not to mention the things like ancient Greek borrowings in Albanian, similarities between AlBanian and Illyrian, and the fact that Albanian is Indo-European, not Caucasian Language.


Those artificial conections were made in 19 century, until that time, everyone was familiar with Albanian origin from Caucasus. "Children of the Caucasus" as wrote medieval writer Magius Patavius.
Albanian language is officialy in separate IE group.

Albanian 100 is cjinda
Caucasian Bezta language 100 is cjinta.

Just shows much about authorities you pick. Instead of professional linguists, you prefer some guy passing by.


Many linguists disagree with that, but you choose "vast majority" as proof that is.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Andrej Moraczewski » Tue 01 Feb, 2011 08:23

szopen wrote:
One of the early American explorers of Albanians, Hobhaus, beginning of the 19th century, says: "As for the Albanian language, here is collected for your insight, and examples that are almost the first time put on paper. The basis is Slavonic, mixed with different languages, including most of Turkish, then the modern Greek, Italian, French, and even some words from English into this strange mix."

Just shows much about authorities you pick. Instead of professional linguists, you prefer some guy passing by.

All Bogumir's logic is like that: "No matter that 1000s official scientists say. Someone once noted that blablabla, then we can clearly see that blablabla is true, and all 1000s scientist lie because they are german/jewish/albanian/whothefuckever eles".
Andrej Moraczewski
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:23
Location: Himki, Moskva



Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Tue 01 Feb, 2011 08:33

Andrej Moraczewski wrote:All Bogumir's logic is like that: "No matter that 1000s official scientists say. Someone once noted that blablabla, then we can clearly see that blablabla is true, and all 1000s scientist lie because they are german/jewish/albanian/whothefuckever eles".


Well proof of majority isn't proof at all.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Andrej Moraczewski » Wed 02 Feb, 2011 05:04

Богумир wrote:
Andrej Moraczewski wrote:All Bogumir's logic is like that: "No matter that 1000s official scientists say. Someone once noted that blablabla, then we can clearly see that blablabla is true, and all 1000s scientist lie because they are german/jewish/albanian/whothefuckever eles".


Well proof of majority isn't proof at all.

This is not proof only because it is the majority. The proof is in every work, and don't you find it kinda strange that 1000s scientists agree with each other, while some ancient farmer said otherwise and you believe this ancient farmer.
Andrej Moraczewski
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:23
Location: Himki, Moskva



Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Wed 02 Feb, 2011 09:15

Bogumir wrote:Yes, term Vlach have many meanings, while Illyrian was always used for South Slav.

They were not. Again, you use your circular logic. Illyrian were used for South Slav after Slavs appeared in Balkans. That's true. You cannot drive a conclusion that before that it was the same.

I was talking about period when Slavs didn't have organized state to impose official language and culture.

For God's sake Bogumir, I am talking about period of active GERMANISATION. Bambers assimilated when Poznan area was under German occupation. What about Balts? No one denies the fact, that northern part of Russia and Belarus was once inhabited by Balts. yet, when this territories first appeared in history, they were slavicised. There is simply no basis for saying "Slavs never assimilated anyone". Do you see why this arguments is erroneus, or not? Bogumir, I simply pointed out this obvious logical error. Just answer me clearly: do you understand why this argument "Slavs never assimilated nobody" is flawed?

You think we should assume that Ptolemei was writing about Slavs and therefore, Slavs lived in Volga, right?


Well name and region their inhabit Suovenoi indicate their Slavic origin, but I'm not sure.

That would mean Slavic origin farther east than commonly accepted.

I was sarcastic.
I am sorry Bogumir, but recently I am not sure about when you are serious and when not.

No. This is another flaw in your logic.
The question: "Are Venets always associated with Slavs?" Assumption "Venets were Slavs". Conclusion "Because Venets were always associated with Slavs, they were Slavs".


Yes, they were always associated with Slavs, and their language prove that.

They were not. They weren't ALWAYS associated with Slavs. This is what you are trying to prove: I say "prove me that Venets in territory of Poland, mentioned by ancient authors, were Slavic" Your answer "they were Slavic, because Venets were always Slavic". Circular logic.

Their language does not prove that, because
1) There is not much survived fromtheir langauge
2) What survives, does not seem Slavic at all
3) The attempts at explaining the inscriptions by Slavic are made with ignoring much of the linguistic methods

The similarities from known words of Illyrian or Thracian to Slavic are not proof; Sanskrit is not Slavic, despite you could built really impressive list of similarities. You could built a list similarities to Baltic languages, and even a list of similarities to Slavic langauges. What you have is not "proof" but an opinion, which you present as a proof.

It is proven by language

It is not proven by language. I kinda hoped you understood what does it mean "proof". If you built a list of words and point a list of similarities to Slavic, this is not proof. This is something which is expected basing on assumed Indo-european origin of Illyrian and Thracian. If you think this is a proof, then I claim language proofs that Illyrians were Balts. the same thing can't be a proof for two contradicting claims.
and history

It is not. Again, what history? You presented no primary, contemporary sources. Only opinions from later historians. Or passages from chronicles written 500 years after the event.

Except that no one seriously claims that population was annihilated and replaced. You are fighting the position not even considered by any serious modern scientists.


That's how it's represented here, Slavs come, kill Illyrians and drive away Albanians to guard sheeps.

Then go and read some serious history.

It depends from the writer. In history basic rule is that you should always consider primary sources first, compare them, and only later took later sources. The source written 500 years after the event is basically worthless.


But modern historians that claim otherwise is priceless.

I do not get your point. Basically, modern historians do not go against primary sources. Just as XIX century historians had their OPINIONS based on some sources, modern historians, who have access to MORE SOURCES and better methods, have different OPINION.

But I send email to Slavist prof. dr Jovan I. Deretic, about that Procopius claim and he reply: "Sir, all old writers were censored from 17 century onwards. That claim you find in Procopius is simply nonsense. How language can be utterly barbaric? The Greeks called barbarians of all nations who did not speak Greek. Such nonsense Procopius could not write, but that someone later added."

Sure.

Except "Romanic" interpretation is widely accepted. Usually in science when trying to displace accepted theory, one must show very strong proofs.


That "widely accepted" proof "don't drink" water for many scientists.

actually it does.

Bogumir, if you will again try to use 16th century chroniclers to prove something happened in 6th century, I will simply stop the discussion.


They are more accurate than modern "Slavic newcomers" stories.

they present their OPINION. Presenting OPINION as a PROOF in anything is something which is very no-no in science.

When those chronicles were written? 5th century? 6th century? If later than 200 years after the period, they are basically worhtless.


I don't see how they are worthless, they are not contemporary source

Because the events tend to get twisted with time. It's not that always it will be wrong; but one should be careful with events reported by later chronicler and always try to answer the questions: what was the source for the info? Was is reliable?

For example, take Thietmar and Widukind. Thietmar read Widukind and used his chronicle. Widukind wrote about some German duke fighting with some Slavs, and then there is period, and he narrates about other Slavs. Thietmar in his passage writes that German duke fought both Slavic tribes. And that's despite there is less than 100years of difference, and Thietmar is considered exceptionally reliable source.

Bogumir, why you keep repeating the same and the same things, when since at lleast several weeks I am trying to show you that are simply flawed?


That is not flawed, it's just not widely accepted in modern times as it was earlier.

No. I am saying about flaws in the reasoning. The logic was the same thousand years ago and today. Imagine the question posed like this "Is A=B?" And you are reasoning "Assume A=B. Therefore, since A=B, then A=B". In other words:
"The question Venets=Slavs?" "Assume Venets were always Slavs. Therefore, Venets were always Slavs".
"The question: could Slavs assimilate people in Balkans?" "Assume people in Balkans were Slavs. Therefore, Slavs never assimilated nobody. Therefore, Slavs couldn't assimilate people in Balkans".

Whole your post is full of such reasoning. You present opinions as proofs. The facts that can be supporting many theories, you claim definetely PROVE only one theory (while that could be used only as very, very tentative and weak support, not a PROOF!).

So Illyrian and Thracians have their separate armies? Yes or No?


Slavs didn't fight in Balkan interior against Illyrian and Thracian warlike tribes, nor their present is recorded in medieval manuscripts.

So, there was not separate Illyrian and Thracian armies. Therefore, it is not surprising, that Slavs didn't fight against them. After all, it weren't just Slavs there: Goths, other Germanic tribes, Hunni, Avars, Bulgars, and others.

A lie. Ancient writers do not equate Balkan natives with Slavs.


Start from Herodotus, than 3rd century BC State of Illyrian king Agron (correctly Argon) Zonara called Serbian empire (Sardianorum regi), Aimoini Floriacensis in Historie Francorum: "...in Sclavorum patriam, qui etiam Winidi dicuntur,.." (11 century)...

Bogumir, are you serious this time? Because once again i asked about Slavs in ancient writers, and then you present two writers from 11th century.

Moreover, could you please give me this exact passage from Herodot when he claims that Illyrians are Slavs?
And since when "Sardianorum" means "Serbian"?

While Ioanis Kinamos, in XII, said: "The Serbs, who are as people Dalmatians (Illyrian tribe), they built a fort Ras.

12th century. No, you can't be serious. If you would be serious, you would finally notice that posting zillionth time later chroniclers is not a proof about something which happened 600 years before chronicle.


No, Byzantine writer from 11th century Michael Ataliota describe that Albanians came in Drach (modern Albania) with Roman army, from Sicily.

From Sicily. You do realise, that if they came from Sicily, and they originated in Caucasus, they first had to Sicily from Caucasus? Even more unlikely event than you suggest. Somehow whole tribe went from Caucasus to Sicily, first appeared in XI century and then within very short times conquers and assimilates locals.

Not to mention this is the source
"The aforementioned George with the surname Maniakes, thirsting for blood, began an uprising in the Italian part of the Empire with Byzantine and Albanian soldiers there, being offended because the emperor had shown him a lack of respect and fearing the emperor in view of previous hostilities."

"Once he had ensured that he had indeed assembled a large army and forces fit for action, composed of Byzantine Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians and of his own soldiers, he set off and hastened to Thessalonika".

Seems Bulgarians originated in Sicily. Anyway, if this is a proof that Albanians came from Sicily, then it only lowers my expectations about proponents of this theory.

Not to mention the things like ancient Greek borrowings in Albanian, similarities between AlBanian and Illyrian, and the fact that Albanian is Indo-European, not Caucasian Language.


Those artificial conections were made in 19 century, until that time, everyone was familiar with Albanian origin from Caucasus. "Children of the Caucasus" as wrote medieval writer Magius Patavius.
Albanian language is officialy in separate IE group.

"Arteficial connection"

Albanian 100 is cjinda
Caucasian Bezta language 100 is cjinta.

I will get back to this claim later.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Jano » Wed 02 Feb, 2011 16:30

whats the main point of this discussion ?
Jano
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 01 Feb, 2011 17:08
Location: Myjava, Slovensko

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Slaven » Wed 02 Feb, 2011 19:56

Jano wrote:whats the main point of this discussion ?


Did Slavs come to the Balkans.

Or, where Slavs "always" in the Balkans. And if so, then all other Slavs came from the Balkans.
Slaven
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 00:17

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Jano » Thu 03 Feb, 2011 14:01

Slaven wrote:
Jano wrote:whats the main point of this discussion ?


Did Slavs come to the Balkans.

Or, where Slavs "always" in the Balkans. And if so, then all other Slavs came from the Balkans.


i think we can look to archeological cultures and how they are connected
for sure we are indoeuropeans so we can be connected just with cultures which are considered be indoeuropean
for example corded ware culture and older

about how old time we speak ?
Jano
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 01 Feb, 2011 17:08
Location: Myjava, Slovensko

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Fri 04 Feb, 2011 09:22

Jano wrote:i think we can look to archeological cultures and how they are connected

One of my friends said that the pottery doesn't speak :) But yes, this is at least something to base theories on.
about how old time we speak ?


According to Bogumir, Slavs were inhabitants of Balkans in times of Herodotus.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Jano » Fri 04 Feb, 2011 12:17

szopen wrote:
Jano wrote:i think we can look to archeological cultures and how they are connected

One of my friends said that the pottery doesn't speak :) But yes, this is at least something to base theories on.
about how old time we speak ?


According to Bogumir, Slavs were inhabitants of Balkans in times of Herodotus.


but is evidend that corded ware was earlier and was indoeuropean
and lusatian culture was also earlier and probably slavic
so it slavs must come from north -east

and which culture was in balkan in time of herodotus ?
Jano
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 01 Feb, 2011 17:08
Location: Myjava, Slovensko

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Sun 06 Feb, 2011 17:26

Slavic assimilation of entire ethnic groups (like Illyrians or Thracians) is impossibile, but small parts of course.

Everything we know about Illyrians and Thracians connect them with Slavs, start from their personal and tribal names to Balkan toponomy.

Also very important, there was no great migrations of Slavs, which is well explained in Florin Curta's book. His conclusion: "More important, assemblages of the Lower Danube area, where, according to the migrationist model, the Slavs migrated from the Pripet marshes, long antedate the earliest evidence available from assemblages in the alleged Urheimat. Short-distance population movements, but not migration, must have accompanied the implementation of a form of "itinerant agriculture," which, though not based on the slash-and-burn method, may have encouraged settlement mobility."

Croatian historian Ivan Muzic nicely said: "Linguists, who believed that the Illyrians were not Slavs made up the existence of the Illyrian language in the present-day land of southern Slavs. Some of them exhibited the assumption that the rest of the Illyrian language could be today Albanian. Since we about language of the Illyrians don't know anything, it is impossible to carry out grammatical or lexical comparison of this language with today's Albanian language. It is unacceptable that only on the basis of onomastic or toponomastic "Illyrian" material (transferred to us in the Latin form) compares this unknown language with Albanian language. There is no evidence that the language of the aboriginals in Roman Dalmatia has any connection with the contemporary language of Albanians. Anthropology proves that the Albanians are not descendants of the Illyrians."

So, there was not separate Illyrian and Thracian armies. Therefore, it is not surprising, that Slavs didn't fight against them. After all, it weren't just Slavs there: Goths, other Germanic tribes, Hunni, Avars, Bulgars, and others.


By Bulgarian historians Slavs were welcomed by the Thracian population of the Balkan provinces. "To native Thracians, the Slavs were not invaders, but allies against a common enemy-the Roman Empire."

Chavdar Bonev - Proto-Slavic tribes:
http://chavdarbonev.zvezdi.org/en/protoslavs-part5.html

We don't have archeological evidence for settlements of other tribes in Balkan, so it's all speculations.

Pope Pius II, (Aeneas Sylvius) for Tribals said: "Tribals or Mizi, and called them Serbs, (Servios), Roksinjani or Rascijani (Roxianos Feb Rascianos) and Geti (Getae), which in part called Vlachs (Valachos), partially Transylvani (Transylvanos).

Moreover, could you please give me this exact passage from Herodot when he claims that Illyrians are Slavs?


He call them Veneti, which is same thing.

And since when "Sardianorum" means "Serbian"?


Since always. Sardi, Serdi, Surffen, Surbi, Serri... it's all foreign expresion for "Srbi".

French Slavist Priko D 'Sainte-Marie, warned his readers that the name Sardi, should be read as Sarbi or Serbi.

Claudius Ptolomaius also mention places:
Σερβίτιον or Σέρβινον, and village Σέρβιον.

12th century. No, you can't be serious. If you would be serious, you would finally notice that posting zillionth time later chroniclers is not a proof about something which happened 600 years before chronicle.


It is proof for South Slavs always been called Illyrians and other native tribes names, while no one threw history called Shiptars/modern Albanians with those names.

Seems Bulgarians originated in Sicily. Anyway, if this is a proof that Albanians came from Sicily, then it only lowers my expectations about proponents of this theory.


When Khazars destroyed Albanian state on Caucasus, part of muslim Albanians moved to Arabs, later Arabs moved them to their part of Sicily, to reinforce muslim population in it.

James Baker, a British researcher of Albanians, said: "There is a second Albania (modern Dagestan) in the Caucasus and some writers believe that its inhabitants are the same people as people in Turkey(Balkan). It is certain that there is great similarity between the Toscs from Albania and Circassians from Caucasus."

Jano wrote:but is evidend that corded ware was earlier and was indoeuropean
and lusatian culture was also earlier and probably slavic
so it slavs must come from north -east
and which culture was in balkan in time of herodotus ?


"There have been expressed many suppositions on Indo-European's homeland. In majority of cases they differ from each other. At the modern stage only few of them are regarded seriously. Among them we can name the above mentioned theory of Paleolithic continuity (M.Alinei); the suppositions according to which the homeland is localized on the territory of the northern Europe (L.Kilian, A.Hausleri, M.Zvelebil); the Indian hypothesis also has its supporters (M.Vitzel, K.Eltst). This concepts are not popular at modern stage, however they are not totally denied. Far more supporters have The Central Europe-Balkan homeland (V.Sapronov, B.Gornung, I.Diakonov, L.Makkai, G.Devoto)..."

Most of scientists don't see Vincha culture as Indo-European, but many think it is: "Древнебалканские культуры исследователями рассматриваются недифференцированно, и сходство слабо иллюстрируется. Ниже мы впервые показываем, что корни культуры Винча, которую мы считаем древнейшей праиндоевропейской культурой в Европе, находятся в Чатал Хююке, поэтому индоевропейская атрибуция Винчи служит косвенным подтверждением раннеиндоевропейской атрибуции Чатал Хююка."
Сафронов В.А. Индоевропейские прародины
(Vinča culture is a Neolithic archaeological culture of Southeastern Europe, dated to the period 5500–4500 BCE)
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Andrej Moraczewski » Sun 06 Feb, 2011 18:06

Богумир wrote:Slavic assimilation of entire ethnic groups (like Illyrians or Thracians) is impossibile, but small parts of course.

But who says that whole Ilyrians and Thracians were assimilated? We can suppose that remains ofI Ilyrians and Thracians are Albanians and Romanians.
Why do you fear to accept that Slavs assimilated the original Balkan population? I tell you, even if it is so, this doesn't take off your right to rule your lands. The Balkan lands were conquered - so they are now Slavic by right. The same with Russia, about 90% of land of Russia was conquered by Slavs with assimilation of original population - not long ago. This assimilation still runs (f.ex., it's only about 450 years that Moscow conquered Kazan, it is possible that in 500 years more all original population of Kazan lands will be assimilated). But we do not fear to accept this.
Andrej Moraczewski
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:23
Location: Himki, Moskva



Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Slaven » Sun 06 Feb, 2011 18:09

Богумир wrote:Slavic assimilation of entire ethnic groups (like Illyrians or Thracians) is impossibile, but small parts of course.

Everything we know about Illyrians and Thracians connect them with Slavs, start from their personal and tribal names to Balkan toponomy.


Which personal or tribal names are Slavic?
Slaven
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 00:17

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Jano » Sun 06 Feb, 2011 19:25

some 4000-5000 BC we cant be separate, so this information is irrelevant
only valuable for discussion is informations about those cultures are consider be slavic
and vincha for sure isnt it

Bogumir i wrote about real cultures recognize by modern archeologist and historians
which for sure have more information than those from 12th or even those from 19th century
and this is basic fact.

Just write me please , which archeological cultures support your theories. because if we come from balkan than must be some continuity . So if u think Vincha are slavs or indoeuropeans , please continue from culture to culture.
Jano
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 01 Feb, 2011 17:08
Location: Myjava, Slovensko

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Mon 07 Feb, 2011 04:26

Bogumir wrote:Slavic assimilation of entire ethnic groups (like Illyrians or Thracians) is impossibile, but small parts of course.

And why it is impossible?
Everything we know about Illyrians and Thracians connect them with Slavs, start from their personal and tribal names to Balkan toponomy.

That's wrong. The supposedly Slavic etymologies of Thracian names are simply funny, like deriving one name from "tabor" which is not slavic at all. Or Bria from "isbor"


Moreover, could you please give me this exact passage from Herodot when he claims that Illyrians are Slavs?


He call them Veneti, which is same thing.

It is not. This is the problem with you Bogumir. You keep ignoring my arguments and you keep repeating yours. There is no point in discussion. You are trying to prove that Veneti were Slavs. As such, if you use your unproven _assumption_
to prove anything, you are not scientist. Most of scientist would not even care to talk with you after they would spot such thing.

And since when "Sardianorum" means "Serbian"?

Since always. Sardi, Serdi, Surffen, Surbi, Serri... it's all foreign expresion for "Srbi".

Sardinia is inhabiten by Serbs, sure.

It is proof for South Slavs always been called Illyrians and other native tribes names, while no one threw history called Shiptars/modern Albanians with those names.

You don't get it.
Slavs were always called Veneti does not imply that Veneti were always Slavs.
South Slavs were always called Illyrians does not imply that Illyrians were always Slavs.

This is basic logic. That's why there is no point in trying to show me that South Slavs were later called Illyrians (because not many people would argue that).


Seems Bulgarians originated in Sicily. Anyway, if this is a proof that Albanians came from Sicily, then it only lowers my expectations about proponents of this theory.


When Khazars destroyed Albanian state on Caucasus, part of muslim Albanians moved to Arabs, later Arabs moved them to their part of Sicily, to reinforce muslim population in it.

Except that there is not much in sources to prove that. And it's funny that you think that source mentioning "Albanian soldiers" is proof of huge Albanian migration, while at the same time you argue that with Slavs, sources mention only armies.


The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 centurie


Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Tue 11 Jan, 2011 09:15

Bogumir wrote:
Just look here at the recorded Thracian names. The ones, which have something similar with Slavs, simple derive from the same indo-european root.


Wow, how convenient???

Bogumir, come one. That for example word for "swine" (świnia in Polish), "caballo" (kobyła in Polish), brother (brat in Polish) etc. There is no point in ignoring the fact, that Thracians were indoeuropean, and as such, surely they have several names which were similar to Slavic, just as they were similar to Germanic, Romanic etc.

"Tryballos, Mysios, Illyrios, Polonos, Sarmates eadem lingua uti inter sese ...
"Tribals, Mizi, Illyrians, Poles, Sarmatians, they all speak the same language..."
Laonik Halkokondil, historian, half of the fifteenth century.

A large number of world renowned writers from 17, 18 and 19 century agree with antic and medieval writers - Toynbee, Childe, Di Kanz, De Sainte-Marie, Bohardus, Orbin, Bergman, Boman, von Gottlob and others...


In other words, you can't give me a single chronicler writing earlier? Come on. So you believe Widukind, that Avars == Huns == Goths?
During medieval time and later till XX century, Slavs and Slavic rulers were called Tribals, Illyrians, Thracians etc.

And that's proves what exactly? There are literally tens of known examples when name of one tribe was later used for denoting other tribe. Look at the thread I started with numerous examples.

Until late XIX century, no one doubt Slavic autochtonic origin on Balkan and Panonia.

But that proves what exacly? I read about chroniclers, in XVII century, who had no doubts about that Romanians are in fact Slavs. In medieval times, Helmold wrote that Hungarians are Slavs as they are no different from Slavs in customs or language. Do you think Hungarians are Slavic?

Yes, as I said, Slavs lived in Roman Empire (Balkan and Panonia, for thousand years) and outside. No one doubt that until modern Germanic history school decide to start "migration of Slavs". It was Slavic conquest on Empire.

You have not posted a single reliable prove that Slavs lived in Roman Empire. In fact, you ignore the fact that earliest chroniclers (such as Jordanes) clearly stated, that Slavs live north from mouth of Danube -- if they would live also south from it, surely Jordanes would notice that.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Tue 11 Jan, 2011 10:42

Bogumir, come one. That for example word for "swine" (świnia in Polish), "caballo" (kobyła in Polish), brother (brat in Polish) etc. There is no point in ignoring the fact, that Thracians were indoeuropean, and as such, surely they have several names which were similar to Slavic, just as they were similar to Germanic, Romanic etc.


Indeed, it's similar. Only thing is that Thracians are direct ancestors of modern Slavs.

In other words, you can't give me a single chronicler writing earlier? Come on. So you believe Widukind, that Avars == Huns == Goths?


In other words, no one ever doubt that, until modern times.
You want ancient chronicle that states:"Illyrians and other people on Hemus are Slavs"? Term Slav is relatively young, so we can't except such claims, but it doesn't change fact that tribes on Balkan were same origin like those in central or eastern Europe, who came back to counqer Empire.

And that's proves what exactly? There are literally tens of known examples when name of one tribe was later used for denoting other tribe. Look at the thread I started with numerous examples.


