So what happened to RTWs factions in history? [Archive]

econ21

12-02-2004, 18:17

I am ashamed to reveal my ignorance of ancient history, but am so curious I have to ask: what happened to the factions in RTW? Some of the factions - Seleucia, Pontus, Thrace etc - I know virtually nothing about.

Ok, being a Brit, I have a vague ("1066 and all that") understanding of some of the Western ones:

Romans conquered 50+ provinces, then sort of declined and fell. Split into Eastern and Western Empires, with the former - Byzantium - surviving until the end of MTW. One naive question - are modern day Italians mainly of Roman descent?

Britains after Rome withdrew, were invaded by Anglo-Saxons. Arguably pushed into the Celtic peripherary (Cornwall, Wales, Scotland) although apparently some DNA evidence suggests a lot of inter-breeding?

Gauls conquered by Rome. How did they fare with the fall of the Western Roman Empire? Is the conventional wisdom that they were marginalised by incomers (Franks, Normans etc), sort of like the Britons? Maybe concentrated in Brittainy?

Germans unconquered by Rome, but I wonder what was the relation between these people and the Goths, Vandals, Angles and Saxons? Did these latter people spring from RTWs Germans or encroach on them from the east?

Greeks conquered by Rome, are contemporary Greeks mainly ancestors of the ancient Greeks?

Parthians defeated by but not conquered by Rome? I read somewhere that they fell to the Sassanid Turks or some such?

Carthaginians conquered by Rome, city raised and disappeared from history?

Spanish conquered by Rome, later subject to Moorish influence but perhaps still perhaps lingering on today?

Numidians conquered by Rome, what relation do these people have to the "Almohads"/moors? Basically same North African people, under Islamic religion?

Egypt conquered by Rome, became Islamicised - I am a bit vague on the nature of Arab conquest; I have the impression it was a conquest proper like the Norman conquest of England, with outsiders taking over leadership of a subject people. Is that right? With the big difference that they converted them too?

Dacians conquered by Rome? Do they live on in any recognisable form today?

Scythians no idea about these folks - I have an impression that there have been waves of fairly aggressive steppe warrior type peoples moving east through the steppes - from Huns to Mongols, so they may not have endured.

Macedonians - well, given other threads, perhaps best not to go there.

I am even more vague on the following, although I suspect they were probably all conquered by Rome at some stage?

Thracians

Pontus

Seleucia

Thanks for any responses!

The Wizard

12-02-2004, 19:55

I'll limit myself to answer only a few of your questions for now...

Gauls

The Gauls were conquered and integrated into the Roman society, resulting in a Gallo-Roman culture speaking a combination of Celtic and Latin, which later contributed to the forming of the Romanic language of the Franks after Clovis. The Celts of most of France were integrated into the Frankish culture, and a whole lot of intermarriage took place (Frenchmen from the south of France have a lot of Celtic, Visigothic and even Basque blood in them!), so that the Celtic blood of Gaul dissapeared, lingering on in such backwaters as Britanny.

Germans

The different Germanic peoples as we know them (Franks, Friesians, Rugians, Visi- and Ostrogoths, Lombards, etc.) are actually different older tribes (Batavians, Chatti, Marcomanni, Quadi, etc.) formed into 'super-tribes' encompassing a variety of Germanic tribes once seen as independent.

For instance, two of the more important tribes of the Frankish confederation were the Batavians and the Chatti (the latter of Teutoburger [in]famosity). The Marcomanni and Quadi were both Suevian peoples ('Suebi' was actually a term which was used differently by the Romans; sometimes to designate the Swabian tribes exclusively and sometimes all the Germanic peoples), who had reached the status of 'super-tribes' in the 2nd century AD already, but later the Suebian tribes merged into the Swabian super-tribe, of which part remained in modern southwestern Germany, Switzerland and Austria, and part migrated to Portugal and northwestern Spain.

So: the Germanic peoples as we know them did not spring out of nowhere, but were simply products of the pressure from Eastern Europe (the Huns pushing Germanic peoples West) and overpopulation, prompting different tribes to band together and migrate to new areas.

Parthians

The Parthians remained until the 3rd century AD, when they were defeated by a revived Persian culture under the Sassanid dynasty. This dynasty banished all Roman, Greek and Parthian (Scythian) influence from their empire, and tried to emulate the ancient Achaemenid Persia, defeated by Alexander the Great, and sporting Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great as their greatest rulers.

The Sassanids took the Parthian way of waging war and made a professional army out of it (something the Parthians did not possess), and fared quite well versus Rome (something the Parthians could not say of themselves either). Since the Sassanid dynasty wanted the Persian culture to be the sole culture in Iran, its religion was Zoroastranism. This led to religious conflict and war with Christian Rome and Byzantium.

The Sassanids dissapeared from the stage of world politics when, after a long series of wars against the Byzantine empire in the 7th century, they were soundly defeated (crushed is more like it) by the Byzantine emperor Heraklios, in an amazing campaign. Previously, they had conquered all of Asian Byzantium, and captured the Holy Cross. When the Muslims began their conquests, both empires, tired from their long struggles against each other, were rocked to their cores. But Sassanid Persia, torn apart by a dynastic struggle after the death of Khusrau II at the hands of the Byzantines, led by a boy-king, and enormously weakened economically and militarily, was the one that fell before the Muslim onslaught under the leadership of the great Muslim general Khalid bin Walid.

Carthaginians
Carthage was razed and salt sown over its fields when Scipio the Younger captured it after the Third Punic War. Rome did all it could to eliminate the Punic culture from history.

However, after some time, Carthage was rebuilt by the Romans, and once again became a prospering port city (it did, after all, have a superb stragetical position). Another of the important cities in the old Carthaginian empire, Leptis Magna, produced an emperor: Septimius Severus.

Carthage was captured by the Vandals in the 5th century AD. Belisarius retook it for Justinian the Great in the 6th century, ending the North-African Vandal kingdom.

I don't know what happened when it was taken by the Muslims in the 7th century (after having held out for forty years longer than the surrounding area), but apparently the center of urban life moved the very nearby Tunis afterwards.

Numidians
The Numidians were, IIRC, Berbers. As you well know, many of the inhabitants of Northern Africa are either Berber, largely Berber, or have a respectable number of Berbers as ancestors.

When the Ummayad Caliphate sent an army to Spain to see if it was worth conquering, most of it was composed of Berbers (at least 66%).

When the last remaining member of the Ummayad dynasty died in Al-Andalus, the dynasty controlling Muslim Spain was followed by two famous Berber ones: the Almoravids and the Almohads.

Egypt

I don't know what happened to the ethnic ancient Egyptians, but what I do know, is this:

The Ptolemaic Empire and its culture were, as so many others, integrated into the Roman empire and culture. It remained a prosperous and peaceful province for by far most of the duration of the Roman empire.

However, in the 7th century the province of Aegyptus was lost by the Byzantines to the onslaught of the Muslims. My belief is that the nearness of Egypt to Arabia caused many Arabs to migrate there, and as you are sure to know, many of Egypt's inhabitants have a lot of Arab blood in them. The Berbers are a large minority in modern-day Egypt.

Dacians

Modern-day Rumanians are largely Dacian. Vlad the Impaler (Dracul) was a Dacian.

You see, the Dacians were never as Romanized as other provinces incorporated into the empire. This was due to the relatively short period that the province was under Imperial control (compared to Gaul, for instance). Also, the Dacians never intermingled with the different Germanic peoples passing through and living in Dacia as othe regions, it seems.

There is a lot of Slavic blood intermingled with the Dacian, but still the Rumanians of today can proudly say that they can trace a straight line from Burebista's realm, through persons such as Vlad Tepes, to the Rumania (and Moldavia!) of today.

Scythians

The Scythians of Europe (and therefore RTW) were pushed to the West by the Sarmatians, and became the final victims of one of the periodic domino movements of the steppe. When they were finally pushed out of their last ancient homelands by the Sarmatians, most of them fled south, across the Danube, into Phrygia, where they laid waste to the Phrygian (another branch of the Thracian peoples, just like the Dacians) culture there, and then apparently settled down and blended into the local population.

~Wiz

Meneldil

12-02-2004, 20:52

I thought the Sassanid dynasty was destroyed by the muslims, not by the eastern roman empire.

The Wizard

12-02-2004, 20:58

I did not write it clearly enough, and have corrected it.

However, the main reason that the Sassanid empire fell so easily to the Muslims was because it had come out of the war against Heraklios as the loser, and the dynastic struggles that followed the death of Khusrau II, which led to decentralization of the empire.

~Wiz

Spartakus

12-02-2004, 21:56

I am ashamed to reveal my ignorance of ancient history, but am so curious I have to ask: what happened to the factions in RTW? Some of the factions - Seleucia, Pontus, Thrace etc - I know virtually nothing about.

Okay, instead of writing a long reply for you, which would be tiresome for me and both boring and inadequate for you, I will rather recommend you check out a book series called "The Peoples of Europe". It covers the history and origins of several existing and non-existing European peoples, usually touching in on their ethnic background and intermingling with other peoples.

