Print Page | Close Window

Heirs of Byzantium

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Description: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
Moderators: Knights, edgewaters, es_bih
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22237
Printed Date: 22-Sep-2019 at 10:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Heirs of Byzantium
Posted By: londoner_gb
Subject: Heirs of Byzantium
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 21:37
 Do You believe the nowadays Bulgarians to be the glorious descendants of the Eastern Rome altogether with their medieval  Bulgarian empires?Approve
Please feel free to cast your vote and comment on the subject! Wink
The Baptism of Constantine


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ



Replies:
Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 22:10

I am aware that to some the question may seem shocking at first...Especially to those used to associate the Eastern Rome as the symbol of the Antique civilisation and the Bulgarians as the late intruders in the area bringing the new feodal era with them.But was that really the case? Werent they both populated mainly by the autochtonous people/although both equally open for newcommers/?Some sluggish brain cells may need to be awakened...Wink

The Bulgarians routing the Byzantine forces at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bulgarophygon - Bulgarophygon in 896. From the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Skylitzes - Madrid Skylitzes .



-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 23:20
I suggest you to stop searching true heirs of known nations and start doing something so that peoplewill declare themsleves as truie heirs of londoner_gb Wink

-------------
.


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 00:10

To the rest of the world Byzantines were known mostly as "the Greeks",due to the official language in the empire,but the ethnic Greeks were minority there, mainly in the coastal towns, the bulk of the population was the thracian and thraco-related peoples in Asia minor,also Armenians,Georgians, Ilirians etc...The Greek element was further weakend after the Third crusade/1202-1204/ when the "Franks" cut out from the Empire the "craddle" of the Hellene people -Peloponese,  Attica and most of the islands, and kept it under their rule all the way till the fall of Byzantium under the Turks.Thrace was much more vital to the empire and in the struggle for its possession disputed by the Bulgarian empire both countries eventually exhausted themselves and became easy pray for Serbs and little later the Ottomans...Was the beautiful Thrace the ultimate cause for the fall of the Eastern civilisation under the "infidel"?!Or was it some other reason?Our discussion will shed some light on the matter!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zonaro_GatesofConst.jpg - -
Mehmet II enters the fallen city


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 01:36
To the rest of the world Byzantines were known mostly as "the Greeks",due to the official language in the empire,but the ethnic Greeks were minority there, mainly in the coastal towns, the bulk of the population was the thracian and thraco-related peoples in Asia minor,also Armenians,Georgians, Ilirians etc...The Greek element was further weakend after the Third crusade/1202-1204/ when the "Franks" cut out from the Empire the "craddle" of the Hellene people -Peloponese,  Attica and most of the islands, and kept it under their rule all the way till the fall of Byzantium under the Turks.

simplifications...

Thrace was much more vital to the empire and in the struggle for its possession disputed by the Bulgarian empire both countries eventually exhausted themselves and became easy pray for Serbs and little later the Ottomans...

Oh, so when the bad guys gone , chaos became the dominant power in Balkans,eh?BANG!-You-are-Dead

Anyway, i had voted none of the above because if the Romans knew who would be their heirs would hang themselves bodily in the Ippodromos after blinding themselves as usually...
Byzantium's heir is the west world (directly and indirectly) intellectually speaking. I advise you not to continue a conversation of the type "who was more important than the other" or "who must consider himself as a purer heir" ...


-------------



Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 03:23
I believe that Bulgarians are the glorious descendants of the ancient Martians who proudly roamed the Earth several millions years ago.
 
Bulgarians-Martians built Egyptian and Mayan pyramids, Borobudur temple in Indonesia and Angkor in Cambodia, they also erected the iron column of king Asoka in India and laid foundation for the Great Wall of China.
 
Francois Champollion lied when he claimed that he decoded ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, instead as was decisively proven by the famous professor l._g., the host of the famous show "Thracian telebubbie/teletubbie," those hieroglyphs just represent the local variation of the ancient Bulgarian language and mostly depict the glorious journey from Mars to Atlantis and the subsequent conquest of the planet Earth and the great war with dinosaurs.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 04:37
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

I believe that Bulgarians are the glorious descendants of the ancient Martians who proudly roamed the Earth several millions years ago.
 
Bulgarians-Martians built Egyptian and Mayan pyramids, Borobudur temple in Indonesia and Angkor in Cambodia, they also erected the iron column of king Asoka in India and laid foundation for the Great Wall of China.
 
Francois Champollion lied when he claimed that he decoded ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, instead as was decisively proven by the famous professor l._g., the host of the famous show "Thracian telebubbie/teletubbie," those hieroglyphs just represent the local variation of the ancient Bulgarian language and mostly depict the glorious journey from Mars to Atlantis and the subsequent conquest of the planet Earth and the great war with dinosaurs.


LOLClap
Clap

-------------
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.



Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 05:19
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

I believe that Bulgarians are the glorious descendants of the ancient Martians who proudly roamed the Earth several millions years ago.
 
Bulgarians-Martians built Egyptian and Mayan pyramids, Borobudur temple in Indonesia and Angkor in Cambodia, they also erected the iron column of king Asoka in India and laid foundation for the Great Wall of China.
 
Francois Champollion lied when he claimed that he decoded ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, instead as was decisively proven by the famous professor l._g., the host of the famous show "Thracian telebubbie/teletubbie," those hieroglyphs just represent the local variation of the ancient Bulgarian language and mostly depict the glorious journey from Mars to Atlantis and the subsequent conquest of the planet Earth and the great war with dinosaurs.
 
LOLLOLLOL
 
I agree with Constantine; this is precisely what this thread needed.
 
Clap
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 06:21
Its rather stupid to try to relate modern day political enetities to medieval or ancient empires. Even when their is a clear continuity the modern day state often has v different or varied ethos. For example modern Britain is very different from say Norman England, or India from the Mughal or Delhi sultanates.

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 07:16
What do you think...Post of the month, Sarmat? 

-------------



Posted By: Ioan-Assen II
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 15:13
I think the heirs of Byzantium are mainly the Greeks (culturally). I dont think the Turks are, even though Constantinopol is in Turkey. Why? Because the culture, the tradition, the role of the church, everything, the drawings etc all is changed when the Otomans take the town. Whatever is saved, its thanks to the church.
Bulgaria is not direct heir of Byzantium, because we had an empire ourselves that was a glorious rival to Byzantium. For a very big time Bulgarian kings reigned over what is todays Bulgaria (and even much much more). However, I think we are indirectly heir of Byzantium culturaly. Our religious literature, our architecture, our state was very influenes by Byzantium, but under this cultural influence we created a Slavic culture of its own that influenced other slavic nations.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 15:23
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Its rather stupid to try to relate modern day political enetities to medieval or ancient empires. Even when their is a clear continuity the modern day state often has v different or varied ethos. For example modern Britain is very different from say Norman England, or India from the Mughal or Delhi sultanates.
 
In a way, yes, yet there is nothing wrong with trying to research one's cultural heritage. The problem lies rather in the premise of this thread, because there is not one heir of Byzantium but a great many. All the cultures under the sway or influence of Byzantium were affected by it, and all of them; Greeks, Slavs, Turks, Arabs and so on, are the heirs of Byzantium.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 16:12

Though I tend to agree in jest with Sarmat12 regarding the plausible Martian theory I will take a restrained stab at this question. After the fall of Constantinople the Byzantines kept their hold as Byzantine emperors while in exile well into http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Andreas_Palaeologus - Andreas Palaeologus ' reign. Another self-proclaimed heir to Byzantium, other than those already mentioned, were the Russians. Ivan III married with a member of the Palaeologi thus claiming royalty into the throne of Constantinople. Moscow was called the 'Third Rome' and the new kings went by the title Tsar (ceasar) until the revolution.

The Ottomans were territorial heirs to Byzantium. They also maintained a few Byzantine institutions. Like the Byzantines before them, the Ottomans practiced a system in which the state had control over the clergy. Aside from Turkish, Persian and Arabic influences, Ottomans kept Constantinople as the capital of her empire.
 
 


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 17:46

On a serious note, didn't one of the last descendants of the Paleologoi sell his birthright to the Spanish monarchs while he was in exile after the fall of Constantinople? I guess this would give them a claim too, especially since the monarchy--though not the line--is still intact.

-Akolouthos



Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 17:47
 Pity no one voted for the Bulgarian+Greek option..It proves our balkanic attitude and egotism..I was willing to share a bit of the heritage with you but...

-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 17:59
Originally posted by Ioan-Assen II Ioan-Assen II wrote:

I think the heirs of Byzantium are mainly the Greeks (culturally). I dont think the Turks are, even though Constantinopol is in Turkey. Why? Because the culture, the tradition, the role of the church, everything, the drawings etc all is changed when the Otomans take the town. Whatever is saved, its thanks to the church.
Bulgaria is not direct heir of Byzantium, because we had an empire ourselves that was a glorious rival to Byzantium. For a very big time Bulgarian kings reigned over what is todays Bulgaria (and even much much more). However, I think we are indirectly heir of Byzantium culturaly. Our religious literature, our architecture, our state was very influenes by Byzantium, but under this cultural influence we created a Slavic culture of its own that influenced other slavic nations.
What about the ethnic heritage Ioan assen?You support my vue that we are mainly Thracian descendants mixed with slavs/and a spice-up from many others/,which was also the case with Western Anatolia and the Balkanic lands that mostly stayed under Byzantine rule...
So lets analise this dualism!One people-Two Empires!What caused it?
What allowed the creation and persistence of the Bulgarian state?
Was it the unhappiness of the Balkanic Thracians with Byzantium not being able to defend them from the raids of many barbarian intruders?Was it the taxation?Was it the decay of the old slave based system ?Was it the religious conflict?I am open for your suggestions..Wink


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 18:56

Wow. The number who believe it was the Bulgarians really shot up. To what may we attribute this, I wonder. Wink

Londoner, this "one-people, two empires" nonsense is really just that: nonsense. If anything, at times the converse was true (that is to say, "one empire, two peoples"). And perhaps it is because I don't have a "balkanic" attitude, but I fail to see what you hope to accomplish by trying to establish an ethnic continuity between the Bulgarians and the ancient Thracians.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 19:16
I dont understand why we are talking the possibility of  bulgarians as the heirs of byzantium. Bulgarians are a different nation with different traditions. They even never had Constatinopolis. They are heirs of the early and late medieval bulgar states.  I think the best answer will be the greeks. But the armenians were also a important element for empire. Ottomans can be the other answer, but again with little possibility. 


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 19:21
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

And perhaps it is because I don't have a "balkanic" attitude, but I fail to see what you hope to accomplish by trying to establish an ethnic continuity between the Bulgarians and the ancient Thracians.