It proves that Slavs were numerous people with many different names.

But that proves what exacly? I read about chroniclers, in XVII century, who had no doubts about that Romanians are in fact Slavs. In medieval times, Helmold wrote that Hungarians are Slavs as they are no different from Slavs in customs or language. Do you think Hungarians are Slavic?


Most of Romanians and Hungarians have Slavic origin, it's widespread fact, even according to their scientists.

You have not posted a single reliable prove that Slavs lived in Roman Empire. In fact, you ignore the fact that earliest chroniclers (such as Jordanes) clearly stated, that Slavs live north from mouth of Danube -- if they would live also south from it, surely Jordanes would notice that.


Than, you aren't reading carefully everything.
Arnold J. Toynbee, famous British historian: "Slavs were probably part of the Thracian and Illyrian Volkerwanderung into southeastern Europe from 1,700 to 1,800 years before the massive Volkerwanderung of the Slavs in the 6th and 7th centuries of the Christian era. In the year 581, John of Ephesis gives the following account of the massive Slav Volkerwanderung in the late 6th century: An accursed people called Slavonians overran the whole of Greece ... captured the cities and overran numerous strongholds ... reduced the people to slavery, made themselves the masters of the whole and settled in it by means of force and dwelt in it as though it had been their own ... The Slavonians live at ease in the lands and dwell in it as far and wide as God permits them. Four years later, he writes: they [Slavonians] live in peace in the Roman territories, free from anxiety and fear ... And they have grown rich in gold and silver and herds of horses and arms, and have learned to fight better than the Romans."

Apian of Alexandria (first century n.e), the famous writer of Roman history, in the section Illyria says:''These people (Illyrians) and also Panonians, Retians, Norics, Mezians European and other neighboring tribes who inhabited the right bank of the Danube Romans differed, but believe that the whole Illyria covered under one national mark ... from the source of the Danube to the Black Sea, all under one head tax called Illyrian tax''(5.H.I.6).

Casimir Schultz: ''Illyrians and Thracians were the same origin and the same customs. Same origin as they were tribes that inhabited the Alps, eastern Italy, especially the Venets, Norics, Vindelics and residents Raetia''(.65. II.77). The same writer says that''once the Illyrians inhabited the entire coast of the Adriatic Sea from the river Po and the border of Apulia .''...'' Above Venetс lived in the mountains, people - blood relatives то Venets, Raeti and Vindeliki''(65.II .67).
and continues: "The Slavs did not appear just south of the Danube in the 6th century, but have lived there since ancient times as the Illyrian-Thracians." ("The origin and seats of the ancient Illyrians", Paris 1856.)

Slavs lived on territory of Roman Empire thousand years before term Slav appear, as they live in present on same territory.
Illyrian words, culture, toponyms, etc. everything speaks about their Slavic origin.

Illyrian tombstone with name "Pajo"
Image
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Thu 13 Jan, 2011 05:03

Bogumir wrote:Indeed, it's similar. Only thing is that Thracians are direct ancestors of modern Slavs.

They are not.

In other words, you can't give me a single chronicler writing earlier? Come on. So you believe Widukind, that Avars == Huns == Goths?

In other words, no one ever doubt that, until modern times.

So you seriously think Huns == Avars == Goths? And since Avars == Slavs, that means Slavs == Hunns == Avars == Goths?

And that's proves what exactly? There are literally tens of known examples when name of one tribe was later used for denoting other tribe. Look at the thread I started with numerous examples.


It proves that Slavs were numerous people with many different names.

No, it proves nothing. Exactly nothing. Unless you believe that Goths and Huns were Slavs too.

But that proves what exacly? I read about chroniclers, in XVII century, who had no doubts about that Romanians are in fact Slavs. In medieval times, Helmold wrote that Hungarians are Slavs as they are no different from Slavs in customs or language. Do you think Hungarians are Slavic?


Most of Romanians and Hungarians have Slavic origin, it's widespread fact, even according to their scientists.

I am not saying about genetics. Slavs are not genetical term. There is no doubt about that modern southern Slavs have genetical ties to the pre-Slavic Balkan population. The question is, whether Romanians and Hungarians are Slavs. They are not. And if you think that
1) Hungarians have Slavic origin (which contradicts almost everything we know about that -- their invasion is very well documented)
2) Modern Hungarians are not Slavs
then logically must conclude that the same name (e.g. "Hungarians") may denote different tribes (non-Slavs, Slavs). Therefore, identically of the same name (e.g. Venetes) does not prove that some tribe was Slavic.

Arnold J. Toynbee, famous British historian

Bogumir, Toynbee lived when exactly? If I asked for contemporary chronicler, do you believe Toynbee was byzantine chronicler living in early medieval times or in ancient times?

In the year 581, John of Ephesis gives the following account of the massive Slav Volkerwanderung in the late 6th century: An accursed people called Slavonians overran the whole of Greece ... captured the cities and overran numerous strongholds ... reduced the people to slavery, made themselves the masters of the whole and settled in it by means of force and dwelt in it as though it had been their own ... The Slavonians live at ease in the lands and dwell in it as far and wide as God permits them. Four years later, he writes: they [Slavonians] live in peace in the Roman territories, free from anxiety and fear ... And they have grown rich in gold and silver and herds of horses and arms, and have learned to fight better than the Romans."

This proves Slavic invasion, and does not prove that Slavs lived in this area or centuries; on the contrary.

Apian of Alexandria (first century n.e), the famous writer of Roman history, in the section Illyria says:''These people (Illyrians) and also Panonians, Retians, Norics, Mezians European and other neighboring tribes who inhabited the right bank of the Danube Romans differed, but believe that the whole Illyria covered under one national mark ... from the source of the Danube to the Black Sea, all under one head tax called Illyrian tax''(5.H.I.6).

This does not prove that those people were Slavic.

Casimir Schultz:

And he was again medieval chronicler, right?

Slavs lived on territory of Roman Empire thousand years before term Slav appear, as they live in present on same territory.

You have not posted a single proof until know, only quotes from guys writing CENTURIES after the fact.

Post me list of Illyrian words, we will see what to do with them
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Thu 13 Jan, 2011 06:36

They are not.


They are.

In other words, you can't give me a single chronicler writing earlier? Come on. So you believe Widukind, that Avars == Huns == Goths?


As I said you can't espect that some chronicler depict native Balkan population as Slavs, when that term is from medieval time (according to official history). We have Teophylact Simokatta from 7th century who said: "SLAVI ENIM DICTI ANTIQUITUS GETAE " (Slavs, namely, are ancient Gets), and Armenian historian from the 5th century, Moses Horenski, wrote of Thrace, that it is located "east of Dalmatia, not far from Sarmatia and consists of five small and one large region, which inhabits seven Slavic tribes. "

So you seriously think Huns == Avars == Goths? And since Avars == Slavs, that means Slavs == Hunns == Avars == Goths?


I didn't claim that.

And that's proves what exactly? There are literally tens of known examples when name of one tribe was later used for denoting other tribe. Look at the thread I started with numerous examples.


I looked at it. It proves that Slavs are not autochtonic people in Blakan and Panonia?

I am not saying about genetics.


Neither do I.

This proves Slavic invasion, and does not prove that Slavs lived in this area or centuries; on the contrary.


It proves just Slavic conquest on Blakan, nothing more.

This does not prove that those people were Slavic.


I didn't say that Appian call Illyans or anybody "Slavs", I just put it to see connection between those people.

You have not posted a single proof until know, only quotes from guys writing CENTURIES after the fact.


"Слијеп код очију", as we say here.

If you'v ever read Childe, Di Kanz, De Sainte-Marie, Bohardus, Orbin, Bergman, Boman, von Gottlob nad others you would know truth about Illyrians and Thracians.

Illyrian clothing consisted of a white shirt that hung down to his knees and belted around the waist and drapes. Their heads are covered with some type of caps on their feet they wore leather shoes (opanke). Same as we do now.

Illyrian tribes, same as modern:

Glinditioni-Glindici
Grabaei-Grabljani
Delmatae-Dalmati
Derentini-Deretici
Dindari-Dindarici
Dende-Dende
Dokleati-Dukljani
Deremisti-Dermastije
Dragovites-Dragovici
Deuri-Deurici
Scitary-Skitare
etc.

Illyrian names (which are recognizable today in Serbia and Balkan):

Bato, Arsa, Pajo, Panto, Tito, Bora, Andja, Anta, Bojkan, Bleda, Brega, Glavus, Grabos, Pravajus, Jato, Liko, Prorad, Jarilo, Matera, Bojo, Kata, Kokan and many others.

Ancient texts (Roman, Greek...) with Illyrian words (which are recognizable today in Serbia and Balkan):

tertigo - trgovac (merchant)
barba - bara (swamp)
temeia, temes - tama (darkness)
serota, sirote - sirot (poor)
pravai, prevo - prvo (first)
oserio - ezero (lake)
metu - medju (between)
...
Bartol Kasic - Illyrian language 17. century. Every single word is Slavic.

Image
(first column is in Illyrian/Slavic, second column is in Italian)
Image

On one side we have all old scholars who claim that Illyrians were Slavs, and on othre side we have some modern scholars who claim that they are not.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Slaven » Thu 13 Jan, 2011 07:37

Левслав wrote:Procopius Kisariysky speaks only of "invasion" but he could not know why the Slavs invaded.


Food grows better there. Plus, you can go swimming.
Slaven
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 00:17

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Fri 14 Jan, 2011 04:40

Bogumir wrote:
They are not.


They are.

They are not :)

Bogumir, first of all I have noticed I started to be to aggressive in last posts. Hope I have not made you angry.


As I said you can't espect that some chronicler depict native Balkan population as Slavs, when that term is from medieval time (according to official history). We have Teophylact Simokatta from 7th century who said: "SLAVI ENIM DICTI ANTIQUITUS GETAE " (Slavs, namely, are ancient Gets),

Getae are not Goths, it was another tribe. And even they were Goths, you would have to accept one of the following:

1) All the known documents with Gothic language represent Germanic, not Slavonic language. Therefore, they in fact do not represent Gothic. so what language they represent?
2) If the Goths depicted both Slavs and Germanics, then it is a proof that you can't simply use a name for proving that Slavs were in Balkans.

and Armenian historian from the 5th century, Moses Horenski, wrote of Thrace, that it is located "east of Dalmatia, not far from Sarmatia and consists of five small and one large region, which inhabits seven Slavic tribes. "

Ukraine is east from Dalmatia from the perspective of ARMENIAN chronicler. I do not know him, could you post exact links?

So you seriously think Huns == Avars == Goths? And since Avars == Slavs, that means Slavs == Hunns == Avars == Goths?


I didn't claim that.

hey, wait. Either you accept that we should accept chronicler's words, and therefore Slavs == Goths, or you agree that one should be careful.

And that's proves what exactly? There are literally tens of known examples when name of one tribe was later used for denoting other tribe. Look at the thread I started with numerous examples.


I looked at it. It proves that Slavs are not autochtonic people in Blakan and Panonia?

No. I prove that you should be aware, that "Venedae" may mean non-Slavic people in one point of history, and Slavic people in other point of history. For modern example, look at the evolution of the term "Litwini".

"Slijep kod očiju", as we say here.

If you'v ever read Childe, Di Kanz, De Sainte-Marie, Bohardus, Orbin, Bergman, Boman, von Gottlob nad others you would know truth about Illyrians and Thracians.

I already wrote what I think about using 17th and 19th century writers to prove anything about ancient times.

Illyrian clothing consisted of a white shirt that hung down to his knees and belted around the waist and drapes. Their heads are covered with some type of caps on their feet they wore leather shoes (opanke). Same as we do now.

But totally different from Slavic people in the north. So what does it prove?


Glinditioni-Glindici
Grabaei-Grabljani
Delmatae-Dalmati
Derentini-Deretici
Dindari-Dindarici
Dende-Dende
Dokleati-Dukljani
Deremisti-Dermastije
Dragovites-Dragovici
Deuri-Deurici
Scitary-Skitare

Sure, and Rugiae (Germanic tribe) and Slavic Rugians.

Anyway, I checked the list of your tribes. E.g. I didn't find dragovites, scitare etc. And I found following Illyrian tribes:
Albani, Sardeates, and other in Illyria: Belgites, Boii etc.


Ancient texts (Roman, Greek...) with Illyrian words (which are recognizable today in Serbia and Balkan):

Those words are also recognizable in latvian, and sometimes with other languages. On the other hand there many Illyrian words which are not recognizable. Moreover meaning of many of those words can be only guesses, since they are sometimes part of personal name and geographical names.

tertigo - trgovac (merchant)


Albanic: tregtar (merchant)

Compare Latvian: tirgus.

barba - bara (swamp)


Albanian: berrak
Greek: borburas (slime)

temeia, temes - tama (darkness)

Iranian: temei. Sanskrit: Tamas. Albanic: Tmerr "fear"

serota, sirote - sirot (poor)

Sierota in polish means orphan, not poor.
Anyway, untrue. Online illyrian dictionaries give meaning as "place for wanderers".

pravai, prevo - prvo (first)

latvian: pirmai

oserio - ezero (lake)

Untrue. Illyrian in online dictionaries is "oseriates". Latvian: azers, Lithuanian: ezeras Prussian: assaran.

what about: teuta (people, Polish: ludzie, Latvian: Tauta), rinos (clouds, Polish: obloki, chmury), can (dog), cleves( famous), benna (woman)??

Don't you think Illyrians were in fact Balts? Why not? Don't you see how many Illyrian words are similar to latvian?

Bartol Kasic - Illyrian language 17. century. Every single word is Slavic.



Is this list of slavic words from 17th century, oraz from ancient times? Because you ARE aware, that in 17th century Illyrians meant Slavs?

On one side we have all old scholars who claim that Illyrians were Slavs, and on othre side we have some modern scholars who claim that they are not.
[/quote]
Well, the modern scientists are right, while the older were simply wrong.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Fri 14 Jan, 2011 14:48

They are not :)
Bogumir, first of all I have noticed I started to be to aggressive in last posts. Hope I have not made you angry.


They are. I'm not angry, I'm peaceful and humble Christian. ;)

Getae are not Goths, it was another tribe. And even they were Goths


Well some texts equal Goths and Gets, but Gets are usualy considered as Thracians (Dacians).

you would have to accept one of the following:
1) All the known documents with Gothic language represent Germanic, not Slavonic language. Therefore, they in fact do not represent Gothic. so what language they represent?
2) If the Goths depicted both Slavs and Germanics, then it is a proof that you can't simply use a name for proving that Slavs were in Balkans.


No, I didn't claim just according to name Slavic autochtonic origin on Balkan.

Ukraine is east from Dalmatia from the perspective of ARMENIAN chronicler. I do not know him, could you post exact links?


Moses of Chorene 5th century.

"THRACIA ORIENTEM VERSUS A DALMACIA, NON LONGE A SARMACIA SITA EST ET CONTINENT QUINQUE PARVAS ЕТ UNAM MAGNAM PROVINCIAM, IN QUA SEPTEM GENERA SLAVORUM HABITANT'.

Epit. Geograph. Arm. et Gall. ed. Saint-Martin, Paris, 1819.

"The land of Thracians lies in east of Dalmatia near Sarmatia; and Thrace has five smaller provinces and one major in which are five Slavic clans, in which seats are moved Goths, there are mountains, rivers, cities, seas and islands, and as the capital happy Constantinople. "

Quoted from Schafarik and Suroviecki.

hey, wait. Either you accept that we should accept chronicler's words, and therefore Slavs == Goths, or you agree that one should be careful.


Agree of course.

No. I prove that you should be aware, that "Venedae" may mean non-Slavic people in one point of history, and Slavic people in other point of history. For modern example, look at the evolution of the term "Litwini".


Every Vened is Slavic.

I already wrote what I think about using 17th and 19th century writers to prove anything about ancient times.


Geniously.

But totally different from Slavic people in the north. So what does it
prove?


But totaly same as we wear it today. Prove our autoctonocy.

Sure, and Rugiae (Germanic tribe) and Slavic Rugians.
Anyway, I checked the list of your tribes. E.g. I didn't find dragovites, scitare etc. And I found following Illyrian tribes:
Albani, Sardeates, and other in Illyria: Belgites, Boii etc.


It's all Slavic.

Indeed, words are recognizable in other languages, since it's "indo-european language". On other hand, some words are lost during time.

Sierota in polish means orphan, not poor.


In Serbian it can meant both.

Anyway, untrue. Online illyrian dictionaries give meaning as "place for wanderers".


Briliant explanation.

oserio - ezero (lake)
Untrue. Illyrian in online dictionaries is "oseriates".


Oserio is singluar, oseriates plural.

And all words are written mainly from non-Illyrians, so their accuracy is questionable.

Is this list of slavic words from 17th century, oraz from ancient times?


17th century.

Because you ARE aware, that in 17th century Illyrians meant Slavs?


Which is totaly accurate.

Well, the modern scientists are right, while the older were simply wrong.


Untrue. It's opposite.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby venedae » Fri 14 Jan, 2011 16:27

Goths weren't Slavs, there is simply too many proof that they were a germanic tribe. Getae, who spoke the same language as the Dacians, Thacians and Illyrians were Slavs, just like the three I've added.
User avatar
venedae
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed 09 Jun, 2010 00:25
Location: Azgorod

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Slaven » Fri 14 Jan, 2011 16:38

venedae wrote: Getae, who spoke the same language as the Dacians, Thacians and Illyrians were Slavs, just like the three I've added.


Why didn't any of these have a Slavic name?
Slaven
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 00:17

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Andrej Moraczewski » Fri 14 Jan, 2011 16:47

Slaven wrote:
venedae wrote: Getae, who spoke the same language as the Dacians, Thacians and Illyrians were Slavs, just like the three I've added.


Why didn't any of these have a Slavic name?

May be it were exoetnonyms, not self-indentified names.
Andrej Moraczewski
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:23
Location: Himki, Moskva



Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Левслав » Sat 15 Jan, 2011 01:42

Slaven wrote:
venedae wrote: Getae, who spoke the same language as the Dacians, Thacians and Illyrians were Slavs, just like the three I've added.


Why didn't any of these have a Slavic name?

and in which sources are written the names? may mistake the author of the historical annals?
User avatar
Левслав
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed 19 May, 2010 11:31
Location: Восточная Славия

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Sat 15 Jan, 2011 14:03

Bogumir wrote:
They are not :)
Bogumir, first of all I have noticed I started to be to aggressive in last posts. Hope I have not made you angry.


They are. I'm not angry, I'm peaceful and humble Christian. ;)

They are not. Great.

Getae are not Goths, it was another tribe. And even they were Goths


Well some texts equal Goths and Gets, but Gets are usualy considered as Thracians (Dacians).

Great. So we are in agreement that only because some chroniclers equlled Getae and GOths, this can't be proof that Goths were Getae. Also, do we agree that despite some chroniclers wrote that Goths == Hunns == Avars, it can't be a proof that the Goths were Avars and HUnns?



Moses of Chorene 5th century.

Thanks. and here is what 1911 Encyclopedia writes about that:

A. von Gutschmid[9] at one time attempted to explain this unhistorical character of the narrative from a tendency arising out of the peculiar ecclesiastical and political circumstances of Armenia, situated as it was between the eastern Roman and the Persian empires, circumstances which were substantially the same in the 5th as they were in the two following centuries. In the course of further investigations, however, he came to the conclusion that, besides the many false statements which Moses of Khor`ni makes about his authorities, he gives a false account of himself. That is to say, the author of the History of Armenia is not the venerable translator of the 5th century, but some Armenian writing under his name during the years between 634 and 642. The proof is furnished on the one hand by the geographical and ethnographical nomenclature of a later period and similar anachronisms[10] which run through the whole book and are often closely incorporated with the narrative itself, and on the other hand by the identity of the author of the History with that of Geography, a point on which all doubt is excluded by a number of individual affinities,[11] not to speak of the similarity in geographical terminology. The critical decision as to the authorship of the Geography must settle the question for the History also.

For example, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Moses of Chorene" uses names of Armenian provinces according to the administrative division introduced in 536. Not very reliable source, in other words.

No. I prove that you should be aware, that "Venedae" may mean non-Slavic people in one point of history, and Slavic people in other point of history. For modern example, look at the evolution of the term "Litwini".


Every Vened is Slavic.

Why? You have agreed that fact that someone wrote Getae==Goths does not imply that Goths were Getae. What is the proof that ANCIENT Venedae are the same and Slavic Venedae from later times? Besides the name similarity?

But totaly same as we wear it today. Prove our autoctonocy.

No, Bogumir. It proves that you indeed have in part blood and customs of people who lived in Balkans years and years ago. It does not prove that SLAVS originated in the Balkans. The fact, that modern South Slavs have a lot of ancestors amongst (non-slavic) ancient inhabitors of Balkans is not disputed by anyone serious.

But the Slavs are not defined by blood, but by culture and, most importantly, by language.

Sure, and Rugiae (Germanic tribe) and Slavic Rugians.
Anyway, I checked the list of your tribes. E.g. I didn't find dragovites, scitare etc. And I found following Illyrian tribes:
Albani, Sardeates, and other in Illyria: Belgites, Boii etc.

It's all Slavic.

Albani, Sardeates, Belgites, Boii are Slavic?

Well, I ask because there is some similarity to the names of Albanians (definetely non-slavic), Sardinians (non-Slavic), Belgians (non-slavic) and celtic Boii's (ancient celtic tribe, non-slavic).

Indeed, words are recognizable in other languages, since it's "indo-european language". On other hand, some words are lost during time.

Exactly. So why similarity of some words to the Slavic makes you think were Slavs, why similar list of similarities to Latvian does not make you think that they were Baltic? I mean, why the similarities to Slavic are better than to Latvian?


Anyway, untrue. Online illyrian dictionaries give meaning as "place for wanderers".


Briliant explanation.

But there is no better, since there is no ancient Illyrian dictionary, only
a) recorded personal names
b) recorded geographical names
c) some isolated words here and there
Therefore, for some words their meaning is only a guess.
And all words are written mainly from non-Illyrians, so their accuracy is questionable.

Surely, therefore why choosing the version most similar to Slavic, and not other.

Is this list of slavic words from 17th century, oraz from ancient times?


17th century.

So why do you post this list when speaking about Illyrian language from ancient times? I mean, In 17th century "Illyrian" was used to denote Slavs. But this don't mean "Illyrian" centuries earlier meant Slavs too. Look at the Byzantines: they were calling themselves "Romans" but they were speaking Greek, not Latin.

Because you ARE aware, that in 17th century Illyrians meant Slavs?


Which is totaly accurate.
[/quote]
So why you use the list of words from Slavic language in 17th century, to prove that the unknown language from ancient times was Slavic too?

Bogumir, please consider this proofs of yours:
1) The historians in later times thought that Slavs came from Balkans. But why they thought so? And why we should believe them? After all, you agreed that chroniclers ARE often mistaken
2) The list of words of Illyrian. Those words are similar to many indoeuropean languages, including Slavic, Baltic etc. We don't know exact meaning of many of those words. Moreover, you could create today a similar list of words between Slavic and Baltic showing many striking similarities -- yet Balts are not Slavs -- they are only related "cousins". In fact you could create a list between Slavic and Sanskrit showing a lot of similarities: but it also wouldn't be a proof that Sanskrit is Slavic.
3) The similarity of tribe names, like "Venedae". But for many tribes in the past their name was transferred to the others. Like "Romans" for latin inhabitants of rome, and "Romans" speaking Greek, living in Constantinople.

Consider this example:
"Litwin" in 17th century meants Polish-speaking people inhabiting Lithuania. Mickiewicz writing in 18th century considered himself "Litwin" despite beaing polish-speaking and writing "WE SLAVS (my Słowianie lubimy sielanki" in one poem. Piłsudski, living in XX century considered himself "Litwin" despite being ardent Polish patriot. The original Baltic population was so assimilated, that by partition times hardly any noble spoke Lithuanian in home, and only peasants in Zmudz and elsewhere were using it. It is totally possible, that if not for partitions, They would be all assimilated and they would all be speaking Slavic and they would consider themselves Slavic. Would that mean, that the Lithuanians in X century were Slavic too?

Or consider Romanians. In 17th century, a lot of educated authors considered Vlachs to be Slavs. But they are not Slavs; they never were. Sure, in 17th century there maybe a lot of Slavs living in Romania, hence the mistake; but this does not prove that all Romanians are Slavs.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Sun 16 Jan, 2011 06:25

They are not. Great.


They are.