I believe these books will answer many of your questions. :book:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/seriesbyseries.asp?series=PEU&SearchOrd=Rank&type=series&show=Sseries&subj=S&site=1 (there's two pages)

DemonArchangel

12-02-2004, 22:05

Pontus: Weed-whacked by the legions despite a valiant defense by Mithradates (110-47 B.C)

Seleucia: Got castrated at the Battle of Magnesia between Antiochus III and Scipio Africanus, became part of Rome later.

Thrace: Absorbed by Rome.

Scythia: Pushed out by the Samartians. Hell, they're Samartians anyway, so i'd say they were pushed out by the Huns and by other Turkic peoples.

Rome: Italians aren't QUITE Romans. The Roman Empire was waay too ethinically heterogeneous to determine what ethnicity a "roman" is, because a Roman citizen could have been of many different mixes and descents.

Colovion

12-02-2004, 23:05

If you want to know what is known about Macedonia just go and take a gander at the Wiki:

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

lonewolf371

12-03-2004, 01:28

Egypt

I don't know what happened to the ethnic ancient Egyptians, but what I do know, is this:

The Ptolemaic Empire and its culture were, as so many others, integrated into the Roman empire and culture. It remained a prosperous and peaceful province for by far most of the duration of the Roman empire.

However, in the 7th century the province of Aegyptus was lost by the Byzantines to the onslaught of the Muslims. My belief is that the nearness of Egypt to Arabia caused many Arabs to migrate there, and as you are sure to know, many of Egypt's inhabitants have a lot of Arab blood in them. The Berbers are a large minority in modern-day Egypt.
I believe that Pharonic Egypt declined gradually, much in the same fashion as Rome. During the end of the New Kingdom it was traded around by many middle-eastern empires that often installed "false" pharoahs which sometimes lasted longer than the empires that put them on the throne! Examples of these forces include Nubia, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, and Macedonia. By the time the Romans finally took it, Egypt, while it might not yet have lost the advantages and wealth of the Nile valley, had lost its identity as a major ancient power.

Kraxis

12-03-2004, 02:10

The Gauls mixed with the Romans. That can be attributed to many things, but th Romans were not very kind to the celts culture and persecuted it, both with civil powers as well as military power.
In any event they became Gallo-Romans, and they gave a lot of men to the later empire days when it seemed there were invasions into heir lands on a daily basis. Various germanic tribes settled in their lands either for a while or more permanently. Visigoths came first and took the entire southern France. They stayed while more of them took over in Spain. They eventually got overthrown by others. Ostrogoths held parts of eastern France, they too stayed put but got conquered. Vandals 'passed by' but left enough people so that the area got a new influx of blood. Meanwhile in the north the Franks took over and eventually took over the south as well. They created the current state of France as well as their language by adopting the local language (with certain temrs still being in Frankish) and culture but held on to their own law and social structure.
Brittany as the name implies is a bit of area settled by peoples from Brittania. It seems the Saxons kicked the celts out so hard that some of them said "screw it all I'm going over here". And so it happened that celtic culture and language survived in Brittany.

Germania was never a single unity. Most likely the many tribes didn't consider each other similar, bur rather saw the others as they would see Rome or Greece, another player on the field.
What happened was that the Vandals, that came from the interior of Germania marched out, the rest is history. The Teutons were also Germanians. So were the Saxons (though they came from the north, where the province is in both MTW and RTW) just to th north of the Saxons were the Angles, they lived at the inner shore of the southern part of the Jutland peninsula. The Goths on the other hand seems to have come from the Scandinavian peninsula (Götaland in Sweden seems to be a good candidate for the homelands), it is even mentioned in their own history, fom there they spreat out, to Gotland and Poland, from there down to the Black Sea. Then came the Huns and they marched into Raman territory. The result was an Ostrogoth state in Italy and a Visigothic state in southern France and Spain.

The Spanish got subjugated by Rome... And it wasn't until the Vandals and Visigoths crossed through that a foreign army entered again. By then the locals had long been romans. Most of the local iberian, celtiberian and celtic cultures were dead, all but the basques it seems (don't know about the catalans). Well the Visigoths stayed and created their own kingdom that lasted until the arabs invaded in 711.

The Scythians are an enigma. Little is known about them or what happened to them, but everything seems to indicate that they unlike every other group migrated east. Possibly boosting the Pathians along the way so they could do their bid for power. A recent discovery has been made were the most impossible of odds have been overcome. The mitochondrial DNA from a female warriorgrave in Russia (a Scythian) has matched up perfectly with that of a blondehaired Mongol girl. Chances are that they got quite far east.

The Seleucids got gutted at Magnesia, but the romans only took part of their territory for the moment. The parthians took most of the rest, but lost it again to the romans. Seleucia was taken and converted into the Parthian capital of Ctsiphon.

econ21

12-03-2004, 15:13

Thanks, guys - great stuff. In a way, the responses reminds me even more of "1066 and all that", specifically that book's subtitle "the decline and fall of practically everybody". ~;)

I guess we know quite a lot about changes in terms of politics, language and culture. What is intriguing at a human level are the physical population movements and shifts - e.g. the what happened to the Britons when the Anglo-Saxons moved in etc? The kind of DNA evidence Kraxis mentioned about the Scythian/Mongol is fascinating.

Kraxis

12-03-2004, 15:46

The kind of DNA evidence Kraxis mentioned about the Scythian/Mongol is fascinating.

Wehn I saw that one National Geo, I was almost disbelieving it. Such odds are crazy. Add it up and it is more likely to get killed by micrometeoriod... ~:eek:
But those two persons are in fact directly related. The girl is most likely an ancestor of that woman (or her sisters).

nokhor

12-03-2004, 16:07

ancient peoples got around a lot before the modern era of strong national gov'ts.

the vandals went from central europe to africa, carthahagnian merchantmen traded in britain and may have circumnavigated africa as well as reached america. there are ancient chinese legends about them fighting chariot wielding red-haired giants in the tarim basin (northwest china) which if there's any basis to it, might have been displaced celts. the chinese themselves got as far as madagascar during their only real age of naval exploration. and there is some archeological evidence to suggest trade routes between sumeria and pre-alexandrian india.

The Wizard

12-03-2004, 18:40

What happened was that the Vandals, that came from the interior of Germania marched out, the rest is history.
What exactly do you mean by this?

If you mean that the Vandals started the Great Migrations, you are wrong. The Great Migrations were not started by anyone in particular, but there were two peoples that perhaps inspired, and certainly influenced other tribes in their migrating.

These were the Marcomanni and the Quadi, which put an enormous amount of pressure on the Romans to drive them back from where they came (to the north of the Rhine-Danube frontier). These were the so-called Marcomannic wars, because of which Marcus Aurelius became so famous, and the scenario of the movie Gladiator.

These peoples, these Suebians, were the first peoples to highlight the biggest weakness of the Roman empire. Breach the frontierline, guarded by the legions garissoned there, and there is nothing to stop you after it. That was one of the main reasons that the Roman army went through a couple of reforms which led to the demise of the old, heavy legions garissoned at the frontiers of the empire, in favor of more mobile field armies. Tactically, these new legions were the lessers of the old ones, but stragetically they had their advantages.

Some historians believe that the Marcomanni and Quadi were the inspiration for the later peoples of the Great Migrations, the ones that opened the floodgate which the Romans could not close anymore.

~Wiz

Kraxis

12-04-2004, 03:02

I never said they were the first... I made a reference to what I had written earlier and what others had written on Carthage. I just didn't want to post something redundant.

noramis

12-05-2004, 05:10

Wehn I saw that one National Geo

Which month / year is that? Seems very interesting

Kraxis

12-06-2004, 01:41

It was on quite recently... A month or so ago. But I didn't get the show's name as I just sumbled onto it. But it is about this one woman who is searching for the Amazons (Scythians), she goes all about the world. Germany, Russia and Mongolia (and not just Ulan Bator, she went into the deep highlands).

Rosacrux redux

12-06-2004, 07:08

Most of the factions in RTW are not nations, just artificial factions: The Seleucids ruled over a host of nations (maybe even 120 distinct ethnic groups) and the Ptolemeans over quite many themselves.

A rather interesting "mystery" in the annals of history are the Thracian. They seem to be one of those cultures that never made the shift to the AD years as a distinct cultural entity. They were heavily influenced by the Greeks pretty early on (Greek cities in Thrace date from the 10th century BC) and the Greeks ruled over them for quite a number of years. When the Romans settled in, they found a conglomerate of vastly hellenized Thracian tribes, and the latter seem to have adopted Greek customs and language so fully, that in the AD years there is no mentioning of a separate Thracian nation.

Pockets of the old inhabitants of Thrace, at least the mountainous Thracian, existed till the Slavic migration, but they were gradually absorbed into the dominant Slavic and Graeco-Roman elements in the days of the Byzantine Empire.

A number of nationalist Bulgarian historians are trying to claim the Thracians as their predecessors, but in truth the old Thracian blood must be present in the Greeks, Turks and Bulgarians of today's Balkans. Culturally though, they left no offspring. Today their former land is divided among Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey.

[edited to add some more things abut Seleucids and Pontians]

Seleucids, as stated before, were a Greek house, not a nation. They ruled over many different nations and never managed (or tried) to install a common national identity among their subjects (the concept of national identity was anyway absent in those years). About what happened to their empire, others have already said their story. Todady their land is divided among many countries.

