|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 13, 2008 7:50:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Jan 13, 2008 11:50:23 GMT -5
Its very possible that the city itself was founded by vlachs but the state (under the name Pagania) existed since 7/8th centuries.
|
|
tyson
Amicus
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by tyson on Jan 13, 2008 18:54:30 GMT -5
ragusa has nothing to do with pagania. ragusa was not founded by nomadic morlachs, and nor was pagania. brittanica doesnt know jack shyt!
ragusa was founded by latin speaking locals that were left after the roman and byzantine empires lost control over the area.
their origins are a mixture of italic-romans, illyrians and greeks.
before ragusa, there was a greek settlement to the south of todays dubrovnik. the town was called epidarus or epidarum. it was located where todays cavtat is on the coast of konavle. a terrible earthquake hit the town and it sunk the whole city into the sea. i think even today you can find the ruins of the town under the sea at cavtat. the survivors of the inhabitants went and joined other locals in building ragusa.
one other reason why the nomadic morlachs couldnt of founded dubrovnik was because they were of the greek church, and ragusans were of the western church of rome. plus the nomadic morlachs were brusque and considered somewhat uncivilized, whereas the ragusans were a very cultured people.
once again i will say that morlachs had no part in the founding of ragusa.
morlachs didnt settle in the towns, they settled in the hills, mountains and countryside. also the reason why the orthdox morlachs became catholic in the dalmatian hinterland is because the dominant religion of the area was catholic, so they became catholic too, and was subsequently absorbed into the croat ethnos. anyways, my point being is that if the morlachs were the dominant factor in ragusa, and if they founded ragusa, then the peoples of ragusa would be of the greek church, and obviously the ragusans were not.
also the aristocrasy ruling ragusa was the latin speaking locals , but alot of their citizens were catholic croats who came from neighboring zahumlije, and travunija, and they were hired as workers who helped build the city. even though ragusa was the name that it was known by officially, it was called by alot of locals as "dubrovnik" , named after the oak trees that growed in the area.
then later on, ragusa bought land from zahumlije (primorje, ston), and travunija (zupa, konavle), so ragusa then had alot more catholic croat inhabitants. becuase of this, the republic of ragusa/dubrovnik became croat oriented, because the majority of its people were now croats.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Jan 13, 2008 21:36:19 GMT -5
Zahumlje and Travunia were SERBIAN populated lands and DAI, the Frankish Annuls etc. will attest to this.
|
|
Anthologic
Amicus
"Lord of all Reality"
Ha!
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by Anthologic on Jan 13, 2008 22:12:13 GMT -5
ragusa was not founded by nomadic morlachs, and nor was pagania. brittanica doesnt know jack shyt! Morloks? Silly, they just in a movie.. they're not real.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 14, 2008 0:26:22 GMT -5
Another article on Ragusa en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa-------- Origins
The city was established in 7th century[5] (circa 614) after Avar and Slavic raiders destroyed the Roman city of Epidaurum (today Cavtat, in Croatia). Some of the survivors moved 25 kilometers north to a small island near the coast where they founded a new settlement, Lausa. It has been claimed that a second raid by Croats in 656, resulted in the total destruction of Epidaurum.[5]
According to another theory Epidaurum was destroyed a first time in 265AD by the Goths and "Rausium (or Ragusa) probably was founded long before Epidaurus was finally destroyed, and that the various irruptions of barbarians, in the third and succeeding centuries, had led to the original establishment of this place of refuge".[2]
The new location offered more protection, but the native Roman population quickly established trade with the Slavic hinterland.
Roman Epidaurum refugees built their new settlement on the small island (some sources say peninsula) of Lausa off the shore while other populations (primarily Slavs) settled along the coast, directly across the narrow channel, and named their settlement Dubrovnik. Initially the populations were skeptical of each other. Over time they grew closer and finally in 12th century the two settlements merged. The channel that divided the city was filled creating the present day main street (the famous "Stradun") which became the city center. Thus, Dubrovnik became the Slavic name for the united town.
---------- ---------- Official languages The official language until 1472 was Latin.
Vernacular languages
Besides Latin and Dalmatian, two vernacular languages, (used by the common people in every day life) were spoken in Ragusa: the South Slavic Shtokavian dialect, and the Ragusan Italian dialect.
During the Middle Ages, the city walls were enlarged, and the city merged with the Slavic settlement of Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik's language, the Shtokavian dialect (a Central South Slavic dialect, today spoken in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia), entered in use in the city. Its use increased with the time, with immigration from the inland. In the 19th century, the modern Croatian language was standardized on the base of the Shtokavian dialect.