 
-Akolouthos
Maybe i am just following our neighbours exampleWink


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 19:33
Since this topic is a natural successor of the "Bulgarian origins" topic I will acquaint you with another medieval popular story about the origins of the Bulgarians.According to Teofilakt of Ochrid XIc who translated it " The Bulgarians were chased from their original homeland in Mysia/near Bursa/ by Alexander the Great, only to return in mighty force many, many Years later to conquer Moesia,Thrace Macedonia,and Dardania,Paeonia and Thessaly,all the lands to the vicinity of Constantinople until the reign of Basil II Macedon..."

-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 19:39
lgb, your post above deserves to be posted in the 'Bulgarian origins' thread. It fits more appropriately with your glorified revisionist line of thinking and imagination. Try to give this thread a chance at some form of mature debate.Wink

-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 19:43
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

Since this topic is a natural successor of the "Bulgarian origins" topic I will acquaint you with another medieval popular story about the origins of the Bulgarians.According to Teofilakt of Ochrid XIc who translated it " The Bulgarians were chased from their original homeland in Mysia/near Bursa/ by Alexander the Great, only to return in mighty force many, many Years later to conquer Moesia,Thrace Macedonia,and Dardania,Paeonia and Thessaly,all the lands to the vicinity of Constantinople until the reign of Basil II Macedon..."
 
Ah Theophylact; I'm rather fond of his late eminence. After all, he did sum up Byzantine Scriptural commentary in his Explanation. I haven't read any of his historical works.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 19:48
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

lgb, your post above deserves to be posted in the 'Bulgarian origins' thread. It fits more appropriately with your glorified revisionist line of thinking and imagination. Try to give this thread a chance at some form of mature debate.Wink
I think its natural while talking about a people and their history to take under consideration what their memories are about it...I cannot see any reason to call the common folk in medieval Bulgaria "revisionists" and "immature"! Vox populi vox dei someone once said!


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 19:56

Other ethnicities in the Balkans lack this kind of recorded popular memory,yet they are rather acknowleged as autochtonous...while to a people with distinctive autochtonous memories and traditions this right is rather disputedWink



-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 20:29
 Interesting are the compromises the East Roman empire made in orther to appease or show respect and grattitude to its northern neighbour:
  1. First non Roman to recieve the title "Caesar" was the bulgarian knez Tervel /700-721/
  2. First breakthrough in the One Emperor on the Earth doctrine-in 927 PetarI,the son of Simeon the Great was declared Emperor of Bulgaria
  3. First Byzantine princess given to a foreign ruler-as a wife to the above monarch.
  4. Recognition of the "Patriarch" status for the head of the Bulgarian orthodox church
  5. The Bulgarian embassador in Constantinople had  priority over the embassadors of all other nations-bitterly acknowledged by the envoy of the Holy Roman emeror Otto-Lyudprand of Cremona:

"...On this festal occasion the emperor commanded me-I was very ill at the time-and also the Bulgarian envoys who had arrived the day before, to meet him at the church of the holy apostles. And when after the garrulous songs of praise (to Nicephorus) and the celebration of the mass we were invited to table, he placed above me on our side of the table, which was long and narrow, the envoy of the Bulgarians who was shorn in Hungarian fashion, girt with a brazen chain, and as it seemed to me, a catechumen; plainly in scorn of yourselves my august masters. On your behalf I was despised, rejected and scorned. But I thank the Lord Jesus Christ whom you serve with your whole soul that I have been considered worthy to suffer contumely for your sakes. However, my masters, not considering myself but yourselves to be insulted, I left the table. And as I was about indignantly to go away, Leo the marshal of the court and brother of the emperor, and Simeon the chief state secretary came up to me from behind, barking out at me this: "When Peter the king of the Bulgarians married the daughter of Christophorus articles were mutually drawn up and confirmed with an oath to the effect that with us the envoys of the Bulgarians should be preferred, honored and cherished above the envoys of all other nations. That envoy of the Bulgarians although, as you say and as is true, he is shorn, unwashed and girt with a brazen chain, is nevertheless a patrician; and we decree and judge that it would not be right to give a bishop, especially a Frankish one, the, preference over him. And since we know that you do consider this unseemly, we will not now, as you do expect, allow you to return to your quarters, but shall oblige you to take food in a separate apartment with the servants of the emperor.

On account of the incomparable grief in my heart I made no reply to them, but did what they had ordered; judging that table not a suitable place where-I will not say to me, that is, the bishop Liutprand, but to your envoy-an envoy of the Bulgarians is preferred."

 



-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Ioan-Assen II
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 21:00
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

What about the ethnic heritage Ioan assen?You support my vue that we are mainly Thracian descendants mixed with slavs/and a spice-up from many others/,which was also the case with Western Anatolia and the Balkanic lands that mostly stayed under Byzantine rule...
So lets analise this dualism!One people-Two Empires!What caused it?
What allowed the creation and persistence of the Bulgarian state?
Was it the unhappiness of the Balkanic Thracians with Byzantium not being able to defend them from the raids of many barbarian intruders?Was it the taxation?Was it the decay of the old slave based system ?Was it the religious conflict?I am open for your suggestions..Wink
No no no! I do not support the view that Thracians lived in 2 countries! They probably lived on many more (Romania, Bulgaria, Byzantium etc).
I dont see continuation in todays bg, because we just had different culture and state. We are mainly the Thracians (genetically), but we are different since Boris I from all of us surrounding us. We became Bulgarians, we have our language, our culture. The main component was the THracians, but not only them. Slavs and the their languahge are crushal for our formation. The state of the Bulgars also. We are different than the other nations. We are different that Byzantium. I just cant get how can we be heirs of Byzantium if we had such a glorious state with unique culture?


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 21:08
Originally posted by Ioan-Assen II Ioan-Assen II wrote:

No no no! I do not support the view that Thracians lived in 2 countries! They probably lived on many more (Romania, Bulgaria, Byzantium etc). ?
Romania was just an insignificant Bulgarian province...


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 21:12
Originally posted by Ioan-Assen II Ioan-Assen II wrote:

No no no! ...but we are different since Boris I from all of us surrounding us.
 
It was exactly with Boris that the process started to turn Bulgaria into an exact replica of Byzantium...Of course not Greek but Bulgarian speaking I agree on that...


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 21:34
I think it was written by Demetrius Chomatian not Theophylact. You confuse short and long versions of Climent of Okhrid's biography.

-------------
.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 22:02
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

On a serious note, didn't one of the last descendants of the Paleologoi sell his birthright to the Spanish monarchs while he was in exile after the fall of Constantinople? I guess this would give them a claim too, especially since the monarchy--though not the line--is still intact.

-Akolouthos

 
Well, Spain never has claimed to descend of Bizantines but of Romans LOL... Actually, that nation is very conscient it was a former Roman province called Hispania, and built an identity around that concept.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 22:08
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

On a serious note, didn't one of the last descendants of the Paleologoi sell his birthright to the Spanish monarchs while he was in exile after the fall of Constantinople? I guess this would give them a claim too, especially since the monarchy--though not the line--is still intact.

-Akolouthos

 
Well, Spain never has claimed to descend of Bizantines but of Romans LOL... Actually, that nation is very conscient it was a former Roman province called Hispania, and built an identity around that concept.
 
Which has nothing to do with the connection I was noting. I sought to establish the shaky technical connection between the Byzantine Emperors and the Spanish monarchs. The perception the Spaniards have of themselves, their cultural traditions, etc. are completely unrelated to the point at issue. For the record, however, the Roman emperors did reconquer parts of Visigothic southern Spain during the Byzantine period.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 22:18
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

On a serious note, didn't one of the last descendants of the Paleologoi sell his birthright to the Spanish monarchs while he was in exile after the fall of Constantinople? I guess this would give them a claim too, especially since the monarchy--though not the line--is still intact.

-Akolouthos

 
 
Here is what I found Ako:
 
 
Andreas Palaeologus stayed in Italy under the protection of the http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Papal_States - Papal States .

Looking for money and a better life, Andreas tried to sell the rights to the Byzantine crown, which had fallen to him http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=De_jure - de jure since the death of his father Thomas. http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Charles_VIII_of_France - Charles VIII of France originally agreed to purchase the rights of succession from Andreas in http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=1494 - 1494 . However Charles predeceased him on http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=April_7 - April 7 , http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=1498 - 1498 .

Andreas' younger brother http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Manuel_Palaiologos - Manuel Palaiologos arranged a deal with the http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Ottoman_Empire - Ottoman http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Sultan - Sultan http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Bayazid_II - Bayazid II , exchanging his rights to the Byzantine throne for a comfortable pension.

Andreas died a pauper in http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=1503 - 1503 . According to his will his heirs were http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Ferdinand_II_of_Aragon - Ferdinand II of Aragon and http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Isabella_of_Castile - Isabella of Castile . While most scholars believe Andreas left no descendants of his own, Donald M. Nicol's The Immortal Emperor recognises a Constantine Palaiologos who served in the Papal Guard and a Maria who married Russian noble Mihail Vasilivich as possible offspring of Andreas.
 
http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Andreas_Palaeologus - http://www.halfvalue.com/wiki.jsp?topic=Andreas_Palaeologus


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 22:21
Thanks Seko. I thought I had read something to that effect. Smile
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 22:57
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

I think it was written by Demetrius Chomatian not Theophylact. You confuse short and long versions of Climent of Okhrid's biography.
Not to forget mentioning that even "Jagfar Tarihi"-the epos of the Volga-Bulgars also shows the Cimmerians/Scythians as the ancestors of the Bulgars, it also says that they lost their native tongue when they were overrun by the Khazars and adopted the language of the latter...
So complete unanimity in the old Bulgarian sources on the matter!


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 23:24
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

And perhaps it is because I don't have a "balkanic" attitude, but I fail to see what you hope to accomplish by trying to establish an ethnic continuity between the Bulgarians and the ancient Thracians.

 
-Akolouthos
Maybe i am just following our neighbours exampleWink
And by this I dont mean the Macedonians from Fyrom only!Cool
We shall soon see the end of their insignificant rebellion!


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 23:39
You have 4 more choices, watch your step...

-------------



Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 23:56
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

I think it was written by Demetrius Chomatian not Theophylact. You confuse short and long versions of Climent of Okhrid's biography.
Not to forget mentioning that even "Jagfar Tarihi"-the epos of the Volga-Bulgars also shows the Cimmerians/Scythians as the ancestors of the Bulgars, it also says that they lost their native tongue when they were overrun by the Khazars and adopted the language of the latter...
So complete unanimity in the old Bulgarian sources on the matter!
 
Again, this belongs in that other thread. I assume you know how to stick to the topic.