The Pontian "faction", was another diverse kingdom with many different nations as subjects. The cultural was predominately Greek (that is true for most of the "civilized" nations of the Eastern Med at this time) but the Greek population was only a small group. The ruling house was a hellenized Iranian house, and their subjects included various Anatolians. They too became vastly hellenized and consequently romanized (and in the end, those who survived and stayed put in their homeland, turkified). The kingdom of pontus made a reappearance after the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) to the Crusaders in 1204 AD, and lasted quite a long time against the Ottoman onslaught, but in the end was brought under the Osmanli umbrella.

Today the lands of Pontus belong to Turkey.

MoROmeTe

12-17-2004, 10:29

about Dacians...
after Traian took them over, there roughly 200 years of roman rule, in which the dacians were heavily influnced by the roman culture and especially the language. modern day romanian is a version of latina vulgaris, mixed with a small amount of dacian native tongue and with about 10 -15 % of it influenced by the slavs that came through here and by later influences like greeks (fanariots that ruled in the 19th century) and turks (that were in constant fights for the control of what is modern day Romania.
after the Aurelian Retreat, when Marcus Aurelius took all his troops from Romania and built a defensive position south of the Danube, there were romans (married to native women or discharged legionaries) that remained here.
although a lot of tribes from the migrations went through Romania, cross breding wasn't all that popular. maybe the fact that the dacians were quickly converted to Christianity (supposedly by the Apostle Andrew) as opposed to the pagan migrators was a factor. maybe the fact that there were still romans here might have contributed. i don't really know. there precious little info on the period between the years 400 and 900. it seeems that rural comunities, that werent tempting for migrators, subzisted and after 900 small kingdoms appeared.
i think, unlike others that were overrun or ioncorporated by other tribes, the dacians farred fairly well after the roman retreat. it's mainly the mix of dacians and romans that makes up the romanians, with some traces of maghyars, slavs, very few mongoloid influences and very few turk traits.
well, that's about it about the dacians...

Hurin_Rules

12-17-2004, 19:44

As to Italians, modern day Italians are descended from the ancient Romans, but there are also a lot of other strains added to the mix. After Rome fell, Italy would not be a united state again until 1870. Various Germanic tribes moved in to conquer part of Italy-- most notably the Lombards, who give their name to a region in modern italy that includes Milan. But the Eastern Empire (Greeks) conquered much of the south and ruled Rome and Ravenna for centuries. Muslims conquered Sicily and Normans most of Sicily and southern Italy during the Middle Ages. There was also some French and Austrian influence as well. All of these peoples left their mark on modern day Italy and Italians.

Rosacrux redux

12-18-2004, 07:02

Accounting Troll

12-26-2004, 23:21

The Britons never had any kind of real unity against the Romans, who were often able to play the numerous British tribes off against each other during the Claudian invasion. The leaders of a tribe that embraced the Romans, such as the Atrebates, tended to become members of the Romano-British aristocracy and their tribal capital is known to have thrived during the Roman era.

The Anglo-Saxons replaced the Romano-British aristocracy in eastern Britain, but they had no interest in committing 'ethnic clensing' against the peasants unless there was a rebellion because who would then do all the work? Like the Normans, they were a ruling elite who imposed their own language and culture onto the peasants. Thus the English are predominantly of Romano-British stock, just like the Welsh.

nokhor

12-26-2004, 23:35

how big was the roman emigration into britain? i would assume it would be similar to the normans. with basically elites just replacing elites, so that the english would primarily then be of mostly just british stock?

BalkanTourist

12-27-2004, 10:40

"A number of nationalist Bulgarian historians are trying to claim the Thracians as their predecessors, but in truth the old Thracian blood must be present in the Greeks, Turks and Bulgarians of today's Balkans. Culturally though, they left no offspring. Today their former land is divided among Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey."

You don't have to be "nationalistic" to look at the facts. I am not trying to start another forum war with a Greek. Can't we all just get along?!
That the Thracians were colonized by the Greeks is true, but to an extend. There are many Greek colonies along the Black Sea coast: Mesembria (today's Nessebar), Apollonia, Sozopol, etc,but not that much inland. According to Herodotus (the father of History, yes he was Greek) the Thracians were the most numerous peoples in the World (the known world that is). The Dacians, Getae, Illyrians were all Thracian tribes. They populated all of the Balkans as well as Asia Minor. Acording to Herodotus again if they'd been united they would have been much stronger than the Greeks. The Greeks never managed to conquer them all, but the Romans did. And so they were subjects to the Empire until the Split. The Dacians were more Romanized than the rest and became to be the forefathers of today's Romania. The present day people of Karakachani (the origin of the name is definetely Turkish, but they date way back before the Ottoman invasion) which live in Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey today were ancestors of those Thracians that were culturaly influenced by the Greeks. And the Illyrians are the forefathers of today's Albanians, they mixed with no one and still don't.
After the slav invasion that started as early as the fifth century AD the Thracians found themselves as a minority among a "sea of slavs". The slavs were so numerous they reached southern Greece, Crete and the rest of the islands. The slavs and the Thracians were all subjects of the Byzantine Empire until the Bulgars were forced to migrate from their homeland of Great Bulgar in southeastern Ukraine and the Caucasus and split into five groups. One of those groups led by khan Asparukh left the Don and Danube deltas which were hard to defend and very swampy with lots of malaria and other nasty deseases and came down to Moesia, allied with the local Slavini and Anti and together defeated Constantine IV of Byzantium in 681 AD. The Emperor had sent an army to defeat the Bulgar intruders and to put down the rebelious slavs who were subjects of the Empire. The Thracians who had gradually migrated to the mountains (serving as mountain pass guardians or herders) or other remote areas or intermingled with the slavs had yet to play a role in the formation of Bulgaria. They allied themselves with the newly created union of Slavs and Bulgars and closed all the mountain passes cutting the way of the defeated Byzantine army headed back towards The Second Rome. That army never came back to Constantinople and Constanite, who had more troubles in Asia Minor and could not afford another one gave up on the idea of destroying that union. In later years shortly after the creation of Bulgaria the Thracians south of the Balkan mountains allied themselves with the Bulgarians and helped them gain land in Central and South Thrace (around Boruy or Beroe, present day Stara Zagora in Bulgaria and the Rhodopes mountains). So the tri-way union among Bulgars, Slavs (Anti and Slavini) and Thracians was made out of necessity against a common enemy - the Eastern Roman Empire. There are words in present day Bulgarian (which is mostly slavic) that are of Thracian origin. Also there are numerous artifacts and burial sites found on Bulgarian soil. Recently they found a golden mask of a Thracian ruler which is the oldest golden artifact found ever. It was all over the news and there was even a thread on here about it. I grew up 5 kms away from the Thracian palace and town where they found it - Perperikon in Eastern Rhodopes mountains near present day Kardzhali in southern Bulgaria. Spartakus was born in that area and so was Orpheus. And I am proud of it, but that doesn't make me "nationalistic". We (Bulgarians) believe that Thracians were our ancestors as were the Slavs and the Bulgars.
Of course no nation can claim its "purity". Many peoples passed though our lands - celts, goths, magyars, uzis, pechenegs, franks (cruzaders), cumans, tatars, turks, and I am sure all left some DNA, but the three major parts the present day Bulgarians are made of are Slavs, Bulgars and Thracians.
P.S. Sorry for the long post.
P.S. 2 To my Dacian friend above: To what extend did the Avar Khaganate influence the formation of the Romanians as a people. And what are the relations between Romanians and Vlas (Wallachians)?

Byzantine Prince

01-07-2005, 02:38

Omg Balkanourist where do i start. There are so many things wrong with what you just wrote. Let me just point out a few:

"...along the Black Sea coast: Mesembria (today's Nessebar), Apollonia,..."

Apollonia is today's Fier in Albania and therefore NOT on the black sea.

"...The Dacians, Getae, Illyrians were all Thracian tribes..."

The Illirians are the first Balkan Nation ever, ok. You can check any encyclopedia. They were NOT Thracian. The Dacians we don't know much about so i'm not gonna comment. One word though, Carpathia. Barrier?

"The Greeks never managed to conquer them all,"

Yes the Greeks did. Phillip of Macedon anyone.

"khan Asparukh left the Don and Danube deltas which were hard to defend and very swampy with lots of malaria and other nasty deseases and came down to Moesia,"

This is all over the map. Moesia is in Bulgaria(south of the danube), Don river in in Southern Russia, while the Danube is in the Balkans again.

I don't mean to be rude, I just hate it when people put in stuff that is wrong.
As far as I know i totally agree with you. Bulgarians are Thracians, Slavs, and Turks. The Thrace of Greece though is made up of the real Thracians, the ones that were hellenized so long ago.

Gregoshi

01-07-2005, 05:03

Omg Balkanourist where do i start. There are so many things wrong with what you just wrote...

