|
Post by terroreign on Jul 15, 2009 22:13:31 GMT -5
Before the arrival of the ottoman turks, the history of Albania and Albania seems to be shrouded in darkness. What were they before the arrival? Why did call themselves a name that has no meaning in modern Albanian? Were the Albanians back then speaking a different language?
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 22:38:15 GMT -5
This "Montenegrin" is almost turning on the verge of retardedness.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jul 15, 2009 22:46:14 GMT -5
So can you answer this retard's question? Or is it too difficult for you
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 22:47:20 GMT -5
Im afraid i dont understand your question since it is more of an arguement.
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 22:47:58 GMT -5
What were they before the arrival?
Who is they? And what arrival are you speaking of?
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Jul 15, 2009 22:55:29 GMT -5
Where is your story before 1250 ad... ? Simple question ..no need to be insulting...
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jul 15, 2009 22:58:43 GMT -5
What were they before the arrival? Who is they? And what arrival are you speaking of? The arrival of the ottomans, ie before they called themselves Shqiptaret (people called themselves this likely even before Skanderbeg)
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 22:59:02 GMT -5
You mean before 1000AD because Albanians are mentioned b/w 1000 - 1250. And also that's not when the Ottomans came into the Balkans. They came much later.
You keep making these same errors but then demand of us to answer your questions?
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 23:04:43 GMT -5
What were they before the arrival? Who is they? And what arrival are you speaking of? The arrival of the ottomans, ie before they called themselves Shqiptaret (people called themselves this likely even before Skanderbeg) Before 1000 AD, there were the Dark Ages in Europe. There are not much records particularly because of this reason. Albanians are not alone in this but other nationalities also werent mentioned as frequently including the Russians. An example i can give you is the rise of Muscovy and Kievan Rus after 1000AD. During the Dark Ages, Albanians were an isolated group of tribes in highlands. Roman empire was weaking and falling. Consequently we weren't mentioned as frequently. There were geographical mentions of Albanoi and Albanopolis in present day Albania. It was a period of economic decline in Europe. In between 1000 AD - 1600 AD a large population of Albanians were called Arber/Arbanasi/Arberesh. The meaning of this word have different versions. Some say it means Arable land. Some say it denoted to Albanoi tribe. Perhaps this is best to leave to historians to study. Others say it comes from Latin. It does not really matter neither is that word suppose to have some meaning.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jul 15, 2009 23:14:25 GMT -5
The arrival of the ottomans, ie before they called themselves Shqiptaret (people called themselves this likely even before Skanderbeg) Before 1000 AD, there were the Dark Ages in Europe. There are not much records particularly because of this reason. Albanians are not alone in this but other nationalities also werent mentioned as frequently including the Russians. An example i can give you is the rise of Muscovy and Kievan Rus after 1000AD. During the Dark Ages, Albanians were an isolated group of tribes in highlands. Roman empire was weaking and falling. Consequently we weren't mentioned as frequently. There were geographical mentions of Albanoi and Albanopolis in present day Albania. It was a period of economic decline in Europe. In between 1000 AD - 1600 AD a large population of Albanians were called Arber/Arbanasi/Arberesh. The meaning of this word have different versions. Some say it means Arable land. Some say it denoted to Albanoi tribe. Perhaps this is best to leave to historians to study. Others say it comes from Latin. It does not really matter neither is that word suppose to have some meaning. Albanoi and Albanopolis are Latin/Greek names It does actually matter because that word having meaning in your own language shows ethnic continuity. For example Serbs, who've been called Serbs ever since they came down from the Carpathians, are a mix of slavs, iranians and many peoples, which is why they call themselves an Iranic-Sarmatic name, and not a slavic one.
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 23:18:07 GMT -5
For example Serbs, who've been called Serbs ever since they came down from the Carpathians, are a mix of slavs, iranians and many peoples, which is why they call themselves an Iranic-Sarmatic name, and not a slavic one
I still dont get your point. Albanians have been called Albanians ever since then. Why does the name have to have meaning for it to have continuity. These two dont even make sense or link together.
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 23:20:20 GMT -5
Misconceptions #1: Albanians are not mentioned before 1250.
Answer. The following is a Byzantine document from the 1038.
1038, 1042, 1078 Michael Attaleiates: The First Byzantine References
Michael Attaleiates was a Byzantine lawyer and historian who rose to high office under the emperors Romanus IV (r. 1067-1071) and Michael VII (r. 1071-1078). His 'History', covering the years 1034-1079, is a largely eyewitnessed account of political and military events in the Byzantine Empire. It was during this period that the Byzantine Greeks first took note of the Albanians as a people.
When the Emperor Michael (1), who passed away in piety and whose home is known to have been the province of Paphlagonia, took up the sceptre of the Byzantine Empire, the Agarene (2) people in Sicily in the West were defeated by Byzantine naval and land forces.
And had not the well-known George Maniakes, who had been entrusted with the general command, been eliminated on the slanderous accusation that he was hungry for power, and had not the military command of the war been transferred to others, that large and renowned island, blessed with large cities knowing no lack of precious goods, would still be under Byzantine control. Now, however, jealousy has destroyed not only the man and his endeavours, but also that enormous undertaking (3). For when subsequent commanders made base and shameful plans and decisions, not only was the island lost to Byzantium, but also the greater part of the army. Unfortunately, the people who had once been our allies and who possessed the same rights as citizens and the same religion, i.e. the Albanians and the Latins, who live in the Italian regions of our Empire beyond Western Rome, quite suddenly became enemies when Michael Dokenianos insanely directed his command against their leaders...