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 17:45
Seko the first step in proving our legitimate claim on Byzantium is by stressing on the fact that we are the oldest population in the Balkans and Asia Minor!

-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 21:23
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

Seko the first step in proving our legitimate claim on Byzantium is by stressing on the fact that we are the oldest population in the Balkans and Asia Minor!


Clap

-------------



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 22:53
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Its rather stupid to try to relate modern day political enetities to medieval or ancient empires. Even when their is a clear continuity the modern day state often has v different or varied ethos. For example modern Britain is very different from say Norman England, or India from the Mughal or Delhi sultanates.
 
In a way, yes, yet there is nothing wrong with trying to research one's cultural heritage. The problem lies rather in the premise of this thread, because there is not one heir of Byzantium but a great many. All the cultures under the sway or influence of Byzantium were affected by it, and all of them; Greeks, Slavs, Turks, Arabs and so on, are the heirs of Byzantium.
 
I agree there are a great many "heirs" to one degree or another of Eastern Roman / Byzantine society. Territorially, culturally, architectural style wise, etc... political ideologies...


-------------



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 23:04
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

 Interesting are the compromises the East Roman empire made in orther to appease or show respect and grattitude to its northern neighbour:
  1. First non Roman to recieve the title "Caesar" was the bulgarian knez Tervel /700-721/
  2. First breakthrough in the One Emperor on the Earth doctrine-in 927 PetarI,the son of Simeon the Great was declared Emperor of Bulgaria
  3. First Byzantine princess given to a foreign ruler-as a wife to the above monarch.
  4. Recognition of the "Patriarch" status for the head of the Bulgarian orthodox church
  5. The Bulgarian embassador in Constantinople had  priority over the embassadors of all other nations-bitterly acknowledged by the envoy of the Holy Roman emeror Otto-Lyudprand of Cremona:

"...On this festal occasion the emperor commanded me-I was very ill at the time-and also the Bulgarian envoys who had arrived the day before, to meet him at the church of the holy apostles. And when after the garrulous songs of praise (to Nicephorus) and the celebration of the mass we were invited to table, he placed above me on our side of the table, which was long and narrow, the envoy of the Bulgarians who was shorn in Hungarian fashion, girt with a brazen chain, and as it seemed to me, a catechumen; plainly in scorn of yourselves my august masters. On your behalf I was despised, rejected and scorned. But I thank the Lord Jesus Christ whom you serve with your whole soul that I have been considered worthy to suffer contumely for your sakes. However, my masters, not considering myself but yourselves to be insulted, I left the table. And as I was about indignantly to go away, Leo the marshal of the court and brother of the emperor, and Simeon the chief state secretary came up to me from behind, barking out at me this: "When Peter the king of the Bulgarians married the daughter of Christophorus articles were mutually drawn up and confirmed with an oath to the effect that with us the envoys of the Bulgarians should be preferred, honored and cherished above the envoys of all other nations. That envoy of the Bulgarians although, as you say and as is true, he is shorn, unwashed and girt with a brazen chain, is nevertheless a patrician; and we decree and judge that it would not be right to give a bishop, especially a Frankish one, the, preference over him. And since we know that you do consider this unseemly, we will not now, as you do expect, allow you to return to your quarters, but shall oblige you to take food in a separate apartment with the servants of the emperor.

On account of the incomparable grief in my heart I made no reply to them, but did what they had ordered; judging that table not a suitable place where-I will not say to me, that is, the bishop Liutprand, but to your envoy-an envoy of the Bulgarians is preferred."

 

 
 
 
The Emperor in the West had already been acknowledged as Emperor before the Bulgarian example, it started with Charlemagne, and continued with the middle Kingdom, and to the amalgam of the Middle, and Eastern/German Frankish Kingdom.


-------------



Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 00:49
He was only acknowledged by the Roman Pope to whom the Byzantines didnt pay much respect ...wich by the way was no different to what they felt towards the German "Saint Roman Empire",as example the attitude of the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus towards their embassador,who by the way was having the audacity to ask for a Byzantine princess for Otto's wife:
"You lie," Emperor Nicephorus said, "the soldiers of your master Otto do -not know bow to ride, nor do they know how to fight on foot; the size of their shields, the weight of their breast-plates, the length of their swords, and the burden of their helms permits them to fight in neither one way nor the other." Then he added, smiling: "their gluttony also impedes them, for their God is their belly, their courage but wind, their bravery drunkenness. Their fasting means dissolution, their sobriety panic. Nor has your master a number of fleets on the sea.
 I alone have a force of navigators; I will attack him with my ships, I will overrun his maritime cities with war, and those which a-re near the rivers I will reduce to ashes. And how, I ask, can he even on land
resist we with his scanty forces?
When I wished to reply to him and to give forth an answer worthy of his boasting, he did not permit me; but added as if to scoff at me: "You are -not Romans but Lombards."
 
Liutprand of Cremona: Report of his Mission to Constantinople


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 18:51
Oh, that was a good one!LOL
Pure byzantine arrogance.


-------------



Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 19:07
 Of course Athanassios we are not only related by our common Byzantine heritage but the Slavic blood in our veins too..wich by the way would not surprise me by being more in you than in us Wink!

All unprejudiced investigators now admit the cogency of the evidence which shows that by the middle of the eighth century there was a very large Slavonic element in the population of the Peloponnesus http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1436&chapter=90430&layout=html&Itemid=27#lf0214-09_footnote_nt_797 - 1 The Slavonic settlements began in the latter half of the sixth century, and in the middle of the eighth century the depopulation caused by the great plague invited the intrusion of large masses. The general complexion of the peninsula was so Slavonic that it was called Sclavonia. The only question to be determined is, how were these strangers distributed, and what parts of the Peloponnesus were Slavised? For answering these questions, the names of places are our chief evidence. Here, as in the Slavonic districts which became part of Germany, the Slavs ultimately gave up their own language and exerted hardly any sensible influence on the language which they adopted; but they introduced new local names which survived. It was just the reverse, as has been well remarked by Philippson, in the case of the Albanese settlers, who in the fourteenth century brought a new ethnical element into the Peloponnesus. The Albanians preserved their own language, but the old local names were not altered.

Now we find Slavonic names scattered about in all parts of the Peloponnesus; but they are comparatively few on the Eastern side, in Argolis and Eastern Laconia. They are numerous in Arcadia and Achaia, in Elis, Messenia and Western Laconia. But the existence of Slavonic settlements does not prove that the old Hellenic inhabitants were abolished in these districts. In fact we can only say that a large part of Elis, the slopes of Taygetus, and a district in the south of Laconia, were exclusively given over to the Slavs. Between Megalopolis and Sparta there was an important town, which has completely disappeared, called Veligosti; and this region was probably a centre of Slavonic settlers.

See the impartial investigation of Dr. A. Philippson, Zur Ethnographie des Peloponnes in Petermanns Mittheilungen, vol. 36, p. 1 sqq. and 33 sqq., 1890.

The conversion and Hellenisation of the Slavs went on together from the ninth century, and, with the exception of the settlements in Taygetus and the Arcadian mountains, were completed by the twelfth century. At the time of the conquest of the Peloponnesus by Villehardouin, four ethnical elements are distinguished by Philippson: (1) Remains of the old Hellenes, mixed with Slavs, in Maina and Tzakonia, (2) Byzantine Greeks (i.e., Byzantinised Hellenes, and settlers from other parts of the Empire) in the towns. (3) Greek-speaking Slavo-Greeks (sprung from unions of Slavs and Greeks). (4) Almost pure Slavs in Arcadia and Taygetus. The 2nd and 3rd classes tend to coalesce and ultimately become indistinguishable (except in physiognomy).

The old Greek element lived on purest perhaps in the district between Mt. Parnon and the Sea Eastern Laconia. The inhabitants came to be called Tzakones and the district Tzakonia; and they developed a remarkable dialect of their own. They were long supposed to be Slavs. See A. Thumb, Die ethnographische Stellung der Zakonen (Indogerm. Forschungen, iv. 195 sqq., 1894).

Fallmerayer, in harmony with his Slavonic theory, proposed to derive the name Morea from the Slavonic more, sea. This etymology defied the linguistic laws of Slavonic word-formation. Other unacceptable derivations have been suggested, but we have at last got back to the old mulberry, but in a new sense. ὁ Μορέας is formed from μορέα, mulberry tree, with the meaning plantation or region of mulberry trees (= μορεών). We find the name first applied to Elis, whence it spread to the whole Peloponnesus; and it is a memorial of the extensive cultivation of mulberries for the manufacture of silk. This explanation is due to the learned and scientific Greek philologist, M. G. N. Hatzidaks (Byz. Zeitsch. vol. 2, p. 283 sqq., and vol. 5, p. 341, sqq.).

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1436&chapter=90430&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf0214-09_footnote_nt_797 - [ - 1 ] The thesis of Fallmerayer, who denied that there were any descendants of the ancient Hellenes in Greece, was refuted by Hopf (and Hertzberg and others); but all Hopfs arguments are not convincing. Fallmerayers brilliant book stimulated the investigation of the subject (Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea im Mittelalter,

2 vols., 1830-6).Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 9 [1776]
 
So are we rather cultural descendants to the ancients rather than ethnic ones?Apparently majority of the participants in the poll voted that we are none of the aboveShocked
 
So,
Qui suis-je?!
and
Who art Thou Athanassios?Confused


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 19:56
londoner_gb your ability to reduce information to fit your desired propaganda is endless. The title is called Heirs of Byzantium. Being vague, each member is left to choose what they think such affinities would be. The spectrum of possibilities would include cultural, political or racial ones among a few.
 
Your last post does mention the Slavic invasion of thrace and especially most parts of Greece. You, however, take that to mean that the substance of Greeks today are now so Slavic that a close affinity to Bulgars is verified. And if the two are closely racially related then the two must be heirs to Byzantium. No? Anyway that is only one line of thinking. An ethnic line of thinking (or in your case more wishful thinking). Even if you consider the common Slavic history you are not alone. Neither were the Byzantines either, since all of the Balkans were invaded by the Slavs. Maybe others are ethnic heirs of Byzantium too. You know, the Serbs, Albanians, Croats, Romanians, Bosnians, and anyone else that were touched during the medieval Slav fest. Maybe the Russians and Slovaks can incur a Byzantine heritage as well. The more the merrier I say.
 
Yes, you tried to spill your Bulgar pride once again only to have it backfire. Will you learn more than you want to? Not at all. Instead you would rather propagate.
 