...As far as I know i totally agree with you.
~:confused:

BP, if you "totally agree" with Balkan Tourist, then why is your post so rude in correcting his facts? You had an opportunity to share your knowledge and educate him yet you chose to toss out some put-downs and probably pissed him off more than taught him anything. With a civil exchange of information, you might even learn something (see below), but there is little chance of that if one chooses to include insults, snide remarks or condescending tones in their posts.

Which brings me to another point I've been itching to air publicly for a while and this post is as good as any. I always cringe when one patron is (usually being rude and) correcting another with a line like "Next time read a book before you post" or something else that implies the other patron is stupid or ignorant. I often wonder whose facts are correct. Case in point, in BP's post above, is he sure his "facts" are correct? Not knowing anything about about this topic, I just did a quick check on "khan Asparukh" and found Balkan Tourist's comments about the Don, Danube and Moesia to be accurate - at least by the information I found. (http://www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/aspar.html first 2 paragraphs) I won't presume this information is 100% accurate or unbiased, but it does support what Balkan Tourist said. The accuracy or bias of the information can also be a topic of discussion if you have other sources that dispute the facts presented - and of course you must consider the accuracy and bias of the counterpoint too. Use your education and reading to discuss the point, but keep an open mind that there might be another side to the (hi)story that has been hidden from you. Okay, I'll put away my soapbox now.

Finally, my apologies BP for "picking" on you, but your post was the second unsavory post in the Monastery in the past 24 hours and I felt it necessary to publicly comment on this trend should anyone else be inclined to continue it. :no: Now, on the positive side BP, I do thank you for keeping your language under control despite your obvious annoyance in the post above. Keep up the restraint. ~:pat: And lastly, despite the attitude in your post, you ended it in the proper way. When giving someone negative feedback or criticism, always try to end on a positive note like you did (and like I'm doing now ~D ). Your statement of agreement was a good end to your post.

Thanks all for putting up with my rambling, and sorry for disrupting the thread. Please continue (in a civil manner of course ~;) ).

BalkanTourist

01-07-2005, 22:45

Thank You, Gregoshi for existing! I was a little surprised to find people with attitude on this forum. I've only heard about people being rude in here, but never experienced it before. That kind of friendly environment keeps the forum running and assures people would come back day after day after day here. I just realized that without people like you, Gregoshi, I probably wouldn't be visiting this site much.
You are right, I was a tad ticked off. I kind of expected it, that's why I stated in my previous post that I am not trying to start a war with a Greek on here. I don't judge people by their skin color, national origin or ethnic background but I have had problems with Greeks on other forums, when it comes to history. Everyone is entitled to being "nationalistic", being proud of your national background, but not when it comes down to dising other people and expressing supperiority. Just a few examples from another forum:

"There are as many logical fallacies in your answer as sentences. The fact that you live in U.S. " and interact with english speaking people every day" does not make you an expert. A mexican servant in San Diego Ca. interacts equally well with english speaking people every day but she hardly qualifies as an expert of English. Besides, in a public forum you should avoid idiomatic phrases, as this can give rise to misunderstandings.
Your way of arguing discloses shortcomings in your education. Get a library card and do some basic reading. A good place to start is Aristotle, some dialogues of Plato ..., unless you are mathematically inclined. In that case start with Euclid´s Elements. Definitions, Axioms, Theorems and most of all Proofs!
A cource in "Critical Thinking" can be beneficial.

The content of the last paragraph is composed as to tease you, since it is obvious that you hate Greece. You hope that the Greek triumph will be forgotten after 12 years. You remember the triumph(?) of Bulgaria 10 years ago (Sweden-Bulgaria 4-0) for the third place! Three defeats in Euro2004! How come you still remember Bulgaria and you hope you will forget Greece after 12 years? Unfortunately for you Greece is surrounding you from everywhere! Democracy, Science, Art, and all the good things!

By the way, Greece will be in Germany in the Conferatios Cup June 2005 already! And play against Brazil!"
And another one:
"I am not trying to impose anything on you. But defending ome´s ideas is a democratic right and of cource I will try to persuade you that I am right! This is still democracy. You might have a different idea about what democracy is. After all living right now in U.S.A. might give you wrong signals about what democracy is.
Another kind of argument used quite often is the "appeal to authority". In talking about philosophy for example you can state what Aristotle said. This is called appeal to authority. I appealed to the authority of Ola Andersson (which you unfortunately cannot check) and www.goal.com (which you can check). Of cource there are the opinions of journalists mostly and not exactly authorities. But you appealed to your feelings, and wrong ideas about Balkan being homogeneous in its Football Culture. It is totally wrong. Balkan has many different schools of football. There are still some similarities between Croatian and the other ex-yugoslavian teams, but they are disappearing. Greek football had no school. Every new national coach (they change very often) had his own ideas and was not building upon anything. Until Otto Rehhagel came. He created a team that employed partially man-to-man marking, that was considered outmoded football. Looking at the results especially at Euro2004, (Pauleta was swept out By Kapsis twice, Baros the first scorer dissapeared when he was marked by Seitarides, etc) he was justified. But the man-to-man marking of the star players of the opponent was combined by changing from defence to attack very fast. And there was the main weapon of the Rehhagel team. So Greek football at national level has ethnic greeks as players but it is Rehhagel´s school. Not German! Nor anything else. Just Rehhagel. South American Football can be of various schools. And even different periods of e.g. Argentinian football are easily discernible. Talking about Balkan football is an almost empty subject!
You have to distinguish between Greek as an ethnic term and Greek as a cultural type of person, that loves Democracy, Critical Thinking, Science, Sports, Art, Politics, Theatre. I have met ethnic Greeks which were more Turkish than Turks and Swedes that were more Greeks than Greeks. Any other combination may be valid since there are enough persons travelling all over the world, reading books, seeing television series etc. "

And this is not even related to history. It gets a lot uglier then. That said, I have nothing against Greeks and I've made friends with Greeks before. We just have to remember to be respectful of each other.
On your post, BP,
1. Ever heard of Odessa, TX or Naples, FL? Confused? Well, my point is there were more than one towns with the name Apollonia. One was on the Black Sea coast, and there is one in Asia Minor in addition to the one in present day Albania.
This is straight from a basic search from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolonia
There have been several places called Apollonia:

An ancient Roman city in Illyria near to the sea and the river Vjosa, 12 km from Fier, Albania. Apollonia was a local hub for travelers and tradesmen, and a center of learning. The emperor Augustus had studied there as a youth.
A town in Macedonia alongst the Via Egnatia, midway on route from Thessalonica and Amphipolis.
A town in Thrace on the shore of the Black Sea.
A fort or castle near to Naupactus.
A sea port town in Northern Sicily.
A town astride the river Rhyndacus in Bithynia next to the lake Apolloniatis.
The birthplace of Eratosthenes in Cyrenaica within the harbour of Cyrene. One of the five towns forming the Libyan Pentapolis.
A town of Pisidia in which fragments of a copy of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti were found.

2. There is no point discussing the geographical term "between Don and Danube" as you can see that region clearly on the map. Of course back then the idea of national borders like we have today was far from people's minds. Still, I don't believe it is such a broad term. And Moesia was involved, because I had to give the point to where the Bulgars migrated to : from the area between the rivers Don (southern Ukraine) and the Danube delta (today's border between Romania, Moldavia and Ukraine) to Moesia (south of the Danube river in present day Bulgaria). It is completely useless to argue about this info as it is not a matter of oppinion but geographical and historical facts. Yet if you can find some new info that I've totally missed, I'd be intrigued to learn about it.
3.The Dacians, Getae and Illyrians are all Thracians. There are however some scholars that argue the origin of the Illyrians. On that we can discus in civilized manner. I'd appraciate it if you can present me a good source that argues your point.
4. Philip of Macedon ruled over Thracia which is a geographical term. Do not confuse Thracia with where the Thracians lived. As Herodotus said, the Thracians were numerous and spread from Asia Minor to the Carpathians. The region of Thrace is situated south of the Balkan mountains in presnt day Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece.
I tried not to offend anyone, so I hope we can continue this thread in a civil manner and learn some more interesting facts.
Also do appreciate when people do research before making a statement. It means they cared about what they said, because they took the time to do research. If you have respect, you'd do the same before arguing what's wrong and what not.

Byzantine Prince

01-08-2005, 03:14

1. Ever heard of Odessa, TX or Naples, FL? Yes Confused? No "Well, my point is there were more than one towns with the name Apollonia." Yes, and...? One was on the Black Sea coast, and there is one in Asia Minor in addition to the one in present day Albania.

Oh wow, so I was suposed to guess you meant the one also called Sozopolis(also a greek name). Dude, are you kidding me? There's tons of places with the same names. The first one that comes to mind is Fier. I'm sorry I got it wrong.

2. There is no point discussing the geographical term "between Don and Danube" as you can see that region clearly on the map. Of course back then the idea of national borders like we have today was far from people's minds. Still, I don't believe it is such a broad term. And Moesia was involved, because I had to give the point to where the Bulgars migrated to : from the area between the rivers Don (southern Ukraine) and the Danube delta (today's border between Romania, Moldavia and Ukraine) to Moesia (south of the Danube river in present day Bulgaria). It is completely useless to argue about this info as it is not a matter of oppinion but geographical and historical facts. Yet if you can find some new info that I've totally missed, I'd be intrigued to learn about it.

