So what happened to RTWs factions in history?

[Kraxis]

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]

Wehn I saw that one National Geo

Which month / year is that? Seems very interesting

[Kraxis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I think we should notice that the Romans, genetically, linguistically and culturally, had much to do with the roots of other modern nations: Spain, France, Romania and a few more.

[BalkanTourist]

"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]

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]

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.

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. 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. 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 ). 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 ).