|
Post by chalkedon on Aug 14, 2009 6:07:08 GMT -5
Im not suggesting that balkan slavs do not have ANY indeginous makeup in them...that would be silly. Im just saying its not to the extent some ppl and countries imply.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Aug 14, 2009 8:17:18 GMT -5
guys, having just spend a day in Nis, a week in NS and now a week in RS, (Brcko,Bijeljina) i can tell with certainty from what i have watched : a) The bosnians look 100% like tall Ukranians or like swedish villagers (more narrow heads in the cities). Their height is easily comparable to dutch or swedish. You can find one >= 2m tall man every 10 men or so. b) Srbianci from Nis are shorter and darker but still tall. You can find one man 2m tall every 20 men or so. Big chances you meet blond ppl here as well. c) In NS i am surprised to say that ppl on average are even a little bit shorter and darker. You can find the classical ex-yu towers, but the average guy is about 175 cm. You can find many blonde nice women but the majority is dark. just like greeks. Maybe its my impression, or i missed smth... but from Brcko to NS i noticed a huge gap. havn't been to rural Vojvodina tho.... Just a little bit in Sabac/Bogatic where ppl looked like NS ppl. Pyrros, I was wanting to ask you; since you travelled from Greece all the way up to the north Balkans, where elseo did you notice racial changes in people? Explain some more the people and their physical attributes in the different countries/regions. I (unfortunately) took a bus from Skopje to Ljubjana and didn't get to see people's looks progress into the Slovenians but to me, Slovenians look Germanic. But short Germanics. Some Croats also looked Germanic but some Balkan. Also, where did Greece end and Yugoslavs begin? (and no, this is not a loaded question) hard to tell Nikola. You have to stay in all major towns and go out in the center to get a feel, and then again, after the war, a lot of changes have been made. Yugoslav-Makedonija however i think was not affected by the wars. To the question about greeks and slavs hard to tell. To be frank in central/northern Greece, we have loads of vlah populations, and some of our slav speakers are really dark, they could be pure greek-pontian or vlah. But, the 1st trully blond populations are met in YU-makedonija. 1st time when i was in ex-YU Brcko some years ago, i asked my wife to tell me where are all the tall ppl, we greeks heard stories about the tallest nation on earth - the yugoslavs. 1st day, i was seeing only short ppl!! From the 2nd day, i see at least one person 2.10 m in Brcko per day! I mean you have to have spent many days maybe in a city and visit all places, where all groups of ppl go. That said, i think many Makedonci look like Nislici or Bosanci or from Vojvodina! (many blonde ppl) (your language however, makedonski, sounds like slovenian: vranec, *-ec, mleko, etc... !) oopsss here is where Novi comes into play!
|
|
gavrilo
Amicus
Vi ste svi banane
Posts: 840
|
Post by gavrilo on Aug 14, 2009 9:15:57 GMT -5
arsenje, that was a very sound and logical arguement. I definately see where you are coming from. Especially your point about the south slavs being cut out from the rest of the slavs, there is even less reasonto adopt a slavic language, when most of the trading is done with the greeks and romans of the south.
and the physical connection between slavs and serbs, bosnian muslims and croats is obvious. We all have the big shnoz! sorta like guidos (italians) and jews, lol. But on a serious note, it is true.
Fazilno, the slavic element is just too strong to be denied.