The comment wasn't directed at weather or not i knew where those places were, but about what you said and how it didn't make sense. The Moesia is NOT "down" the Don river. Also the Don and Danube are really far apart.

3.The Dacians, Getae and Illyrians are all Thracians. There are however some scholars that argue the origin of the Illyrians. On that we can discus in civilized manner. I'd appraciate it if you can present me a good source that argues your point.

I take it you don't really know much about Albania. Let me enlighten you on the subject. Albanian is the only language of it's type in the whole world. There is no other language like it. If Dacians and Albanians were both Thracians then how come they have nothing in common in their languages. And don't bring up some lame percentage of turkish the share. Also culturally they had nothing in common. As I have stated before Thracians were hellenized a long ass time ago so there's no point in even debating this.

4. Philip of Macedon ruled over Thracia which is a geographical term. Do not confuse Thracia with where the Thracians lived. This made me chuckle. As Herodotus said, the Thracians were numerous and spread from Asia Minor to the Carpathians. I guess if you consider the already hellenized Phrygians and the dessolute Dacians. The region of Thrace is situated south of the Balkan mountains in presnt day Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece.[i] I thought you said Albania and Romania were Thracian as well?!?!

[i]I tried not to offend anyone, so I hope we can continue this thread in a civil manner and learn some more interesting facts. Sure.

Also do appreciate when people do research lol before making a statement. It means they cared about what they said, because they took the time to do research. If you have respect, you'd do the same before arguing what's wrong and what not. HAHAHAHAHA!

BalkanTourist

01-08-2005, 08:50

This is the last time I am going to waste my time with you BP, I am sure I am not the type of person who is interested in pointless arguing, flaming, or laughing at someone's oppinion. Throughout my experience it is better to leave this kind of people alone and not even bother paying any attention. This is the last time I am paying you this honour. I am not quite sure that the moderators will tolerate the tone of your posts, so if you want to be a part of this forum I suggest you treat people with a little more respect.
1. This is what you wrote in your first post:
"Apollonia is today's Fier in Albania and therefore NOT on the black sea."
To that I responded with a reference from wikipedia.com providing you with an information sufficient to prove you wrong.
To that your responce is rude and infantile:
"Oh wow, so I was suposed to guess you meant the one also called Sozopolis(also a greek name). Dude, are you kidding me? There's tons of places with the same names. The first one that comes to mind is Fier. I'm sorry I got it wrong."
Not having sufficient info on the topic you are arguing about does not excuse your ignorance.
Sozopol is the modern name of Apollonia which was a Greek colony on the Black Sea coast used to trade with the hinterland. It was not used to invade or subdue the Thracians around it, but to trade with them.
Dude, how old are you, dude? Huh, dude?
2. Then I proceded giving some background info on the creation of the Bulgarian state in which the Thracians played a big role, to which you responded:
"This is all over the map. Moesia is in Bulgaria(south of the danube), Don river in in Southern Russia, while the Danube is in the Balkans again."

It occured to me that you are probably having some problems with your geography, so I tried to give some further details to which you responded with:
"The comment wasn't directed at weather or not i knew where those places were, but about what you said and how it didn't make sense. The Moesia is NOT "down" the Don river. Also the Don and Danube are really far apart."
What makes no sence here? Is it not clear that the land of the Bulgars from Great Bulgar streched from Dnestr, along the North Black Sea coast to the Caucasus Mountains. They were gradualy pushed west by the Khazars and eventually split. One group led by khan Asparukh came down ( looking at the map that would be SOUTH) and west to the Danube river delta. They were invited by the Slavs to join them in their revolt against Byzantium. The first Bulgarian capital was found in Pliska, Moesia which border the Danube to the North. I cannot explain it more plainly than this, I wish I knew Greek so I could explain it to you in your mothertongue.
The Don and the Danube are really far apart? How about the Mongols who came from across half the world. What is your point? It didn't happen? Where did the Bulgars come from according to you? Xanti? I don't think so.
3. Moving along:
"I take it you don't really know much about Albania. Let me enlighten you on the subject. Albanian is the only language of it's type in the whole world. There is no other language like it. If Dacians and Albanians were both Thracians then how come they have nothing in common in their languages. And don't bring up some lame percentage of turkish the share. Also culturally they had nothing in common. As I have stated before Thracians were hellenized a long ass time ago so there's no point in even debating this."
I suggest you enlighten yourself before you try enlighting others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language
Classification
Albanian was proved to be an Indo-European language in the 1850s, that is thought by some to derive principally from either the Illyrian languages or the Dacian language, both spoken in the south-eastern Europe two millennia ago, and forms part of no known wider sub-group within the Indo-European family.
In case you are curious the only three European languages not belonging to the Indo-European family are :Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian.
4. Next:
"4. Philip of Macedon ruled over Thracia which is a geographical term. Do not confuse Thracia with where the Thracians lived. This made me chuckle. As Herodotus said, the Thracians were numerous and spread from Asia Minor to the Carpathians. I guess if you consider the already hellenized Phrygians and the dessolute Dacians. The region of Thrace is situated south of the Balkan mountains in presnt day Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece.[i] I thought you said Albania and Romania were Thracian as well?!?!"
I am sure you'll not laugh if I say one word: Macedonia. I wonder why the Greek government doesn't recognize such a country.
Then as I said, and will repeat: Dacians were Thracians, they were never conquered by the Greeks.
One more time for you, read slowly: Thrace is a geographical name it names the land that is bordered by the Black Sea to the east, the sea of Marmara to the SouthEast, the Aegean Sea to the South, the Balkan Mountains to the North, and to the West, to the west it borders MACEDONIA, not the country Macedonia, but the geographical region Macedonia part of it is in Greece and some in Bulgaria.
Again you are confusing geographical and political terms. It is like talking to a brick wall. I give up on this one. I cannot state it more clearly for you. I mean just mixing Romania and Dacia tells me that we are not speaking the same language.
Philip ruled over the Thracians inhabiting Thrace (not the state, but the region)
5."[i]I tried not to offend anyone, so I hope we can continue this thread in a civil manner and learn some more interesting facts. Sure.

As I said, I am not going to bother discussing anything else with you though I did have that intention judging from my previous post. Your reply told me that you didn't pay attention to what Gregoshi told you, in fact you go further defying him. I do believe he will deal with you properly.
6."HAHAHAHAHA!"
Next time instead of laughing at someone's efforts, do some of your own. Because at the end, people laugh at your own ignorance, too sad you can't see that.

lars573

01-08-2005, 16:40

I can shed some more light on to egypt. When Cleopatra died in 30 BC? Augustus took over Egypt and was proclaimed pharaoh. After he killed Cleo's older kids (the one she had with Caesar most of all). He set up egypt as part of the Roman empire. While it was part of the empire it was a personal domain of the emperors not a province. But for convinience it was ruled in the same manner as one. All emperors of Roman empire were pharaoh's of egypt. Far as I know this situation continued until the arab conquest. As for the ethnicity of the modern Egyptians well, when the arabs conquered they just replaced the latin-greek ruling class of the Romans with an arab one. And as time went on the Egyptians just absorbed arab culture to the point that now they consider themselfs arab. But ethnically and genetically the modern egyptians are the same people that built the pyramids the sphenix. And gave us rulers like Ramases the great.

Byzantine Prince

01-08-2005, 17:09

Lol, yes Tourist i went to that silly Wikipedia. I know all about the so called Indo-European myth. That's all it is. If you use that logic then Swedish is the same as Northern Indian. Quit using Wikipedia as if it is God's word. You won't convince me with that stuff. There are strong opinions denying everthing you said and whatever I said.

But opinions though they might be it's good to discuss them in order to maybe see things we haven't seen before. I'm gonna stop arguing with you. Theres no point. You might think I'm ignorant, but I think you are, so... I guess Ill stop.

Gregoshi

01-08-2005, 18:48

BP, if you have trouble debating an issue without snide remarks and insults, then please refrain from posting.

There are strong opinions denying everthing you said and whatever I said.

If this is the case (which I don't doubt), then that is all you had to say. Skip the put downs. To Balkan Tourist's credit, he did at least provide a link or two to information supporting his position - regardless of what you think of the source. You, however, have provided no supporting references. We just have to take your word for it.

But opinions though they might be it's good to discuss them in order to maybe see things we haven't seen before.
A brilliant statement (seriously). This kind of interaction works best when those involved are civil and respectful of each other...and that has been lacking in the last several post.

Balkan Tourist, I'll ask you not to reply in kind to BP, as tempting as it may be. You'll just end up getting yourself in trouble too.

BP, I can't properly deal with you right at this moment, but I will not tolerate anymore disrespectful posts from you. Period.

Byzantine Prince

01-09-2005, 17:55

What exactly was disrespectful? Please tell me. I really really don't know.

I'm confused.

Gregoshi

01-09-2005, 19:02

BP, I'll PM you later when I have the time. There is no need to take this thread any further off topic than it already is.