Who art Thou londoner gb?Confused


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 20:11
So in order to sum things up and show this topic as a natural continuation of the "Bulgarian origins" thread, I declare the following:
The origins of the proto-Bulgars lay in West Asia Minor/Somewhere around the mont Olympus/do not mistake it with the other one in nowadays Greece!/ By that time they were known by the name "Brygoi" Probably derived from Bythinia +Frygia also including a paphlagonian element/the conection with the Pelemeni rulers of the latter and the first Bulgar king mentionned in the list of pop Yovcho/Mixed  wit the Cymmerian invaders to whom they were related anyway ...When Alexander of Macedon came they were forced to leave their lands and moved north-east around Caucasus mountains where they were acknowledged by the Armenian historians,and possibly mixed up with the latter...It is possible that there is also Galatian/Kelt / element in them from neighboring Galatia which would explain why eventually a group of them moved deep west into North-Western Europe where they are mentioned in the Irish sagas...It is also possible that another group moved deep into the opposite direction as far as Pamir in order to control the Silk road and thus generate a good income.The rest however remained in the lands around the Black sea..from there onwards you guys know the story...
Those who remained in Western Anatolia were more than happy with the coming of the Roman rule which they saw as imposed by their brethren- Aeneus's  descendants...and later with the continental thracians took an important part into the build up of the Eastern Roman Empire-lets not forget where Constantine the Great was from...
When by the V c the first groups of the Bulgars came in the Balkans, they were already alienated by the long years of absence from their native lands...their relations /Byzanines and Bulgarians/ were ambiguos-sometimes allies,sometimes foes- a legacy to continue for many centuries...
 
The closest point in recent history to an Union of the Byzantine and Bulgarian heritage was during the Balkan war1912-13 when the Bulgarian army was stopped by the Western powers from taking Constantinople.
The crown-replica of the Justinians' one was ready in the cupboard of the Bulgarian Tzar Ferdinand...Helas,no Great power would allow this natural act of union of two natural halves!
Amen!
The Tzar of Bulgaria Ferdinand/right/ returns the sabre to its owner Shukri Pasha after the unconditional surrender of the Turkish army 1912


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 20:17
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

londoner_gb your ability to reduce information to fit your desired propaganda is endless. The title is called Heirs of Byzantium. Being vague, each member is left to choose what they think such affinities would be. The spectrum of possibilities would include cultural, political or racial ones among a few.
 
Your last post does mention the Slavic invasion of thrace and especially most parts of Greece. You, however, take that to mean that the substance of Greeks today are now so Slavic that a close affinity to Bulgars is verified. And if the two are closely racially related then the two must be heirs to Byzantium. No? Anyway that is only one line of thinking. An ethnic line of thinking (or in your case more wishful thinking). Even if you consider the common Slavic history you are not alone. Neither were the Byzantines either, since all of the Balkans were invaded by the Slavs. Maybe others are ethnic heirs of Byzantium too. You know, the Serbs, Albanians, Croats, Romanians, Bosnians, and anyone else that were touched during the medieval Slav fest. Maybe the Russians and Slovaks can incur a Byzantine heritage as well. The more the merrier I say.
 
Yes, you tried to spill your Bulgar pride once again only to have it backfire. Will you learn more than you want to? Not at all. Instead you would rather propagate.
 
Who art Thou londoner gb?Confused
Seko I am talking about direct heirs rather than influenced civilisations and nations...but the latter is also welcome in the toppic as it will embellish the conversation...I dont know about the Slovaks though..do you mean anything specific?Is it the Great Moravian mission of Cyrill and Methodius and their near miss?


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 21:34
I think that the state most influenced by the Byzantine Empiren is Turkey. No matter that religion changed, it seems to me that there was a continuity between the imperial ambitions of both nations. I am wrong in thinking that?
The second most influenced, I believe, is Russia, that took the role of sucessor of Bizantium. The very title of Czar, and the idea of the "third Rome", points to that link. In the same way, sometimes it seems the U.S. believes it descends of the first Rome through Britain.
 
 


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 22:37
lononer_gb ,in Fallmareyer's ages, the ancient settlements which approve that everything in Greece and ancient Minor Asia were built and inhabited by Greeks were not excavated yet. Try to use sources before the Roman domination(Byzantium) and /or after the discovery of electricity, they are considered as more reliable. But in order to prevent any funny quote of you about Herodotus,Xenophon etc.etc. i warn you that i speak this language .

Oh, you forgot Nikiphoros I, who massively removed the majority Slavic populations of the Greek peninsula and replaced it with Greeks from Asia minor, in order to prevent the loss of Greece due to the Bulgarian danger.The rest were hellenized.Everything else is uppon the geneticists.

 Thank you Krum, saviour of the Greek blood's purityDead. What a ridiculous conversation...


-------------



Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 23:45
- Athanassios you are using modern nationalistic logic to explain acts done in a completely different era for completely different motives! I agree that Byzantine emperors often resettled populations-slavs into Asia minor,Armenians.Syrians,Turks and all other Anatolian peoples to the Balkans..their logic was rather to profit from the net gain of inhabitants rather than preserving the purity of the Hellenic race in the lands of nowadays Greece,because population back then in the midddle ages was insufficient and more esteemed even than possessing lands...Other reason is the eventual assimilation of the different populations when they are broken into smaller entities...I believe You know how many Bulgarian rulers depopulated massive areas in the warzones and resettled their population in Bulgaria this happened to Thrace Macedonia and Thessaly in numerous occasion...Not to mention the economic/to use the modern term/and refugee migration in both direction throughout the time...Only during one year of the long reign of Symeon the Great the Byzantines reported that 200 000 bulgarians left their homes to seek refuge in Byzantium being tired of their ruler's warlike politics and cruel taxation
So You cannot explain the "saving" of the  Ancient Greek genes by a single act of the above Nikephorus...especially in such an ethnic crossroad as the Balkans and Asia minor...
 
 Modern days genetics often reach unexpected conclusions for example that the different latin speaking minorities/Aromani,Megleni etc.../are less connected genetically with each other and with the Romanian people than with the surrounding main Balkanik ethnosses...or even the other one that proved that nowadays italians are more connected to the Thracians than the nowadays Balkanics/samples were taken from Greeks,Bulgarians,Romanians and Albanians...Its quite a mess I reckon...
 
..Not to mention your country's biggest population exchange in recent history with Turkey which I believe ammounted to a third of your total population, and what proportion of the above was actually  ethnic Greek moslems that you exchanged for Turkish speaking christians,for rather the religion was the criteria rather than language and ethnicity during that act...
-the above anatolian immigrants you settled mostly in Macedonia to the point of their becoming the majority of the population in that area .nowadays I follow with bemusement the debates between the descendants of the above mentioned anatolian refugees and the FYROMians about who is the real heir of AlexanderLOL..
O tempora o mores...


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 00:49
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

 
..Not to mention your country's biggest population exchange in recent history with Turkey which I believe ammounted to a third of your total population, and what proportion of the above was actually  ethnic Greek moslems that you exchanged for Turkish speaking christians,for rather the religion was the criteria rather than language and ethnicity during that act...
 
 
Hmmm...
 
I would steer clear of ethnic gambit unless you are certain of your opening arguement. Reason being is that you are twisting ethnicity with religion. Turks of both Anatolia and Greece were predominantly moslem. Greeks of Anatolia and Greece were Christians. No need to mix them up. Cause even under Greek or Turkish rule prior to the exchanges each ethnicity kept to their religion. Even today the Moslem minorities of thrace are ethnically Turkish. Not ethnic Greeks though they are Greek citizens. Surely their were Christian Turks and Moslem Greeks but not to the extent of those already mentioned.
 
The Treaty of Lausanne affected the populations in the following way: Almost all Greeks and Turkish speaking Christian populations from middle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia - Anatolia (Asia Minor) but mainly Greeks from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia - Ionia region (e.g. Smyrna, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayval%C4%B1k - Aivali ), the Pontus region (e.g. Trebizond, Samsunta), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bursa - Prusa (Bursa), the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithynia - Bithynia region (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomedia - Nicomedia / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izmit - Izmit , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedon - Chalcedon / Kadıky) and other regions of Asia Minor, as well as from the European http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Thrace - Eastern Thrace region, numbering up to 1.5 million people, were expelled or formally denaturalized. Expelled from Greece were about 500,000 people, predominantly Turks, as well as other Muslims; from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crete - Crete , those speaking a Greek dialect intermingled with some Turkish loanwords, Muslim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_people - Roma , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomaks - Pomaks , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cham_Albanians - Cham Albanians , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megleno-Romanians - Megleno-Romanians .


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 01:34
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

Seko the first step in proving our legitimate claim on Byzantium is by stressing on the fact that we are the oldest population in the Balkans and Asia Minor!
 
Thats funny!LOL


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 02:08
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

So in order to sum things up and show this topic as a natural continuation of the "Bulgarian origins" thread, I declare the following:
The origins of the proto-Bulgars lay in West Asia Minor/Somewhere around the mont Olympus/do not mistake it with the other one in nowadays Greece!/ By that time they were known by the name "Brygoi" Probably derived from Bythinia +Frygia also including a paphlagonian element/the conection with the Pelemeni rulers of the latter and the first Bulgar king mentionned in the list of pop Yovcho/Mixed  wit the Cymmerian invaders to whom they were related anyway ...When Alexander of Macedon came they were forced to leave their lands and moved north-east around Caucasus mountains where they were acknowledged by the Armenian historians,and possibly mixed up with the latter...It is possible that there is also Galatian/Kelt / element in them from neighboring Galatia which would explain why eventually a group of them moved deep west into North-Western Europe where they are mentioned in the Irish sagas...It is also possible that another group moved deep into the opposite direction as far as Pamir in order to control the Silk road and thus generate a good income.The rest however remained in the lands around the Black sea..from there onwards you guys know the story...
Those who remained in Western Anatolia were more than happy with the coming of the Roman rule which they saw as imposed by their brethren- Aeneus's  descendants...and later with the continental thracians took an important part into the build up of the Eastern Roman Empire-lets not forget where Constantine the Great was from...
When by the V c the first groups of the Bulgars came in the Balkans, they were already alienated by the long years of absence from their native lands...their relations /Byzanines and Bulgarians/ were ambiguos-sometimes allies,sometimes foes- a legacy to continue for many centuries...
 
The closest point in recent history to an Union of the Byzantine and Bulgarian heritage was during the Balkan war1912-13 when the Bulgarian army was stopped by the Western powers from taking Constantinople.
The crown-replica of the Justinians' one was ready in the cupboard of the Bulgarian Tzar Ferdinand...Helas,no Great power would allow this natural act of union of two natural halves!
Amen!
The Tzar of Bulgaria Ferdinand/right/ returns the sabre to its owner Shukri Pasha after the unconditional surrender of the Turkish army 1912
 
 
The glorious journey of the Martians continues ! Show must go on!
 