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Aug 14, 2009 10:07:46 GMT -5
hard to tell Nikola. You have to stay in all major towns and go out in the center to get a feel, and then again, after the war, a lot of changes have been made. Yugoslav-Makedonija however i think was not affected by the wars. To the question about greeks and slavs hard to tell. To be frank in central/northern Greece, we have loads of vlah populations, and some of our slav speakers are really dark, they could be pure greek-pontian or vlah. But, the 1st trully blond populations are met in YU-makedonija. 1st time when i was in ex-YU Brcko some years ago, i asked my wife to tell me where are all the tall ppl, we greeks heard stories about the tallest nation on earth - the yugoslavs. 1st day, i was seeing only short ppl!! From the 2nd day, i see at least one person 2.10 m in Brcko per day! I mean you have to have spent many days maybe in a city and visit all places, where all groups of ppl go. That said, i think many Makedonci look like Nislici or Bosanci or from Vojvodina! (many blonde ppl) (your language however, makedonski, sounds like slovenian: vranec, *-ec, mleko, etc... !) oopsss here is where Novi comes into play! Now that you mention it, Slovenian does sound a lot like Macedonian, you're right. I remember sitting in a cafe in Ljubjana (by myself ) and hearing a family behind me talking and at first I thought it was Macedonian but then when I listened in, I realised that I couldn't understand them due to my lack of experience with their language. But still, the way they pronounce words is very similar. Oh and the reason I ask about race is because when I was in (Yugo) Macedonia I saw a few really, really Greek looking Macedonians. And the odd Turkish looking one too but rarer. So I'm curous whether there is a blending from one look to another or whether as soon as you cross a border, people change immediately.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Aug 14, 2009 10:50:27 GMT -5
the best way is to have stats from schools, where you know all the details about the students. but i think that any sort of obsession about looks gets really fascist and nazi sooner or later, so i dont think it deserves any more ellaboration
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Aug 14, 2009 13:04:25 GMT -5
Alright, first of all, this bastard made me out to be something I'm not. I never once in my life said were entirely Illyrians or Thracians, I know there are Slavic, Celtic, Roman etc. components to our ethnos and that the Slavic one is a significant part. I just think its BS to think we didn't assimilate a large amount of natives when there is tons of evidence we did (and I do think they outnumbered the Serboi who came) . I also think this whole "Slavic brotherhood" shit is stupid. I like Russians, but I don't like them on the retarded basis that we speak a similar language.
That's because your ideas are utter BS. You can't even defend your theory. According to you, If there is a concentration of Dinarics in the Kurgan and in White Serbia other places we settled then that would mean we never got ethnically Slavicized and that they ethnically remained Iranian Sarmatians, otherwise there would be no Dinarics in Kurgan. Unless you're suggesting the Sarmatians and Slavs were one and the same? In that case, why are only certain areas of the Ukraine, White Serbia etc. (the ones the Serboi settled) Dinaric? Explain, I'm all ears.
Thats because (if you actually red Coon, your fvcking source), he will tell you that the Slavic physical type was Neo-Danubian not Dinaric. And I didn't say that the Serb settlers to the Ukraine accounted for ALL of the Dinarics in the Ukraine (that I don't know and unlike you I have the common sense to admit it), but it would account for a good chunk. Also, if you look at a map of New Serbia, it does roughly coincide with the Dinaric patch in the Ukraine. But since you're clearly retarded, I'll repeat it again: I didn't say that the Serb settlers to the Ukraine accounted for ALL of the Dinarics in the Ukraine (that I don't know and unlike you I have the common sense to admit it), but it would account for a good chunk.
As for genetics, you're right, either its not at the point or we're not at the point to be able to interpret them correctly which is why I haven't mentioned them this entire argument.
As to your whole, how could a small minority impose its language on a majority? Its happened so many times in history you'd honestly have to fvcking asleep in social 99% of the time to not find an example? In Britian, many English aren't Germanic at all (like the Anglo-Saxons),they are Celts (are ethnic kin with the Irish, Welsh, and Scots) who adopted the language and customs of their conquerors. The natives of South America and the Spaniards, the Arabs in North Africa, the list goes on.
You'll accept Nadja Higl, a German as a Serb, but you'll continue to look down upon South Serbs as being "Bulgarians". Thats what I meant. And by the way, paternally I'm from Kosovo/Vardarska and maternally, I'm from Old Montenegrin stock so I'm probably a lot "more" Serb than you considering those two regions are where we first settled.
|
|
|
Post by vinjak on Aug 14, 2009 17:41:56 GMT -5
Gentlemen debate without insults I dont care who started it, it needs to finish now.