Rosacrux redux

01-11-2005, 18:06

I am not going into the hot debacle between BP and BT, but since BTs initial post was adressing a point I made, let’s look into the facts. I do find though Gregoshi’s intervention rather selective… sure, BP was rude but BT isn’t exactly exemplar, especially if you see that he devotes a humangous post trying to discredit the Greeks altogether, I assume preemptively, just in case someone is going to get down on him… for a non-nationalist, BT seems to be excessively nationalistic…

(and I am definitely not going to “start another forum war” with a Bulgarian… hadn’t done so ever, won’t now… you have a history of wars in this forum with Greek members dear BT?)

The Dacians, Getae, Illyrians were all Thracian tribes. They populated all of the Balkans as well as Asia Minor.

No. Dacians are still debated if they were Thracian or not – most say they were not, actually. The Illyrians are nothing close to Thracian, nobody claims that. According to 90% of the valid historians, that is. If you wish links and hard proof, just ask. Thracians did not populate Asia Minor, that is also completely off. Some theories originate the Thracian from Asia Minor, so much is true. But in historical times the Thracian culture was extremely different than the Anatolian cultures and there is no reference on any source (if you exclude Iliad, Homer seems to consider the Thracian and the, possibly Luwian, Trojans “of the same stock” but that’s it) that speaks otherwise.

Acording to Herodotus again if they'd been united they would have been much stronger than the Greeks. Yes, so he says. And?

The Greeks never managed to conquer them all, but the Romans did.

Wrong again. Philipos conquered them, Alexander after him and ever since (until the annexation of Macedonia to Rome) they were loyal Greek subjects. Dacia was not Thrace, remember. Dacia is not inside the geographical area called Thrace, now or never.

And the Illyrians are the forefathers of today's Albanians, they mixed with no one and still don't.

that is extremely wrong as well. The Albanians we know have absolutely nothing to do with the Illyrians: they were moved as mercenaries from the eastern part of Asia Minor by the Ottomans to serve as mercenaries in the Balkans (there is a region called “Albania” close to Armenia). Those are the Albanians we know. The Illyrians were assimilated into the Roman (and Graeco-Roman) population, a few Roman emperors (especially in 4th century AD) were of Illyrian descend, until they merged with the Slavs.

May I suggest that you get your “facts” not from Wikipedia but from more… serious sources? The credibility of the “volunteers” working for Wiki, cannot be evaluated, so I tend not to use it for anything that needs serious and unbiased approach.

After the slav invasion that started as early as the fifth century AD the Thracians found themselves as a minority among a "sea of slavs". The slavs were so numerous they reached southern Greece, Crete and the rest of the islands.

Slavs did not reach Crete and the islands, they did though settle as south as Peloponese. The fun part is that Greece was the only place where the Slav settlers did not prevail (by sheer numbers - ethnically I mean, not in any militant content) but instead got absorbed into the local element.

The Thracian “history” you present after this is mildly entertaining, but I don’t think there is actually any hard evidence to support this. The role of the supposed “ethnical Thracians”, that is. Those Thracians were almost completely hellenized, and that can be witnessed by the fact that they spoke Greek in the AD times, not their native tongue. Even in Strabo’s times the Thracians spoke mostly Greek.

BalkanTourist

01-11-2005, 23:26

Byzantine Prince

01-11-2005, 23:54

I'm sorry if i came off rude. Really I am. I'm not gonna make up excuses.

But excuding the put downs everything else i stand behind 99%. I was too lazy to get sources so don't hold that against me.

Well, ok:

1. Dacians might be Thracians, i never said they weren't for sure but they were certainly very different. Plus the Carpathians were a huge obstacle.

2. Illyrians Are very distinct. Read this from Encarta encyclopedia:

Albanians are among the most ancient ethnic groups in southeastern Europe. Their ancestors, the Illyrians, were an Indo-European people who settled in the Balkans long before the Greeks. Modern-day Albania consists almost exclusively of ethnic Albanians, who call themselves Shqipetars (Sons of the Eagle). Only 5 percent of Albania’s residents are of non-Albanian heritage, most of whom are Greek.

© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I wonder is this allowed, Gregoshi?

3. Yes the Thracians spoke greek for most of their times. They were hellized extremely early on. I beleave this is disputable. If it is then tell me.

Gregoshi

01-12-2005, 00:56

BP, you provided a credit for the source of your quote, so you done good. ~:pat: And that was a much better post. :yes:

I agree with the sentiment expressed a couple of times already about keeping nationalistic, cultural and/or religious hatreds/disputes out of these exchanges. Alas, we seem to be failing in this particular thread. You can debate the "facts" as you see them until the cows come home as long as you direct your comments to the issues and not the person. Also, as was mentioned, history is a subjective thing. Our own particular view of history is tainted by a multitude of factors. The best one can hope for in a forum such as this is the exchange of differing viewpoints, examining any new information and then deciding if we need to adjust our own view of history. If we are lucky, we will have learned something in the process, after all, isn't that why we are here?

Continue please, if there is anything else to discuss. I'll go back to my corner now and be quiet. ~:)

Rosacrux redux

01-12-2005, 06:10

I haven't fought anyone on this forum, and I don't intend to. I could care less if you agree with what I posted or not. The purpose of this thread is to educate people including myself. I am not a history professor, and I don't claim to know everything. I am always interested in learning new facts. At least I gave some references to support my statement. Neither of you did. I will be most interested if you can give me some links to unbiased sites. I could give you links to Bulgarian sites, but I don't want to be accused of supporting my statement with biased links.
Lastly, history is no math where 2+2=4, anyone could read the history books with selectiveness. Greeks are entitled to read history the way it would make them feel proud of themselves and omit the emberassing or shameful moments. That is their right. In fact all the nations on the Balkans are like that, and that's why it is the backyard of Europe. People holding grudges and not letting go for centuries. I don't want to have a part of it. It disgusts me. I like to argue, that way I learn new things, but I hate fighting and I am not going to do it. I said what I had to say, and I gave links, and can give more. Where are your links?
Don't bother, it doesn't matter. I really don't care anymore.

Yes, I shouldn't bother. Figures why, too. Not because you say so, but because you are obviously failing to go into a serious exchange of ideas and facts with someone who has a good working knowledge of archeology and history and so you retreat hastily when that happens.

I am interested into different views and exchange of ideas - after all, that's why we are coming to forums like this. But I am quite opposite to the deliberate propaganda that comes from several people (and I wouldn't exclude some Greeks from the equation, although you seem to imply that only Greeks are biased and everybody else - including yourself - is alright).

I wish to discuss those things, with actual data and evidence. I have studied ancient and medieval Ballkan history for quite a long time and I consider myself fairly knowledgeable. History is a very specific science, archeology even more so, not something that can be interpreted as we see fit. The facts are there, and those are not a subject of interpretation.

Of course the conclusions might differ, but it can be fairly easily spotted where lies the "truth" (or shades of truth) and where the ugly face of nationalistic propaganda surfaces.

I would suggest you do what I did: Get your facts from renowned scholars, not your countrypeople and definitely not from sources like Wiky or (the notoriously unreliable) Encarta. If you are willing to behave in a civilized manner, instead of spouting anti-Greek propaganda (as you did in that huge post of yours previously) I will be extremely glad to provide you with names of renowned German, English, American and other scholars who talk about the subjects we are discussing, direct you to ancient writers who also prove what I said and even give you specific names of works dealing with those issues.

I repeat, that for someone who doesn't hold grudges and does not consider self part of the Balkan sillynes, you come out as extremely nationalistic and anti-Greek. I hope that it ain't so, but your writings point to this direction.

BalkanTourist

01-12-2005, 10:09

Thank you, BP. Appology accepted. And I agree with you, Gregoshi 100%.

Kraxis

01-12-2005, 16:44

Rosa, I think you are going a bit hard at him now...
You seem to think that he implies that only Greeks are biased, yet you quote him where he says everyone does it in the Balkans.

Greeks are entitled to read history the way it would make them feel proud of themselves and omit the emberassing or shameful moments. That is their right. In fact all the nations on the Balkans are like that, and that's why it is the backyard of Europe.
Now he does mention the Greeks as doing it, but he then says that he finds everyone to do it... That he mentions the Greeks specifically it because he was talking about Greek perception and his own perception. That might be wrong to do, but I think he is fair here... And I'm Danish coming into this with no bias at all.
And no, history isn't an exact science. We have facts, but how we interpret those facts change from generation to generation, some get revived again. History is a flowing science (for the lack of a better word), the pursuit of the truth (which existed) is nigh impossible. For instance Positivism was quite popular with ist views in the 20's and 30's and 50's, then it vanished while Marxism too over, now it is back in a refined form that has been mixed with Hermeneutics. All of those are different from each other, and their conclusion are all different, yet they are 'true' seen in the context of what would be the logical evolution of events for that particular theory.

It is highly unlikely that we will ever find the truth, and if we do it will soon vanish beneath yet another theory. That is why history will never be an exactl science (unless some physicist invents a machine for timetravel).

BalkanTourist

01-12-2005, 20:31

I couldn't have said it better, Kraxis. Let's just all get along, ok? No point in attacking people on here. I did say, I had Greek friends, so don't make it look like I am out there to get y'all. People all over Europe forget grudges and erase borders. Only in the Balkans people still hate each other. It is such a pitty!

