|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jul 9, 2011 13:26:42 GMT -5
^but then you wake up and realize that serbs & montenegrins are the same exact people Genetically they are very close. You can't expect people from, for example Subotica and Bar, to be exactly same From Vojvodina to Montenegro there is quite a bit of difference genetically. But genetics isn't ethnicity anyway and I think people are interested in their ethnic affiliation here. I used to be of the opinion and simply 'accept' the general 'theory' that Montenegrins were nothing more than 'mountain Serbs' who spoke differently. However , Montenegro has its own very epic and diverse history linking her to more peoples than just the Serbs. As I recall the warrior Montenegrins in the hills not only resisted Serbianization but resisted it violently even. But I'll say this. Montenegrins are actually a very small people. They are religiously linked to the Serbs and Orthodoxy conquered most of Mont. I think they are better off alligning with the Serbs regardless of history , pro Serb or not Serb.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Jul 9, 2011 13:56:03 GMT -5
Just to make it clear, when I compared people from Subotica and Bar I said Montengrins. What I meant was Serbs from Montenegro, not other non-Serbian citizens of Montenegro
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 24, 2011 11:21:45 GMT -5
I thought the same thing, but then I chekced out Serbian haplogroups. Serbs have 1.7% Q, Montenegrins have 2% Q. BUT Serbs also have 3.3% N, Montenegrins have 1.5% N. So Serbs have a total 5% Asiatic y-haplogroup, Montenegrins 3.5%. I never said its impossible for Serbs and Monties not to have it. Though I am not sure of the exact % of Q & N among us. Also it matters which subclade of N haplogroup is present among Serbs and Montenegrins. N is asiatic, no matter which N. Serbs must have acquired it from finnic peoples, probably proto-maygars. The presence of N makes the Sarmatian theory a little more sound. Sarmatians were originally from east of Volga to Ural mountains. Later they migrated and settled in Scythia(west of Volga). Whats interesting is that The Volga Bulgars and Maygars occupied the original Sarmatian area after Sarmatians left(or pushed out). Your enemies still border you today, following you to the Balkans. Hungary and Bulgaria. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 24, 2011 11:25:06 GMT -5
Genetically they are very close. You can't expect people from, for example Subotica and Bar, to be exactly same From Vojvodina to Montenegro there is quite a bit of difference genetically. But genetics isn't ethnicity anyway and I think people are interested in their ethnic affiliation here. I used to be of the opinion and simply 'accept' the general 'theory' that Montenegrins were nothing more than 'mountain Serbs' who spoke differently. However , Montenegro has its own very epic and diverse history linking her to more peoples than just the Serbs. As I recall the warrior Montenegrins in the hills not only resisted Serbianization but resisted it violently even. But I'll say this. Montenegrins are actually a very small people. They are religiously linked to the Serbs and Orthodoxy conquered most of Mont. I think they are better off alligning with the Serbs regardless of history , pro Serb or not Serb. Just drop your liberal nonesense. No one believes it anymore. Nothing you say, is ever backed with the ultimate proof: genetics. Montenegrins are Serbs, their only difference is the elevated haplogroup E levels, which is due to some mixture with Albanians.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Aug 24, 2011 16:43:02 GMT -5
I never said its impossible for Serbs and Monties not to have it. Though I am not sure of the exact % of Q & N among us. Also it matters which subclade of N haplogroup is present among Serbs and Montenegrins. N is asiatic, no matter which N. Serbs must have acquired it from finnic peoples, probably proto-maygars. The presence of N makes the Sarmatian theory a little more sound. Sarmatians were originally from east of Volga to Ural mountains. Later they migrated and settled in Scythia(west of Volga). Whats interesting is that The Volga Bulgars and Maygars occupied the original Sarmatian area after Sarmatians left(or pushed out). Your enemies still border you today, following you to the Balkans. Hungary and Bulgaria. ;D "Us"? So, you're not a Slav Yes, N is Asiatic, but the point is whether it N hg found in Serbs is the one which is common for Finns and Balts or Yakuts. Thats what I was thinking about.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Aug 24, 2011 17:44:33 GMT -5
There has never been any archaeological evidence to support Asiatic features of the old Bulgars. All graves of old Bulgars that have been excavated have shown Europiad features. Don't talk about archeological evidences, or are you trying to hide the obvious? Everything known about steppe bulgars is they are turanoid, turkic people! Study the calendar, their way of life, the speech, shatras/yurtas etc. etc.. They were turkic, for your disappointment.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Aug 25, 2011 23:10:19 GMT -5
The Asiatic influence is more than apparent;
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Aug 26, 2011 6:42:53 GMT -5
There has never been any archaeological evidence to support Asiatic features of the old Bulgars. All graves of old Bulgars that have been excavated have shown Europiad features. Don't talk about archeological evidences, or are you trying to hide the obvious? Everything known about steppe bulgars is they are turanoid, turkic people! Study the calendar, their way of life, the speech, shatras/yurtas etc. etc.. They were turkic, for your disappointment. I personally subscribe to the Iranian theory. I dont believe the Bulgars were Turkic anymore than the Safavids were Persian.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 26, 2011 8:19:52 GMT -5
Yeah, it seems contemporary historians are moving in that direction. There are several theories of origin for the old Bulgars, each one is about equally credible as the next. However, the Turkic theory itself is almost entirely based on linguistics, on a handful of terms rather, pertaining to military titles and military terms in general. Though, the old Bulgars were subdued by the Gok Turk Empire for quite a while so the language was most definitely affected.