Great. So we are in agreement that only because some chroniclers equlled Getae and GOths, this can't be proof that Goths were Getae. Also, do we agree that despite some chroniclers wrote that Goths == Hunns == Avars, it can't be a proof that the Goths were Avars and HUnns?


I can't claim anything about them, since I'm not historian and I didn't deeply reasearch their origin etc, some historians would say they are same tribe, some will tell opposite and so on.

A. von Gutschmid[9] at one time attempted to explain this unhistorical character of the narrative...


German scholar? Hmmm... I doubt his good intentions.

Not very reliable source, in other words.


Like anything else which have connection with Slavic history. Everything is fake, blur, not clear etc.

What is the proof that ANCIENT Venedae are the same and Slavic Venedae from later times? Besides the name similarity?


What is proof that they are not Slavs?

No, Bogumir. It proves that you indeed have in part blood and customs of people who lived in Balkans years and years ago. It does not prove that SLAVS originated in the Balkans. The fact, that modern South Slavs have a lot of ancestors amongst (non-slavic) ancient inhabitors of Balkans is not disputed by anyone serious.


Autochtonic people on Balkan are our direct ancestors, who migrate from Balkan and Panonia all over Europe.
We have same names, customs, toponymes like them...
Where all warrior tribes from Balkan gone when Slavs came? We don't have any datas of mass genocide of native population.

Well, I ask because there is some similarity to the names of Albanians (definetely non-slavic), Sardinians (non-Slavic), Belgians (non-slavic) and celtic Boii's (ancient celtic tribe, non-slavic).


Slavic.

Like Illyrian word finded on Brac island, were is written "VESELIA - FELICITAS". And philologist dr Milan Budimir write: "Such name, e.g. is VESELIA - FELICITAS, found on an
Brač island. The Latin part of it means
happiness, while its first part, VESELIA, is Illyrian and obviously resembles the Slav word for "GAIETY" (ВЕСЕЉЕ, BECEЛИЦА); it is, therefore, easy to give a reasoned explanation of this
Illyrian name from the meaning of the Slav word."

Exactly. So why similarity of some words to the Slavic makes you think were Slavs, why similar list of similarities to Latvian does not make you think that they were Baltic? I mean, why the similarities to Slavic are better than to Latvian?


It isn't better, it's just we are on same soil as our ancestors, and Balts are far away from here.

Surely, therefore why choosing the version most similar to Slavic, and not other.


To see similarity.

I mean, In 17th century "Illyrian" was used to denote Slavs. But this don't mean "Illyrian" centuries earlier meant Slavs too.


It always ment Balkan Slav. Medieval writers depict us and our leaders as Illyrians, Thracians, Tribals etc.

Look at the Byzantines: they were calling themselves "Romans" but they were speaking Greek, not Latin.


Indeed, since it was direct continuation of the Roman Empire.

1) The historians in later times thought that Slavs came from Balkans. But why they thought so? And why we should believe them? After all, you agreed that chroniclers ARE often mistaken


Since they knew the truth.

"A lot of Greek myths may well be explained only by Slavic customs. Oldest Slavic songs of Illyria agree in view of the Illyrians as Slavs from the time of BC."
French slavist Cyprien Robert

In fact you could create a list between Slavic and Sanskrit showing a lot of similarities: but it also wouldn't be a proof that Sanskrit is Slavic


Some scientists think it is. So what?

Would that mean, that the Lithuanians in X century were Slavic too?


Maybe? I'm not expert for it.

Or consider Romanians. In 17th century, a lot of educated authors considered Vlachs to be Slavs. But they are not Slavs; they never were. Sure, in 17th century there maybe a lot of Slavs living in Romania, hence the mistake; but this does not prove that all Romanians are Slavs.


They were Slavs since they spoke Slavic language with little Latin words (as we can read in church scripts). Romanization during short Roman government didn't left deep latin mark until modern time, when Valachian language is complete romanized (but many Slavisms left), and country get name "Romania".

"Quibus sane regionibus addenda etiam est Moldavia et Valachia, ubi certe slavica lingua viget, sed partim integra, partim, ut in Valachia, cum veteri Romana permixta".
Franciscus Maria Appendini, 18. c.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby venedae » Sun 16 Jan, 2011 07:40

Anastasius I, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire was a Slav too, according to the book "The first seven ecumenical councils (325-787): their history and theology" written by Leo Donald Davis:

Image

According to Wikipedia he descended from a Illyrian family:

Anastasius was born at Dyrrhachium; the date is unknown, but he is thought to have been born no later than 430 or 431. He was born into an Illyrian family,[1] the son of Pompeius (born c. 410), nobleman of Dyrrachium, and wife Anastasia Constantina (born c. 410). His mother was an Arian, sister of Clearchus, also an Arian, and a paternal granddaughter of Gallus (born c. 370), son of Anastasia (born c. 352) and husband, in turn daughter of Flavius Claudius Constantius Gallus and wife and cousin Constantina.[2]
Last edited by venedae on Sun 16 Jan, 2011 07:49, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
venedae
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed 09 Jun, 2010 00:25
Location: Azgorod
PreviousNext

Return to ⰐⰀⰞ ⰔⰂⰡⰕ


The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 centurie


Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Mon 17 Jan, 2011 06:01

Bogumir wrote:
They are not. Great.


They are.

They are not.

Great. So we are in agreement that only because some chroniclers equlled Getae and GOths, this can't be proof that Goths were Getae. Also, do we agree that despite some chroniclers wrote that Goths == Hunns == Avars, it can't be a proof that the Goths were Avars and HUnns?


I can't claim anything about them, since I'm not historian and I didn't deeply reasearch their origin etc, some historians would say they are same tribe, some will tell opposite and so on.

No serious historian would claim that. Only total amateur could ciaim that Goths were Slavs baing on one historian remark and ignoring several other chroniclers and written documents.

A. von Gutschmid[9] at one time attempted to explain this unhistorical character of the narrative...

German scholar? Hmmm... I doubt his good intentions.

There is not such thing as German science or Polish science. There is only good science and bad science.

Not very reliable source, in other words.


Like anything else which have connection with Slavic history. Everything is fake, blur, not clear etc.

Nope. It's just if the chronicle contains a lot of other anachronism, one should be careful when considering information which is doubtful.

What is the proof that ANCIENT Venedae are the same and Slavic Venedae from later times? Besides the name similarity?

What is proof that they are not Slavs?

I have no proof that Slavs do not live on Mars. But this is not a serious basis for claiming that Slavic live on Mars.
No, Bogumir. It proves that you indeed have in part blood and customs of people who lived in Balkans years and years ago. It does not prove that SLAVS originated in the Balkans. The fact, that modern South Slavs have a lot of ancestors amongst (non-slavic) ancient inhabitors of Balkans is not disputed by anyone serious.


Autochtonic people on Balkan are our direct ancestors, who migrate from Balkan and Panonia all over Europe.
We have same names, customs, toponymes like them...
Where all warrior tribes from Balkan gone when Slavs came? We don't have any datas of mass genocide of native population.

Therey weren't gone. For example, Thracians were
1) conquered by Macedonians
2) conquered by ROmans and romanised
3) conquered by Slavs and slavicised.

Again, there is no doubt that invading Slavs DIDNT replace the native population. Vast population mixed in Slavs, as usuall in such situations. The same happened with Hungarians: they have a lot of Slavic blood, even though they are not Slavs. They didn't kill off natives, they only mixed with them. The same with Balkans.

Well, I ask because there is some similarity to the names of Albanians (definetely non-slavic), Sardinians (non-Slavic), Belgians (non-slavic) and celtic Boii's (ancient celtic tribe, non-slavic).


Slavic.

Belgians are Slavs now? And Albanians too? My, my. Sardinians were Slavs too? And Boii were Slavs?

Exactly. So why similarity of some words to the Slavic makes you think were Slavs, why similar list of similarities to Latvian does not make you think that they were Baltic? I mean, why the similarities to Slavic are better than to Latvian?


It isn't better, it's just we are on same soil as our ancestors, and Balts are far away from here.

No Bogumir. Imagine that Slavs would succeed in total subduing of Baltic people, so they would be all Slavs now. Of course no mass slaughter, but only mixing + assimilation. Say that only few words of Baltic would survive. Of course some 1000 years later people could compare Batlic words known from "ancient inscriptions". And they would say hey, look how similar they are to Slavic! Balts were Slavs, the conquest was myth!

What you are proving is that Illyrian and Thracian were related to Slavic (just as Baltic is related) not identical. Moreover definetely you do not prove the origin of Slavs in Balkans.

It always ment Balkan Slav. Medieval writers depict us and our leaders as Illyrians, Thracians, Tribals etc.

And In 17th century our writers started to write about us like about the "Sarmatians". But this does not prove ancient Sarmates were Poles. Tatars were called Scyths. But this does not mean Tatars were Scyths.

Look at the Byzantines: they were calling themselves "Romans" but they were speaking Greek, not Latin.


Indeed, since it was direct continuation of the Roman Empire.

But it does not mean that the ancient Greeks were Romans, nor that Romans were speaking Greek. But here you are trying to get the implication that because in 15th century Slavs were called Illyrians, that means that ancient Illyrians were Slavs too and moreover, that Slavs are descended from Balkans.

1) The historians in later times thought that Slavs came from Balkans. But why they thought so? And why we should believe them? After all, you agreed that chroniclers ARE often mistaken


Since they knew the truth.

Why do you think they knew the truth? What were the basis for their ideas?

"A lot of Greek myths may well be explained only by Slavic customs. Oldest Slavic songs of Illyria agree in view of the Illyrians as Slavs from the time of BC."
French slavist Cyprien Robert

Yeah, sure.

In fact you could create a list between Slavic and Sanskrit showing a lot of similarities: but it also wouldn't be a proof that Sanskrit is Slavic


Some scientists think it is. So what?

So that those are not scientists.

Would that mean, that the Lithuanians in X century were Slavic too?

Maybe? I'm not expert for it.

Come on. You can simply go to Lithuania and check the fact that they are not Slavs.
Or consider Romanians. In 17th century, a lot of educated authors considered Vlachs to be Slavs. But they are not Slavs; they never were. Sure, in 17th century there maybe a lot of Slavs living in Romania, hence the mistake; but this does not prove that all Romanians are Slavs.


They were Slavs since they spoke Slavic language with little Latin words (as we can read in church scripts). Romanization during short Roman government didn't left deep latin mark until modern time, when Valachian language is complete romanized (but many Slavisms left), and country get name "Romania".

"Quibus sane regionibus addenda etiam est Moldavia et Valachia, ubi certe slavica lingua viget, sed partim integra, partim, ut in Valachia, cum veteri Romana permixta".
Franciscus Maria Appendini, 18. c.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
Don't you think you are just proving my case? Let's assume that indeed Romanians are romanized Slavs. Today they definetely they are NOT SLAVS. That meant:
1) That the chroniclers writing about one fact (Vlachs are Slavs) is not proof that modern Romanians are Slavs
2) That if today someone writes that Romanians are not Slavs is not proof that they weren't Slavs in the past

Don't you see that? You have just invalidated one of your arguments.

I just started to peruse Pavel Serfimov "ethymologies" of Thracian geographical names and words. I can say that this guy is not a scientists. E.g. words "dava, daba, deva" meaning "small village" he exaplains as "temporary camp" and derives from "slavic TABor". But tabor is not Slavic. It's ethymology is not contested by anyone and it came probably from Turkic. Why not derive "Daba" from "Dupa" because people were sitting there on their arses?

He mentions also Thebes. By his logis, why not explain that thebes came from Tabor and were Slavic settlement?

Then "Bria" he gets from "s(bor), so(bor)". No explanation why always it was Bria, never (s)Bria. Also, in polish "zbiór, zbierać" (to gather) clearly is derivative of "brać" (to take). Simply.. if all explanations are like that he is not a scientists. He is amateur who knows nothing about serious science. If you will take any two languages, by his method you could prove everything. I say, lets derive from "bria" from "berg", German for hill, since fortified settlements were often on hills. Or from "bar" since originally they were places were people were gathering for drinks.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Mon 17 Jan, 2011 15:01

They are not.


They are.

No serious historian would claim that. Only total amateur could ciaim that Goths were Slavs baing on one historian remark and ignoring several other chroniclers and written documents.


There is several medieval claims which equal Goths and Slavs and those with Gets.

There is not such thing as German science or Polish science. There is only good science and bad science.


German scientists have many times shown their nonobjectivity toward Slavs (like widespread story from 19. c. as Slavs-slaves and ubermenschen).
Years and years Slavs in Balkan was intrude complex of "newcomers". There was skilled manipulation of religion and ideology, falsification of their history and geography.

Nope. It's just if the chronicle contains a lot of other anachronism, one should be careful when considering information which is doubtful.


And that remark of these historians convinced you that Moses of Chorene is wrong?

Therey weren't gone. For example, Thracians were
1) conquered by Macedonians
2) conquered by ROmans and romanised
3) conquered by Slavs and slavicised.


1) And so? They didn't exterminate Thracians
2) Hellenized and Romanized yes, in term that some learned Greek and Latin, but Thracian name remain in deep medieval time, and as Herodotus said, they were: "the most powerful people in the world, except, of course, the Indians; and if they had one head, or were agreed among themselves, it is my belief that their match could not be found anywhere, and that they would very far surpass all other nations. But such union is impossible for them, and there are no means of ever bringing it about. Herein therefore consists their weakness. The Thracians bear many names in the different regions of their country, but all of them have like usages in every respect, excepting only the Getae, the Trausi, and those who dwell above the people of Creston."

3) Several thousand Slavic barbarians conquered and Slavicized so many Thracians on their native land with much higher culture than Slavic? Impossible.
Except work of emperor Constantin VII Porphyrogenitus (De administrando Imperio), there isn't any other source that tell us about direct Slavic immigration on Balkan. There is only descriptions of Slavic warrior conquests on Roman Empire. But since there is lot contradictory in that text, historians are very carefull.
I already post antropological research about Slavic indigenous origin on Balkan from Stone age.

If you are good in Russian, I sugest you book Oleg Nikolayevich Trubačov, Russian doctor in philology: ethnogenesis and culture of ancient Slavs (Danubian homeland of Slavs), Moscow, Russian Academy of Sciences
http://www.bolesmir.ru/index.php?content=text&name=o378

Again, there is no doubt that invading Slavs DIDNT replace the native population. Vast population mixed in Slavs, as usuall in such situations. The same happened with Hungarians: they have a lot of Slavic blood, even though they are not Slavs. They didn't kill off natives, they only mixed with them. The same with Balkans.


Yes, Slavs mix with their ethnic kinsmen on Balkan, otherwise, they couldn't possible counqer and Slavicized them since natives were noumerous, war-like, and on much higher cultural level.
And Hungarians were ruling class in their state, while Slavs were counqered population. Only by force magyarization and catholization they kept their language, while in Bulgaria they were completely slavicized (only name stay).

Belgians are Slavs now? And Albanians too? My, my. Sardinians were Slavs too? And Boii were Slavs?


It related to the Illyrian tribes.

And they would say hey, look how similar they are to Slavic! Balts were Slavs, the conquest was myth!


I'm not talking about Balts, I didn't research their ethnogenesis, were they have Slavic origin or not.

What you are proving is that Illyrian and Thracian were related to Slavic (just as Baltic is related) not identical. Moreover definetely you do not prove the origin of Slavs in Balkans.


Slavs were always numerous people, so their language vary depending on distance between people.
There is proves as much as you wish, but no one prove that Slavs aren't autochtonic on Balkan.
Except relating Illyro-Thracians with Balts, you didn't prove anything, nor disaprove earlier slavists.

And In 17th century our writers started to write about us like about the "Sarmatians". But this does not prove ancient Sarmates were Poles. Tatars were called Scyths. But this does not mean Tatars were Scyths.


Ancient Sarmatians were Slavs, so that's their connection with Poles. In Scythia lived many tribes, among them were Tartar ancestors too.

But it does not mean that the ancient Greeks were Romans, nor that Romans were speaking Greek.


It was State-nation. Educated Romans spoke Greek.
Philologist Averintsev Sergey: "Greeks, Slavs and Armenians, who spoke Greek and had not seen Italy nor usually had especially nice feelings for Latins, change a name for themselves and call themselves as carriers of imperial sovereignty, "Romei". All these were the Romans. "

Don't you see that? You have just invalidated one of your arguments.


I don't see how. We have historical proves for Vlachs, but yes, most of modern Romanian historians decline Slavic root of their nation (they prefer to be "Romans").

I just started to peruse Pavel Serfimov "ethymologies" of Thracian geographical names and words. I can say that this guy is not a scientists.


If you are good in ethymology, call mr. Serafimov and organize academic discussion about Thracians.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby venedae » Mon 17 Jan, 2011 16:13

Lets see what Mario Alinei (italian Linguist and Archeologist, University of Utrecht) has to say about Thracians:

A final remark: Herodotus, as is known, describes the Thracians as the most
numerous people after the Indians. Mallory comments that it is a “sad irony” they “have
left no modern descendant of their language” (Mallory 1989, 72). But is it really so?
First of all, if it is hard to admit that a numerous people might completely extinguish, it
is even less likely that this pre-existing people would have left no traces in the
archaeological record. And since, as we have seen, the demographic explosion of the
Slavs must be placed in Neolithic, we could then advance the hypothesis that Thracians
was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were
one of the most powerful and representative elites of Slavic speaking Eastern Europe,
seen with Herodotus’ inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the
Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which
came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished.
This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results
of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of
materials, can be so summarized:
(1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic;
(2) as discovered by Trubačev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising
similarity with the Baltic ones;
(3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr.
place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of ‘fortress’ has
been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. teĩkhos ‘wall’ (IEW 244), has a
much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. ziždoã, zydati ‘to build’ zydŭ,
zidŭ ‘wall’, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning ‘to form’. And the
vocalism of the Thr. river name Stry¤mōn and place name Stry¤mē seems closer to Pol.
strumień ‘brook’ and OSlav. struja ‘stream’ than to Latv stràume ‘stream’ (IEW 1003).
The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of
Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern
Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts (following the geolinguistic
well-known rule, according to which the center innovates, and the periphery preserves).


Here he speaks about the distribution of slavic languages:

7.3.1 The areal asymmetry of the Slavic areal distribution
As a specialist in geolinguistics, I have always been surprised by the fact that Slavic
specialists have failed in noticing or appreciating the extraordinary diagnostic value –
from a geolinguistic point of view – of the asymmetric configuration of the Slavic area.
Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly
stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a
single unit, but each of its two branchings – the Western and the Eastern – shares
different features with Southern Slavic.
Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible
for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the
earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with
its proper history and identity.
No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges
the very raison d’etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.
Needless to say, this simple remark demolishes the whole construction of the
Slavic homeland in Middle Eastern Europe and of the Slavic migration in traditional
terms, as well as all of its corollaries.
But let us check the other two points, before
developing it further within the framework of the PCT.
[...]
User avatar
venedae
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed 09 Jun, 2010 00:25
Location: Azgorod

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby venedae » Mon 17 Jan, 2011 16:18

Image

Territory settled with "Thracians" according to herodot
User avatar
venedae
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed 09 Jun, 2010 00:25
Location: Azgorod

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Mon 17 Jan, 2011 17:52

The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of
Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern
Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts (following the geolinguistic
well-known rule, according to which the center innovates, and the periphery preserves).


Yes, it is well known fact among paleolinguists.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Tue 18 Jan, 2011 09:08

Bogumir wrote:They are


They are not.
No serious historian would claim that. Only total amateur could ciaim that Goths were Slavs baing on one historian remark and ignoring several other chroniclers and written documents.


There is several medieval claims which equal Goths and Slavs and those with Gets.

Bogumir,
I thought you agreed that it is impossible for Goths to be Slavs.

There is not such thing as German science or Polish science. There is only good science and bad science.


German scientists have many times shown their nonobjectivity toward Slavs (like widespread story from 19. c. as Slavs-slaves and ubermenschen).

Sure, there were German pseudo-scientists, and German with bad methodology.
Years and years Slavs in Balkan was intrude complex of "newcomers". There was skilled manipulation of religion and ideology, falsification of their history and geography.

A thousand years is enough to not to be newcomers. Besides, there is no doubt that South Slavs have also direct anceostors amongst the native (non-Slavic) population of Balkans.

Nope. It's just if the chronicle contains a lot of other anachronism, one should be careful when considering information which is doubtful.


And that remark of these historians convinced you that Moses of Chorene is wrong?

It convinced me, that if he was wrong many times, there is no point in accepting everything from his chronicle at the face value, especially when there is no original of the chronicle and only later copies.

3) Several thousand Slavic barbarians conquered and Slavicized so many Thracians on their native land with much higher culture than Slavic? Impossible.

For the number argument:
What about Hungarians? How it is possible that they were able to conquer Slavs? What about Romans, Spaniards? How come South America speaks Spanish or Portuguese?
For the culture argument:
How come England is not romanised now? How it is possible, that several thousands invading Anglo-Saxons was able to turn local, romanised population (which was earlier celtic) into English-speaking people? This is very similar scenario to Balkans. Most of English nowadays genetically are descendants not of Germanic invaders, but of local first Celtic and then Romanized population. But English are not Celts; they are Germanics.

I already post antropological research about Slavic indigenous origin on Balkan from Stone age.

No, Bogumir. I've already told you. You do not read my posts. You have proven that modern Slavic population has deep ties deep back into past time, not that those people earlier are Slavs. No one doubts that South Slavs have a lot of blood from earlier autochtonous population. And anthropological research does not determine language.

Again, there is no doubt that invading Slavs DIDNT replace the native population. Vast population mixed in Slavs, as usuall in such situations. The same happened with Hungarians: they have a lot of Slavic blood, even though they are not Slavs. They didn't kill off natives, they only mixed with them. The same with Balkans.


Yes, Slavs mix with their ethnic kinsmen on Balkan, otherwise, they couldn't possible counqer and Slavicized them since natives were noumerous, war-like, and on much higher cultural level.

By Slavic invasion they weren't warlike. Anyway, you are trying to prove that it isn't possible to Germanic tribes to conquer England.

Belgians are Slavs now? And Albanians too? My, my. Sardinians were Slavs too? And Boii were Slavs?


It related to the Illyrian tribes.

Bogumir, answere clearly: do you believe Belgians and Albanians are Slavs?


And they would say hey, look how similar they are to Slavic! Balts were Slavs, the conquest was myth!


I'm not talking about Balts, I didn't research their ethnogenesis, were they have Slavic origin or not.

But I am trying to show you, why your arguments are not only not decisive. They are not even valid. In the scenario I have presented some future descendants of the Balts could use exactly the same arguments like you and claim that the Balts were Slavs from the very beginning. He could use all the arguments you are using now.

What you are proving is that Illyrian and Thracian were related to Slavic (just as Baltic is related) not identical. Moreover definetely you do not prove the origin of Slavs in Balkans.


Slavs were always numerous people, so their language vary depending on distance between people.
There is proves as much as you wish, but no one prove that Slavs aren't autochtonic on Balkan.
Except relating Illyro-Thracians with Balts, you didn't prove anything, nor disaprove earlier slavists.

I have shown that your arguments cannot be seriously considered as "valid proofs". Because you could construct such list with many other languages.

And In 17th century our writers started to write about us like about the "Sarmatians". But this does not prove ancient Sarmates were Poles. Tatars were called Scyths. But this does not mean Tatars were Scyths.


Ancient Sarmatians were Slavs, so that's their connection with Poles. In Scythia lived many tribes, among them were Tartar ancestors too.

Sarmatians were Slavs, aha.
And seems Tatars are Slavs too, since Slavs were called Avars and Scythians, Avars were called Scythians, so no doubt Scythians must be Slavs.

Don't you see that? You have just invalidated one of your arguments.


I don't see how. We have historical proves for Vlachs, but yes, most of modern Romanian historians decline Slavic root of their nation (they prefer to be "Romans").

You have just proven that one nation could speak different languages and use the same name. So, the arguments about "Venedae" is invalidated -- if Venedae were Slavs in X century, it does not prove they were Slavs thousand year before. Moreover, you have proven, that if a nation was Slavic at one point, it does not mean it was Slavic at the other point. Romanians definetely are not Slavs, though they have some Slavic roots.

I just started to peruse Pavel Serfimov "ethymologies" of Thracian geographical names and words. I can say that this guy is not a scientists.


If you are good in ethymology, call mr. Serafimov and organize academic discussion about Thracians.


I am not good, but I am good enough to see that he is just picking words at random. With that method he can prove connection to any language.