Byzantine Prince

01-12-2005, 20:47

Hehe, if you go to the Balkans you'll see why that is. People are still in the mind set of the 1800's. The time that the Ottomans started leaving and they grabbed whatever they could before their neighbour would.

So yeah, the Balkans have always been called the pouderkeg of Europe. I dont' think that will ever change.

Btw I have a Bulgarian friend too.

Rosacrux redux

01-13-2005, 09:13

Kraxis, I've replied to you in PM - no need to further hijack this thread - it has strayed faaaaar away from the OP.

A little remark, though:Balkan people are not the only Europeans hating eachother. Albanians hate Greeks and the former Yugos do hate eachother (and everybody in the region despises Albanians) but that's it. In the rest of Europe: Try Irish and English? English and Scottish? Ex-Warshawers and Russians? Basque and Spanish? Tyrolians and Austrians? Nationalistic hate, in one form or another, is present everywhere... not only Europe. I've heard some extremely racist and hate-loaded comments on US radiostations about Arabs, Mexicans (those in particular) and others. And I am not even touching South America, Africa and Asia...

Nutcases exist all over, methinks.

I seize now... no more hijacking this thread, I promise. Any issues, please bring on PM.

econ21

01-13-2005, 10:39

Some very interesting on-topic responses to this thread on the first page - thanks to those who contributed! The off-topic ones are also interesting, although perhaps in a train-wreck fascination kind of way.

To try to counter the Balkan pessimism, I would just say that national animosities can fade, sometimes surprisingly quickly. England and France may be an old example. Relations between the former Axis countries and their WW2 opponents a somewhat more recent one. Rosacrux, as an English person, I don't think it's true to say hatred exists between the English and either the Irish or the Scots. I've never seen evidence of it, anyway. Local animosities in Northern Ireland are worse than those in most of the Balkans, it's true, but at least the fighting has stopped. My impression is that people from the Republic of Ireland and mainland Britain made their peace some time ago. ~:grouphug: The Scots seem quite content to be ruling England from No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street, while the English don't notice. ~;)

The_Emperor

01-13-2005, 15:48

I am not sure if any of you have seen "Britain AD" when it was on...

Essentially it shows a different theory of what happened during the so-called "Dark Ages" in Britain following the Roman withdrawl.

The Archeologist who presented it took the view that there is little or no archeological evidence of a mass-invasion from the continent. Essentially he provides a compelling argument that

a) Britain didn't degenerate into chaos following the Roman departure.
b) Christianity survived on in Britain.
c) The Anglo Saxon mass-invasion never happened, (and was more of an importing of ideas and culture through trade)

He cites archeological evidence for each point. Such as the discovery of a shipwreck that had artifacts and treasure on board from Byzantium, and the expansion of some Roman fortifications (such as parts of hadrian's wall) after they went.

And the lack of archeological evidence of a mass-conquest of present day England. He points to the anglo-saxon invasion myth as comming about as a result of powerful catholic church figures who had an agenda, and an English need to prove their historical racial superiority over their neighbors.

Byzantine Prince

01-13-2005, 16:39

Hi Emperor. I have to disagree with you on this.

a) Britain didn't degenerate into chaos following the Roman departure. ?True? MAybe, we don't really know.
b) Christianity survived on in Britain. True
c) The Anglo Saxon mass-invasion never happened, (and was more of an importing of ideas and culture through trade) Untrue

The Anglo Saxons did for sure invade England. Here's some proof:

In the 5th and 6th centuries ad , after the withdrawal of the Romans, many Britons (Celtic natives of Britain), in flight from the Teutonic invaders of their homeland, took refuge in the northwestern part of Armorica. They gave the region its present name. The Britons (later called Bretons) gradually converted the Armorican Celts, then mainly pagans, to Christianity.
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The_Emperor

01-13-2005, 18:22

The Anglo Saxons did for sure invade England. Here's some proof:

Forgive me if I prefer to take the word of Francis Pryor the guy on the programme over Microsoft's ~D .

At any rate I said this is a newer theory that has sprung up in recent years. Where he really goes into detail on this is with the writings of the Venerable Bead and other sources... As well as archeological evidence from the Saxon Shore.

At any rate if you did not see the series then there is no way I can explain it in the same manner.

As I say history is widely open to interpretation and when we are dealing with periods like the dark ages people always assume that new artifacts means, new people. I mean if I bought a German car and some archeologist digs it up a few hundred years later you can bet he'll think I'm a German. ~;)

Everyone is looking to prove their racial and historical superiority, so many people claimed to be descended from the Trojans I have now lost count... Its the same thing everyone has an agenda.

The Wizard

01-13-2005, 18:32

I would take that stuff in Encarta with a big pinch of salt. This because of the word 'Teutons'. The fact that Encarta was produced by a professional company and Wikipedia by people in their free time does not mean that Encarta has more reason to be believed.

I, myself, would like to know what this archaeologist provided as arguments and evidence to support his theory. It is obvious, as with other parts of Europe that were subject to the Germanic migrations of the Great Migrations period, that the ancient Celtic blood is still very important.

Personally, I doubt that the invasions never happened. Why would the Britons of lowland Britain adopt Germanic customs, culture and all that, while all the other native Celts (Welsh, Picts, Cornwallish [sp?]) remained culturally true to their ancient heritage? It would seem extremely unlikely to me, and the influence of the vikings alone is not large enough to be the explanation for the import of Germanic customs and culture. For instance, did the Irish ever adopt the Norse (and therefore Germanic) customs on such a large scale, and to such a level? No.

I find the theory extremely doubtable.

~Wiz

BalkanTourist

01-13-2005, 18:45

History is such a controversial subject. Everyone sees things differently and wether purposly or not interprets them the way he/she sees to be appropriate.
For almost a century scientists even in Bulgaria believed that the Bulgars who formed an alliance with the slavs to create Bulgaria were a turkic nomad tribe related to the Huns. In fact, the some Bulgar tribes participated in the Hunic alliance that swept Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries. Extesive research and comparison led many contemporary historians to believe that the Bulgars are infact related to the arians and in particular the Alans, Armenians and Persians, and they were not nomads.

The Wizard

01-13-2005, 19:38

If they're not nomads, then at least let me make the suggestion that they were a lot like their contemporaries, the Khazars: a sedentary steppe-people fighting in the traditional way of the nomad.

~Wiz

BalkanTourist

01-13-2005, 21:16

I can't disagree with that. In fact a lot of them were seasonal nomads. And they did stress on their cavalry rather than infatry. Now I will make a suggestion that thier horses were better since they grew wheat and other plants of that sort. They also devoloped the crafts and traded with Byzantium since they were on the way from the great North and the vikings to Constatinople. The Byzantine Emperor paid them tribute every year not to raid the Balkans and to guard the steppe from the numerous nomadic tribes that were trying to make their way west.

Byzantine Prince

01-13-2005, 23:04

Yes people interpret history as they see fit but there's a difference from everyone accepting something as a fact and then some guy going up there with no proof saying it's wrong. BTW Teutons=Anglo-Saxons for those that don't know. Also what is wrong with Encarta. It's the best and most up to date encyclopedia there is. If they can't be at least somewhat taken seriously I don't know what can.

I already explained that the "real" Bretons (the ones from the game suposedly) are few and they live in what is now the French province of Brittany. The place used to be called Armonica before they(the Bretons) fleed there from England because the Teutons(or Anglo-Saxons, I really don't care) invaded and changed the sociopolitical landscape of Britain. Why is it Emperor that the Bretons speak a Celtic language while you speak a germanic one? Why? Why don't these languages have almost anything in common? Why?

Kraxis

01-14-2005, 00:49

Well, it doesn't seem that Emp is actually believing this guy, he just says that the man had some good arguments. Am I right?

Anyway, the invasion coincides with a rather widespread depletion of the Saxon homelands. In nothern Holland (not the province but the country) villages upon villages has been found to have been abandoned around the time of the invasions. I don't know about other places, but given this was caused by slightly higher waterlevels and more wet climate it is fairly acceptable to believe the same thing happened further north along the Waddenzee and along the innermost Baltic coast (around the area of Lübeck up to Aabenraa in Denmark, traditionally the home of the Angles).
And given that they made great tales of the wars, on both sides of the fence (the Welch and Saxons both created warstories that if perhaps not exactly correct at least presented much the same events).