On another note, the language of the old Bulgars, even from the time of the Huns, has been noted to have been different from Turkic, Slavic, and Irannic.. ie. it wouldn't have exclusively fallen under either one of these categories.
Anyway, when addressing such topics it's best to focus on historians/scholars who actually specialize on the topic rather then referring to historians who have no interest in it and merely make references to outdated materials.
And yet, the thing that astonishes me the most is how certain people on here are eager to present things as if they're black and white, when actual scholars/historians are enable to state things with such certainty.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 26, 2011 9:21:53 GMT -5
"rather then referring to historians"
"then"?
"when actual scholars/historians are enable to state things with such certainty."
"enable"? Or unable?
The semi-literate in me wants to know.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 26, 2011 10:19:46 GMT -5
Thank you for correcting my spelling mistakes Anittas.
You might not be entirely literate, but the semi-literate in you is at the top of his game. Pat your self on the back bro, this truly is a milestone for you.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 26, 2011 10:24:48 GMT -5
If a semi-literate corrects your writing, what makes you then?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 26, 2011 10:38:33 GMT -5
If a semi-literate corrects your writing, what makes you then? What makes me then or what does that make me? You're slippin bro. You know what, forget it.. don't bother patting yourself on the back. Ya don't deserves it. And to answer your question.. That makes me one who does not concern himself with irrelevant details, as clearly, I was able to get my point across.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 26, 2011 10:43:08 GMT -5
Irrelevant details? I wouldn't consider spelling correctly or using the correct words in the correct context as something irrelevant. You live in Canada, yes? So English is your second language, yes? Then you should be writing in a good and clear English. So do it.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 26, 2011 10:52:46 GMT -5
Lol. In grade 8 I actually got an award for my English. True story.
It was interesting 'cuz after 8th grade, there's a commencement ceremony with all the parents coming to the school and all 'em kids sittin waiting to get their diplomas.
I wasn't expectin no award or nothin, and I felt like it be nice if I got something just so that I can show my parents that I'm not wasting my time.. 'cuz the truth is I hated school, ever since grade 1, and they knew that.
Anyway, they called me up and to the shock of some I got me the award while all them "bookworms" were looking at me with those big eyes lol.