By the way, I think i have written at least once sentence which I wish I wouldn't. With your permission, I would edit it out from my post about Serfimovs ethymologies.

But anyway, i think you would agree that deriving "Dava" from "Tabor" when Tabor is not even Slavic word, but late borrowing, does not testify a lot about Serafimov scientific method. Why he does not use Old Church Slavonic, which should be most related to the ancient thracian?
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Tue 18 Jan, 2011 14:04

They are not.


They are. Even Polish historian Bjelovski in his work "A critical introduction to Polish history", published in Lviv in 1857, claim that Polish origin is from Slavic tribes from the Danube, from Tribals and Dacians, who had moved to north, caused by Roman conquest. He says that all the old traditions of the Poles are also among the Serbs in the Danube. ;)

I thought you agreed that it is impossible for Goths to be Slavs.


I have basic knowledge about Goths from official history books and I read several books that depict them as Slavs. It's not on me to declare them as Slavs or non-Slavs.

Besides, there is no doubt that South Slavs have also direct anceostors amongst the native (non-Slavic) population of Balkans.


Well, in modern time german science declare Shqiptars (Albanians) as direct descendents of Illyrians ie. Balakn is their land, and we are intruders.

It convinced me, that if he was wrong many times, there is no point in accepting everything from his chronicle at the face value, especially when there is no original of the chronicle and only later copies.


I'm not sure was he wrong, but there is many copies of other chronicles and datas threw history in which
authenticity there is no doubt.

For the number argument:
What about Hungarians? How it is possible that they were able to conquer Slavs? What about Romans, Spaniards? How come South America speaks Spanish or Portuguese?


Hungarians were warriors who mix with Slavs, but until 17th century they still were minority in Hungary. From that time, threw forced magyarization and catholiztion they managed to become majority in teritory of modern Hungary.
History of magyarization is well explained in literature, while Slavicization of Balkan natives is on level of fairy tail.

Romanized nations didn't become it in few years, romanic languages are from medieval time and it lasted hundreds of years to romanized them, while native words and languages still exist in S. America and other romanized countries.

For the culture argument:
How come England is not romanised now? How it is possible, that several thousands invading Anglo-Saxons was able to turn local, romanised population (which was earlier celtic) into English-speaking people? This is very similar scenario to Balkans. Most of English nowadays genetically are descendants not of Germanic invaders, but of local first Celtic and then Romanized population. But English are not Celts; they are Germanics.


Germanisation lasted several hundred years, with help of church and administration, ruling class impose their language on natives, same as romanization and magyarization.
But in those countries as I said, there is still native languages (gaelic, indian etc.)

While on Balkan, we have nothing of non-Slavic of our ancestors, to prove their ethnic diference from us. No cultural, linguistic, antropological or any other trace of them.

Also, battles among Celts and Germanic invaders and Indians vs. Spaniards are well documented, but on Balkan we don't have ANY record about battles between native population (several million people) and Slavic invaders (although, some Slavic natives fight on Roman side, since they were best soldiers).

German scholars start story about non-Slavic origin of Balkan natives, but till modern days, no one prove it in any way.

No, Bogumir. I've already told you. You do not read my posts.


I read it carefuly, don't worry.

You have proven that modern Slavic population has deep ties deep back into past time, not that those people earlier are Slavs. No one doubts that South Slavs have a lot of blood from earlier autochtonous population. And anthropological research does not determine language.


No, you see, this is what anthropologist Dr Srboljub Zivanovic write: "Studying the epigenetic characteristics of skeleton of the oldest people from Cro-magnon period till modern days, one can clearly see a visible evolutionary process of indigenous peoples of the Balkans and the wider Danube basin. Indigenous peoples of these areas have survived until today and it was in fact ancient Slavic, and now the Serbian population. No credible anthropological evidence that the Balkans and the wider Danube region was settled in large numbers through migration or conquest of other nations, although it is known that various tribes and the hordes of Huns, Avars, Germans and many others came, passed and drowned in the mass of the indigenous Slavic population. Evolution of the Slavic population from the earliest times to the present best seen in the cemetery at Trnjane near Pozarevac (Zivanovic) in which the Cro-Magnons buried by the Danube, and today by Pozarevac. Epigenetic characteristics of all these skeletons are almost identical today. Recently at the archaeological site at exit for Sremska Mitrovica, on the highway Belgrade-Sid, was found one ancient Slavic cemeteries from the Roman period (IV century AD) in which buried next to a Slavs and a few Germans. The fact that the indigenous population was at various times under the influence of culture and newcomers invaders who imposed their power and influence does not mean you are genetically able to change Slavic indigenous population.

Numerous anthropological studies have shown that ancient Slavs were numerous, relatively peaceful, mostly farmers and ranchers, prone to hunting and fishing, are constantly striving to settle and live in the same area, without a desire for migration. Their movements were usually caused by incursion of tribes other nations that they often imposed its military and civil organization, using them as soldiers in campaigns of conquest.
"
Whole text is here: viewtopic.php?f=121&t=2322&start=135

I listen and read several lectures from dr Zivanovic, he and his colleagues have no doubt about Slavic autochtonocy on Balkan and Panonia, and our direct origin from Cro-magnons.

Bogumir, answere clearly: do you believe Belgians and Albanians are Slavs?


No, altough many Albanians have Slavic origin.

Don't you see that? You have just invalidated one of your arguments.


By Scythia and Scythians it is most relate with teritory not nation, although we can say that ancient inhabitants of Scythia were Slavs, but we can open special thread about them.

You have just proven that one nation could speak different languages and use the same name.


In this modern time, everything is possible, hehe. But, we can't generalize it.

So, the arguments about "Venedae" is invalidated -- if Venedae were Slavs in X century, it does not prove they were Slavs thousand year before.


I didn't find reason to believe that they were not Slavs, except some attempts to show their language as non-Slavic.
Threw all history, Vend, Venet always relate with Slavs.

But anyway, i think you would agree that deriving "Dava" from "Tabor" when Tabor is not even Slavic word, but late borrowing, does not testify a lot about Serafimov scientific method. Why he does not use Old Church Slavonic, which should be most related to the ancient thracian?


Since I'm not qualified in ethymology, I will again quote linguist Mario Alinei:

"The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts (following the geolinguistic well-known rule, according to which the center innovates, and the periphery preserves)."

Conclusion of trachologists is that "many roots (of Thracian lang.) are cognate to Baltic and Slavic terms."

Interesting that Thracians also had god Perun-Perkon, but it's all "indo-european".
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Thu 20 Jan, 2011 05:27

Bogumir wrote:
They are not.


They are. Even Polish historian Bjelovski in his work "A critical introduction to Polish history", published in Lviv in 1857, claim that Polish origin is from Slavic tribes from the Danube, from Tribals and Dacians, who had moved to north, caused by Roman conquest. He says that all the old traditions of the Poles are also among the Serbs in the Danube. ;)

Sure, but why to pick those XIX century writers who agree with your views and consider them reliable, while at the same time thinking that some other writers were nationalist and were not right?
I thought you agreed that it is impossible for Goths to be Slavs.


I have basic knowledge about Goths from official history books and I read several books that depict them as Slavs. It's not on me to declare them as Slavs or non-Slavs.


But you should have enough reason to consider the arguments yourself. Jordanes, their chronicler, is using Gothic words in his chronicle; he himself was Goth. The words he used were Gothic. He considered Slavic language "utterly barbarous". If he was Goth AND Slavic, why he would consider other Slavic language "utterly barbarous"? We have few preserved inscriptions in Gothic, and that is Germanic language. Then there are Crimean Goths. You have here very simple choices:
A) Goths were Slavs.
B) Goths were not Slavs.

Which one do you think is more probable? Whatever choice will you pick, the consequences are not good for the arguments used in your discussion.

Besides, there is no doubt that South Slavs have also direct anceostors amongst the native (non-Slavic) population of Balkans.


Well, in modern time german science declare Shqiptars (Albanians) as direct descendents of Illyrians ie. Balakn is their land, and we are intruders.

Bogumir, there is no such thing as "German" science. There is only good science and bad science.

It convinced me, that if he was wrong many times, there is no point in accepting everything from his chronicle at the face value, especially when there is no original of the chronicle and only later copies.


I'm not sure was he wrong, but there is many copies of other chronicles and datas threw history in which
authenticity there is no doubt.

Actually you could provide only this one sentence from one chronicle, other chronicles are from centuries AFTER the event. On one hand you have Joseph of Ephessos (who lived at that time and in that very place), Jordanes, Procopius and others -- which lived at that time and in that place. They depicted invading barbarians and terrified local population. They depicted burned cities, the population running away, and Slavs as new people. On the other hand you have ONE sentence from contested ONE chronicle, and several chroniclers writing 500 year later. That some 25 generations for you. You got archeological evidence for new types of settlement, and evidencing that cities were sacked and people were murdered.


Hungarians were warriors who mix with Slavs, but until 17th century they still were minority in Hungary. From that time, threw forced magyarization and catholiztion they managed to become majority in teritory of modern Hungary.
History of magyarization is well explained in literature, while Slavicization of Balkan natives is on level of fairy tail.

But today Magyars are not Slavs. Even if the population may be derived from earlier Slavic people. Therefore, you must accept the fact that population ethnicity may change over the centuries. The anthropological surveys would not detect this "forced magyarisation".

Romanized nations didn't become it in few years, romanic languages are from medieval time and it lasted hundreds of years to romanized them, while native words and languages still exist in S. America and other romanized countries.

Sure, just as it was with Slavicisation of the Balkans.

For the culture argument:
How come England is not romanised now? How it is possible, that several thousands invading Anglo-Saxons was able to turn local, romanised population (which was earlier celtic) into English-speaking people? This is very similar scenario to Balkans. Most of English nowadays genetically are descendants not of Germanic invaders, but of local first Celtic and then Romanized population. But English are not Celts; they are Germanics.


Germanisation lasted several hundred years, with help of church and administration, ruling class impose their language on natives, same as romanization and magyarization.

Same with Balkans. Orthodox church using Slavic, local ruling elite was Slavic, nothing strange that population was slavicised.

While on Balkan, we have nothing of non-Slavic of our ancestors, to prove their ethnic diference from us. No cultural, linguistic, antropological or any other trace of them.

There is, but you simply ignore that.

Also, battles among Celts and Germanic invaders and Indians vs. Spaniards are well documented, but on Balkan we don't have ANY record about battles between native population (several million people) and Slavic invaders (although, some Slavic natives fight on Roman side, since they were best soldiers).

That's are quite a blatant lie. Slavic invasion is documented by several chroniclers, who depict them as violent invaders, robbing, pillaging, killing and raping local population.

As for anthropologists, the same claims are for Poland, so Slavs are autochtonous in Poland. The problem is that there is not much in common between anthropologic types in Poland and in Balkans.

Also, anthropologically and genetically there is not much difference between Macedonians and Greeks.

Bogumir, answere clearly: do you believe Belgians and Albanians are Slavs?


No, altough many Albanians have Slavic origin.

But they are not Slavs. Despite having Slavic origins.

By Scythia and Scythians it is most relate with teritory not nation, although we can say that ancient inhabitants of Scythia were Slavs, but we can open special thread about them.

Sure, and Illyria and Thracia were not related with territory.

You have just proven that one nation could speak different languages and use the same name.


In this modern time, everything is possible, hehe. But, we can't generalize it.

The same with the past. Look at the Turkey: how come invading Turks were able to impose their language on the local population? The local population is genetically and anthropologically quite different from Turkic invaders. But they are Turks. According to your logic, Turks shouldn't be able to do that, the local population was numerous, warlike and with higher level of culture.

So, the arguments about "Venedae" is invalidated -- if Venedae were Slavs in X century, it does not prove they were Slavs thousand year before.


I didn't find reason to believe that they were not Slavs, except some attempts to show their language as non-Slavic.
Threw all history, Vend, Venet always relate with Slavs.

Not really. E.g. Celtic Veneds are not Slavs. The first identification of Venedae and Slavs is from 5th or 6th century.

"The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts (following the geolinguistic well-known rule, according to which the center innovates, and the periphery preserves)."

Conclusion of trachologists is that "many roots (of Thracian lang.) are cognate to Baltic and Slavic terms."

Interesting that Thracians also had god Perun-Perkon, but it's all "indo-european".

Sure. It is widely accepted that thracian, baltic, slavic were related. Baltic is related to Slavic, but Baltic is not Slavic.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Andrej Moraczewski » Thu 20 Jan, 2011 05:47

Богумир,
Well, in modern time german science declare Shqiptars (Albanians) as direct descendents of Illyrians ie. Balakn is their land, and we are intruders.

Even if it is so, what's bad? Slavs are invaders, but they are winners, so they have right to rule and populate this land. The same (absolutely the same) thing is for most part of Russia, Russians were always invaders and intruders, we colonized Volga and Oka region, North-East of Europe, whole Siberia, and this is declared by both Russian and non-Russian science, but that doesn't mean that ugrofinns and other nations have any right to rule the lands that were conquered by Russians. Why do you afraid to accept Albanians as original population of Balkan and we have no fear to accept ugrofinns as original population of Moscow and North-Eastern region?
Andrej Moraczewski
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:23
Location: Himki, Moskva



Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Thu 20 Jan, 2011 10:41

Sure, but why to pick those XIX century writers ...


Bjelkovski wrote national history, and reliable for getting along with other facts about the Thracians, while foreign historians wrote in their national interest.

Which one do you think is more probable?


Can't say, both is possible.

Sebastiano Dolci, studying the Gothic and the Illyrian language, says:
"...Gothis illyricam fuisse linguam...",
"Goths language was Illyrian (Slavic)...",

Whatever choice will you pick, the consequences are not good for the arguments used in your discussion.


I don't see how.

On one hand you have Joseph of Ephessos (who lived at that time and in that very place), Jordanes, Procopius and others -- which lived at that time and in that place....


Yes, they speak about Slavic invasion, and only about invasion, not about great Slavic colonization. But no one talking about millions of natives? What they do during that time? They "Run away in mountains" and "coastal cities", as official historiography talk?
It's hillarious.

Procopius write: "So they (Slavs) took Thracian coastal city Toper, twelve days' journey from the Constantinople. Male population in it, about 15,000 slew, women and children with all the treasure walked into slavery."
If the city offered resistance, they revenged on population, especialy if Greeks/Romans lived there (like in other coastal cities, were population was deeply romanized).

You got archeological evidence for new types of settlement, and evidencing that cities were sacked and people were murdered.


Actually, type of houses on Balkan didn't change from Illyrian time till modern time. Invading Slavs builded small wooden houses, since they were moving constantly.

The anthropological surveys would not detect this "forced magyarisation".


It was from establishing Hungarian kingdom and in 18 and 19 c. it culminate when thousands and thousands people were hungarized. It was threw language and religion not "anthropologicaly".

There is, but you simply ignore that.


There isn't, none of historians who represent "Slavic migration" didn't explaine it, except showing toward Albanians.

That's are quite a blatant lie.


Let's not insult each other. Point at one battle on terittory of modern Serbia or Bosnia between Slavic invaders and Illyrians/Thracians.
Slavs invade and destroyed Roman coastal cities like Salona, Epidaur, Duklja, Narona, Damavijum (with Roman population). They didn't fight against their kinsmen in interior.

As for anthropologists, the same claims are for Poland, so Slavs are autochtonous in Poland.


I don't doubt.
But Slavic migrations from south to north are fact even to some German historians.

Also, anthropologically and genetically there is not much difference between Macedonians and Greeks.


Greeks from Northern Greece are very similar to us, while on south they are more "Mediterranean".

But they are not Slavs. Despite having Slavic origins.


I didn't say they are Slavs.

Sure, and Illyria and Thracia were not related with territory.


I didn't understand you.

how come invading Turks were able to impose their language on the local population?


Same as in Hungary and other countries, it lasted hundreds of years, and people there still know their pre-turkic origin. While on Balkan, natives dissapear over night, without any record of them.

Not really. E.g. Celtic Veneds are not Slavs. The first identification of Venedae and Slavs is from 5th or 6th century.


I don't see how Veneti in Brittany were not Slavs (I know it's official opinion, but I disagree).

Sure. It is widely accepted that thracian, baltic, slavic were related. Baltic is related to Slavic, but Baltic is not Slavic.


Same as it was accepted that they were Slavs, but "someone" in modern time conclude, base on nothing, that they are not.

Andrej Moraczewski wrote:
Well, in modern time german science declare Shqiptars (Albanians) as direct descendents of Illyrians ie. Balakn is their land, and we are intruders.

Even if it is so, what's bad?


It isn't historical fact, just that.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Fri 21 Jan, 2011 05:30

Bogumir wrote:
Sure, but why to pick those XIX century writers ...


Bjelkovski wrote national history, and reliable for getting along with other facts about the Thracians, while foreign historians wrote in their national interest.

Oh sure, and he wasn't writing in his national interest.
Which one do you think is more probable?


Can't say, both is possible.

In fact it is impossible for Gothic to be Slavs, for the reasons enumerated above (but I was mistaken, it was procopius not jordanes about utterly barbarous language).

Sebastiano Dolci, studying the Gothic and the Illyrian language, says:
"...Gothis illyricam fuisse linguam...",
"Goths language was Illyrian (Slavic)...",

Sure. Speaks much about his linguistic capabilities.

Whatever choice will you pick, the consequences are not good for the arguments used in your discussion.

I don't see how.


Anyway, consider the possibilities
1) Goths were Slavic in the past. Crimean Goths were not Slavic. The Gothic inscriptions preserved are Germanic. E.g. the name stayed the same, the ethinicity changed (from Slavic Goths to Germanic Goths). Also meaning, that chroniclers writing the true fact in one point in history (e.g. Goths are Slavic) does not mean the fact was true in whole history (Goths were always Slavic).
2) Goths were not Slavic in the past. Therefore, a lot of chroniclers writing about "Goths being Slavs" were simply wrong and you should be careful with quoting them as proof of anything.

Do you see now "how"?

On one hand you have Joseph of Ephessos (who lived at that time and in that very place), Jordanes, Procopius and others -- which lived at that time and in that place....


Yes, they speak about Slavic invasion, and only about invasion, not about great Slavic colonization. But no one talking about millions of natives? What they do during that time? They "Run away in mountains" and "coastal cities", as official historiography talk?
[/quote]
Well,

Menander the Guardsmen: in 578 100.000 Slavic warriors "Devastated Thracia". Menander also mentions that lands of Slavs were full of gold, since they were plundering Roman Empire for a long time.
That same year [581] . . . was famous also for the invasion of an accursed people, called
Slavonians, who overran the whole of Greece, and the country of the Thessalonians, and all
Thrace, and captured the cities, and took numerous forts, and devastated and burnt, and reduced
the people to slavery, and made themselves masters of the whole country, and settled
in it by main force, and dwelt in it as though it had been their own without fear. . . . They still
[584] encamp and dwell there, and live in peace in the Roman [Byzantine] territories, free
from anxiety and fear, and lead captive and slay and burn: and they have grown rich in gold
and silver, and herds of horses, and arms, and have learnt to fight better than the Romans,
though at first they were but rude savages, who did not venture to shew themselves outside
the woods and the coverts of the trees; and as for arms, they did not even know what they
were, with the exception of two or three javelins or darts. (John of Ephesus, 432–433)


Seems to me pretty much as description of pretty violent invasion.


It's hillarious.
If the city offered resistance, they revenged on population, especialy if Greeks/Romans lived there (like in other coastal cities, were population was deeply romanized).

Bogumir, once again we are not talking about whether Slavs replaced population (they didn't, and in facgt overhelming evidence is that modern Southern Slavs have a lot of ancestors amongst the natives) but whether the population was Slavic to start with. Slavic has not much to do with DNA, blood etc.

The anthropological surveys would not detect this "forced magyarisation".


It was from establishing Hungarian kingdom and in 18 and 19 c. it culminate when thousands and thousands people were hungarized. It was threw language and religion not "anthropologicaly".

But you do accept that this magyarisation hadn't change genes or anthropology. Modern magyars may have a lot of Slavic ancestors. There may live Slavs in Pannonia before Magyars. But modern Hungarians are not Slavs.


That's are quite a blatant lie.


Let's not insult each other. Point at one battle on terittory of modern Serbia or Bosnia between Slavic invaders and Illyrians/Thracians.
Slavs invade and destroyed Roman coastal cities like Salona, Epidaur, Duklja, Narona, Damavijum (with Roman population). They didn't fight against their kinsmen in interior.

Their "kinsmen" at that time were not "warlike tribes" of the past (I hope you do not think that abfter several centuries after Roman conquest the people here still were warlike independent tribes of the past). They were simple peasants. Judging from more recent experiences, it would be really surprising if there would be any battles with the peasants. In most other areas peasants run away to the mountains and cities.

As for anthropologists, the same claims are for Poland, so Slavs are autochtonous in Poland.


I don't doubt.
But Slavic migrations from south to north are fact even to some German historians.

Only in some XIX century. The Trubaczewski (sp?) Russian scientists is pretty much only serious scientist proposing it post WWII, and even he only suggested Pannonia, behind Danube.

Simply, Pannonia as original homeland of Slavs is highly unlikely, improbable but not impossible.
Thracia as homeland of Slavs before 3rd century is something impossible.

Procopius mentioned the tribes of Slavs and even mentioned that despite different names they have the same langugae and were earlier called "Sporoi". If the natives of Thracia, Macedonia and Dalmatia were Slavic too, why he didn't notice that?


But they are not Slavs. Despite having Slavic origins.


I didn't say they are Slavs.

So you do accept that language may change, despite the population staying largely intact.

Sure, and Illyria and Thracia were not related with territory.


I didn't understand you.

Thracia and Illyria are just as geographical terms as Scythia.
how come invading Turks were able to impose their language on the local population?


Same as in Hungary and other countries, it lasted hundreds of years, and people there still know their pre-turkic origin. While on Balkan, natives dissapear over night, without any record of them.

If several hundreds years is over night to you, then maybe.

Not really. E.g. Celtic Veneds are not Slavs. The first identification of Venedae and Slavs is from 5th or 6th century.


I don't see how Veneti in Brittany were not Slavs (I know it's official opinion, but I disagree).

Someone in antiquity would notice that they have different language from their neighbours.

Sure. It is widely accepted that thracian, baltic, slavic were related. Baltic is related to Slavic, but Baltic is not Slavic.


Same as it was accepted that they were Slavs, but "someone" in modern time conclude, base on nothing, that they are not.

They are not Slavic. Too many features in Baltic languages are different. In fact some contest that Balto-Slavic family even exist. If anyone would try to claim that Lithuanian laguage is Slavic, then that would be only means the guy in question do not know a first thing about linguistics.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Fri 21 Jan, 2011 12:19

Oh sure, and he wasn't writing in his national interest.


Which agrees with other historical sources and writers.

Do you see now "how"?


Yes, I didn't tell that people can't preserve their name, and start speaking another language.

Seems to me pretty much as description of pretty violent invasion.


Yes it was, they fight against Eastern Roman Empire.

Bogumir, once again we are not talking about whether Slavs replaced population


Indeed, they mixed with natives.

But modern Hungarians are not Slavs.


Nor has anyone claimed that they are.

Their "kinsmen" at that time were not "warlike tribes" of the past (I hope you do not think that abfter several centuries after Roman conquest the people here still were warlike independent tribes of the past). They were simple peasants. Judging from more recent experiences, it would be really surprising if there would be any battles with the peasants. In most other areas peasants run away to the mountains and cities.


Hm, and nobody mentioned the millions of Illyrians and Thracians running away in mountains and cities? Best legions were from Illyria,
"From the 3rd to the 6th century AD the most useful troops were recruited from Illyricum (and Roman Thrace among others). Ronald Syme outlined the importance of Illyricum as the province that held the empire together."

Illyrians, Macedonians, Thracians, Dacians, Pannonians and Sarmatians, who had a Roman military organization, cities, civilization and a high degree of culture, dissapear without mentioning?

"A few of the Romanised Illyrians from the Adriatic coast did manage to preserve their blended culture. Many fled to the mountains, surviving as shepherds, and kept speaking their Romance language."
That's official explanation.

Only in some XIX century. The Trubaczewski (sp?) Russian scientists is pretty much only serious scientist proposing it post WWII, and even he only suggested Pannonia, behind Danube.

Simply, Pannonia as original homeland of Slavs is highly unlikely, improbable but not impossible.