Constantine IX Monomachos (4) proved to be more benevolent on the imperial throne than his predecessor. He conveyed imperial honours and gifts to almost everyone with ambition, and delighted his subjects. Suddenly storm clouds gathered in the West and threatened him with nothing less than destruction and expulsion from the throne. The aforementioned George with the surname Maniakes, thirsting for blood, began an uprising in the Italian part of the Empire with Byzantine and Albanian soldiers there, being offended because the emperor had shown him a lack of respect and fearing the emperor in view of previous hostilities. He caused great turmoil in the rest of the army opposing him and took it over. After having set up his camp at a two days' march from Thessalonika, he made his attack on the imperial camp in the evening...
When this had taken place and the usurpers had gradually calmed down, another disaster began to take its course and to spread like a poisonous weed intent on destroying the crops. The danger came from the city of Epidamnus (Durrës). The Protoprohedros Duke Basiliakes, who had been sent there by the emperor, having succeeded in avoiding Bryennius and withdrawing from Adrianopole, took over Durrës and assembled an army there from all the surrounding regions. By soliciting support for his side by means of substantial gifts, he succeeded in having the Franks enter his territory from Italy and attempted to make use of them for his side. By various pretences and means, he collected money from everyone under his order and command, set up a list and used as a pretext for this arms buildup the fact that he intended to attack Bryennius as a renegade. Once he had ensured that he had indeed assembled a large army and forces fit for action, composed of Byzantine Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians and of his own soldiers, he set off and hastened to Thessalonika...
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jul 15, 2009 23:22:21 GMT -5
Look, imagine this is a timeline:
Iranians & Slavs ---> Serbs (Asia) --> Serbs Balkans ---> Serbia
Vlachs/Greeks --> Arberia/Albania --> Vlachs/Greeks + Shqiptaret/unknown --> Shqiperia
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 23:28:05 GMT -5
That's a stupid timeline and it does not make sense. This is the evolution of our name.
Albanoi(Albanopolis) --> Arbanoi/Arbanas --> Arberesh ---> Albania(today) (mentioned by Ptolemy) (by Byzantine and Roman Sources)
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 23:35:18 GMT -5
Misconceptions #2: Albanians are not mentioned before 1250.
Answer. The following is a Bulgarian document from the 1000 AD.
Fragment on the Origins of Nations What is possibly the earliest written reference to the Albanians is that to be found in an old Bulgarian text compiled around the beginning of the eleventh century. It was discovered in a Serbian manuscript dated 1628 and was first published in 1934 by Radoslav Grujic. This fragment of a legend from the time of Tsar Samuel endeavours, in a catechismal 'question and answer' form, to explain the origins of peoples and languages. It divides the world into seventy-two languages and three religious categories: Orthodox, half-believers (i.e. non-Orthodox Christians) and non-believers. Though the Serbs go unmentioned, the Albanians, still a small conglomeration of nomadic mountain tribes at this time, find their place among the nations of half-believers. If we accept the dating of Grujic, which is based primarily upon the contents of the text as a whole, this would be the earliest written document referring to the Albanians as a people or language group.
It can be seen that there are various languages on earth. Of them, there are five Orthodox languages: Bulgarian, Greek, Syrian, Iberian (Georgian) and Russian. Three of these have Orthodox alphabets: Greek, Bulgarian and Iberian. There are twelve languages of half-believers: Alamanians, Franks, Magyars (Hungarians), Indians, Jacobites, Armenians, Saxons, Lechs (Poles), Arbanasi (Albanians), Croatians, Hizi, Germans.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jul 15, 2009 23:35:42 GMT -5
The point you're not getting is that 'Albania' is not your name, it's Shqiperia or Shqiperi. And when people in the area called it "Albania" they most likely weren't speaking "Shqip". This is what I'd like to touch upon.
|
|
|
Post by leshte on Jul 15, 2009 23:39:10 GMT -5
Come down to Pogradec known as Enkelana befeore in Albania. This is around the area where Bardhyli ( literal translation in Albanian white star), the first Illyrian king ever, ruled. We got some nice Illyrian villages. Try to understand the words Illyrians themselves used, words used in names, words we use today in Albanian, and geographical places, in any language other than Albanian. You can't. All of them have meaning in Albanian. There was no Albania or Albanians or Shqipetar back then, even during Skanderbeg times. There were separate tribes. We didn't call ourselves Shqipetare or Albanian. The first time when there was a degree of unification between such tribes and later principalities was during the arrival of Turks. Prior to that there was none. All of these were on their own. During Skangerbeg times with the creation of the state of Arber we have for the first time principalities in today's Albania uniting under one state. Shqipetare is term that came after Scanderbeg from what I know. I guess the Albanoi tribe was the most famous being that its geographical location was one of the most favorable and accessible and people who visited that are identified the rest of the people with that tribe.
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 23:43:22 GMT -5
The point you're not getting is that 'Albania' is not your name, it's Shqiperia or Shqiperi. And when people in the area called it "Albania" they most likely weren't speaking "Shqip". This is what I'd like to touch upon. Am i not called Albanian? It says that on my Canadian passport. Shqiperi is only used by locals. Your question has been answered to death. We started to call ourselves Shqiptar very lately 17th century. The continuity is there. Foreigners still call us by the name we had during the middle ages. Shqiptar is not a new ethnicity, it is a term solely used by locals for locals.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jul 15, 2009 23:44:45 GMT -5
Can you tell me now why there was an Albanian tribe called Albanoi, when it has no meaning in Albanian, and not only that, but so many of those toponyms in that area.
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jul 15, 2009 23:47:34 GMT -5
Who says there are no meaning? There are different versions on what the meaning is. That does not mean it does not exist.
Now typonyms? Hold on. You are going on a different tangent. Explain? What typonyms you are talking about. Date. Name. Please. Otherwise you come off as purposely spaming.
|
|