Clap
 
LOLLOLLOL
 
(The inscription on the picture BTW apparently says that the tsar gives the saber in recognition of bravery of the pasha)


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 12:15

So You cannot explain the "saving" of the  Ancient Greek genes by a single act of the above Nikephorus...especially in such an ethnic crossroad as the Balkans and Asia minor...

So, can't you see the sarcasm in my words?

Anyway, Krum moved massively Greeks of Thrace and Macedonia up to Panonia , so that he could use them as specialized workers and as a critical mass of manpower. Many of them escaped during 10th century (between them was the mother of Basil I, Paggalo) but many others stayed behind.

nowadays I follow with bemusement the debates between the descendants of the above mentioned anatolian refugees and the FYROMians about who is the real heir of AlexanderLOL..
O tempora o mores...

I've thought about  it many years before and i find it a little weird too. But if you think logically they can only claim a cultural heritage, not  something else. It might be  likely  for these anatolian refugees  to be genetically closer to Alexander rather than their Fyromian "rivals" but it doesn't really matters. If you distinguish your ancestors by blood(something impossible ,by the way)like they  were cows, good on you...



-------------



Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 18:01
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

The Tzar of Bulgaria Ferdinand/right/ returns the sabre to its owner Shukri Pasha after the unconditional surrender of the Turkish army 1912
 
 
 
(The inscription on the picture BTW apparently says that the tsar gives the saber in recognition of bravery of the pasha)
 -You may understand Russian but I wouldnt say the same about your Bulgarian Wink..There is some difference between to ''give" and "return"..
a galant gestiure by the Bulgarian monarch -glorious descendant of Louis XIV Bourbon- le Roi Soloeil Approve!
 
"Fighting bravely, Bulgarian troops managed to take the Odrin fortress intact. The fortifications had been built with German assistance were stormed by the 105 000 strong Bulgarian army. The last battle ended on March 13 and resulted in the capitulation of Shukri pasha. A cease-fire agreement was signed on May 17, known in history as the London peace treaty. ..."

 


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 19:08

Originally posted by Athanasios Athanasios wrote:



Anyway, Krum moved massively Greeks of Thrace and Macedonia up to Panonia , so that he could use them as specialized workers and as a critical mass of manpower. Many of them escaped during 10th century (between them was the mother of Basil I, Paggalo) but many others stayed behind.

It wasnt that far in Panonia but in Eastern Walachia not too far from the Danube where they were rescued by the Byzantine fleet in 837...
 
About Basil I Macedon I rather support the version of monk Spiridon who declares him to be of Bulgarian origin...
After the Bulgarian knez Omurtag/814-831/ helped the Byzantines by suppressing the rebellion of Toma "the Slav" who was besieging Constantinople ,he was invited by the emperor Michail I who organised a party in his honor.Wrestling game was organised to amuse the guests but it was always the Bulgarian wrestler who was winning..Basil the Macedon who was a waiter at the royal table decided to wrestle the Bulgarian and won! Surprised the Knez asked him who he was  and Basil answered in Bulgarian that he was from theme Macedonia/I repeat again this is actually in Eastern Thrace:)/ then the Bulgarian ruler said to the Emperor with a smile that this didnt count as a  Romean victory since Basil was a Bulgarian too...
 
Basil wins over his bulgarian opponent


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 19:43
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

 
Hmmm...
 
I would steer clear of ethnic gambit unless you are certain of your opening arguement. Reason being is that you are twisting ethnicity with religion. Turks of both Anatolia and Greece were predominantly moslem. Greeks of Anatolia and Greece were Christians. No need to mix them up. Cause even under Greek or Turkish rule prior to the exchanges each ethnicity kept to their religion. Even today the Moslem minorities of thrace are ethnically Turkish. Not ethnic Greeks though they are Greek citizens. Surely their were Christian Turks and Moslem Greeks but not to the extent of those already mentioned.
 
 
The proportion of the population that converted to the Muslim faith varies in the different countries to the point of being majority in the ethnic albanian areas and Bosnia for example... There is plenty of Bulgarian Moslems-pomaks in Thrace /apart from the ethnic turks/ mostly concentrated in the Rhodopes mountain...some of them still live on the Greek side of the border/around 25 000 or more/.I believe during demografic polls they declare themselves Turks rather than Bulgarians...


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 20:00
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

 -You may understand Russian but I wouldnt say the same about your Bulgarian Wink..There is some difference between to ''give" and "return"..
a galant gestiure by the Bulgarian monarch -glorious descendant of Louis XIV Bourbon- le Roi Soloeil Approve!
 
 
LOL
 
Seems, that my Bulgarian is even better than yours since you don't know that the very basic word "храброст" is translated as "bravery" into English.
 
Instead of preaching your fantazies you should improve the command of your own native language first. LOL


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 20:21
I was pointing at the difference between 'to give' and 'return'Wink

-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 22:49

 
Basil wins over his bulgarian opponent

Who is his opponent? The famous Bulgarian wrestler Chuck Norris-Norrisov?
Had monk Spiridon  written  the  Basil I Makedon's facts?


-------------



Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 23:09
The other theory is that he was of Armenian colonists' origin/still from Macedonian theme/...

-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Windemere
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 01:51
I think that the Greeks are the modern heirs of Byzantium. It was a polyglot empire but ethnically, politically, linguistically, religiously etc. the Greeks were the dominant element. Most of the Emperors were of Greek ethnicity, though a few were Armenian. Even the emperors of ethnic Armenian descent were Greek culturally though.The empire straddled Europe and Asia. Modern Turkey incorporates the Asian part as well as Rumelia in Europe which includes the old capital Constantinople . The Turks essentially started a new empire however, signified by the new name, Istanbul, which they gave to the capital. They considered it a continuation of their Turkish Ottoman Empire, though, rather than a continuation of Byzantium. I think historically it's always been the Greeks who've looked back to Byzantium. 

-------------
Windemere


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 10:11
Originally posted by Windemere Windemere wrote:

I think that the Greeks are the modern heirs of Byzantium. It was a polyglot empire but ethnically, politically, linguistically, religiously etc. the Greeks were the dominant element.
That is not true actually. Neither ethnically nor linguistically Greeks were dominant. Otherwise there would be no attempts to homogenize Byzantine population by moving Slavs, Armenians, Greeks etc. here and there. As for culturaly,  it was Byzantine culture which was created by interaction of different nations -- Romans,  Greeks, Thracians, Illirians, Slavs, Armenians and many others depending on time.
 
 
Quote
Most of the Emperors were of Greek ethnicity, though a few were Armenian. Even the emperors of ethnic Armenian descent were Greek culturally though.
Starting from Constantine up to 6th century you can hardly find a Greek emperor. Some emperors later (like Porphyrogenetus) obviously didn't have any Greek conciousness either. Alsko keep in mind how many Emperors had mothers of all sorts of different nationalities.
 
Quote  
I think historically it's always been the Greeks who've looked back to Byzantium. 
I think culturally it's always been the whole Europe who've looked to Byzantium.


-------------
.


Posted By: nikodemos
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 10:51
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

That is not true actually. Neither ethnically nor linguistically Greeks were dominant. Otherwise there would be no attempts to homogenize Byzantine population by moving Slavs, Armenians, Greeks etc. here and there.


The Emperors transferred slavs to areas in Asia Minor where the greek element was dominant and Greeks from Asia Minor to the Balkans rural areas where there was a need to strengthen the greek presence.This shows that the Greeks were actually the people who run the empire, all the others were foreign population and the emperors were trying to assimilate the slavs by making them christians.For example Emperor Leon the Wise in the "Tactica" mentions the hellenisation of a small tribe of slavs by baptising them to the christian religion and teaching them to speak the greek language.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 11:26
Originally posted by nikodemos nikodemos wrote:


The Emperors transferred slavs to areas in Asia Minor where the greek element was dominant and Greeks from Asia Minor to the Balkans rural areas where there was a need to strengthen the greek presence.This shows that the Greeks were actually the people who run the empire, all the others were foreign population and the emperors were trying to assimilate the slavs by making them christians.
 
 
No. This shows that in numbers Slavs and Greek elements were close to each other. Because if Greek element would be dominant there would be no reason to make these traqnsfers. You also forget that there were all other sort of population transfers like constant movement of Armanian population.


-------------
.


Posted By: nikodemos
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 11:38
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

 No. This shows that in numbers Slavs and Greek elements were close to each other. Because if Greek element would be dominant there would be no reason to make these traqnsfers. You also forget that there were all other sort of population transfers like constant movement of Armanian population.


The greek popluation was the majority of the population in the empire but in some areas like the rural areas of the Balkans the slavs were numerous and exceeded the population of the Greeks.In order to weaken the presence of the slavs there, these slavs were transferred to areas where there was a strong Greek presence and at the same time these slavs were replaced by greeks from Asia Minor.If the Greeks were not the majority of the population  then there would be no reason for these transfers to take place.



Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 11:43
Starting from Constantine up to 6th century you can hardly find a Greek emperor. Some emperors later (like Porphyrogenetus) obviously didn't have any Greek conciousness either. Alsko keep in mind how many Emperors had mothers of all sorts of different nationalities.

The emperors after Maurice 6th century were mostly Greeks and Armenians. The Greek conciousness came after 1204 as we know (of course not a clearly national conciousness), with a wave of a classical studies renaissance(Palaeologian  renaissance) .


-------------



Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 11:54
Originally posted by Athanasios Athanasios wrote:



The emperors after Maurice 6th century were mostly Greeks and Armenians. The Greek conciousness came after 1204 as we know (of course not a clearly national conciousness), with a wave of a classical studies renaissance(Palaeologian  renaissance) .
 
That looks more like truth to me.


-------------
.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 11:57
Originally posted by nikodemos nikodemos wrote:



If the Greeks were not the majority of the population  then there would be no reason for these transfers to take place.

 
No. There would be no reason to do that if the Greek would be a majority.


-------------
.