Not only Trubachov (and suported by Curta (Lower Danube), in his book "making of Slavs"), many historians agree with Pannonia/Balkan as Slavic homeland.
The following are some of the supportive points found in the works of distinguished linguists, historians and Slavists: 1) The Slavs originated in Danubia-Pannonia; 2) Not all Slavs migrated northward from the Danube, some remained (thus the dense Slavic population and Slavic toponymy, the antiquity of Slavic waternames in pre-Hungarian Pannonia-Danubia), others migrated south; 3) The Balkan South Slavs originated in Pannonia-Danubia; 4) The Eastern Slavs originated in the south; 5) Place names and ethnonyms with apparent Balkan roots are found throughout Slavdom (examples: Daksa, island in the Adriatic sea, Doksy, in Czechoslovakia; Dukla, a mountain pass in the Carpathians, Duklja, in Montenegro; Licicaviki, Slavic tribe in western Poland, Liccavici in Illyria and many others in works of Heinrich Kunstmann, famous German Slavist).

Thracia as homeland of Slavs before 3rd century is something impossible.


Some tribes are from Thrace. As monk Nestor from 11. c. inform us due to invasion of the enemy, Vlachs, under which name means the Romans, Slavic tribes from the Danube region soared in the Northeast. Among them, five major tribes: Poljani, Drevljani, Dragovici, Novgorod Slavs and Poločani. This is well explained by Professor Marin Drinov, Bulgarian historian and philologist.

Procopius... If the natives of Thracia, Macedonia and Dalmatia were Slavic too, why he didn't notice that?


Cause he was talking about invading Slavs, not about Balkan natives.

So you do accept that language may change, despite the population staying largely intact.


Of course, i never said opposite?

Thracia and Illyria are just as geographical terms as Scythia.


Scythia is more wider geographical area, than Illyria and Thrace, and more different nations inhabit it.

If several hundreds years is over night to you, then maybe.


I said "over night" since we don't have any record about them.

Someone in antiquity would notice that they have different language from their neighbours.


Someone did: "Veneti... lignua a Gallis differunt... (II, 17.)
"Veneti... different language than Gals..." Polibius

They are not Slavic.


I ment on Thracians.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Mon 24 Jan, 2011 06:55

Do you see now "how"?


Yes, I didn't tell that people can't preserve their name, and start speaking another language.

So in other words the fact that e.g. "Venets" in X century were Slavs is not a proof that "Venets" thousand year earlier were Slavs too. The same is with "Illyrian" etc. This is what I wanted to show.


But modern Hungarians are not Slavs.


Nor has anyone claimed that they are.

Ok, I was jsut trying to show, that if one chronicler wrote "Hungarians are Slavs", one should not jump to conclusion he was right.

Hm, and nobody mentioned the millions of Illyrians and Thracians running away in mountains and cities? Best legions were from Illyria,
"From the 3rd to the 6th century AD the most useful troops were recruited from Illyricum (and Roman Thrace among others). Ronald Syme outlined the importance of Illyricum as the province that held the empire together."

Sure. But the fact that best trained legions were from illyria does not mean eveyr Illyrian kept a weapon in their houses.
Just look at the more modern examples: what wass the reaction of population, when the country was invaded by say Mongols? They either hide in cities, or hide in forests and swamps. There is not much evidence for country-side population resistance against the invaders, even if a very good fighting force can be made from people recruited from country-side.

Illyrians, Macedonians, Thracians, Dacians, Pannonians and Sarmatians, who had a Roman military organization, cities, civilization and a high degree of culture, dissapear without mentioning?

Well, look at the Turkey, Egypt, Syria -- what are the langauges of the people living there?

Simply, Pannonia as original homeland of Slavs is highly unlikely, improbable but not impossible.


Not only Trubachov (and suported by Curta (Lower Danube), in his book "making of Slavs"), many historians agree with Pannonia/Balkan as Slavic homeland.

Curta is quite controversial. In fact, if you mention him, you know his theory that Slavs were created only in 6th century by invading Avars, that "Slavs" meant originally special kind of troops.

The following are some of the supportive points found in the works of distinguished linguists, historians and Slavists: 1) The Slavs originated in Danubia-Pannonia; 2) Not all Slavs migrated northward from the Danube, some remained (thus the dense Slavic population and Slavic toponymy, the antiquity of Slavic waternames in pre-Hungarian Pannonia-Danubia), others migrated south; 3) The Balkan South Slavs originated in Pannonia-Danubia; 4) The Eastern Slavs originated in the south; 5) Place names and ethnonyms with apparent Balkan roots are found throughout Slavdom (examples: Daksa, island in the Adriatic sea, Doksy, in Czechoslovakia; Dukla, a mountain pass in the Carpathians, Duklja, in Montenegro; Licicaviki, Slavic tribe in western Poland, Liccavici in Illyria and many others in works of Heinrich Kunstmann, famous German Slavist).

I said that Pannonia theory is highly improbable, not impossible. I cannot say the same for the theory that Slavs lived in Thracia BC.

Thracia as homeland of Slavs before 3rd century is something impossible.


Some tribes are from Thrace. As monk Nestor from 11. c. inform us due to invasion of the enemy, Vlachs, under which name means the Romans, Slavic tribes from the Danube region soared in the Northeast. Among them, five major tribes: Poljani, Drevljani, Dragovici, Novgorod Slavs and Poločani. This is well explained by Professor Marin Drinov, Bulgarian historian and philologist.

Nestor wrote about Pannonia, not Thracia, as origin of the Slavs. And I thought I already showed you why using chronicler words as proof leads us astray.

Procopius... If the natives of Thracia, Macedonia and Dalmatia were Slavic too, why he didn't notice that?


Cause he was talking about invading Slavs, not about Balkan natives.

But he described their language as utterly barbarous. If he wrote about their language (that they are two tribes sharing language) why he didn't notice, that this language was used also in Thracia and Illyria?

So you do accept that language may change, despite the population staying largely intact.


Of course, i never said opposite?

Good.
Thracia and Illyria are just as geographical terms as Scythia.


Scythia is more wider geographical area, than Illyria and Thrace, and more different nations inhabit it.

Sure, but this means one can use "Thracian" and "Illyrian" for different tribes which inhabit that land.

If several hundreds years is over night to you, then maybe.


I said "over night" since we don't have any record about them.

We don't have much record about this time at all.

Someone in antiquity would notice that they have different language from their neighbours.


Someone did: "Veneti... lignua a Gallis differunt... (II, 17.)
"Veneti... different language than Gals..." Polibius

Sure, but that doesn't mean it was Slavic. It could be as well that they were from now extinct family speaking language related to Slavic (similarly as Baltic is) but not identical.

It's not enough to say that Venetes were surely Slavic, and surely Slavs lived from Gaul to Russia, and only "German science" can claim otherwise.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Mon 24 Jan, 2011 07:18

Ah, Bogumir, and do you want me posting a guy proving that ancient Venetes in fact were Finnish people? He uses ancient chronicles, find many similar words etc...
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Tue 25 Jan, 2011 14:34

So in other words the fact that e.g. "Venets" in X century were Slavs is not a proof that "Venets" thousand year earlier were Slavs too. The same is with "Illyrian" etc. This is what I wanted to show.


I know that you wanted to show that, and to reflect that on invading Slavs and Balkan natives.

So in other words the fact that e.g. "Venets" in X century were Slavs is not a proof that "Venets" thousand year earlier were Slavs too. The same is with "Illyrian" etc. This is what I wanted to show.


Also, no one has proved that ancient Venets aren't Slavs, same as Illyrians.
Even Herodotus wright: "...Illyrian tribe Venethi..."

Sure. But the fact that best trained legions were from illyria does not mean eveyr Illyrian kept a weapon in their houses.


Why do you think so? Ancient historians describe them as war-like, in constant tribal fight and later against Romans, then great uprising against them (led by Bato-in serb. bato is brother, and old military title)...

Just look at the more modern examples: what wass the reaction of population, when the country was invaded by say Mongols? They either hide in cities, or hide in forests and swamps. There is not much evidence for country-side population resistance against the invaders, even if a very good fighting force can be made from people recruited from country-side.


Mongols were new, terrifying force, but we resisted them.
(Serbian king Milutin defeated Tartars in 1293, Illyrian blood ;) ).
Of course, Illyrian army and legions were recruted from peasants.

Well, look at the Turkey, Egypt, Syria -- what are the langauges of the people living there?


In all those countries, they are still traces of ancient populations and their culture, while on Balkan language and culture is same as before "Great Slavic migration".
In Turkey were Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Slavs, Arabs...
In Egypt big native Egyptian community-Copts.
Syria with native Assyrians, Kurds, Armenians etc.
Slavs came on Balkan, and millions of natives were already Romanized and hellenized? Balkan was under turkish occupation about 500 years, and yet, only small part they managed to turkified.

Curta is quite controversial. In fact, if you mention him, you know his theory that Slavs were created only in 6th century by invading Avars, that "Slavs" meant originally special kind of troops.


Indeed, Curta said: "The Sclavene ethnicity is likely to have been an invention of Byzantine authors, despite the possibility, which is often stressed by linguistically-minded historians, that the name itself was derived from the self-designation of an ethnic group...
It is interesting to note that this ethnic name (slovené) appeared much later and only on the periphery of the Slavic linguistic area, at the interface with linguistically different groups..."

But also: "Recent research in anthropology and other social sciences laid to a strong emphasis on discriminating between such diverse phenomena as seasonal population movements, “scouting”, and outward migration. It has become increasingly evident that migrations across ecological or cultural boundaries would require considerable planning on the part of the migrants, and should leave substantial and clear archaeological evidence. “Cultures” as one archaeologist noted, “do not migrate. It is often only a very narrowly defined, goal-oriented subgroup that migrates”..."

Archeologist dr Djordje Jankovic in his research of old Slavic tombs on Balkan, moved first Slavic colonization in 4th century, although officialy, we still learn about start of colonization in 7th century!
Master of Engineering Physics, Dragoljub Antic, even wright a book about technical -physical inability of "Great migration".

Nestor wrote about Pannonia, not Thracia, as origin of the Slavs.


I know, but since we mention Thrace, some historians derived certain Slavic tribes from there, in time of Roman expansion.

And I thought I already showed you why using chronicler words as proof leads us astray.


No serious historian ignore medieval chronicles.

But he described their language as utterly barbarous. If he wrote about their language (that they are two tribes sharing language) why he didn't notice, that this language was used also in Thracia and Illyria?


Probably because by those terms he already includes Illyrians and Thracians.
We already had our rules here, from 5th century.

Sure, but this means one can use "Thracian" and "Illyrian" for different tribes which inhabit that land.


Except Illyro-Thracian tirbes, we don't have record about other tirbes in ancient time.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it was Slavic. It could be as well that they were from now extinct family speaking language related to Slavic (similarly as Baltic is) but not identical.


Term Venet-Vend was always connected with Slavs (especialy western and northern). Maybe they spoke little different languages, since distance among tribes is big and language evolve.

It's not enough to say that Venetes were surely Slavic, and surely Slavs lived from Gaul to Russia, and only "German science" can claim otherwise.


Everyone can claim, but no one can prove otherwise.

szopen wrote:Ah, Bogumir, and do you want me posting a guy proving that ancient Venetes in fact were Finnish people? He uses ancient chronicles, find many similar words etc...


If you think his arguments are valid, post.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија
PreviousNext

Return to NAŠ SVĚT



Who is online






The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 centurie


Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Andrej Moraczewski » Tue 25 Jan, 2011 15:32

Богумир wrote:
szopen wrote:Ah, Bogumir, and do you want me posting a guy proving that ancient Venetes in fact were Finnish people? He uses ancient chronicles, find many similar words etc...


If you think his arguments are valid, post.

I think his arguments are as valid as yours are, like if he says: "Venetes were Finnish, if you don't agree, try to prove that they were not".
Andrej Moraczewski
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:23
Location: Himki, Moskva



Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Wed 26 Jan, 2011 05:25

Andrej Moraczewski wrote:I think his arguments are as valid as yours are


Then you didn't read what I wrote.

Andrej Moraczewski wrote: like if he says: "Venetes were Finnish, if you don't agree, try to prove that they were not".


If he presented some evidence, then let see them.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Thu 27 Jan, 2011 03:25

Bogumir wrote:
So in other words the fact that e.g. "Venets" in X century were Slavs is not a proof that "Venets" thousand year earlier were Slavs too. The same is with "Illyrian" etc. This is what I wanted to show.


I know that you wanted to show that, and to reflect that on invading Slavs and Balkan natives.

Good, so you do accept that "X were Y at point Z" does not mean "X were Y ALWAYS" ?

So in other words the fact that e.g. "Venets" in X century were Slavs is not a proof that "Venets" thousand year earlier were Slavs too. The same is with "Illyrian" etc. This is what I wanted to show.


Also, no one has proved that ancient Venets aren't Slavs, same as Illyrians.
Even Herodotus wright: "...Illyrian tribe Venethi..."

If the Veneti are not Slavs, then this sentence does not add much to the discussion.

And the argument "it is not proven Venets are not Slavs" is quite weak actually. Because there are inscriptions known, for which accepted reading does not show nothing similar to Slavic language. There are also some people, who try to read Venethi inscriptions anew, but they made errors and wishful thinking. For example, they claim that Venetian from a two thousand years before is strikingly similar to modern Slovenian. My, my. This is some English language which is as old:

"Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,/ þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,/ hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon"

When I read some Polish from 500 years ago, sometimes I cna't understand it, and yet they claim that Slovenian hasn't changed a little since ancient times.

And anyway, no one proved Venets aren't Fins. So here you go: Venets are Finns :)

But seriously, the essay is here: http://www.paabo.ca/papers/Y-STR-PAABO.pdf and here:
http://www.paabo.ca/veneti/


Look how he explains that many old Thracian words are today recognizable Finnish :lol: And tell why his reading of Venetic inscriptions is less valid than other? It's quite amusing BTW to read the criticism of his work by the same guys, who think that Venetic inscription can be read with use of modern Slovenian :D


Sure. But the fact that best trained legions were from illyria does not mean eveyr Illyrian kept a weapon in their houses.


Why do you think so? Ancient historians describe them as war-like, in constant tribal fight and later against Romans, then great uprising against them (led by Bato-in serb. bato is brother, and old military title)...

Because they were described as warlike in times before Roman conquest.
Just look at the more modern examples: what wass the reaction of population, when the country was invaded by say Mongols? They either hide in cities, or hide in forests and swamps. There is not much evidence for country-side population resistance against the invaders, even if a very good fighting force can be made from people recruited from country-side.


Mongols were new, terrifying force, but we resisted them.
Sure, so what was standard reaction of population for invasion of Lithuanians? Yatzvingers? Prussian? Teutons? In fact about ANY force? There were few rare examples with local population fighting, but most is "hide in the forest", "run to the cities to hide behind the walls" etc.

Well, look at the Turkey, Egypt, Syria -- what are the langauges of the people living there?


In all those countries, they are still traces of ancient populations and their culture, while on Balkan language and culture is same as before "Great Slavic migration".

No, not the language: this is the thing you are trying to prove, so you can't use this as assumption.

Slavs came on Balkan, and millions of natives were already Romanized and hellenized? Balkan was under turkish occupation about 500 years, and yet, only small part they managed to turkified.

Balkans are slavic for 1500 years.

Curta is quite controversial. In fact, if you mention him, you know his theory that Slavs were created only in 6th century by invading Avars, that "Slavs" meant originally special kind of troops.


And I thought I already showed you why using chronicler words as proof leads us astray.


No serious historian ignore medieval chronicles.

No serious historian takes medieval chronicles at face value. The information is always compared with other sources, and historians try to determine, whether the information is valid is not.

Look at yourself. There is chronicler who wrote that Slavs murdered population, that they came and settled -- and yet you are doubting this information. So in fact it seems that you accept that one shouldn't accept every word and every information from chronicles as holy; it seems to me however that you doubt the information only when it contradicts the theory of Slavic autochtonism on Balkans.

But he described their language as utterly barbarous. If he wrote about their language (that they are two tribes sharing language) why he didn't notice, that this language was used also in Thracia and Illyria?


Probably because by those terms he already includes Illyrians and Thracians.

Sure, only he forgot to add this.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it was Slavic. It could be as well that they were from now extinct family speaking language related to Slavic (similarly as Baltic is) but not identical.


Term Venet-Vend was always connected with Slavs (especialy western and northern). Maybe they spoke little different languages, since distance among tribes is big and language evolve.

Not always. This is something you are trying to prove -- and again, you are taking it for granted. We know that starting from 5th century or so Venets are connected with Slavs. This does not mean "Venets were always connected with Slavs".
It's like "Venetia is Italic, so Venets were Italian people".

It's not enough to say that Venetes were surely Slavic, and surely Slavs lived from Gaul to Russia, and only "German science" can claim otherwise.

Everyone can claim, but no one can prove otherwise.

i wonder what you would accept as the "proof".
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Thu 27 Jan, 2011 07:38

Aarrgh how it come I cannot edit my own post?

Anyway, some quotes for you, Bogumir;
Procopius From Caesarea:

"[Slavs] spread desolation throughout the whole of Illyricum as far as Epidamnus [Durazzo], killing or enslaving all who came their way"

"Illyricum and Thrace, from the Ionian Sea to the suburbs of Byzantium, were overrun almost every year since Justinian's accession to the throne by Huns, Sclavenes, and Antae, who dealt atrociously with the inhabitants. In every invasion I suppose that about 200,000 Roman subjects were killed or enslaved; the whole land became a sort of Scythian desert"
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Slaven » Thu 27 Jan, 2011 14:42

szopen wrote:Aarrgh how it come I cannot edit my own post?


There was a 30 minute time limit on post editing, to prevent people going back and changing things and ruining the flow of conversation. I have increased it to 1 hour.
Slaven
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 00:17

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Slaven » Thu 27 Jan, 2011 14:47

Slovenians have a specific agenda for proving Venets are Slovenians. But, because Slovenians use the "common Slavic" name Sloveni, they are Slavs with no specific name, so any text that mentions Slavs as Slovene would be Slovenian.
Slaven
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 00:17

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Thu 27 Jan, 2011 14:50

Good, so you do accept that "X were Y at point Z" does not mean "X were Y ALWAYS" ?


Yes, but that theory doesn't fit in this case, Slavs couldn't assimilate natives so fast, it would last for hundred of years, like it was in Hungary, and natives would live something to recognize.

If the Veneti are not Slavs, then this sentence does not add much to the discussion.


But we know that they are.

And the argument "it is not proven Venets are not Slavs" is quite weak actually. Because there are inscriptions known, for which accepted reading does not show nothing similar to Slavic language. There are also some people, who try to read Venethi inscriptions anew, but they made errors and wishful thinking. For example, they claim that Venetian from a two thousand years before is strikingly similar to modern Slovenian. My, my.


And we can said that for those who read Venetian inscriptions as non-Slavic. My, my...

Look how he explains that many old Thracian words are today recognizable Finnish :lol: And tell why his reading of Venetic inscriptions is less valid than other? It's quite amusing BTW to read the criticism of his work by the same guys, who think that Venetic inscription can be read with use of modern Slovenian :D


Everyone can read and interpreted them at will.
Same conclusion about Slovenian, Venetian and Etruscan had Serbian linguist Svetislav Bilbija in his book: Old European language and script of Etruscans, The Institute of Etruscan Studies, Chicago, 1984.

Because they were described as warlike in times before Roman conquest.


And they still were houndreds years after. (good book about Illyrians-John Wilkes-The Illyrians).

Sure, so what was standard reaction of population for invasion of Lithuanians? Yatzvingers? Prussian? Teutons? In fact about ANY force? There were few rare examples with local population fighting, but most is "hide in the forest", "run to the cities to hide behind the walls" etc.


And we are talking about invading Slavs and Illyrians, and fact is that they were best Roman soldiers, but when their kinsmen invade Roman Empire population didn't resist.
Or, they let Slavs to "Slavicized" them and later, they disapear without any trace of their culture and language ...
During the 23 centuries, people knew that Illyrians were Slavs, then the "learned" german historians said that it isn't, but the Illyrians are - Albanians.

No, not the language: this is the thing you are trying to prove, so you can't use this as assumption.


Well scientists already confirm similarity between Illyro-Thracian and Balto-Slavic languages.

Balkans are slavic for 1500 years.


And natives were here since stone age.

No serious historian takes medieval chronicles at face value. The information is always compared with other sources, and historians try to determine, whether the information is valid is not.


Yes, and many chronicles and writers confirmed Nestor.

Look at yourself. There is chronicler who wrote that Slavs murdered population, that they came and settled -- and yet you are doubting this information. So in fact it seems that you accept that one shouldn't accept every word and every information from chronicles as holy; it seems to me however that you doubt the information only when it contradicts the theory of Slavic autochtonism on Balkans.


He is speaking about invasion on Roman Empire and not about "great migration", for which we don't have any record and archeology doesn't have proofs even if it somehow happened.
During so-called "great migration" of entire peoples, tens of thousands to several million members traveled throughout the entire Europe (some of them several times as Visigoths), making and destroying states, creating new nations, languages and cultures, changing every 30-50 years on any territory. From that ridiculous rush, suddenly all these powerful people stop that, and again become farmers, shepherds, servants of their country and uncompromising defenders of "native land" (the same one that was in past few centuries more times change, to stop on the last of the hijacked).

Sure, only he forgot to add this.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it was Slavic. It could be as well that they were from now extinct family speaking language related to Slavic (similarly as Baltic is) but not identical.


Maybe, but near town Pozarevac, Central Serbia, was found "Margum script", est. 1-6 century AD, with language very similar to Old Church Slavonic, so there wasn't big differences in language.
Image
Image
Slavic language was often called "Illyrian" from 11th century.

Not always. This is something you are trying to prove -- and again, you are taking it for granted. We know that starting from 5th century or so Venets are connected with Slavs. This does not mean "Venets were always connected with Slavs".


We have no proofs that they weren't Slavs before medieval time.

It's like "Venetia is Italic, so Venets were Italian people".


That's they are trying to prove...

i wonder what you would accept as the "proof".


For Slavic autochtonocy in Southeastern Europe there isn't proves for contrary.

Procopius From Caesarea:
"[Slavs] spread desolation throughout the whole of Illyricum as far as Epidamnus [Durazzo], killing or enslaving all who came their way"
"Illyricum and Thrace, from the Ionian Sea to the suburbs of Byzantium, were overrun almost every year since Justinian's accession to the throne by Huns, Sclavenes, and Antae, who dealt atrociously with the inhabitants. In every invasion I suppose that about 200,000 Roman subjects were killed or enslaved; the whole land became a sort of Scythian desert"


Yes, I know what Procopius wrote, also: "For them (Slavs) went Illyrian archonts with an army of 15000 people, but didn't have the courage to be quite close to the enemy anywhere."

Slavic invasion on Roman Empire was strong and there is nothing about "great migration".

In our chronicles, that time is recorded as time of liberation of Balkan Slavic lands from Greeks.

"Oštroilo... he entered with his army into the province of Illyria, and leading the cruel wars, and there was no man that could resist, occupies the whole of Dalmatia (Roman province) and marine areas, till he came to Prevalitana area and settle there."
"Gesta Regnum Sclavorum"

"In 400th comes with army from Schythia Radigost in Dalmatia and in other Slavic countries and made himself very strong."
Andrija Kacic Miošić
"Pleasant conversation of Slavic people"
When Justinian's reign, we already have independent Sclavinia from Sava river to Peloponnese.

Slaven wrote:Slovenians have a specific agenda for proving Venets are Slovenians. But, because Slovenians use the "common Slavic" name Sloveni, they are Slavs with no specific name, so any text that mentions Slavs as Slovene would be Slovenian.


True, but since Slovenians are closest to Venetian and Etruscan teritory it's understandable that their language is most simialr to them.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Fri 28 Jan, 2011 03:49

Bogumir wrote:
Good, so you do accept that "X were Y at point Z" does not mean "X were Y ALWAYS" ?


Yes, but that theory doesn't fit in this case, Slavs couldn't assimilate natives so fast, it would last for hundred of years, like it was in Hungary, and natives would live something to recognize.

But it may last hundred of years. The problem is only that we have almost no documents for that period of time.
Anyway the history knows accidents of replacing the population culture and language in short time.

If the Veneti are not Slavs, then this sentence does not add much to the discussion.


But we know that they are.