The Ragusan Italian dialect (Venetian dialect with Tuscan influences) took root among the Dalmatian-speaking merchant upper classes, as a result of Venetian influence [17].
------- Ragusan literature
The Ragusan literature in which Latin, Italian and Croatian languages coexisted blossomed in the 15th and 16th century.[18]
The Slavic works, written in the local Shtokavian dialect, are known as a part of the Illyric literature (the South Slavic vernacular literature, written before the development of the Croatian standard language). The Ragusan Illyric literature had a large role in the later development and standardization of the Croatian language as well as the modern Croatian literature.
The Ragusan works were written by the same people or writing circles, which wrote indifferently in Italian and Slavic (Croatian). As a consequence the choice of a specific language can not be presented as a sign of 'national identification' (Italian or Croatian), as often claimed. ------- Ethnicity Discussions about Ragusa's demographic structure often use the words Croatian or Italian to describe the Ragusan population during the republic. These discussions are mainly based on revised concepts which developed after the fall of the Republic; in particular, the time of Romantic Nationalism resulting from the French Revolution. Before this, states in general were not based on the contemporary unifying concepts such as nation, language or ethnicity. The attribution of a defining ethnicity is inappropriate: after the Middle Ages, the Republic always contained a mixed population, Latin and Slavic, evident from the languages known to have been spoken. --------
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 14, 2008 0:39:31 GMT -5
On Morlachs (romanized locals) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlachs----- 11th century tell how the Morlachs lived in the mountainous regions of Montenegro, Bosnia (Stara Vlaška), Herzegovina and on the Dalmatian coast. In the 14th century, some Morlachs moved northward and settled in present-day Croatia where later they would serve as frontier guardians in the Military Frontier between the Habsburg (Croatia) and the Ottoman (Bosnia) Empires, an area sometimes known as Morlachia. The continuous attempts by the feudal lords to reduce them to serfdom failed. It is not clear as yet exactly how the Morlachs survived, but the slower feudalization of the Western Balkans compared to the west of Europe seem to alleviate their decentralization from the feudal bonds. Greater freedom and easier mobility gave rise to the continuous running Slavic serfs whom they encountered, and eventually most Morlachs linguistically assimilated the local Slavs.
--------- more --------- "The Morlachs, who constitute the remaining 96%, belong to the Serbo-Croatian branch of the Slavonic race, having absorbed the Latinized Illyrians, Albanians and other alien elements with which they have been associated. The name of Morlachs, Morlaks or Morlacks commonly bestowed by English writers on the Dalmatian Sla y s, though sometimes restricted to the peasantry of the hills, is an abbreviated form of Mavrovlachi, meaning either "Black Vlachs," or, less probably, "Sea Vlachs." It was originally applied to the scattered remnants of the Latin or Latinized inhabitants of central Illyria, who were driven from their homes by the barbarian invaders during the 7th century, and took refuge among the mountains. Throughout the middle ages the Mavrovlachi were usually nomadic shepherds, cattle-drovers or muleteers. In the 14th century they emigrated from central Illyria into northern Dalmatia and maritime Croatia; and these regions were thenceforward known as Morlacchia, until the 18th century. Gradually, however, the Mavrovlachi became identified with the Slays, whose language and manners they adopted, and to whom they gave their own name. In northern Dalmatia the Sla y s of the interior are still called Morlacchi; in the south this name expresses contempt. Of the Vlachs, properly so called, very few are left in the country; although the nameVlachs is frequently used by the Sla y s to designate the Italians and the town-dwellers generally. The literary languages of Dalmatia are Italian and Serbo-Croatian; the spoken language is, in each case, modified by the introduction of various dialect forms.The Morlachs wear a picturesque and brightly-coloured costume, resembling that of the Serbs (see Servia). In appearance they are sometimes blond, with blue or grey eyes, like the Shumadian peasantry of Servia; more often, olive-skinned, with dark hair and eyes, like the Montenegrins, whom they rival in stature, strength and courage; while their conservative spirit, their devotion to national traditions, poetry and music, their pride, indolence and superstition, are typically Servian. Dalmatian public life is deeply affected by the jealousies which subsist between the Sla y s and the Italians, whose influence, though everywhere waning, remains predominant in some of the towns; and between Orthodox "Serbs," who use the Cyrillic alphabet, and Roman Catholic "Croats," who prefer the Latin. "
www.1911encyclopedia.org/Dalmatia
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 14, 2008 0:54:46 GMT -5
Ragusa was more of an Italic-like city, thus more culturally refined, whereas Morvlachs (many become slavized over centuries later) would be racially and culturally far more similar to warlike tribal people in Hercegovina and Montenegro (who without any doubt are majority of local origin only slavized and prior to that were romanized with initial origin being hellenistic illyrian one).