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 12:53
The proportion between Romans(Greeks) and non Hellenized Slavs would still cause problems, even though the proportion was 4:1 . The most massive Slav wave was about 100.000.The first Slavic settlement were near Achrid lake. Around 730 A.C the region around the lake was inhabited by the Verzites tribe. A coalition of slavic tribes was organized in the area of today's  Greek -Fyrom boarders under the rule of Hatczon. This area is said to be slavicized btw 6th-9th cent. but the slavic population was Hellenized by 10th century, creating the medieval macedonian culture .
As we know there were recorded 12 Slavic invasions(Danube boarders). This started by the early 6th century while the Byz.army was in war with Persians and OstroGoths and the northern boarders were not guarded efficiently . So the invasions were not difficult to be organized.At the beginning they only pillaged and slaughtered. Only when they realized the usage of Roman citizens as specialized workers , they moved Greek populations from Thrace and Macedonia to their homeland(northern of Danube river). Some of these captives is said to be released after the Avar invasion.
Konstas II and Justinian II made some aggressive campaigns against the Slavs who settled in the areas of modern Greece (and other emperors of course) and they slaughtered thousands of Slavs -who wanted independence - and moved about 300.000 to Asia minor. These campaigns took place in Thrace and Macedonia. I think  that in the end only two slavic tribes, who lived near the mount Taygetos ,gain independence  by the Byzantine state. An interesting incident happened near Nestos river were emperor Justinian II trusted to the local slavic population (Smolenoi) the guarding of the narrow passages near Strymon river. It seems that these slavic populations regarded the Bulgarians as enemies.


-------------



Posted By: Desperado
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 14:38
Originally posted by Athanasios Athanasios wrote:

An interesting incident happened near Nestos river were emperor Justinian II trusted to the local slavic population (Smolenoi) the guarding of the narrow passages near Strymon river. It seems that these slavic populations regarded the Bulgarians as enemies.

That was a bad idea. In 837, the same Smoliani tribe revolted and together with the Presian I army took the town of Philippi, cutting the road from Thessaloniki to Constantinople. The entire Byzantine policy towards the Slavs you mentioned above was wrong and made them a natural allies of the Bulgarian state (and later an integral part of it).
300 000... that's a huge number. The entire population on the Balkans (without the city of Constantinople) was estimated 1 000 000-1 300 000 in the early Medieval period. That's from where came the expression "the slavic ethnic sea".


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 15:16
You might have right .Since the estimation comes from chronographers , it might be unreliable.

In 837, the same Smoliani tribe revolted and together with the Presian I army took the town of Philippi, cutting the road from Thessaloniki to Constantinople.

Do you have any details of this revolt's time frame?


-------------



Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 17:45
It is difficult and symplistic  trying to calculate slavs:greek balance in Byzantium and draw conclusions on which element predominated in order to determine ethnic influence oir hegemony especially if by that you mean an eventual level of Bulgarian influence and strength....Slavs were equally loyal or disloyal subjects on both sides of the Bulgaro-Byzantine border,Both countries relied on them and often had to supress their rebellions...also the eastern and western border of the empire changed dramatically . Often the empire lost all its Asian possessions and had solely to rely on its balkanic ones and vice versa...However the anatolians I would rather call "helenised" than greeks apart from the coastal line maybe wich is the same in the Balkans...I doubt also the Greco-Armenian symbiosis.Geoffroy de Villehardouin for example states that these two ethnosses traditionnally hate each other,therefore the reason for the Armenians to be loyal subjects at some stages was due not to the Greekness of the East Roman empire but to it's complete lack of belonging to any particular ethnos! Lets not confuse the use of Greek language with the Hellenic ethnos it was even clearly stated in a citation above in our topic which I will find and paste beneath in a minute...In the Western Rome latin was official but that didnt mean that all subjects of the empire could trace their roots in Latium!
here is the example: At the time of the conquest of the Peloponnesus by Villehardouin, four ethnical elements are distinguished by Philippson: (1) Remains of the old Hellenes, mixed with Slavs, in Maina and Tzakonia, (2) Byzantine Greeks (i.e., Byzantinised Hellenes, and settlers from other parts of the Empire) in the towns. (3) Greek-speaking Slavo-Greeks (sprung from unions of Slavs and Greeks). (4) Almost pure Slavs in Arcadia and Taygetus. The 2nd and 3rd classes tend to coalesce and ultimately become indistinguishable (except in physiognomy).
-Those Byzantine Greeks that I would rather name Greek speaking Byzantines are actually all those Thracians , Bythinians,Paphlagonians,Galicians and Phrygians -they comprised the bulk of the Byzantine population.Their relation to the "proper Helenes I would accept to be around 4:1 or even more in their favor of course...


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 18:43
 Therefore by my calculations the ethnic heritage of the BG and Greek nations are:
                     BG                                             
 1/Thracian substract-50-70%           
 2/Slavic-10-20%                           
 3/Byzantinized former
Thracians,Bythinians,Phrigians,Galicians , Hellenes  -10-20%
4/other-1-10%
5/Turanic-2-5%
 
       Nowadays Greeks 
1/  Byzantine - former Thracians,Bythinians,Phrigians,Galicians etc/pure Hellenes excluded!/-30-70%
2/pure Hellenes- 20-40%
3/slavic-10-15%
4/other-5-10%
5/Turanic-2-5%
 
Note:
 By other I understand Albanian,Armenian Syrian and other elements that at some points in history settled in the Area
Turanic- is the Turkic genes eventually attributed to the later Turks, with the important note that I believe that even nowadays Turks are mainly descending from local stuff rather than the imported turkic element from Central Asia!


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 18:50
...and what about the pre-Ottoman Turanic percentage? The Avars not only had asiatic Bulgars in their empire, which reached into the Balkans (and territories of modern day Bulgaria), but they had relations with Slavs which would have diluted this whole genepool thing.

-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 19:11
 _seko you know my position that the proto Bulgars were of cimmerian/Sarmatian/Scythian stock...whether they had or not Turkic elite at some point of their history doesnt much change the whole picture..the same I could say about the turko-Mongolian genes in the Avars-far from predominant!

-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 19:21
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

 the same I could say about the turko-Mongolian genes in the Avars-far from predominant!
 
Only problem is that you know nothing, you only assume it without any proof.
 
Avar language was recorded to be same as the Huns. How would you know their genetic composition? At best it was mixed but most agree it was predominantly Turkic.


-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 19:26
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

I think culturally it's always been the whole Europe who've looked to Byzantium.
The Byzantine influence on Bulgaria,Serbia,Romania and the bulk of the former Russia is considerably higher than over the rest of the Europe/mostly Western /who were in the Roman-catholic orbit...


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 19:30
Originally posted by Yiannis Yiannis wrote:

Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

 the same I could say about the turko-Mongolian genes in the Avars-far from predominant!
 
Only problem is that you know nothing, you only assume it without any proof.
 
Avar language was recorded to be same as the Huns. How would you know their genetic composition? At best it was mixed but most agree it was predominantly Turkic.
Yiannis the proper Turko-Mongolian ethnicities were never strong in numbers..Look at the population density in Mongolia I dont think it was any different back then...on their way towards Europe they intermixed with so many Ugro-Finnic,Iranian and European ethnosses that finally they showed themselves to us much changed ethnically compared to what they were at their departing point! Kind of an "avalanche effect"...-I would compare them to the Arab genes in the Arabic world-do you think that a scattered nomadic population in a predominantly desert peninsula was able to change ethnically the huge areas in North Africa,Asia and Even the Iberian peninsula in Europe?It was a political and cultural hegemony not a genetic one!


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 19:40
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

 _seko you know my position that the proto Bulgars were of cimmerian/Sarmatian/Scythian stock...whether they had or not Turkic elite at some point of their history doesnt much change the whole picture..the same I could say about the turko-Mongolian genes in the Avars-far from predominant!
 
Not so fast lgb. I understand your position no matter how contrary to mainstream history you feel. Try as you might, you cannot hide the Eurasian Turanid influence of the Bulgars. It seems that you have a special affinity to tribes living almost a thousand years before the 'great migrations', the Thracians. Yet you ommit more recent develoements that would also effect the ethnic composition of Bulgars in Europe. In the case of the Slavs, they were also mixed with the asiatics. Especially under the Avars. I have no clue as to the percentages but it is a likely scenario. Especially when Avars had relations and created mixed offspring. Not only that but your percentage you attribute for Thracian ancestry in modern Bulgarians is weak.
 

Slavs in the Balkans have been also been described as "scores of dissociated tribes," living in villages, herding, farming and sharing as within a family. They fished, kept bees, made pottery and  weaved baskets. Merchants from http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/map05blk.htm - Constantinople and http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/map05blk.htm - Thessalonica came and sold them jewelry, silks and spices and gave contact with Byzantine culture, including Christianity.

Following the defeat of the Avars by Emperor Heraclius in the 620s, many Slavs broke free of Avar control. Some Slavs came under the authority of Avars, and some voluntarily or involuntarily joined the mounted Avar forces as infantry. Some Slavs moved farther west than others, to become known as Slovenes, Slovaks, Croats and Serbs. The Slavs mixed with people indigenous to the Balkans, except for those indigenous peoples who had fled to coastal and other areas hoping for imperial protection. Heraclius did what he could to protect these refugees and to win back control over the Balkans. He recovered Greece from Slavic control, but he felt compelled to grant Croats and Serbs settlement rights in the Balkan northwest, hoping they would guard the area from other incursions.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h05bulg.htm - http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h05bulg.htm
 
 
The Bulgars have been described as a Turkic people, speaking a language said to be related to that of the Huns, Khazars and Avars. They were a herding people rather than farmers - as were the people of Mongolia. The Bulgars had worked and fought their way westward from Asia, raiding for plunder in Constantinople's empire in the Balkans, during the rule of Justinian I, and then retreating.
 
The Bulgars are described as having been under Avar domination. A man named Kubrat, Kuvrat or Kurt, meaning "Wolf," rose to prominence among the Avars and Bulgars. He had a Bulgar mother and an Avar father - males of a dominant people often taking women from among those they dominate. Kubrat grew up as a hostage in Byzantium. Between the years 630 and 635, in the Ukraine (north of Constantinople's empire), Kubrat, freed from captivity, organized a federation consisting of Avars and Bulgars - http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h05bulg.htm - Onoguria .  
 
Living more than 200 years side by side with the Slavs, and intermarrying with them, the Bulgar's difference from the Slavs diminished. The Slavs had been more culturally advanced, and it was their alphabet and language that the Bulgars adopted. Bulgaria was organized and united to the degree that it became the first Slavic state on the Balkan peninsula worthy of being called a state. 
 
 
The modern Bulgarians are descendants of two peoples - the http://abcworld.net/Bulgars.html - Bulgars , a nomadic http://abcworld.net/Turkic.html - Turkic people from http://abcworld.net/Central_Asia.html - Central Asia who settled in the http://abcworld.net/Balkans.html - Balkans in the http://abcworld.net/7th_century.html - 7th century , as well as of a number of southern http://abcworld.net/Slavic_tribes.html - Slavic tribes who had done the same a century earlier. Together the two groups formed the First Bulgarian Empire in http://abcworld.net/681.html - 681 . The http://abcworld.net/Bulgars.html - Bulgars were later assimilated by the http://abcworld.net/Slavs.html - Slavs , who outnumbered them, but their name was retained.