No, we don't know that. We know that Slavs were called Veneti later. Who were Veneti earlier is what should be of interest to you.
And the argument "it is not proven Venets are not Slavs" is quite weak actually. Because there are inscriptions known, for which accepted reading does not show nothing similar to Slavic language. There are also some people, who try to read Venethi inscriptions anew, but they made errors and wishful thinking. For example, they claim that Venetian from a two thousand years before is strikingly similar to modern Slovenian. My, my.


And we can said that for those who read Venetian inscriptions as non-Slavic. My, my...

There is a huge difference, Bogumir, between the works of those two groups.One is using commonly accepted scientific methods. The second is nilly-willy choosing the words and ignoring a lot what we know about linguistic.

Look how he explains that many old Thracian words are today recognizable Finnish :lol: And tell why his reading of Venetic inscriptions is less valid than other? It's quite amusing BTW to read the criticism of his work by the same guys, who think that Venetic inscription can be read with use of modern Slovenian :D


Everyone can read and interpreted them at will.

Sure. I just wanted to show you, that with that method you can go to ANY conclusions. Why Thracian words interpreted as Finnish (using modern Estonian or Finnish -- you must love this guy when he explained that Olympus is estonian word) are less valid than using modern Bulgarian?

Same conclusion about Slovenian, Venetian and Etruscan had Serbian linguist Svetislav Bilbija in his book: Old European language and script of Etruscans, The Institute of Etruscan Studies, Chicago, 1984.

Sure.

Sure, so what was standard reaction of population for invasion of Lithuanians? Yatzvingers? Prussian? Teutons? In fact about ANY force? There were few rare examples with local population fighting, but most is "hide in the forest", "run to the cities to hide behind the walls" etc.


And we are talking about invading Slavs and Illyrians, and fact is that they were best Roman soldiers, but when their kinsmen invade Roman Empire population didn't resist.

You keep ignoring me. Poles were also great soldiers, and the same peasants when recruited into armies made prime fighters. Yet, the standard reaction of population to invasion was to hide and escape.

Or, they let Slavs to "Slavicized" them and later, they disapear without any trace of their culture and language ...

No, linguists found a lot of traces of their languages, and their genes and culture also survived.

During the 23 centuries, people knew that Illyrians were Slavs, then the "learned" german historians said that it isn't, but the Illyrians are - Albanians.

Bogumir, that's a lie. Yes, it is a lie, and when you said it after this whole discussion I start to think you simply ignore everything I wrote until now. I am using this so strong word because "23 centuries" means that supposedly BC people knew Illyrians were Slavs. It means that supposedly in 6th century people knew illyrians were slavs. But of course when asked for your proofs for such a bold statement (for 23 centuries people knew...) all you have to support this is "you cannot prove otherwise" (plus chroniclers written a thousand years later).

Only thing you showed is that _after_ Slavic invasion, Illyrians started to be used interchangeably with Slavs, a fact NONE contests.

No, not the language: this is the thing you are trying to prove, so you can't use this as assumption.


Well scientists already confirm similarity between Illyro-Thracian and Balto-Slavic languages.

Yes. Balts are not Slavs, despite being in the same family. Thracian or Illyrian could be related to Slavic just as Baltic is related to Slavic.

Balkans are slavic for 1500 years.


And natives were here since stone age.

Yeah, that's true. Similarly with Great Britain. Fierce warlike Celtic tribes, constantly fighting and described as brave, suddenly dissapeared "without a trace" after invasion of small groups of Germanics. Yet genetics shows striking genetic continuality from bronze age, and no traces for huge Roman or Germanic invasion. But English is Germanic language, not Celtic.

No serious historian takes medieval chronicles at face value. The information is always compared with other sources, and historians try to determine, whether the information is valid is not.

Yes, and many chronicles and writers confirmed Nestor.

Independent sources? Contemporary sourceS? Or writers and chroniclers who wrote much later and used his information?

Look at yourself. There is chronicler who wrote that Slavs murdered population, that they came and settled -- and yet you are doubting this information. So in fact it seems that you accept that one shouldn't accept every word and every information from chronicles as holy; it seems to me however that you doubt the information only when it contradicts the theory of Slavic autochtonism on Balkans.


He is speaking about invasion on Roman Empire and not about "great migration", for which we don't have any record and archeology doesn't have proofs even if it somehow happened.

Sure, so when he wrote that Slavs settled and still live there as if it was their own land, it means no migration.

During so-called "great migration" of entire peoples, tens of thousands to several million members traveled throughout the entire Europe (some of them several times as Visigoths),

Nope. The groups were at most tens of thousands. No group counted several million members. It were always very small groups.

making and destroying states, creating new nations, languages and cultures, changing every 30-50 years on any territory. From that ridiculous rush, suddenly all these powerful people stop that, and again become farmers, shepherds, servants of their country and uncompromising defenders of "native land" (the same one that was in past few centuries more times change, to stop on the last of the hijacked).

Well, maybe you should read something about this events, or about other similar events. After all, children of conquistadors became farmers, rulers etc.

Sure, only he forgot to add this.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it was Slavic. It could be as well that they were from now extinct family speaking language related to Slavic (similarly as Baltic is) but not identical.


Maybe, but near town Pozarevac, Central Serbia, was found "Margum script", est. 1-6 century AD, with language very similar to Old Church Slavonic, so there wasn't big differences in language.

If it is dated from 1 to 6th century, then there is not much contradiction with idea that Slavs arrived in say 4th or 5th.

Slavic language was often called "Illyrian" from 11th century.

Sure, but again -- Polish was called "Sarmatian" and this is not a proof that Sarmatians were Poles. Do you will finally understand this fact, that "Illyrian are Slavic" in 11th century is not a fact "Illyrian were Slavic" in 200BC?

Not always. This is something you are trying to prove -- and again, you are taking it for granted. We know that starting from 5th century or so Venets are connected with Slavs. This does not mean "Venets were always connected with Slavs".


We have no proofs that they weren't Slavs before medieval time.

No, we have, only you contest them.
It's like "Venetia is Italic, so Venets were Italian people".


That's they are trying to prove...

You are saying about Skulj and others? yeah, it is something very similar.

i wonder what you would accept as the "proof".


For Slavic autochtonocy in Southeastern Europe there isn't proves for contrary.

Neither proofs for that the autochtons were Finns. Prove it they weren't. Ha!

"Gesta Regnum Sclavorum"

When it was written? Thank you.
And even though, you have there a passage that Silimir "settled the land with a lot of Slavs". He also wrote that Goths were Slavic. Great source.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Fri 28 Jan, 2011 05:07

BTW, I am reading more about history of Slavic migration/invasion into Balkans. Bogumir, you suggested, that "no trace" was left of autochtonous: well, There is. Aromanians. Today supposedly there is 350 thousands of them. Also, the mentioning about Vlachs, Vallachs etc are dispersed in different chronicles across whole history. In 11th century one Byzantine historian Cecaumenos mentioned that Vlachs are descendants of Thracian tribe, the Bessi.

As for testimonies of migration, here is the chronicle about "miracles of St. Demetrios" :
in 617, according to the Miracula, "a new swarm of lowered Slavs settled further down, and from there took incursions in most of Prevalitania, Dardania, New and Old Epirus and Macedonia, and making the majority of towns and provinces inhabitable", and as the Miracula testifies, hundreds of thousands of refugees, who had escaped from the teeth of death, left their fertile lands in Moesia, Panonnia, Mediterranian Dacia and Naissus to settle in Dardania and the mountainous regions of Prevalitania


Now, if you say we should believe the chroniclers, why you think we should not believe in this words?
Also, why the chroniclers mention separately Slavs (invading) and Thracians (pro-Byzantine)?
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Andrej Moraczewski » Fri 28 Jan, 2011 05:32

I have strong impression, that Bogumir believes only those sources, that are trying to prove what he wants to believe. If there happens to be found any contradictory source, Bogumir says: "It's only the german/italian/albanian/whoever write, so they are against Slavs and they all write lies".
Andrej Moraczewski
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:23
Location: Himki, Moskva



Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Fri 28 Jan, 2011 14:10

But it may last hundred of years. The problem is only that we have almost no documents for that period of time.
Anyway the history knows accidents of replacing the population culture and language in short time.


It may last forever, since there isn't datas about. We don't have anything about natives in our chronicles nor in foreign sources.
Geolinguist Alinei have same conclusion: "Not even modern mass migration and colonization, despite the enormous
technological and cultural difference between the migrants and the indigenous people, have caused the total extinction of all autocthonous languages in the New World... Unless we associate this late migration to a gigantic genocide – a phantascientific hypothesis – this hypothesis does not belong to serious scientific thinking."

When Slavs settled the Balkan, has begun, it says, Slavicization of Romanized Thracians. This is again paradox, because it is known that Slavs have a very weak asimilation force and consequently they could not be converted into Slavs even their neighbors. Only were Slavicization had succes is areas were Slavs had total ethnic majority (like modern Bulgaria), same would happen in Hungary and Romania, but state policy was hungarization and in Romania since 19. century Romanization.

As Šafarik good explained, that Slavs migrated from Asia to Europe only in hunic era, coming from there, as they did without a deeper investigation on the assumption that the Slavs can not be older in Europe than is their name in Greek and Roman writers. Whoever this hypothesis judges, will easily see its folly. In the same way one might argue that in Europe before the name Greek, there was no Greeks, and before name Russians there was no Slavs in the area of Russia.

There is a huge difference, Bogumir, between the works of those two groups.One is using commonly accepted scientific methods. The second is nilly-willy choosing the words and ignoring a lot what we know about linguistic.


Why you are so sure about that? I read how many examples and possibilities official linguists show, it isn't specialy scientific and "higher mathematics".

No, linguists found a lot of traces of their languages, and their genes and culture also survived.


How many? For example, there was city Bylazora in Macedonia, and although it sound like "white dawn", or another ancient city in Macedonia Izvor (serb. source), linguists offered ten of other explanations without sence.

Bogumir, that's a lie. Yes, it is a lie, and when you said it after this whole discussion I start to think you simply ignore everything I wrote until now. I am using this so strong word because "23 centuries" means that supposedly BC people knew Illyrians were Slavs. It means that supposedly in 6th century people knew illyrians were slavs. But of course when asked for your proofs for such a bold statement (for 23 centuries people knew...) all you have to support this is "you cannot prove otherwise" (plus chroniclers written a thousand years later).Only thing you showed is that _after_ Slavic invasion, Illyrians started to be used interchangeably with Slavs, a fact NONE contests.


Yes, even Herodotus knew that, and specialy underline it. When Slavs invade Balkan, Illyrian name disapear,
"Sclavi, Sclavini" transferred to the Illyrians as their relatives.
So from the beginning up to the 5th century Illyrians lived in the Balkan Peninsula and then begin to call Slavs.

Yes. Balts are not Slavs, despite being in the same family. Thracian or Illyrian could be related to Slavic just as Baltic is related to Slavic.


Or maybe as Trubachov and other propose, it was same language in that time.

Yeah, that's true. Similarly with Great Britain. Fierce warlike Celtic tribes, constantly fighting and described as brave, suddenly dissapeared "without a trace" after invasion of small groups of Germanics. Yet genetics shows striking genetic continuality from bronze age, and no traces for huge Roman or Germanic invasion. But English is Germanic language, not Celtic.


There is much differnce between Illyria nad Britain. Invasions on Britain is well documented and battles are recorded, Briton territories preserved till modern days and their language and toponymes also.

Independent sources? Contemporary sourceS? Or writers and chroniclers who wrote much later and used his information?


Slavic migrations from Danube region start in deep history, and continue till period of Roman invasion.
Ignore so many writers and chronicles that claim that, is absurd, like Kadlubko, Bishop of Krakow (1161-1223), Bogufal, (died 1253), Dlugos, Kranz, Orbin, S. Dolci, Safarik, Dubrovski, Katancic, Gottlob etc.
Authoritative modern scholars support Gottlob's general thesis in terms of early Slav settlements in Danubia-Pannonia. Research of L. Niederle (Slovanske Starozitnosti), one of the pillars of modern Slavistics, suspects that Slavs were already in Central Europe at the end of the second millenium BC. Cities along the Danube basin, like Sirumium (Srem) and Serdica (Srediste), apparent latinization for descriptive Slavonic place names, A. Toynbee suspects a strong Slavonic presence in the area during the Roman period. Toponymes didn't change till modern days, they just had romanized names during their rule.

Sure, so when he wrote that Slavs settled and still live there as if it was their own land, it means no migration.


We are talking about "Great migration" as we learn in schools, that several hundred thousand people come in very short period, destroy everything and leave almost nothing for archeology to find.
Official historiography ironically says that the Thracians also disappeared, that we barely know their name. How could so quietly disappear Thracians, who Herodot says, that most numerous people after Indus, that contemporary writers would not know anything about it to told us. Thracians, because they were incompatible, conquered by Romans, but not to eradicate them, but to serve them. Moreover, emperors Elius Kato, Claudius and Constantine emperors, settled in Thrace and Macedonia, Danube Gets and Sarmatians, relatives of Thracians, therefore, to enhance the population of their empire. History differs Thracians and their master Romans. They were under the lordship of Byzantine emperors, and kept them in chords by strong cities, which were built in the heart of their lands or on the shores of the sea were was the Imperial military garrisons.

Nope. The groups were at most tens of thousands. No group counted several million members. It were always very small groups.


It must be millions of people to migrate and occupy so huge territory.

Well, maybe you should read something about this events, or about other similar events. After all, children of conquistadors became farmers, rulers etc.


Indeed, but descendants of conquistadors (Spaniards) mostly remain rulers of occupied lands, while natives become labor force.

If it is dated from 1 to 6th century, then there is not much contradiction with idea that Slavs arrived in say 4th or 5th.


Yes, we can bid 4, 5, 6, someone even suggest 10th century!

Sure, but again -- Polish was called "Sarmatian" and this is not a proof that Sarmatians were Poles. Do you will finally understand this fact, that "Illyrian are Slavic" in 11th century is not a fact "Illyrian were Slavic" in 200BC?


I didn't see proof that denies it. Everything that Illyrians left sugest us that they were at same stock as Slavic invaders.

No, we have, only you contest them.


What proves? Venetian script that sound latin?

You are saying about Skulj and others? yeah, it is something very similar.


And their interpretation looks far more logical than official.

Neither proofs for that the autochtons were Finns. Prove it they weren't. Ha!


I no doubt that they are autochtonic in their territory.

When it was written? Thank you.
And even though, you have there a passage that Silimir "settled the land with a lot of Slavs". He also wrote that Goths were Slavic. Great source.


Assumed 12-13 century. Yes, in king Selimir's time more Slavs come. Orosius Paul, who wrote about 417th, said: "Getae, qui et nunc Goti", one of many who equal Slavic Getae (as Theophylact Simocatta inform us) and Goths.
"Gesta Regnum Sclavorum" is very detailed and accurate.

BTW, I am reading more about history of Slavic migration/invasion into Balkans. Bogumir, you suggested, that "no trace" was left of autochtonous: well, There is. Aromanians. Today supposedly there is 350 thousands of them. Also, the mentioning about Vlachs, Vallachs etc are dispersed in different chronicles across whole history. In 11th century one Byzantine historian Cecaumenos mentioned that Vlachs are descendants of Thracian tribe, the Bessi.


Aromanians are people who speak Romanic language, and geneticaly they have connection with Illyrians so far as other Balkan Slavs have, besides that, nothing special Illyrian about them.
Term Vlach have tens of meanings, like: farmer, (orthodox)Christian, Serb, Latin, Italian, Romanian, etc. Nothing special about them also which directly connect them with Illyrians unlike other Slavs.
And Cecamenos could use term Vlach for any Slavic group.

As for testimonies of migration, here is the chronicle about "miracles of St. Demetrios"...Now, if you say we should believe the chroniclers, why you think we should not believe in this words?Also, why the chroniclers mention separately Slavs (invading) and Thracians (pro-Byzantine)?


Of course, no one suspect in Slavic invasion, but only who was pro-Byzantine was Roman population, not far majority of Illyro-Thracian natives, who "stop to existing" when Slavs come.

I have strong impression, that Bogumir believes only those sources, that are trying to prove what he wants to believe. If there happens to be found any contradictory source, Bogumir says: "It's only the german/italian/albanian/whoever write, so they are against Slavs and they all write lies".


There isn't contradictory sources, only various silly interprentations in modern time.
It's what Slavist Aleksander Brückner said: "German scholars would like to drown all Slavs in the Pripet swamps..."
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Mon 31 Jan, 2011 06:47

Bogumir wrote:
But it may last hundred of years. The problem is only that we have almost no documents for that period of time.
Anyway the history knows accidents of replacing the population culture and language in short time.

It may last forever, since there isn't datas about. We don't have anything about natives in our chronicles nor in foreign sources.

Aromanians. Vlachs.

When Slavs settled the Balkan, has begun, it says, Slavicization of Romanized Thracians. This is again paradox, because it is known that Slavs have a very weak asimilation force and consequently they could not be converted into Slavs even their neighbors. Only were Slavicization had succes is areas were Slavs had total ethnic majority (like modern Bulgaria), same would happen in Hungary and Romania, but state policy was hungarization and in Romania since 19. century Romanization.

It is known? Hey, you are trying to say it is some kind of scientifically proven fact? And when constructing this fact, you are ignoring the Balkans?

As Šafarik good explained, that Slavs migrated from Asia to Europe only in hunic era, coming from there, as they did without a deeper investigation on the assumption that the Slavs can not be older in Europe than is their name in Greek and Roman writers.

Well, look into Ptolemei and look where his Suowenoi are located. Most of scientists ignores Ptolemei saying that it is impossible that his Suowenoi are Słowianie.

Whoever this hypothesis judges, will easily see its folly. In the same way one might argue that in Europe before the name Greek, there was no Greeks, and before name Russians there was no Slavs in the area of Russia.

That's not the same.
There is a huge difference, Bogumir, between the works of those two groups.One is using commonly accepted scientific methods. The second is nilly-willy choosing the words and ignoring a lot what we know about linguistic.

Why you are so sure about that? I read how many examples and possibilities official linguists show, it isn't specialy scientific and "higher mathematics".

But there are some methods. They can produce different results, and there are some results which cannot be produced by any scientific method. As a exercise, one can employ those methods to reconstruct the latin, basing on modern romanic languages and the results is something very similar to real Latin. If you ignore those methods, you should provide the basis as why you think those methods are wrong. Otherwise, you are simply choosing whatever suits you and you can provfe anything.

No, linguists found a lot of traces of their languages, and their genes and culture also survived.

How many? For example, there was city Bylazora in Macedonia, and although it sound like "white dawn", or another ancient city in Macedonia Izvor (serb. source), linguists offered ten of other explanations without sence.

Because sometimes obvious explanation are nonsense. As famous "Babie Łono" (Babilon) example shows, from one Polish chronicle writer who claimed that all languages descend from Polish.

Bogumir, that's a lie. Yes, it is a lie, and when you said it after this whole discussion I start to think you simply ignore everything I wrote until now. I am using this so strong word because "23 centuries" means that supposedly BC people knew Illyrians were Slavs. It means that supposedly in 6th century people knew illyrians were slavs. But of course when asked for your proofs for such a bold statement (for 23 centuries people knew...) all you have to support this is "you cannot prove otherwise" (plus chroniclers written a thousand years later).Only thing you showed is that _after_ Slavic invasion, Illyrians started to be used interchangeably with Slavs, a fact NONE contests.


Yes, even Herodotus knew that, and specialy underline it. When Slavs invade Balkan, Illyrian name disapear,

Nope. You are inveting seomthing. Just several posts ago you admitted that the naem "Slav" had not appear in sources (except for Ptolomei) until 4th or 5th AD. Therefore Herodotus could write that "Illyrians" were "Slavs".

"Sclavi, Sclavini" transferred to the Illyrians as their relatives.
So from the beginning up to the 5th century Illyrians lived in the Balkan Peninsula and then begin to call Slavs.

No, this is something you are trying to prove.
Don't you understand that? You are assuming "Illyrian are Slavs" and then you try to prove that "Illyrian are Slavs" basing on that assumption. This is not science.

Yes. Balts are not Slavs, despite being in the same family. Thracian or Illyrian could be related to Slavic just as Baltic is related to Slavic.


Or maybe as Trubachov and other propose, it was same language in that time.

But then that language wouldn't be Slavic. German and Polish languages are both indo-european and at one point of history there might be some proto-indoeuropean language. Which was not Polish, or Germanic.

Yeah, that's true. Similarly with Great Britain. Fierce warlike Celtic tribes, constantly fighting and described as brave, suddenly dissapeared "without a trace" after invasion of small groups of Germanics. Yet genetics shows striking genetic continuality from bronze age, and no traces for huge Roman or Germanic invasion. But English is Germanic language, not Celtic.


There is much differnce between Illyria nad Britain. Invasions on Britain is well documented and battles are recorded, Briton territories preserved till modern days and their language and toponymes also.

Bogumir, invasion on Balkans and battles are recorded too, but you simply chose to ignore them.

Independent sources? Contemporary sourceS? Or writers and chroniclers who wrote much later and used his information?


Slavic migrations from Danube region start in deep history, and continue till period of Roman invasion.
Ignore so many writers and chronicles that claim that, is absurd, like Kadlubko, Bishop of Krakow (1161-1223)

Sure. Kadlubek, the chronicler who claimed that Poles defeated Julius Caesar and one of Polish rulers took his sister for a wife.

, Bogufal, (died 1253), Dlugos, Kranz, Orbin, S. Dolci, Safarik, Dubrovski, Katancic, Gottlob etc.

Bogumir, for God's sake. Once again, you simply have not understood a thing I am trying to say to you. Dlugosz, Dolci, Safarik etc are irrevelant. They are not primary source. They may be right or wrong, but you cannot use their OPINION as a proof.

Official historiography ironically says that the Thracians also disappeared, that we barely know their name. How could so quietly disappear Thracians, who Herodot says, that most numerous people after Indus, that contemporary writers would not know anything about it to told us. Thracians, because they were incompatible, conquered by Romans, but not to eradicate them, but to serve them. Moreover, emperors Elius Kato, Claudius and Constantine emperors, settled in Thrace and Macedonia, Danube Gets and Sarmatians, relatives of Thracians, therefore, to enhance the population of their empire. History differs Thracians and their master Romans. They were under the lordship of Byzantine emperors, and kept them in chords by strong cities, which were built in the heart of their lands or on the shores of the sea were was the Imperial military garrisons.

And history chroniclers also differentiate between Thracians and Sclavinians.


It must be millions of people to migrate and occupy so huge territory.

Yeah, I always suspected Spaniards lived in South America for long time. It is impossible for huge tribes and their language just to dissapear after only what, some 500 years.

Well, maybe you should read something about this events, or about other similar events. After all, children of conquistadors became farmers, rulers etc.


Indeed, but descendants of conquistadors (Spaniards) mostly remain rulers of occupied lands, while natives become labor force.

And?

If it is dated from 1 to 6th century, then there is not much contradiction with idea that Slavs arrived in say 4th or 5th.


Yes, we can bid 4, 5, 6, someone even suggest 10th century!

10th century would be nuts.
Sure, but again -- Polish was called "Sarmatian" and this is not a proof that Sarmatians were Poles. Do you will finally understand this fact, that "Illyrian are Slavic" in 11th century is not a fact "Illyrian were Slavic" in 200BC?


I didn't see proof that denies it. Everything that Illyrians left sugest us that they were at same stock as Slavic invaders.

No. Everything Illyrian left us suggest us exactly nothing, except that they probably were indo-european, from satem family. You haven't presented a single positive proof. Everything are just opinions, opinions, or picayune details which can be explained by every theory.

No, we have, only you contest them.


What proves? Venetian script that sound latin?

Chronicles, the recorded words, and those scripts too.
You are saying about Skulj and others? yeah, it is something very similar.


And their interpretation looks far more logical than official.

Not really. For me, their interpretation is neither logical or scientific.

Neither proofs for that the autochtons were Finns. Prove it they weren't. Ha!


I no doubt that they are autochtonic in their territory.

In their territory that is in Balkans, OK?

When it was written? Thank you.
And even though, you have there a passage that Silimir "settled the land with a lot of Slavs". He also wrote that Goths were Slavic. Great source.


Assumed 12-13 century.
[/quote]
So, written 6 to 8 centuries after the event. So much for reliable source.

Yes, in king Selimir's time more Slavs come. Orosius Paul, who wrote about 417th, said: "Getae, qui et nunc Goti", one of many who equal Slavic Getae (as Theophylact Simocatta inform us) and Goths.

I thought you already know, that Getae were not Goths and Goths were not Slavs.

