So what happened to RTWs factions in history?

[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.

[Gregoshi]

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



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]

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]

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

[Kraxis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[BalkanTourist]

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]

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]

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 ), 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]

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 England

The '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 ).

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