To an extent the Bulgarians were also influenced by the indigenous Romanised and non-Romanised http://abcworld.net/Thracians.html - Thracian and http://abcworld.net/Daco.html - Daco - http://abcworld.net/Getae.html - Getic population, which had lived in the territory of modern Bulgaria before the Slavic invasion. However, the number of http://abcworld.net/Thracians.html - Thracians and http://abcworld.net/Getae.html - Getae had been reduced significantly by the 6th century due to repeated invasions of barbarians; thus their influence in the formation of the modern Bulgarians was less pronounced than that of the other two peoples.

  http://abcworld.net/Bulgarians.html - http://abcworld.net/Bulgarians.html
 


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 19:57
Seko this is old data...First I dont agree that Bulgars were less civilised than the slavs-their calendar and stone-building abilities military organisation etc...even few centuries later the Rus capital was still a wooden fort! All proto-bulgar exhumations in present day bulgaria show proto-Bulgars as Indo Europeans with a very weak/around5%/asiatic genes and on top a scull deformation as seen amongst sarmats!
 
  see: http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html - http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html
 
You are showing travel guide info /based on the Books of XIX and XX c historians/, while I am relying on the newest genetic and archaeological findings!


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 20:27
Originally posted by Yiannis Yiannis wrote:

 
Only problem is that you know nothing, you only assume it without any proof.
 
Avar language was recorded to be same as the Huns. How would you know their genetic composition? At best it was mixed but most agree it was predominantly Turkic.
 
That is a good question. This predominancy was determined by linguistic studies I guess. Results obtained by populational genetics  usually contradict to those obtained by linguistics. At least with present European populations. In case with ancient Bulgars there are quite many graves that you can assume they were Bularian. One can use them for genetic analysis.  Are there any graves suggested to be Avar?


-------------
.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 20:27

Lgb, I not surprised at your rejection. First of all I didn't write that artcle in my link. So I have no invested opinion on the civilization comparisons other than saying that the pastoralist Bulgars did have stationary homes made of wood in the Volga region. Which is a change from the usual roaming yurts of mobile steppe tribes.

The graves would tell a lot. First, were they of the proto Bulgars themselves (first Bulgars) or of older tribes prior to Bulgarian arrival? That would tell you much about the genes of 'those' skeletal remains. A big factor yes?
 
Next, cranial deformation. So what? Perhaps you also knew that even the Egyptians and later Attila's huns practised this rite too.
 
The Bulgars have origins in central asia. They migrated and coexisted with multitudes of people. Eventually settling in present day Bulgaria and the Volga regions. I most assuredly agree with you that today's Bulgarians are not the same as the original. I disagree with you in giving a strong Cimmerian, Schythian or Thracian element to current Bulgars of Bulgaria. Not some ancient exhumed body of who knows whom! Thracian perhaps. Most likely. Yet gone. Dead. Not part of the modern ethnic equation. Thracian offspring may have a chance. Yet articles attest that this is insignificant to matter. How many of the origianal settlers of Bulgaria are still attributed to them? Can one really say they are the major genetic pool today? Too many tribes have created another mix.
 
 


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 20:33
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

 
 So what? Perhaps you also knew that even the Egyptians and later Attila's huns practised this rite too.
 
 
The thing is that that kind of objection you can apply to basically ever point of the theory of central asiatic origin of Bulgars:
Boil? So what? Perhaps you knew that even Russians had Boyars?
Bogotur? What is the difference with Russian Bogotir?
Malamir? What kind of Turkic name is that?
etc. etc.


-------------
.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 20:41
It's a proper objection to the kind of evidence provided by lgb. He says 'as seen amongst Sarmats'. I say so what? What did he prove? Good for the Sarmatians that they had cranial deformation. Instead of fashioning tailor made, ad hoc examples, where one needs to make a leap of faith in order to believe his arguement, it would be better to mock his connection until more pertinent comparisons are presented.
 
Yet, Anton instead of relating to my whole post one way or another you side with an ambiguous arguement and assume one cannot react in kind. However, the whole of my post is beyond glamour and ignores nationalist revisionism.


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 21:05
Is this supposed to be a topic about Byzantium?

-------------



Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 21:08
-Well I kind of declared it "a natural continuation of the Bulgarian origins topic" so excuse our occasional return to the former:)...

-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Ioan-Assen II
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 21:13
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Lgb, I not surprised at your rejection. First of all I didn't write that artcle in my link. So I have no invested opinion on the civilization comparisons other than saying that the pastoralist Bulgars did have stationary homes made of wood in the Volga region. Which is a change from the usual roaming yurts of mobile steppe tribes.
 But we have our old capitals Pliska, Preslav from which we have ruins. They were built by the Bulgars. How did the steppe tribes did it? Also we have the stone inscription on a wall near Madara (made around the reign of Tervel in the begining of 7 century). We have ruins of stone buildings around there too.
 
Quote The graves would tell a lot. First, were they of the proto Bulgars themselves (first Bulgars) or of older tribes prior to Bulgarian arrival?That would tell you much about the genes of 'those' skeletal remains. A big factor yes?
Yeap, the graves are Bulgarian. They were studied, it turned out that in the Bulgars there was very little turanoid genes (5%), which doesnt proove their "turkic" character. Also its not known where they came from. We only hear about them when they are alreadsy in nowadays Ukraine. Everything else before that is speculation. Plus I dont think the Bulgars have crutial influence on nowadays culure or language (but have on the state). 
  
Quote The Bulgars have origins in central asia.
Well this is NOT a fact. Actually its the first place we know they lived (but we dont know where they come from), before migrating to Volga region, Moesia, Macedonia, Italy etc.
Quote Eventually settling in present day Bulgaria and the Volga regions.
 A fact.
Quote I most assuredly agree with you that today's Bulgarians are not the same as the original. I disagree with you in giving a strong Cimmerian, Schythian or Thracian element to current Bulgars of Bulgaria. Not some ancient exhumed body of who knows whom! Thracian perhaps. Most likely. Yet gone. Dead. Not part of the modern ethnic equation. Thracian offspring may have a chance. Yet articles attest that this is insignificant to matter.
Well articles which are illogical still are written, yet we have to look around us. We are Meditarenians, we arent asiatics, we arent mainly slavs either. What are we? We have this most numerous tribe "Thracians", that lived on this land, we have the close genetic  relation to the Romanians (supposed heirs of the Dacians, who are one of the many Thracian tribes or at least are very closely related to the THracians). We have the customs still, we have their words (the same or slightly changed with the same meaning, why?). I think we can assume we are mainly them, but not only them - we have the slavic culture and language and genes and also the Bulgars.
 
Quote How many of the origianal settlers of Bulgaria are still attributed to them? Can one really say they are the major genetic pool today?
According to the genetic research we can.  
 


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 21:49
That is what I would like to know too. "What, who are you?" I have admiration for someone who can explain this without resorting to a fruitless imagination. Let's eliminate Proto-Bulgars from this picture for the sake of this arguement. Eliminate asian genes too, which one of you is more than gladly willing to do. Eliminate Slavic ancestry. Eliminate Greek relations. Eliminate Avar relations.
 
Instead let's focus on the Thracians. Not only Dacians, the heirs of the land, or the Romans mind you. Let's go further back in time and include the Cimmerians in this too. Then let's conclude that you have more ancient Thracian genes in modern Bulgaria than all of the latter day peoples put together.
 
You see how hard it is too believe. Shouldn't ancient graves relate only to those ancients? The rest is theory or wishful thinking. I will play ignorant fo a while and assume that Thracians are the predominant ancestors of modern Bulgars. Happy so far? I don't know why other than they 'llived on this land'. Centuries before todays Bulgars! Being somewhat rational, I wonder, whatever happened to those other peoples, after the Thracians, that lived in Bulgaria? Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Greeks, Turks, are they not part of today's Bulgar composition?
 
But I'm not finished. I want to be just as proud of my heritage too. So I will absurdly say that I am Akkadian, Hittite, Lydian, Greek, Persian, Turk, and anything else that gloriously passed my ancestors way. Most importantly I will fixate on one of the most distant and assume I have 70% Hittite genes. Then I would dig up all kinds of ad hoc articles to prove my point. In fact, I will mentally eliminate anyone, after the ancients, so I could sleep well at night!
 
Who am I really?
 
Who are you?
 


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 22:09
Originally posted by Ioan-Assen II Ioan-Assen II wrote:

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

How many of the origianal settlers of Bulgaria are still attributed to them? Can one really say they are the major genetic pool today?
According to the genetic research we can.  
 
A very important factor,often underestimated concerning the BG ethnogenesis was the practice of Bulgarian rulers to depopulate vast Roman areas and cities and to settle their population in Bulgaria-to mention only a few-Krum and the thousands upon thousands of Romeans he settled in his lands,Samuil-who deported the entire population of Larissa in Thessalia into his realm/he even married a woman from amongst the captives:)/ and some extract from Geoffrois de Villehardouin about the "contribution" of Kaloian in the above field:
 
"...
DESTRUCTION OF PHILIPPOPOLIS BY JOHANNIZZA
Then did Johannizza send his host before Philippopolis; nor had he been there long before those who were in the city surrendered it to him, and he promised to spare their lives. And after he had promised to spare their lives, he first caused the archbishop of the city to be slain, and the men of rank to be flayed alive, and certain others to be burned, and certain others to have their heads cut off, and the rest he caused to be driven away in chains. And the city he caused to be pulled down, with its towers and walls; and the high palaces and rich houses to be burned and utterly destroyed. Thus was destroyed the noble city of Philippopolis, one of the three finest cities in the empire of Constantinople.

There was so great a slaughter of people killed, that it was a marvel. And Bgue of Fransures was taken before Johannizza, who had him killed incontinently, together with all, whether Greek or Latin, who were of any account; and all the meaner folk, and women and children, he caused to, be led away captive to Wallachia. Then did he cause all the city-which was verv good and very rich, and in a good land, to be cast down and utterly destroyed. Thus was the city of Napoli rased to the ground as you have heard.

NEW INVASION OF JOHANNIZZA; RUIN OF NAPOLI

Now listen and hear how little this served them, and what a misadventure was their flight; for the city was so strong, and so well enclosed by good walls and good towers, that no one would ever have ventured to assault it, and that Johannizza had no thought of going thither. But when Johannizza, who was full half a day's journey distant, heard tell that they had fled, he rode thither. The Greeks who had remained in the city, surrendered, and he incontinently caused them to be taken, small and great-save those who escaped-and led captive into Wallachia; and the city he ordered to be destroyed and rased to the ground. Ah! the loss and dar.,iage! for the city was one of the best in Roumania, and of the best situated.