"Gesta Regnum Sclavorum" is very detailed and accurate.

In the eyes of everyone except vast majority of historians.

BTW, I am reading more about history of Slavic migration/invasion into Balkans. Bogumir, you suggested, that "no trace" was left of autochtonous: well, There is. Aromanians. Today supposedly there is 350 thousands of them. Also, the mentioning about Vlachs, Vallachs etc are dispersed in different chronicles across whole history. In 11th century one Byzantine historian Cecaumenos mentioned that Vlachs are descendants of Thracian tribe, the Bessi.


Aromanians are people who speak Romanic language, and geneticaly they have connection with Illyrians so far as other Balkan Slavs have, besides that, nothing special Illyrian about them.
Term Vlach have tens of meanings, like: farmer, (orthodox)Christian, Serb, Latin, Italian, Romanian, etc. Nothing special about them also which directly connect them with Illyrians unlike other Slavs.
And Cecamenos could use term Vlach for any Slavic group.
[/quote]
Aha, so again: There are some people who are romanic (seems like leftover of romanized population) seem to live on Balkans since centuries. But you decided to ignore them and there is no leftover population. This would be the same with every people I suppose.

As for testimonies of migration, here is the chronicle about "miracles of St. Demetrios"...Now, if you say we should believe the chroniclers, why you think we should not believe in this words?Also, why the chroniclers mention separately Slavs (invading) and Thracians (pro-Byzantine)?


Of course, no one suspect in Slavic invasion, but only who was pro-Byzantine was Roman population, not far majority of Illyro-Thracian natives, who "stop to existing" when Slavs come.

And the proof here is your opinion. An opinion, which is constantly presented as FACT. Moreover, you keep waving hands at contemporary chroniclers, and everything as irrevelant or silly.

Chronicler wrotes Slavs settled in great numbers... You: sure, but they already lived there.

Chronicler: Slavs devasted the country, murdered population and settled... You: this is impossible, and they murdered only pro-Roman population (without any basis for this claim except your opinion), and the rest was Slavic.

I: there are leftovers of autochtonous: Vlachs. You: today Vlachs are used for non-Slavic population, but in the past they were Slavs. And BTW, they are no leftovers from non-Slavic population.

I: there are recorded words in Illyrian which are similar to e.g. latvian, and are not similar to Slavic.. You: Baltic were once Slavs too.

I: the official inscription show non-Slavic language You: this is silly interpretation by Germanic scientists, the inscriptions based on willy-nilly picking words from Slavic and twisting the words to fit better is more reliable.

And so on, and so on, and so on.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Mon 31 Jan, 2011 06:57

Just one thing, Bogumir.

You see, amongst Illyrian tribes there was a tribe called Albanians, Arbanians etc. It doesn't seem that they were seem as distinct from other Illyrian tribes. According to your logic, they were, therefore Slavic. And again, according to your logic it is impossible for large immigration of huge tribe (e.g. from Caucasus). And it is impossible for small elite to change the ethnic composition of a nation. So what is your explanation for the fact, that modern Albanians are not Slavs?
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Mon 31 Jan, 2011 12:04

Aromanians. Vlachs.


Aromanians are just people who speak Romanic language, nothing specially conect them with Illyrians. Vlach can mean many things, in medieval Serbia it was rancher, farmer, or Roman-speaking people from Adriatic coast, in Bosnia muslims use that name for Christian or Serb.

It is known? Hey, you are trying to say it is some kind of scientifically proven fact? And when constructing this fact, you are ignoring the Balkans?


Yes, Slavs couldn't assimilate anyone except Bulgarians, since they had vast majority there.

Well, look into Ptolemei and look where his Suowenoi are located. Most of scientists ignores Ptolemei saying that it is impossible that his Suowenoi are Słowianie.


Most scientists don't want to explore further than official history claim.

That's not the same.


It's exactly same. Before name Slavs there wasn't Slavs, they didn't exist as ethno-linguistic group.

But there are some methods. They can produce different results, and there are some results which cannot be produced by any scientific method. As a exercise, one can employ those methods to reconstruct the latin, basing on modern romanic languages and the results is something very similar to real Latin. If you ignore those methods, you should provide the basis as why you think those methods are wrong. Otherwise, you are simply choosing whatever suits you and you can provfe anything.


And Etruscan, Venetian and other ancient languages show similarities with Slavic.
Here is book of paleolinguist Radivoje Pesic, Doctor of the Institute of Milan and bearer of the Gold decoration of the French Academy about Etruscan and Venetian language (I hope you have basic knowledge of Serbian):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22475999/Radi ... nsko-pismo

No, linguists found a lot of traces of their languages, and their genes and culture also survived.


Culture and genes survived since Balkan Slavs keep their ancestors culture.

Nope. You are inveting seomthing. Just several posts ago you admitted that the naem "Slav" had not appear in sources (except for Ptolomei) until 4th or 5th AD. Therefore Herodotus could write that "Illyrians" were "Slavs".


Well he call them "Veneti" which is another name for Vends-Slavs.
(etymology of Venet/Vend is uncertain, but always conect with Slavs).

No, this is something you are trying to prove.
Don't you understand that? You are assuming "Illyrian are Slavs" and then you try to prove that "Illyrian are Slavs" basing on that assumption. This is not science.


It is already proven by language, history and antroplogy.

But then that language wouldn't be Slavic. German and Polish languages are both indo-european and at one point of history there might be some proto-indoeuropean language. Which was not Polish, or Germanic.


I mean it was some archaic Slavic at that time, as Trubachov propose.

Bogumir, invasion on Balkans and battles are recorded too, but you simply chose to ignore them.


No one is ignoring invasion, just total replacement of population and anihilation of natives.

Sure. Kadlubek, the chronicler who claimed that Poles defeated Julius Caesar and one of Polish rulers took his sister for a wife.


It's probably related to some Slavic tribe in antiquity.

Bogumir, for God's sake. Once again, you simply have not understood a thing I am trying to say to you. Dlugosz, Dolci, Safarik etc are irrevelant. They are not primary source. They may be right or wrong, but you cannot use their OPINION as a proof.


They are not primary source but their knowledge about ancient history is valuable.

And history chroniclers also differentiate between Thracians and Sclavinians.


Yes, Slavs were invaders and Thracians were population of Thracia.

Yeah, I always suspected Spaniards lived in South America for long time. It is impossible for huge tribes and their language just to dissapear after only what, some 500 years.


Spaniards were from country with superior civilization and technology, and indian tribes didn't dissapear.

And?


And than Simon Bolivar show up...

No. Everything Illyrian left us suggest us exactly nothing, except that they probably were indo-european, from satem family. You haven't presented a single positive proof. Everything are just opinions, opinions, or picayune details which can be explained by every theory.


Indeed, we can twisted everything and say that modern Serbs and other Balkan Slavs are not Slavs.

Not really. For me, their interpretation is neither logical or scientific.


Same here for Romanic interpretation.

So, written 6 to 8 centuries after the event. So much for reliable source.


"Gesta" is compilation of other older chronicles from 10th century.
For period of invasion we have proofs in archeology, while Venetian historians Gianantonio Bomman, Caroli Du Fresne Du Cange used their Venetian chronicles that agree with Gesta Regnum Sclavorum.

I thought you already know, that Getae were not Goths and Goths were not Slavs.


But many writers equate them, so writer of Gesta Regnum Sclavorum do same.

In the eyes of everyone except vast majority of historians.


What vast majority? Those who claim that beging of "Gesta" is "unreliable"?

Aha, so again: There are some people who are romanic (seems like leftover of romanized population) seem to live on Balkans since centuries. But you decided to ignore them and there is no leftover population. This would be the same with every people I suppose.


They were leftover of romanized population, but they are not some direct descendants of non-Slavic Illyrians, it's pure speculation.

And the proof here is your opinion. An opinion, which is constantly presented as FACT. Moreover, you keep waving hands at contemporary chroniclers, and everything as irrevelant or silly.


We have our chronicles that depict situation:

"In 550th To the king in Dalmatia (was elected) Svevlad son of Ostroilo, which raises an army on Greeks(i.e. Byzantines), dashed them and solid enslave.
In 600th Slavs, killing the soldiers of the Greek Caesar"...

Chronicler wrotes Slavs settled in great numbers... You: sure, but they already lived there.


Yes, they did, just they didn't call "Slavs".
On the other hand we have our numerous domestic testimonies like
General List, or the genealogy of Pec, start presentation of the "description of the genealogy of the holy kings Serbian or Illyrian."
Father of German philology and Germanistics Jacob Grimm writes in 1815th: "Serbs are called correctly what is usually called the Illyrians, Slavic national branch."

Chronicler: Slavs devasted the country, murdered population and settled... You: this is impossible, and they murdered only pro-Roman population (without any basis for this claim except your opinion), and the rest was Slavic.


Great migration of Slavs is imposibile same as their demographic explosion in 6th century. We have historical reports about battles with Byzantine(Roman) army but not with Illyrians/Thracians.

I: there are leftovers of autochtonous: Vlachs. You: today Vlachs are used for non-Slavic population, but in the past they were Slavs. And BTW, they are no leftovers from non-Slavic population.


Even today most of Vlachs have Slavic names and surnames. There isn't any proof for Vlach as some leftover of non-Slavic Illyrian.
On one side we have numerous similarities between Balkan natives and modern Balkan Slavs, that all ancient writers equate with Balkan natives, and on other side we have some modern scientists who claim that descendants of ancient Balkan population are Albanians, base on nothing.

I: the official inscription show non-Slavic language You: this is silly interpretation by Germanic scientists, the inscriptions based on willy-nilly picking words from Slavic and twisting the words to fit better is more reliable.


I don't think work of linguists as S. Bilbija or R. Pesic are unscientific.

You see, amongst Illyrian tribes there was a tribe called Albanians, Arbanians etc. It doesn't seem that they were seem as distinct from other Illyrian tribes. According to your logic, they were, therefore Slavic. And again, according to your logic it is impossible for large immigration of huge tribe (e.g. from Caucasus). And it is impossible for small elite to change the ethnic composition of a nation. So what is your explanation for the fact, that modern Albanians are not Slavs?


We have specific date when Albanians (Shiptars as they call themself) came on Balkan in 1043. Their origin is in Caucasus and once had their state there.
This country, from which they come, foreigners named Albania, called by city Albana on Caspian lake, in which inland state spread, and they aren't Slavic tribe.

They settled central region of modern Albania (Raban, so in medieval time they were called Arbanasi), rarely populated and didn't take some participation in history, they were profesional shepherds.

One of the early American explorers of Albanians, Hobhaus, beginning of the 19th century, says: "As for the Albanian language, here is collected for your insight, and examples that are almost the first time put on paper. The basis is Slavonic, mixed with different languages, including most of Turkish, then the modern Greek, Italian, French, and even some words from English into this strange mix."

The first to come out with the assumption that the Albanians are natives, the descendants of the Illyrians, was a German historian Tunman in 1774. His thesis looked ridiculous, but has wide application and support of Vienna-Berlin school, in second half of 19th century. And it's not happened a new discovery in the field of archeology, history, linguistics or ethnography that could serve as a pretext for setting up this thesis.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Tue 01 Feb, 2011 06:20

Bogumir wrote:
Aromanians. Vlachs.

Aromanians are just people who speak Romanic language, nothing specially conect them with Illyrians.

Why? Because, you know, it contradicts a theory that Illyrians were romanised and the Aromanians are leftover of this Illyrian, romanized population?
Vlach can mean many things, in medieval Serbia it was rancher, farmer, or Roman-speaking people from Adriatic coast, in Bosnia muslims use that name for Christian or Serb.

So Vlach could mean anything, despite modern usage is predmoninantly associated with Romanic-speaking people. But Illyrian surely always meant Slavs. Nice logic.

It is known? Hey, you are trying to say it is some kind of scientifically proven fact? And when constructing this fact, you are ignoring the Balkans?


Yes, Slavs couldn't assimilate anyone except Bulgarians, since they had vast majority there.

Actually, you are not even wrong. Look at the Russia; Look at the Poland (bambers, assimilated even though we were under GERMAN occupation, and it took only some four or three generations). Morevoer, your assumption is based on the fact, that Veneti are Slavs. Because if Veneti are not Slavs, then in fact Slavs assimilated Veneti in Poland, they assimilated Balkans etc. You see the flaw in your logic, or not? You are assuming something (Veneti and Illyrians were Slavs) and basing on that you draw conclusion "Slavs hadn't assimilated none" and then you use this as "proof": "Slavs couldn't assimilate Illyrian, because they couldn't assimilate anyone". The same logical flaws are in most of other your reasoning.

Well, look into Ptolemei and look where his Suowenoi are located. Most of scientists ignores Ptolemei saying that it is impossible that his Suowenoi are Słowianie.


Most scientists don't want to explore further than official history claim.

You think we should assume that Ptolemei was writing about Slavs and therefore, Slavs lived in Volga, right?

It's exactly same. Before name Slavs there wasn't Slavs, they didn't exist as ethno-linguistic group.

You know, i do not understand you. So you believe that Illyrians weren't Slavs? Since the name appeared only in 5th century or something?

And Etruscan, Venetian and other ancient languages show similarities with Slavic.

No, they are not.

An altogether odder controversy concerns the theories of Dr. Radivoje Pešić from Belgrade. In his book "The Vinca Alphabet," he proposes that all of the Vinca signs exist in the Etruscan alphabet, and conversely, that all Etruscan letters are found among Vinca signs. This is, however, not taken seriously by the vast majority of Etruscan and classical academics, who attribute the origins of the Etruscan script to an early version of the Greek alphabet, as demonstrated by the high degree of similarity of the letters. Pešić's critics have claimed that he is motivated by an nationalistic desire to claim a Slavic presence in the Balkans far earlier than the usually accepted date; hence, for instance, his claim that the poet Homer must have spoken a Slavonic dialect



Well he call them "Veneti" which is another name for Vends-Slavs.
(etymology of Venet/Vend is uncertain, but always conect with Slavs).

No. This is another flaw in your logic.
The question: "Are Venets always associated with Slavs?" Assumption "Venets were Slavs". Conclusion "Because Venets were always associated with Slavs, they were Slavs".

No, this is something you are trying to prove.
Don't you understand that? You are assuming "Illyrian are Slavs" and then you try to prove that "Illyrian are Slavs" basing on that assumption. This is not science.


It is already proven by language, history and antroplogy.

It is not proven by langauge; it is not proven by history; and it can't be proven by anthropology at all since antropology can't deduct language spoken by people.

Bogumir, invasion on Balkans and battles are recorded too, but you simply chose to ignore them.


No one is ignoring invasion, just total replacement of population and anihilation of natives.

Except that no one seriously claims that population was annihilated and replaced. You are fighting the position not even considered by any serious modern scientists.

Sure. Kadlubek, the chronicler who claimed that Poles defeated Julius Caesar and one of Polish rulers took his sister for a wife.


It's probably related to some Slavic tribe in antiquity.

Yeah, just like defeating the dragon by some other prince.

Bogumir, for God's sake. Once again, you simply have not understood a thing I am trying to say to you. Dlugosz, Dolci, Safarik etc are irrevelant. They are not primary source. They may be right or wrong, but you cannot use their OPINION as a proof.


They are not primary source but their knowledge about ancient history is valuable.

It depends from the writer. In history basic rule is that you should always consider primary sources first, compare them, and only later took later sources. The source written 500 years after the event is basically worthless.

And history chroniclers also differentiate between Thracians and Sclavinians.


Yes, Slavs were invaders and Thracians were population of Thracia.

And while mentioning that Slavs were speaking barbarous tongue, somehow none noticed that this tongue was the same as local.

Yeah, I always suspected Spaniards lived in South America for long time. It is impossible for huge tribes and their language just to dissapear after only what, some 500 years.


Spaniards were from country with superior civilization and technology, and indian tribes didn't dissapear.

But they were really, really few -- and most of Spaniard were males, most of them were dying because of bad climate. Yet most of population speaks Spanish. And it took until now even not 500 years.

No. Everything Illyrian left us suggest us exactly nothing, except that they probably were indo-european, from satem family. You haven't presented a single positive proof. Everything are just opinions, opinions, or picayune details which can be explained by every theory.


Indeed, we can twisted everything and say that modern Serbs and other Balkan Slavs are not Slavs.

Serbs and Balkan Slavs are Slavs. Because what makes a Slav, is a language. And second, even though Poles have blood mixed with Venets who may be not Slavs, or with Germans, or with Celts -- we still have also blood of our Slavic ancestors. The same with Balkan Slavs. Even if they are mixed with autochtonous population, they still have also Slavic blood.

Not really. For me, their interpretation is neither logical or scientific.


Same here for Romanic interpretation.

Except "Romanic" interpretation is widely accepted. Usually in science when trying to displace accepted theory, one must show very strong proofs.

So, written 6 to 8 centuries after the event. So much for reliable source.


"Gesta" is compilation of other older chronicles from 10th century.

Not is, but "may be".

For period of invasion we have proofs in archeology, while Venetian historians Gianantonio Bomman, Caroli Du Fresne Du Cange used their Venetian chronicles that agree with Gesta Regnum Sclavorum.

Bogumir, if you will again try to use 16th century chroniclers to prove something happened in 6th century, I will simply stop the discussion.
I thought you already know, that Getae were not Goths and Goths were not Slavs.


But many writers equate them, so writer of Gesta Regnum Sclavorum do same.

So those writers were wrong, and the writer of GRS was wrong too.

In the eyes of everyone except vast majority of historians.


What vast majority? Those who claim that beging of "Gesta" is "unreliable"?

yes. There are "reliable" sources and "unreliable". Also part of chronicle could be reliable, and part not. Take Wincenty Kadlubek. When he writes about events he was witnessing, he is much more reliable (even though he is clearly biaseD) than when he wrties things he read from other chronicles. ANd he is clearly not reliable, when he writes about prehistory.

They were leftover of romanized population, but they are not some direct descendants of non-Slavic Illyrians, it's pure speculation.

Sure, and that Illyrians were Slavs is not speculation, but a "FACT".

And the proof here is your opinion. An opinion, which is constantly presented as FACT. Moreover, you keep waving hands at contemporary chroniclers, and everything as irrevelant or silly.


We have our chronicles that depict situation:

When those chronicles were written? 5th century? 6th century? If later than 200 years after the period, they are basically worhtless.

Father of German philology and Germanistics Jacob Grimm writes in 1815th: "Serbs are called correctly what is usually called the Illyrians, Slavic national branch."

Bogumir, why you keep repeating the same and the same things, when since at lleast several weeks I am trying to show you that are simply flawed?

Great migration of Slavs is imposibile same as their demographic explosion in 6th century. We have historical reports about battles with Byzantine(Roman) army but not with Illyrians/Thracians.

So Illyrian and Thracians have their separate armies? Yes or No?

On one side we have numerous similarities between Balkan natives and modern Balkan Slavs, that all ancient writers equate with Balkan natives

A lie. Ancient writers do not equate Balkan natives with Slavs.

, and on other side we have some modern scientists who claim that descendants of ancient Balkan population are Albanians, base on nothing.

A lie, since modern scientists do not claim that -- one of accepted theories is that Albanians are descended from one of Thracian (or maybe Illyrian) groups.

I don't think work of linguists as S. Bilbija or R. Pesic are unscientific.

They are.

We have specific date when Albanians (Shiptars as they call themself) came on Balkan in 1043. Their origin is in Caucasus and once had their state there.
This country, from which they come, foreigners named Albania, called by city Albana on Caspian lake, in which inland state spread, and they aren't Slavic tribe.

So, it is possible for entire huge group of thousands of people to migrate in XI (!!!!) century to migrate across whole Europe without anyone noticing it in between -- but there is impossible for Slavs to migrate in great numbers in 6th century, despite chroniclers wrote that Slavs arrived in great numbers and settled in Balkans. This is exactly what I wanted you to wrote, to show you how absurd is your logic. Albanians, shepherds, low-technology people, could somehow assimilate local population and travel across whole continent, but Slavs NONONO, for Slavs it is impossible, seems Slavs in your opinion are some retarded backward bunch of wimps, at least compared to Albanians.

Not to mention the things like ancient Greek borrowings in Albanian, similarities between AlBanian and Illyrian, and the fact that Albanian is Indo-European, not Caucasian Language.

One of the early American explorers of Albanians, Hobhaus, beginning of the 19th century, says: "As for the Albanian language, here is collected for your insight, and examples that are almost the first time put on paper. The basis is Slavonic, mixed with different languages, including most of Turkish, then the modern Greek, Italian, French, and even some words from English into this strange mix."

Just shows much about authorities you pick. Instead of professional linguists, you prefer some guy passing by.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland
PreviousNext

Return to NAŠ SVĚT



Who is online


The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 centurie


Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Tue 01 Feb, 2011 07:57

Why? Because, you know, it contradicts a theory that Illyrians were romanised and the Aromanians are leftover of this Illyrian, romanized population?


Aromanians are descendants of romanized population, but they doesn't prove that Illyrians were non-Slavic.

So Vlach could mean anything, despite modern usage is predmoninantly associated with Romanic-speaking people. But Illyrian surely always meant Slavs. Nice logic.


Yes, term Vlach have many meanings, while Illyrian was always used for South Slav.

Actually, you are not even wrong. Look at the Russia; Look at the Poland (bambers, assimilated even though we were under GERMAN occupation, and it took only some four or three generations). Morevoer, your assumption is based on the fact, that Veneti are Slavs. Because if Veneti are not Slavs, then in fact Slavs assimilated Veneti in Poland, they assimilated Balkans etc. You see the flaw in your logic, or not? You are assuming something (Veneti and Illyrians were Slavs) and basing on that you draw conclusion "Slavs hadn't assimilated none" and then you use this as "proof": "Slavs couldn't assimilate Illyrian, because they couldn't assimilate anyone". The same logical flaws are in most of other your reasoning.


I was talking about period when Slavs didn't have organized state to impose official language and culture.

You think we should assume that Ptolemei was writing about Slavs and therefore, Slavs lived in Volga, right?


Well name and region their inhabit Suovenoi indicate their Slavic origin, but I'm not sure.

You know, i do not understand you. So you believe that Illyrians weren't Slavs? Since the name appeared only in 5th century or something?


I was sarcastic.

No, they are not.


Yes they are.

Dr Radivoje Pesic was expert indeed, and "vast majority of Etruscan and classical academics" didn't accept his findings, so what? There is their main proof - majority proof, and Pesic was nationalist bigot, great.

No. This is another flaw in your logic.
The question: "Are Venets always associated with Slavs?" Assumption "Venets were Slavs". Conclusion "Because Venets were always associated with Slavs, they were Slavs".


Yes, they were always associated with Slavs, and their language prove that.

It is not proven by langauge; it is not proven by history; and it can't be proven by anthropology at all since antropology can't deduct language spoken by people.


It is proven by language and history, but most of modern historians choose to ignore that. And antropology sugest us that there wasn't any great migration or replacement of population.
In ancient times, "West of Macedonia live Dardani and Illyrians, two names for the same people - the Serbs, John Campbell, one of the most serious British historians of the 19th century...

Except that no one seriously claims that population was annihilated and replaced. You are fighting the position not even considered by any serious modern scientists.


That's how it's represented here, Slavs come, kill Illyrians and drive away Albanians to guard sheeps.

It depends from the writer. In history basic rule is that you should always consider primary sources first, compare them, and only later took later sources. The source written 500 years after the event is basically worthless.


But modern historians that claim otherwise is priceless.

And while mentioning that Slavs were speaking barbarous tongue, somehow none noticed that this tongue was the same as local.


At that time, they were posible at distance like modern Serbian and modern Luzicke Serbian.
But I send email to Slavist prof. dr Jovan I. Deretic, about that Procopius claim and he reply: "Sir, all old writers were censored from 17 century onwards. That claim you find in Procopius is simply nonsense. How language can be utterly barbaric? The Greeks called barbarians of all nations who did not speak Greek. Such nonsense Procopius could not write, but that someone later added."

But they were really, really few -- and most of Spaniard were males, most of them were dying because of bad climate. Yet most of population speaks Spanish. And it took until now even not 500 years.


Yes, but it's official state language, and this is modern time.

Except "Romanic" interpretation is widely accepted. Usually in science when trying to displace accepted theory, one must show very strong proofs.


That "widely accepted" proof "don't drink" water for many scientists.

Bogumir, if you will again try to use 16th century chroniclers to prove something happened in 6th century, I will simply stop the discussion.


They are more accurate than modern "Slavic newcomers" stories.

