So what happened to RTWs factions in history?

[Byzantine Prince]

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. [i]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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I'm confused.

[Gregoshi]

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]

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]

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.

[Byzantine Prince]

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.

[Rosacrux redux]

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.