Thence he marched to the city of Daonium, which was very strong and fine; and the people did not dare to defend it. So he caused it to be destroyed and rased to the ground. Then he marched to the city of Tzurulum, which had already surrendered to him, and caused it to be destroyed and rased to the ground, and the people to be led away captive. And thus he dealt with every castle and city that surrendered; even though he had promised them safety, he caused the buildings to be destroyed, and the men and women to be led away captive; and no covenant that he made did he ever keep.

Then the Comans and Wallachians scoured the land up to the gates of Constantinople, where Henry the Regent then was, with as many men as he could command; and very dolorous was he and very wroth, because he could not get men enough to defend his land. So the Comans seized the cattle off the land, and took captive men, women, and children, and destroyed the cities and castles, and caused such ruin and desolation that never has man heard tell of greater.

So they came to a city called Athyra, which was twelve leagues from Constantinople, and had been given to Payen of Orlans by Henry, the emperor's brother. This city held a very great number of people, for the dwellers in the country round about had fled thither; and the Comans assaulted it, and took it by force. There the slaughter was so great, that there had been none such in any city where they had been. And you must know that all the castles and all the cities that surrendered to Johannizza under promise of safety were destroyed and rased to the ground, and the people led away captive to Wallachia in such manner as you have heard.

And you must know that within five days' journey from Constantinople there remained nothing to destroy save only the city of Bizye, and the city of Selymbria, which were garrisoned by the French. And in Bizye abode Anseau of Cayeux, with six score knights, and in Salymbria abode Macaire of Sainte-Menehould with fifty knights; and Henry the brother of the Emperor Baldwin remained in Constantinople with the remainder of the host. And you may know that their fortunes were at the lowest, seeing that outside of Constantinople they had kepl& possession of no more than these two cities.

THE GREEKS ARE RECONCILED TO THE CRUSADERS - JOHANNIZZA DESIEGES DEMOTICA

When the Greeks who were in the host with Johannizza - the same who had yielded themselves up to him, and rebelled against the Franks - when they saw how he destroyed their castles and cities, and kept no covenant with them, they held themselves to be but dead men, and betrayed. They spoke one to another, and said that as Johannizza had dealt with other cities, so would he deal with Adrianople and Demotica, when he returned thither, and that if these two cities were destroyed, then was Roumania for ever lost. ..."



-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 22:15
Okay guys, here's a piece of Byzantine culture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze01w9jf74o - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze01w9jf74o


Posted By: londoner_gb
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 23:32
Our ancestors were a proud and free-minded people...
Spartacus fights his way through the Roman ranks on horseback
 
..but once their creative forces were put in use they were able to Great achievements!
Bronze statue of Constantine I in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York - York , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England - England , near the spot where he was proclaimed Emperor in 306
ClapApproveWink


-------------
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 04:02
Taking every thing in account,  I settle for the Greeks. That the empire consisted of several etnicities  that played a role as well cannot be denied ofcourse.
 
That  the capital was situated in what is now Turkey does not change much for my choice. I think that many will agree that when  the Ottoman capital ( same city ofcourse ) would  for some reason have ended up in Greece,  it  would be strange when the Greeks would  suddenly claim to be the foremost heirs of the Ottomans.


Posted By: Ioan-Assen II
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 05:37
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

That is what I would like to know too. "What, who are you?" I have admiration for someone who can explain this without resorting to a fruitless imagination. Let's eliminate Proto-Bulgars from this picture for the sake of this arguement. Eliminate asian genes too, which one of you is more than gladly willing to do. Eliminate Slavic ancestry. Eliminate Greek relations. Eliminate Avar relations.
No one is taking the Bulgars out of the picture. They are part of the genetic pool. No one is taking the Slavs out too. Greeks have participated in the formation of the Bulgarians too. So did the Avars, though I m not sure if any significant number even settled in what is nowadays Bulgaria, but even if 100 avars past and settled, they are part of it.
 
 
Quote Instead let's focus on the Thracians. Not only Dacians, the heirs of the land, or the Romans mind you. Let's go further back in time and include the Cimmerians in this too. Then let's conclude that you have more ancient Thracian genes in modern Bulgaria than all of the latter day peoples put together.
You see how hard it is too believe. Shouldn't ancient graves relate only to those ancients? The rest is theory or wishful thinking. I will play ignorant fo a while and assume that Thracians are the predominant ancestors of modern Bulgars. Happy so far? I don't know why other than they 'llived on this land'.
 
But why are the Greeks predominantly your ansestors? Didnt they live at the same time, when the Thracians lived in Bulgaria and Romania and the Illirians in Serbia, Albania, Croatia? Why all those 2 people magically disapeared, but the Greeks stayed till today? Lets go further...How did the Romanians survived the attacks of much more people on their teritory and yet managed to "save" their language and the Dacians in them?(cause they are regarded of their heirs.) Do we even have such a presedent in hystory when a nation is set to be mainly heirs of later people that came in this land? Are the normans the ansestors of the English people? Should ve overlook the celts and the anglo-saxons?
 
Quote   Centuries before todays Bulgars! Being somewhat rational, I wonder, whatever happened to those other peoples, after the Thracians, that lived in Bulgaria? Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Greeks, Turks, are they not part of today's Bulgar composition?
They are also part of the formation of the Bulgarian nation. And no one is denying it. We are against the assumption that when the Slavs and the Bulgars came they just found an empty land with houses in which they just went to liuve in or that they killed the 200 Thracians they met. How did the most numerous tribe magically disapeared only south of the Danube? Didnt these people come through Romania?
 
Quote But I'm not finished. I want to be just as proud of my heritage too. So I will absurdly say that I am Akkadian, Hittite, Lydian, Greek, Persian, Turk, and anything else that gloriously passed my ancestors way.
 
Well u are doing the same. The Greeks were the most glorious tribe that lived on your land at the exact time span the Thracians lived. Magically only the Greeks have direct heirs today. 
 
Quote Then I would dig up all kinds of ad hoc articles to prove my point.
Ad hoc? Most do agree the Thracians are Bulgarian ansestors. Of course, probably NOT in Greece.
Quote In fact, I will mentally eliminate anyone, after the ancients, so I could sleep well at night!
We dont eliminated the Slavs, the Bulgars, the Greeks or the Turks! (as for the Acars I m not so sure).
 
 


Posted By: Ioan-Assen II
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 05:54
By the way u obviously dont know that the Thracians south of the Danube (Moesians, Peonians, Odrissians, Bessi etc.) lived at the very same time the Greeks lived on the south or the Dacians lived on the north (Dacians, according to Greek sources were one of the THracians tribes or at least very closely related to the Thracians.) The Bessi saved their language at least till 6 century (according to Greek sources).
But probably we should overlook these insignificant facts that so many people lived there and just concentrate on the Slavs and the Bulgars.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 15:03

Overlook the Thracians? Not at all Ioan-Assen II. All I am saying is please explain and provide reason as to how such an ancient people could be the prevalent ethnicity in Bulgaria today. When someone claims they are 70% sounds most inappropriate.

Playing devil's advocate was my intention. I hope my criticism will bring us a good understanding. My intent is not to make you all defensive but to provide counter arguements to some of your claims. Language may be a good indicator of ethncity but not always. For example most Greeks of anatolia during the migrations of the last century spoke fluid Turkish. Doesn't mean they were ethnic Turks though!
 
 I don't think we have current testimonies by the Bessi that points to them being a Bulgarian majority. You even state that their language was 'saved' till the 6'th century. Since then who knows. So I ask, what about after? Did they assimilate with invaders or stay the majority? A majority in language and ethnicity for 1500 hundred years? If not then I think we can assume who replaced them. If so, then it would be smart to have accounts of current linguistics, customs and perhaps even genetic records. So far most accounts today mention that the Bulgars speak a form of Slavic language, not Romance.
 
Maybe my eyes are sore and I must have missed something. I could not find any mention of Thracian origins in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_language - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_language
 
Note - if you have the need to respond let's take it to the Bulgarian origins thread and leave this one to the Heirs.
 


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 15:16
Originally posted by Ioan-Assen II Ioan-Assen II wrote:

By the way u obviously dont know that the Thracians south of the Danube (Moesians, Peonians, Odrissians, Bessi etc.) lived at the very same time the Greeks lived on the south or the Dacians lived on the north (Dacians, according to Greek sources were one of the THracians tribes or at least very closely related to the Thracians.) The Bessi saved their language at least till 6 century (according to Greek sources).
But probably we should overlook these insignificant facts that so many people lived there and just concentrate on the Slavs and the Bulgars.


Greeks and Thracians (at least those who lived in today's Bulgaria and N/W Turkey, not the Thracian's ,who according Herodotus, lived from Med.sea to Baltic)should not be considered as something individual or different. Isolation and distance created some linguistic and cultural differences which were mainly disappeared after the homogenizing  which  was  caused by the  Macedonian and Roman domination.


-------------



Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 15:19
Originally posted by londoner_gb londoner_gb wrote:

Our ancestors were a proud and free-minded people...
Spartacus fights his way through the Roman ranks on horseback
 
..but once their creative forces were put in use they were able to Great achievements!
Bronze statue of Constantine I in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York - - England , near the spot where he was proclaimed Emperor in 306
ClapApproveWink


Oh , yes ,these guys even look like me LOL.


-------------



Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 15:24
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

It's a proper objection to the kind of evidence provided by lgb. He says 'as seen amongst Sarmats'. I say so what? What did he prove? Good for the Sarmatians that they had cranial deformation. Instead of fashioning tailor made, ad hoc examples, where one needs to make a leap of faith in order to believe his arguement, it would be better to mock his connection until more pertinent comparisons are presented.
 
 
Then read the article of Rashev it has much more arguments for "so
whating".
 
Quote
 
Yet, Anton instead of relating to my whole post one way or another you side with an ambiguous arguement and assume one cannot react in kind. However, the whole of my post is beyond glamour and ignores nationalist revisionism
 
 
Come on, Seko! Please cut the "revisionism" crap. Any historian that is slightly agains the "established" theory is called nationalistic revisionist. If that would happen in Biology there would be no knowledge about viruses, genes, natural selection etc.


-------------
.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 15:27
Originally posted by Athanasios Athanasios wrote:


 Isolation and distance created some linguistic and cultural differences which were mainly disappeared after the homogenizing  which  was  caused by the  Macedonian and Roman domination.
 
Athanasios you constantly talk about this homogenization but never provided any evidence for it.  Did you read Strabo and his chapter about Thracians? It was written after Macedonian domination and shows no sign of some hellenization of Thracians especially those on the north.


-------------
.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net