So those writers were wrong, and the writer of GRS was wrong too.


There is posible reason for doing it. I read about that, but can't find that book.

When those chronicles were written? 5th century? 6th century? If later than 200 years after the period, they are basically worhtless.


I don't see how they are worthless, they are not contemporary source

Bogumir, why you keep repeating the same and the same things, when since at lleast several weeks I am trying to show you that are simply flawed?


That is not flawed, it's just not widely accepted in modern times as it was earlier.

So Illyrian and Thracians have their separate armies? Yes or No?


Slavs didn't fight in Balkan interior against Illyrian and Thracian warlike tribes, nor their present is recorded in medieval manuscripts.

A lie. Ancient writers do not equate Balkan natives with Slavs.


Start from Herodotus, than 3rd century BC State of Illyrian king Agron (correctly Argon) Zonara called Serbian empire (Sardianorum regi), Aimoini Floriacensis in Historie Francorum: "...in Sclavorum patriam, qui etiam Winidi dicuntur,.." (11 century)...

A lie, since modern scientists do not claim that -- one of accepted theories is that Albanians are descended from one of Thracian (or maybe Illyrian) groups.


Yes it is accepted in 19th century, so what? Albanian scientists claim that they are descendants of Pelasgians also. We can only accept that and cover ourself with ears...
While Ioanis Kinamos, in XII, said: "The Serbs, who are as people Dalmatians (Illyrian tribe), they built a fort Ras.

They are.


They are not. Prof. dr Radivoje Pesic was recognized paleolinguist and expert. His only flaw was his Slavophilia and book "Conspiracy of denial" about Slavic ancient history.

So, it is possible for entire huge group of thousands of people to migrate in XI (!!!!) century to migrate across whole Europe without anyone noticing it in between -- but there is impossible for Slavs to migrate in great numbers in 6th century, despite chroniclers wrote that Slavs arrived in great numbers and settled in Balkans. This is exactly what I wanted you to wrote, to show you how absurd is your logic. Albanians, shepherds, low-technology people, could somehow assimilate local population and travel across whole continent, but Slavs NONONO, for Slavs it is impossible, seems Slavs in your opinion are some retarded backward bunch of wimps, at least compared to Albanians.


No, Byzantine writer from 11th century Michael Ataliota describe that Albanians came in Drach (modern Albania) with Roman army, from Sicily.
(Stefanq Pollo and Arben Puto: THE HISTORY OF ALBANIA, Routledge & Kegan, London, Boston and Henley 1981. page 37.)
Between the "disappearance" of the Illyrians on Balkan and appearance of Albanians gaping void of at least five centuries.

Not to mention the things like ancient Greek borrowings in Albanian, similarities between AlBanian and Illyrian, and the fact that Albanian is Indo-European, not Caucasian Language.


Those artificial conections were made in 19 century, until that time, everyone was familiar with Albanian origin from Caucasus. "Children of the Caucasus" as wrote medieval writer Magius Patavius.
Albanian language is officialy in separate IE group.

Albanian 100 is cjinda
Caucasian Bezta language 100 is cjinta.

Just shows much about authorities you pick. Instead of professional linguists, you prefer some guy passing by.


Many linguists disagree with that, but you choose "vast majority" as proof that is.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Andrej Moraczewski » Tue 01 Feb, 2011 08:23

szopen wrote:
One of the early American explorers of Albanians, Hobhaus, beginning of the 19th century, says: "As for the Albanian language, here is collected for your insight, and examples that are almost the first time put on paper. The basis is Slavonic, mixed with different languages, including most of Turkish, then the modern Greek, Italian, French, and even some words from English into this strange mix."

Just shows much about authorities you pick. Instead of professional linguists, you prefer some guy passing by.

All Bogumir's logic is like that: "No matter that 1000s official scientists say. Someone once noted that blablabla, then we can clearly see that blablabla is true, and all 1000s scientist lie because they are german/jewish/albanian/whothefuckever eles".
Andrej Moraczewski
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:23
Location: Himki, Moskva



Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Tue 01 Feb, 2011 08:33

Andrej Moraczewski wrote:All Bogumir's logic is like that: "No matter that 1000s official scientists say. Someone once noted that blablabla, then we can clearly see that blablabla is true, and all 1000s scientist lie because they are german/jewish/albanian/whothefuckever eles".


Well proof of majority isn't proof at all.
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Andrej Moraczewski » Wed 02 Feb, 2011 05:04

Богумир wrote:
Andrej Moraczewski wrote:All Bogumir's logic is like that: "No matter that 1000s official scientists say. Someone once noted that blablabla, then we can clearly see that blablabla is true, and all 1000s scientist lie because they are german/jewish/albanian/whothefuckever eles".


Well proof of majority isn't proof at all.

This is not proof only because it is the majority. The proof is in every work, and don't you find it kinda strange that 1000s scientists agree with each other, while some ancient farmer said otherwise and you believe this ancient farmer.
Andrej Moraczewski
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:23
Location: Himki, Moskva



Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Wed 02 Feb, 2011 09:15

Bogumir wrote:Yes, term Vlach have many meanings, while Illyrian was always used for South Slav.

They were not. Again, you use your circular logic. Illyrian were used for South Slav after Slavs appeared in Balkans. That's true. You cannot drive a conclusion that before that it was the same.

I was talking about period when Slavs didn't have organized state to impose official language and culture.

For God's sake Bogumir, I am talking about period of active GERMANISATION. Bambers assimilated when Poznan area was under German occupation. What about Balts? No one denies the fact, that northern part of Russia and Belarus was once inhabited by Balts. yet, when this territories first appeared in history, they were slavicised. There is simply no basis for saying "Slavs never assimilated anyone". Do you see why this arguments is erroneus, or not? Bogumir, I simply pointed out this obvious logical error. Just answer me clearly: do you understand why this argument "Slavs never assimilated nobody" is flawed?

You think we should assume that Ptolemei was writing about Slavs and therefore, Slavs lived in Volga, right?


Well name and region their inhabit Suovenoi indicate their Slavic origin, but I'm not sure.

That would mean Slavic origin farther east than commonly accepted.

I was sarcastic.
I am sorry Bogumir, but recently I am not sure about when you are serious and when not.

No. This is another flaw in your logic.
The question: "Are Venets always associated with Slavs?" Assumption "Venets were Slavs". Conclusion "Because Venets were always associated with Slavs, they were Slavs".


Yes, they were always associated with Slavs, and their language prove that.

They were not. They weren't ALWAYS associated with Slavs. This is what you are trying to prove: I say "prove me that Venets in territory of Poland, mentioned by ancient authors, were Slavic" Your answer "they were Slavic, because Venets were always Slavic". Circular logic.

Their language does not prove that, because
1) There is not much survived fromtheir langauge
2) What survives, does not seem Slavic at all
3) The attempts at explaining the inscriptions by Slavic are made with ignoring much of the linguistic methods

The similarities from known words of Illyrian or Thracian to Slavic are not proof; Sanskrit is not Slavic, despite you could built really impressive list of similarities. You could built a list similarities to Baltic languages, and even a list of similarities to Slavic langauges. What you have is not "proof" but an opinion, which you present as a proof.

It is proven by language

It is not proven by language. I kinda hoped you understood what does it mean "proof". If you built a list of words and point a list of similarities to Slavic, this is not proof. This is something which is expected basing on assumed Indo-european origin of Illyrian and Thracian. If you think this is a proof, then I claim language proofs that Illyrians were Balts. the same thing can't be a proof for two contradicting claims.
and history

It is not. Again, what history? You presented no primary, contemporary sources. Only opinions from later historians. Or passages from chronicles written 500 years after the event.

Except that no one seriously claims that population was annihilated and replaced. You are fighting the position not even considered by any serious modern scientists.


That's how it's represented here, Slavs come, kill Illyrians and drive away Albanians to guard sheeps.

Then go and read some serious history.

It depends from the writer. In history basic rule is that you should always consider primary sources first, compare them, and only later took later sources. The source written 500 years after the event is basically worthless.


But modern historians that claim otherwise is priceless.

I do not get your point. Basically, modern historians do not go against primary sources. Just as XIX century historians had their OPINIONS based on some sources, modern historians, who have access to MORE SOURCES and better methods, have different OPINION.

But I send email to Slavist prof. dr Jovan I. Deretic, about that Procopius claim and he reply: "Sir, all old writers were censored from 17 century onwards. That claim you find in Procopius is simply nonsense. How language can be utterly barbaric? The Greeks called barbarians of all nations who did not speak Greek. Such nonsense Procopius could not write, but that someone later added."

Sure.

Except "Romanic" interpretation is widely accepted. Usually in science when trying to displace accepted theory, one must show very strong proofs.


That "widely accepted" proof "don't drink" water for many scientists.

actually it does.

Bogumir, if you will again try to use 16th century chroniclers to prove something happened in 6th century, I will simply stop the discussion.


They are more accurate than modern "Slavic newcomers" stories.

they present their OPINION. Presenting OPINION as a PROOF in anything is something which is very no-no in science.

When those chronicles were written? 5th century? 6th century? If later than 200 years after the period, they are basically worhtless.


I don't see how they are worthless, they are not contemporary source

Because the events tend to get twisted with time. It's not that always it will be wrong; but one should be careful with events reported by later chronicler and always try to answer the questions: what was the source for the info? Was is reliable?

For example, take Thietmar and Widukind. Thietmar read Widukind and used his chronicle. Widukind wrote about some German duke fighting with some Slavs, and then there is period, and he narrates about other Slavs. Thietmar in his passage writes that German duke fought both Slavic tribes. And that's despite there is less than 100years of difference, and Thietmar is considered exceptionally reliable source.

Bogumir, why you keep repeating the same and the same things, when since at lleast several weeks I am trying to show you that are simply flawed?


That is not flawed, it's just not widely accepted in modern times as it was earlier.

No. I am saying about flaws in the reasoning. The logic was the same thousand years ago and today. Imagine the question posed like this "Is A=B?" And you are reasoning "Assume A=B. Therefore, since A=B, then A=B". In other words:
"The question Venets=Slavs?" "Assume Venets were always Slavs. Therefore, Venets were always Slavs".
"The question: could Slavs assimilate people in Balkans?" "Assume people in Balkans were Slavs. Therefore, Slavs never assimilated nobody. Therefore, Slavs couldn't assimilate people in Balkans".

Whole your post is full of such reasoning. You present opinions as proofs. The facts that can be supporting many theories, you claim definetely PROVE only one theory (while that could be used only as very, very tentative and weak support, not a PROOF!).

So Illyrian and Thracians have their separate armies? Yes or No?


Slavs didn't fight in Balkan interior against Illyrian and Thracian warlike tribes, nor their present is recorded in medieval manuscripts.

So, there was not separate Illyrian and Thracian armies. Therefore, it is not surprising, that Slavs didn't fight against them. After all, it weren't just Slavs there: Goths, other Germanic tribes, Hunni, Avars, Bulgars, and others.

A lie. Ancient writers do not equate Balkan natives with Slavs.


Start from Herodotus, than 3rd century BC State of Illyrian king Agron (correctly Argon) Zonara called Serbian empire (Sardianorum regi), Aimoini Floriacensis in Historie Francorum: "...in Sclavorum patriam, qui etiam Winidi dicuntur,.." (11 century)...

Bogumir, are you serious this time? Because once again i asked about Slavs in ancient writers, and then you present two writers from 11th century.

Moreover, could you please give me this exact passage from Herodot when he claims that Illyrians are Slavs?
And since when "Sardianorum" means "Serbian"?

While Ioanis Kinamos, in XII, said: "The Serbs, who are as people Dalmatians (Illyrian tribe), they built a fort Ras.

12th century. No, you can't be serious. If you would be serious, you would finally notice that posting zillionth time later chroniclers is not a proof about something which happened 600 years before chronicle.


No, Byzantine writer from 11th century Michael Ataliota describe that Albanians came in Drach (modern Albania) with Roman army, from Sicily.

From Sicily. You do realise, that if they came from Sicily, and they originated in Caucasus, they first had to Sicily from Caucasus? Even more unlikely event than you suggest. Somehow whole tribe went from Caucasus to Sicily, first appeared in XI century and then within very short times conquers and assimilates locals.

Not to mention this is the source
"The aforementioned George with the surname Maniakes, thirsting for blood, began an uprising in the Italian part of the Empire with Byzantine and Albanian soldiers there, being offended because the emperor had shown him a lack of respect and fearing the emperor in view of previous hostilities."

"Once he had ensured that he had indeed assembled a large army and forces fit for action, composed of Byzantine Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians and of his own soldiers, he set off and hastened to Thessalonika".

Seems Bulgarians originated in Sicily. Anyway, if this is a proof that Albanians came from Sicily, then it only lowers my expectations about proponents of this theory.

Not to mention the things like ancient Greek borrowings in Albanian, similarities between AlBanian and Illyrian, and the fact that Albanian is Indo-European, not Caucasian Language.


Those artificial conections were made in 19 century, until that time, everyone was familiar with Albanian origin from Caucasus. "Children of the Caucasus" as wrote medieval writer Magius Patavius.
Albanian language is officialy in separate IE group.

"Arteficial connection"

Albanian 100 is cjinda
Caucasian Bezta language 100 is cjinta.

I will get back to this claim later.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Jano » Wed 02 Feb, 2011 16:30

whats the main point of this discussion ?
Jano
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 01 Feb, 2011 17:08
Location: Myjava, Slovensko

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Slaven » Wed 02 Feb, 2011 19:56

Jano wrote:whats the main point of this discussion ?


Did Slavs come to the Balkans.

Or, where Slavs "always" in the Balkans. And if so, then all other Slavs came from the Balkans.
Slaven
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 00:17

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Jano » Thu 03 Feb, 2011 14:01

Slaven wrote:
Jano wrote:whats the main point of this discussion ?


Did Slavs come to the Balkans.

Or, where Slavs "always" in the Balkans. And if so, then all other Slavs came from the Balkans.


i think we can look to archeological cultures and how they are connected
for sure we are indoeuropeans so we can be connected just with cultures which are considered be indoeuropean
for example corded ware culture and older

about how old time we speak ?
Jano
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 01 Feb, 2011 17:08
Location: Myjava, Slovensko

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Fri 04 Feb, 2011 09:22

Jano wrote:i think we can look to archeological cultures and how they are connected

One of my friends said that the pottery doesn't speak :) But yes, this is at least something to base theories on.
about how old time we speak ?


According to Bogumir, Slavs were inhabitants of Balkans in times of Herodotus.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Jano » Fri 04 Feb, 2011 12:17

szopen wrote:
Jano wrote:i think we can look to archeological cultures and how they are connected

One of my friends said that the pottery doesn't speak :) But yes, this is at least something to base theories on.
about how old time we speak ?


According to Bogumir, Slavs were inhabitants of Balkans in times of Herodotus.


but is evidend that corded ware was earlier and was indoeuropean
and lusatian culture was also earlier and probably slavic
so it slavs must come from north -east

and which culture was in balkan in time of herodotus ?
Jano
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 01 Feb, 2011 17:08
Location: Myjava, Slovensko

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Богумир » Sun 06 Feb, 2011 17:26

Slavic assimilation of entire ethnic groups (like Illyrians or Thracians) is impossibile, but small parts of course.

Everything we know about Illyrians and Thracians connect them with Slavs, start from their personal and tribal names to Balkan toponomy.

Also very important, there was no great migrations of Slavs, which is well explained in Florin Curta's book. His conclusion: "More important, assemblages of the Lower Danube area, where, according to the migrationist model, the Slavs migrated from the Pripet marshes, long antedate the earliest evidence available from assemblages in the alleged Urheimat. Short-distance population movements, but not migration, must have accompanied the implementation of a form of "itinerant agriculture," which, though not based on the slash-and-burn method, may have encouraged settlement mobility."

Croatian historian Ivan Muzic nicely said: "Linguists, who believed that the Illyrians were not Slavs made up the existence of the Illyrian language in the present-day land of southern Slavs. Some of them exhibited the assumption that the rest of the Illyrian language could be today Albanian. Since we about language of the Illyrians don't know anything, it is impossible to carry out grammatical or lexical comparison of this language with today's Albanian language. It is unacceptable that only on the basis of onomastic or toponomastic "Illyrian" material (transferred to us in the Latin form) compares this unknown language with Albanian language. There is no evidence that the language of the aboriginals in Roman Dalmatia has any connection with the contemporary language of Albanians. Anthropology proves that the Albanians are not descendants of the Illyrians."

So, there was not separate Illyrian and Thracian armies. Therefore, it is not surprising, that Slavs didn't fight against them. After all, it weren't just Slavs there: Goths, other Germanic tribes, Hunni, Avars, Bulgars, and others.


By Bulgarian historians Slavs were welcomed by the Thracian population of the Balkan provinces. "To native Thracians, the Slavs were not invaders, but allies against a common enemy-the Roman Empire."

Chavdar Bonev - Proto-Slavic tribes:
http://chavdarbonev.zvezdi.org/en/protoslavs-part5.html

We don't have archeological evidence for settlements of other tribes in Balkan, so it's all speculations.

Pope Pius II, (Aeneas Sylvius) for Tribals said: "Tribals or Mizi, and called them Serbs, (Servios), Roksinjani or Rascijani (Roxianos Feb Rascianos) and Geti (Getae), which in part called Vlachs (Valachos), partially Transylvani (Transylvanos).

Moreover, could you please give me this exact passage from Herodot when he claims that Illyrians are Slavs?


He call them Veneti, which is same thing.

And since when "Sardianorum" means "Serbian"?


Since always. Sardi, Serdi, Surffen, Surbi, Serri... it's all foreign expresion for "Srbi".

French Slavist Priko D 'Sainte-Marie, warned his readers that the name Sardi, should be read as Sarbi or Serbi.

Claudius Ptolomaius also mention places:
Σερβίτιον or Σέρβινον, and village Σέρβιον.

12th century. No, you can't be serious. If you would be serious, you would finally notice that posting zillionth time later chroniclers is not a proof about something which happened 600 years before chronicle.


It is proof for South Slavs always been called Illyrians and other native tribes names, while no one threw history called Shiptars/modern Albanians with those names.

Seems Bulgarians originated in Sicily. Anyway, if this is a proof that Albanians came from Sicily, then it only lowers my expectations about proponents of this theory.


When Khazars destroyed Albanian state on Caucasus, part of muslim Albanians moved to Arabs, later Arabs moved them to their part of Sicily, to reinforce muslim population in it.

James Baker, a British researcher of Albanians, said: "There is a second Albania (modern Dagestan) in the Caucasus and some writers believe that its inhabitants are the same people as people in Turkey(Balkan). It is certain that there is great similarity between the Toscs from Albania and Circassians from Caucasus."

Jano wrote:but is evidend that corded ware was earlier and was indoeuropean
and lusatian culture was also earlier and probably slavic
so it slavs must come from north -east
and which culture was in balkan in time of herodotus ?


"There have been expressed many suppositions on Indo-European's homeland. In majority of cases they differ from each other. At the modern stage only few of them are regarded seriously. Among them we can name the above mentioned theory of Paleolithic continuity (M.Alinei); the suppositions according to which the homeland is localized on the territory of the northern Europe (L.Kilian, A.Hausleri, M.Zvelebil); the Indian hypothesis also has its supporters (M.Vitzel, K.Eltst). This concepts are not popular at modern stage, however they are not totally denied. Far more supporters have The Central Europe-Balkan homeland (V.Sapronov, B.Gornung, I.Diakonov, L.Makkai, G.Devoto)..."

Most of scientists don't see Vincha culture as Indo-European, but many think it is: "Древнебалканские культуры исследователями рассматриваются недифференцированно, и сходство слабо иллюстрируется. Ниже мы впервые показываем, что корни культуры Винча, которую мы считаем древнейшей праиндоевропейской культурой в Европе, находятся в Чатал Хююке, поэтому индоевропейская атрибуция Винчи служит косвенным подтверждением раннеиндоевропейской атрибуции Чатал Хююка."
Сафронов В.А. Индоевропейские прародины
(Vinča culture is a Neolithic archaeological culture of Southeastern Europe, dated to the period 5500–4500 BCE)
«Для всякого славянина: русского, чеха, серба, хорвата, словенца, болгара (желал бы прибавить, и поляка),- после Бога и Его святой Церкви, - идея Славянства должна быть высшею идеей, выше свободы, выше науки, выше просвещения, выше всякого земного блага»
User avatar
Богумир
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 14:08
Location: Западна Србија - СвеСлавија

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Andrej Moraczewski » Sun 06 Feb, 2011 18:06

Богумир wrote:Slavic assimilation of entire ethnic groups (like Illyrians or Thracians) is impossibile, but small parts of course.

But who says that whole Ilyrians and Thracians were assimilated? We can suppose that remains ofI Ilyrians and Thracians are Albanians and Romanians.
Why do you fear to accept that Slavs assimilated the original Balkan population? I tell you, even if it is so, this doesn't take off your right to rule your lands. The Balkan lands were conquered - so they are now Slavic by right. The same with Russia, about 90% of land of Russia was conquered by Slavs with assimilation of original population - not long ago. This assimilation still runs (f.ex., it's only about 450 years that Moscow conquered Kazan, it is possible that in 500 years more all original population of Kazan lands will be assimilated). But we do not fear to accept this.
Andrej Moraczewski
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:23
Location: Himki, Moskva



Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Slaven » Sun 06 Feb, 2011 18:09

Богумир wrote:Slavic assimilation of entire ethnic groups (like Illyrians or Thracians) is impossibile, but small parts of course.

Everything we know about Illyrians and Thracians connect them with Slavs, start from their personal and tribal names to Balkan toponomy.


Which personal or tribal names are Slavic?
Slaven
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 00:17

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby Jano » Sun 06 Feb, 2011 19:25

some 4000-5000 BC we cant be separate, so this information is irrelevant
only valuable for discussion is informations about those cultures are consider be slavic
and vincha for sure isnt it

Bogumir i wrote about real cultures recognize by modern archeologist and historians
which for sure have more information than those from 12th or even those from 19th century
and this is basic fact.

Just write me please , which archeological cultures support your theories. because if we come from balkan than must be some continuity . So if u think Vincha are slavs or indoeuropeans , please continue from culture to culture.
Jano
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue 01 Feb, 2011 17:08
Location: Myjava, Slovensko

Re: The invasion of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6-7 cent

Postby szopen » Mon 07 Feb, 2011 04:26

Bogumir wrote:Slavic assimilation of entire ethnic groups (like Illyrians or Thracians) is impossibile, but small parts of course.

And why it is impossible?
Everything we know about Illyrians and Thracians connect them with Slavs, start from their personal and tribal names to Balkan toponomy.

That's wrong. The supposedly Slavic etymologies of Thracian names are simply funny, like deriving one name from "tabor" which is not slavic at all. Or Bria from "isbor"


Moreover, could you please give me this exact passage from Herodot when he claims that Illyrians are Slavs?


He call them Veneti, which is same thing.

It is not. This is the problem with you Bogumir. You keep ignoring my arguments and you keep repeating yours. There is no point in discussion. You are trying to prove that Veneti were Slavs. As such, if you use your unproven _assumption_
to prove anything, you are not scientist. Most of scientist would not even care to talk with you after they would spot such thing.

And since when "Sardianorum" means "Serbian"?

Since always. Sardi, Serdi, Surffen, Surbi, Serri... it's all foreign expresion for "Srbi".

Sardinia is inhabiten by Serbs, sure.

It is proof for South Slavs always been called Illyrians and other native tribes names, while no one threw history called Shiptars/modern Albanians with those names.

You don't get it.
Slavs were always called Veneti does not imply that Veneti were always Slavs.
South Slavs were always called Illyrians does not imply that Illyrians were always Slavs.

This is basic logic. That's why there is no point in trying to show me that South Slavs were later called Illyrians (because not many people would argue that).


Seems Bulgarians originated in Sicily. Anyway, if this is a proof that Albanians came from Sicily, then it only lowers my expectations about proponents of this theory.


When Khazars destroyed Albanian state on Caucasus, part of muslim Albanians moved to Arabs, later Arabs moved them to their part of Sicily, to reinforce muslim population in it.

Except that there is not much in sources to prove that. And it's funny that you think that source mentioning "Albanian soldiers" is proof of huge Albanian migration, while at the same time you argue that with Slavs, sources mention only armies.
szopen
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 08 Jul, 2008 06:19
Location: Poznan, Poland
Previous

Return to NAŠ SVĚT



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests











Нема коментара:

Постави коментар