Definitely an entertaining experience.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 26, 2011 11:00:52 GMT -5
"coming to the school" the school? Yes, they looked at you with their big beautiful European eyes... and you looked back at them with your Khan eyes, ready to subdue them.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 26, 2011 12:24:32 GMT -5
Ughh no. This was in Canada, and it was in a school where there were few Europeans.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Aug 26, 2011 15:13:59 GMT -5
Genetically they are very close. You can't expect people from, for example Subotica and Bar, to be exactly same From Vojvodina to Montenegro there is quite a bit of difference genetically. But genetics isn't ethnicity anyway and I think people are interested in their ethnic affiliation here. I used to be of the opinion and simply 'accept' the general 'theory' that Montenegrins were nothing more than 'mountain Serbs' who spoke differently. However , Montenegro has its own very epic and diverse history linking her to more peoples than just the Serbs. As I recall the warrior Montenegrins in the hills not only resisted Serbianization but resisted it violently even. But I'll say this. Montenegrins are actually a very small people. They are religiously linked to the Serbs and Orthodoxy conquered most of Mont. I think they are better off alligning with the Serbs regardless of history , pro Serb or not Serb. the biggest difference between them is that the Montenegrins remained more untainted from foreign (turkish, venetian, & otherwise) influence, than their eastern & northern brothers, which makes them the best representation of the Serb nation. "We are apt to speak of the Serbs of Serbia as 'the' Serbians, and to forget that modern Serbia is a recent state mapped out arbitrarily by the Powers, and that truest representatives of the Great Serbian Empire are the Montenegrins" (Chapter XVII) - Mary E. Durham
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Aug 27, 2011 8:40:49 GMT -5
The Asiatic influence is more than apparent; I think papa-Kouber and his Bulgarians also left their mark in the western part of the Bulgarian world. At least, on the basis of the following observers from the turn of the last century. Just more evidence why you're one and the same: ‘Turkey in Europe’ Sir Charles Elliot, 1908pp. 321-322 Leaving the railway at Gratzko, a few stations south of Veles, I proceeded by road to Ochrida, through Monastir, across the centre of Slavonic Macedonia. Railways are generally supposed to stimulate and develop industry, but in Turkey, though they may have this effect on the larger centres, they have the special property of destroying roads in their vicinity and hence producing greater stagnation in remote districts. Formerly the road between Gratzko and Monastir was a great highway for traffic and one of the finest chausses in the country, but after the construction of the Salonica-Monastir railway it only served local needs and was allowed to fall into disrepair, and has in many places become almost impassable. The landscapes of Central Macedonia, though more picturesque than the scenery at the sides of the railway, are almost equally monotonous, and the same description will serve for half-a-dozen localities—a wide, dreary plain surrounded by wooded mountains and showing little trace of life except a few peasants struggling to till the soil with very primitive instruments. On the lowest slopes of the mountain straggle a few Bulgarian and Turkish hamlets, the latter easily distinguishable by their minarets. High up are one or two apparently inaccessible Vlach villages, and in some kind of gorge opening into the plain lies almost invariably the principal town of the district. Though the Bulgarians have become completely Slavised and can with difficulty be distinguished as a body from the Servians, yet the faces of the Macedonian peasantry have a look which is not European, and recalls the Finns of the Volga or the hordes of the Steppes. Lives of sullen obstinate labour and minds occupied ceaselessly with petty questions of household thrift, unillumined by any ideal or romance, have rendered the features of men and women alike flat, rigid, and stony. The Turkish peasant shares this capacity for continuous animal toil and indifference to distractions; but the conviction that he is naturally the superior of all Christians gives him the dignity which arises from a privileged position, whereas the Bulgarians after centuries of ignominy have only just succeeded in asserting their independent existence as Christians. Yet that labor improbus which specially characterises the race might no doubt produce as remarkable results in Macedonia as in Bulgaria. p. 332 We can hardly be wrong in considering that the original Bulgarian type is preserved in the somewhat Mongolian figure and features which are common in the eastern part of the Balkans, and are found as far west as Ochrida - heavy frames with broad, flat, stolid faces, small eyes, and straight, black hair. p. 338 The Slavonic population east of the Struma, and much of that between the Struma and Vardar, is mixed, but homogeneous with the population of Bulgaria, which is also mixed. It would appear that the original dividing line of language and customs between Servia and Bulgaria passed near Nish, and that before 1876 the people of that town, which is now thoroughly Servian, called themselves Bulgarian. Of the remaining Macedonian Slavs, an impartial observer can only say that they are intermediate between the Serbs and Bulgarians ; but I think that traces of Mongolian - that is, Bulgarian - physiognomy can be seen as far west as Ochrida. ‘Turkish Life in Town and Country’ Lucy M. J. Garnett, 1904p.250 The Bulgarians in Macedonia are to be met with in scattered communities throughout almost the whole of the province, occupying in some localities only isolated villages, and in others forming the bulk of the population of a district. These people are of two distinct types, the Slavo-Tartar and the Slavo-Greek. The former are distinguished by high cheek-bones, broad faces, small, sunken eyes, wide, flat noses, eyebrows thick and prominent, and dark complexion. The other type bears a strong general resemblance to the rest of the mixed Christian population of the Balkan provinces, some of their women being extremely pretty. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1911The Mongolian physical type, which prevails in the districts between the Balkans and the Danube, is also found in central Macedonia, and may be recognised as far west as Ochrida and Dibra. In general, however, the Macedonian Slavs differ somewhat in appearance and character from their neighbours beyond the Bulgarian and Servian frontiers: the peculiar type which they present is probably due to a considerable admixture of Vlach, Hellenic, Albanian and Turkish blood, and to the influence of the surrounding races. Almost all independent authorities, however, agree that the bulk of the Slavonic population of Macedonia is Bulgarian.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 27, 2011 10:18:59 GMT -5
-
|
|