Last, why would the Celto-Romans really abandon their rather refined way of living for a completely new languages and a more primitive culture? They even let their nice buildings decay, but only after the cultural takeover... Seems rather odd. Meanwhile the church kept on using latin in both writing and during sermons. So we go from hte population being, potentially, able to read, to situation where they have no chance at all at reading, and now they can't even understand what the priests are saying in the church.
That itself could have been the reason behind the importation of the culture, but then it is the first time I ahev ever heard about a whole people who gave up on their own culture, totally. I have heard about other taking another language as well, even living with both cultures (look at the Americas). But never have a I heard about a culture that has been forced down the throat of a population by their nobles or whatever, and then accepting it fully.

econ21

01-14-2005, 02:11

BalkanTourist

01-14-2005, 07:39

Kraxis, there are some really good thoughts in your post. I am going to take it a little further. Right now I am reading this book "Conquests and Cultures" by Thomas Sowell. In it he takes a look at four major groups of people: the British, the Slavs, the Africans and the Western Hemisphere Indians. It is not exactly a history book, but is rather a book that deals with social sciences. I am really into that since that science is based on history, but it looks at why are things happenening and what will happen in the future. For instance he argues that a reason the "OLD WORLD" (Europe, Asia and Africa) was more advanced than the "NEW WORLD" is that Eurasia is stretched east-west and the Americas are north-south. Thus, more land falls under the same geographical altitude and has the same climate, which helps spread the same agricultural techniques, which helps develop cultures. It probably doesn't make sence, but if you read the book it will strike you. Also, neither the Incas, nor the Mayas or Aztecs had invented the wheel. Why? The had no animals that could be used for carts such as horses, donkeys or even cattle. The only animal they used was the llama. All the labour had to be done manually. That said, it is astonishing the level of civilization those indians achieved.
Anyway, I can mention many other interesting facts from that book, but let me get to the topic. In the chapter about the British he talks about how this island which was in the backyard of all civilization became the Empire that everyone envied, the Empire upon which the sun never sets! From conquered, they became the conquerors! Before the Romans, there is nothing worth mentioning about the British isles. The isles were populated with about 30 or so tribes that were lagging hundreds of years in their civilizational development. That is not surprising, as it was like that everywhere in the hinterland of the continent. The places most developed in Europe were around the Medditerranian - Greece and then Rome. Rome is another example of people being conquered and culturaly influenced by the Greeks that came to be the conquerors and infact conquered their conquerors. Before them it was the great civilizatins of the east - Sumer, Acad, Egypt, Phoenicia and Persia. They were all around the Medditerranian. My suggestion is it was because of the suitable climate for agriculture thus the link - agriculture > settled way of living > culture.Carried way again...
In 65 B.C. Julius Caesar made an expedition to the Isles and though he hit bad weather and his cavalry was unable to get to shore and his infantry was numerically hugely inferior to the local Britons and Celts he managed to score a huge success because of the training, the discipline and the armament his troops possessed. He came back to Rome with many slaves from that campaign. 20 years later Claudius I believe sent another force this time to conquer the land. They accomplished that fairly easily and imposed the law and order of Rome. During the next 200 years and expecially after 60 A.D. till about 180 A.D during the "Pax Romana" was the golden age of Briton's civilization. The locals benefited in many aspects: significant changes in agriculture were made. That resulted in population boom. Also as a result coinage was introduced, since the excess amount of produce was sold thus creationg trade. Architecture was brought from Rome. Before the Britons lived in sheds. Now they build with bricks. After the Roman withdrawal and the following retrogress people stopped using bricks and they were finally reintroduced 1000 years later - during the 14th century. The window was introduced by the Romans. Many towns were built. During the Dark Ages many deteriorated and were engulfed by forests and just disappeared. London ceised to exist shortly after the Roman period until it was rebuilt many decades later. Romans built roads, ports helping with communication and trade. Walls were used for protection (the Hadrian wall). Baths, aquaducts, central heating, sewers, glass bottles (lost in the Dark Ages, introduced back during Elizabeth), law. It was a far, far more advanced culture. The Britons greatly benefited from that. The ones that were more stuborn moved to the west to Wales, the Picts and Scots to the north and west, some to Cornwall. The Britons that were romanized became much more developed than those who were not. The local aristocracy adopted latin language, dressed like the Romans and participated in the government. There were revolts of course, because the Romans were arrogant. One of the most famous ones was led by the wife of a local aristocrat- Boudicca. After her husband died, he left half of his estate to the Romans and the rest to his family. The Romans raped his daughters and wife and took the whole estate. She then led the people in a revolt against the Roman authority.That revolt was crushed and the Romans killed every man, woman or child they could get a hold of. After that new governors were sent.
In the begining of the 5th century Rome withdrew from Briatain, because of the growing barbaric threat elsewhere in the Empire. That led to a vaccuum of low and order and was used by the invading Germanic tribes. Even before that, immediately after the Roman withdrawal a process of retrogress had begun. The Britons that were Romanized were mostly the upper classes and the rest never changed their old way of living. In the times of chaos three major tribes from southern Denmark and northern Germany managed to set a foot on the island - the Anlges, the Saxons and the Jutes. They fought fiercely among each other, the Scots, Picts and the Britons. The Romanized Britons fled acros the channel to northern France. The ones that stayed were exterminated or merged with their conquerors. All in all, the Germanic conquest of Britain brought the develolpment of the locals many centuries back as if the Roman conquest never happened.
I can't help but compare this situation to the fall of the Balkan nations to the Ottoman empire which at its strength was far underdeveloped in comparison to the local cultures. At the end of the 14th century Bulgaria was getting ready to jump in post feudal stage of develpment similar to the Renesaince in Venice and Genoa. Instead it was brought back 700 years at the begining of the feudal stage.
I appologize for the long post. I got so much info in my mind and want to say so many things that sometimes I get carried way and it is hard for me to stay on one subject. It seems like everything is connected so I can't say one thing and ommiting something that might also be important. All that I have written, I've read in books and don't claim that is true, but that's what it is written there, so if you disagree, don't get mad at me, but give me other sources to read.

The_Emperor

01-14-2005, 12:01

Well, it doesn't seem that Emp is actually believing this guy, he just says that the man had some good arguments. Am I right?

Yes that is right.

The main point I am making is that history is very much open to interpretation given we don't know all of the facts about exactly what went on, especially given the destruction of the Roman Empire.

But my point is that history such as the Anglo-Saxons & the Celts is deeply intwined with the founding of present day nations, such as England, Wales and Scotland, and it arouses deep nationalistic passions.

We start to move into the area of national myth and claims on racial bloodlines.

Kraxis

01-14-2005, 14:55

I wonder if DNA evidence will eventually be able to address the issue of the extent of the Anglo-Saxon invasion? I have a vague memory that a study suggested Britain was more "British" - as opposed to Anglo-Saxon - than had been expected. I didn't watch the programme the Emperor cites but what I'd heard - perhaps from another source - was not so much that the Anglo-Saxon invasion did not happen, but more that it was a replacement of elites not unlike the Norman invasion, as opposed to a wholescale displacement of population. Personally, I find such a new story - Britain as a melting pot perhaps with an Anglo-Saxon lid - a bit more plausible than the "poor Celts driven to the peripherary" story. However, that's just my hunch - I would have thought genetics might provide the best evidence.
I only have my reference from Shadewolf when I visited him in England.
He talked long and hard about these DNA studies, and he said that they were quite a bit in favour of the Anglo-Saxons, while the Vikings were only heavily represented in the York area (good old Jorvik ~D), and basically not at all in Normandy (which fits my view of them).
Of course I only has his words for it, but he is a man of great love for his country and its history, I can't believe he would make a mistake of turning the results upside down.

The Wizard

01-14-2005, 19:05

BTW Teutons=Anglo-Saxons for those that don't know. Also what is wrong with Encarta. It's the best and most up to date encyclopedia there is. If they can't be at least somewhat taken seriously I don't know what can.The fact that Encarta chooses to use the term 'Teutons' instead of 'Saxons', 'Angles', and 'Jutes' (the so-called 'Anglo-Saxons' did not exist until centuries after these migrations) is enough for me. The term 'Teutons' comes form the apparently Helvetic or Gallic tribe of the Teutones, which was long believed by Europeans to be Germanic (although there still is debate to what this tribe really is, Germanic or Celtic). In no way can you term the so-called 'Anglo-Saxons' (a big generalization) as 'Teutons', and that is about the only argument for me to not regard Encarta very highly. No, Encyclopedia Britanni(c?)a is better, especially the famous 1911 edition.

I already explained that the "real" Bretons (the ones from the game suposedly) are few and they live in what is now the French province of Brittany. The place used to be called Armonica before they (the Bretons) fleed there from EnglandThe 'real Britons' you mention were certainly not few in number. You see, even though Germanic peoples took over most of their ancient territories and their blood was intermingled with the Germanic blood, the Celtic blood remains a very important factor in Europeans. This can be easily demonstrated by the fact that so-called 'pure Celts' (Irish, Welsh, Scots etc.) and so-called 'Germanic people' differ very little in in looks. Not that they ever did on the outset, but it has only become more so after the Great Migrations (maybe this could be used as an argument to support a theory that Germanic people looked quite different from Celtic people before the onset of the Great Migrations, but I'll not begin writing that thesis in a forum post ~;p).

In the begining of the 5th century Rome withdrew from Briatain, because of the growing barbaric threat elsewhere in the Empire.
Actually, the troops still stationed in Britain at the time of the so-called 'withdrawal because of pressure of barbarian tribes in mainland Europe', and the subsequent letter by the 'Emperor' Honorius was nothing more than a blatant attempt to gain power. Honorius, the leader of the field armies stationed in Roman Britain, withdrew his troops in an attempt to gain the title of Augustus, the Roman title of Emperor after Diocletianus. He was actually defeated in the subsequent civil war, but the Roman empire was too heavily pressured and simply too weak to defend Britain from the Picts, Scots-Irish, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, etc. following this final withdrawal.

~Wiz