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 14, 2008 1:40:24 GMT -5
Tyson, you said:
Then they were Vlachs nonetheless; but if it wasn't these Morlachs, then what Vlach tribe that you referred to, founded Ragusa?
Aadmin, you amateur, the Wikipedia article on the Morlachs sucks. The statements are unsourced. Anyone could have made that up. You better start thinking about my message.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 14, 2008 9:12:47 GMT -5
They could have been Vegliot. Romanized Dalmatians spoke a tongue different from Vlach. The latter was spoken in the interior while Vegliot Dalmatian was spoken along the coast with Dalmatia as its centre. If some Latin element founded the city, it was these Latinized Dalmatians.
The Morlachs, to my understanding, came a while later. They were pastoralists and quite warlike as opposed to the trade focused Ragusans.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jan 14, 2008 11:00:59 GMT -5
Vlach is used above as a generalized term, approximately the way one might say Slav.
To the ancient Slavs all Latin speakers were Vlachs. Even today the Poles and Czechs say Woloch and Vlach, respectively to denote Italians. There are several Bosnian documents from the 13th century onwards referring to Ragusans as Vlachs.
The founders of Ragusa were not Morlachs.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 14, 2008 12:53:08 GMT -5
Aadmin, you amateur, the Wikipedia article on the Morlachs sucks. The statements are unsourced. Anyone could have made that up. You better start thinking about my message. I did not use wikipedia on Morlachs so pay attention. Two you said that since I am most likely of Vlach (which to you means Romanian) origin that I should promote Romanianism rather then Hellenism if I am correct! 1) Vlach (refered to themselves as Romans) just means romanized locals and Vlachs are mutually most similar to other local populations (racially and genetically) then to each other. Therefore Morlachs would be racially and genetically same as todays Montenegrins, BiH Serbs and Serbs in general that live where they used to live (as they became slavized later), Albanian Vlachs would be most similar to local Albanians (because they fused into them), Greeks Vlachs would be most similar to Greeks etc etc. 2) Second my ancestors did not migrate from Romania. In fact I am pretty sure that our presence in Montenegro and vicinity easily predates any major Romanian presence in what is now Romania. Romania is obviously a country that was mainly formed after Balkan Vlachs started migrating there during and after the crusades (as opposed to staying in northern Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, Serbia etc and getting assimilated into other nationalities). Therefore Romania is not any mother country to Vlachs in my regions but more of a refuge for Balkan Vlachs and as such I could hardly consider it as my true motherland (thats granted of course I would view being Roman/Vlach as detrimental to my ancestral origins (and if it was then I would view Italy as motherland and not Romania as our Roman influence came from there and not from a country that only itself become fully romanized several centuries back to most likely 13-14 century). 3) Being Romanized means accepting another culture (albeit advanced and kin to the origin Hellenic one but still foreign) same as being slavized. Originally local populations (southern Illyrians) were initially Hellenic (Hellenistic, Hellenized etc whatever the term one wants to use) in culture and language and this is the only initial origin that can be traced as being original. There is no records of any seperate Illyrian language in my regions or south to it except for Hellenic remains. I say Hellenism is the only provable starting point for my region and for much of Balkans for that reason (any regions south of Moesia, south of central Thrace and south of central Illyria. Therefore I know full well what I am and that is a Montenegrin Serb (and proud of it) whose ancestors were locals who were intially romanized and then slavized. The original culture of local Illyrians was Hellenic. Therefore (to simplify it) we we first Hellenic Illyrians, then Roman Illyrians and finally Slavized to finally take a form of Montenegrin Serbs. But I will always know and cherish that originally ( originally) we were Hellenes (in terms of culture and language) from Illyria.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 14, 2008 13:49:09 GMT -5
Originally, Illyrians were not Hellenic. They adopted that culture when making contact with the Greeks, much like when they were Romanized. As for Romanians, it is not clear yet whether we came from the south or were present in the lands north of Danube. Most likely, it's both of those things, so don't get too excited.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 14, 2008 13:51:13 GMT -5
What's this, then?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 14, 2008 14:05:09 GMT -5
Originally, Illyrians were not Hellenic. They adopted that culture when making contact with the Greeks, much like when they were Romanized. As for Romanians, it is not clear yet whether we came from the south or were present in the lands north of Danube. Most likely, it's both of those things, so don't get too excited. That is the whole thing, originally the oldest remains made by Illyrians are in Hellenic and there is no remains of another seperate language therefore it is Hellenic (unless someone can come up with older remains in another language for my region and south of it which has not been the case insofar). As far as romanisation goes that is clearly not original culture as Hellenic predates that one and romanized culture predates Slavic one. But all are predated by the Hellenic one. Thus Hellenic is the original one as far as actual civilization is concerned. What's this, then? That was not the link I referring to and I obviously didnt give it much attention in comparison regarding the subject on Morlachs.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 14, 2008 14:44:35 GMT -5
Vlach is used above as a generalized term, approximately the way one might say Slav. To the ancient Slavs all Latin speakers were Vlachs. Even today the Poles and Czechs say Woloch and Vlach, respectively to denote Italians. There are several Bosnian documents from the 13th century onwards referring to Ragusans as Vlachs. The founders of Ragusa were not Morlachs. In that case, the founders of Ragusa were most probably Vlach (i.e. Latin speakers). To my knowledge, they preserved their Latin idiom and identity with much pride for quite some time. Though I wonder when Slav replaced the original tongue as the dominant language. In Kosova, there is a small Croatian community centered in Janjeva (Srb.Janjevo), near Prishtina. They descend from Ragusan traders who settled Kosova in the 15th century or so. They're Slavophone of course, though I wonder if this is the result of them being in contact with Serbs. Afterall, they speak the same Torlak dialect as the other southern Serbs. Studying their dialect would be of interest, to try and find Latin influences.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 14, 2008 14:48:21 GMT -5
Originally, Illyrians were not Hellenic. They adopted that culture when making contact with the Greeks, much like when they were Romanized. As for Romanians, it is not clear yet whether we came from the south or were present in the lands north of Danube. Most likely, it's both of those things, so don't get too excited. Actually, they were never Hellenic. The Greek influence was restricted to the coast where they founded colonies just as they did throughout the Mediterranean (from Spain and France in the west to Libya and Egypt in the south and east). But the interior remained very intact in terms of preserving the local culture, though no doubt contacts with Greeks left its marks. In terms of a large-scale assimilation, only the Paeonians were fully Hellenized. I am not aware of something similiar occuring elsewhere. Infact, I would not be surprised if the Celtic influence was stronger than the Greek one (whole Celtic tribes, like the Scordisci, settled Illyrian lands).
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 14, 2008 17:19:10 GMT -5
Actually they were very hellenic and I just finished posting article in Illyria forum about just how Hellenic they were. South Illyrians (at least Encheleans , Taulantians, Peonians, Ardideans and Daorson) were fully Hellenic in language they used, they had homeric like kingdoms and in their culture and the link bellow deals with that in detail. Political organization of illyrian communitiesCelts such as Scordisci lived far more north in the vicinity of todays Belgrade and might have made incursions southwards but without making any effective cultural impact (south was too close to advanced Greece and celtic stay too brief). Celts influenced pannonia and also Iapodes but not southern Illyria.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 14, 2008 17:31:16 GMT -5
No serious scholar supports the theory of Illyrians being Hellenic. Infact, this forum is the first and only place where I've read such a theory (formulated by you). I am sure that if there was convincing evidence of the Hellenic origins of the Illyrians, the latter would not be the enigma they are. They were considered barbarians by the Greeks and today all serious scholarship divide Illyrians and Greeks.
That the Illyrians were influenced, however, by Greek culture is normal. Afterall, so were many other nations. Greek colonies stretched throughout the Mediterranean and would during the Hellenistic era cover all of what was once the Persian empire. Even as far away as Bactria and India you would have Graeco-Indian kingdoms emerging from the ashes of Alexander's grande empire. Greek language, culture and art was widespread. That does not make the local Bactrians and Indians Greek, however. The same goes for Illyria. Greek coins circulated, Greek art was to an extent adopted. But there was also an indigenous culture, identity, language -- one which the Macedonians needed translators for to understand.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 14, 2008 17:42:11 GMT -5
Where is this elusive Macedonian language I hear about?Has anything been found that we can attribute to this? Or is this thought merely being used to disconnect it from the ancient Greeks....because there is no other excuse..... ?
Why wouldn't the Macedonians in all their glory spread their own language...?
IMHO,opinion... I think the two were joined at the hip.....
|
|