Thread will be locked if it keeps going.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Aug 14, 2009 19:42:20 GMT -5
Fazilno, the slavic element is just too strong to be denied. I don't get who is denying anything, actually I SAID Slavs came thus the original inhabitants eventually adopted their language. So I'm not really denying anything about that. Even the last research made in that Swiss center proved that our ethnicities are mainly a product of historical circumstances, and not of genes (but that is the case with almost any other single ethnicity in the world). Obviously, if you think that swiss center is also part of the great Islamo-american-vatican-nazi world conspiracy against the Serb nation, I can't do nothing about it, those are my basis on which I rely on. Language adoption has been one of the most important way of raising the numbers of any people.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 15, 2009 8:29:28 GMT -5
Srbobran, I'd like to address your response on a point basis but that would require too much interpretation since your entire response is too convoluted & I suspect a bit intentionally so. It's too scattered to catch your drift. That stuff about Nadja Higl & you being more of a Serb then me, ma come on what garbage is that s**t you've brought up. For a second time I'm not going to respond to that crap.
And to you & Fazlinho, as if nobody realises that an alternative language can be spread & changed amongst a people (SOuth America, USA through colonization etc) but you're insulting the argument really in the way you refer to that. What we're after is an explanation of how slavic was spread. I raised a number of points about why it would not have been beneficial as the main language. Please check. Fazlinho you said "Adopting the languages of your master has been a process seen 100000 of times in history." So dude really nice of you to admit that the slavs were your Bosnian masters then hey? Yeah I thought not. I expect you two to come up with a much better explanation of how (an Igenea sourced) approx 30% slav pop in the case of Serbia & 20% in Bosnia & Croatia was able to spread their language?
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Aug 15, 2009 10:36:21 GMT -5
You bring me up the case of Bulgaria and I bring you up 100 other cases, it differed because of different reasons. This part of Wiki says something about that process As the Slavs spread south into the Balkans, they interacted with the numerous peoples and cultures. Since their lifestyle revolved around agriculture, they preferentially settled rural lands along the major highway networks which they moved along. Whilst they could not take the larger fortified towns, they looted the countryside and captured many prisoners. In his Strategikon, Pseudo-Maurice noted that it was commonplace for Slavs to accept newly acquired prisoners into their ranks. Despite Byzantine accounts of "pillaging" and "looting", it is possible that many indigenous peoples voluntarily assimilated with the Slavs. The Slavs lacked an organised, centrally ruled organisation which actually hastened the process of willful Slavicisation. The strongest evidence for such a co-existence is from archaeological remains along the Danube and Dacia known as the Ipoteşti-Cândeşti culture. Here, the villages dating back to the 6th century represent a continuity with the earlier Slavic Pen'kovka culture; modified by admixture with Daco-Getic, Daco-Roman and/or Byzantine elements within the same village. Such interactions awarded the pre-Slavic populace protection within the ranks of a dominant, new tribe. In return, they contributed to the genetic and cultural development the South Slavs. This phenomenon ultimately led to an exchange of various loan-words. For example, the Slavic name for "Greeks", Grci, is derived from the Latin Graecus presumably encountered through the local Romanised populace. Conversely, the Vlachs borrowed many Slavic words, especially pertaining to agricultural terms. Whether any of the original Thracian or Illyrian culture and language remained by the time Slavs arrived is a matter of debate. It is a difficult issue to analyse because of the overriding Greek and Roman influence in the region. Over time, more and more of the Latin-speaking natives (generally referred to as Vlachs) were assimilated (such that, in the western Balkans, Vlach came be a socio-occupational term rather than ethnic term.[11] The Romance speakers within the fortified Dalmatian cities managed to retain their culture and language for a longer time, Dalmatian was spoken until the high Middle Ages. However, they too were eventually assimilated into the body of Slavs. In contrast, the Romano-Dacians in Wallachia managed to maintain their Latin-based language, despite much Slavic influence. After centuries of peaceful co-existence, the groups fused to form the Romanians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_migration_to_the_Balkans#HistoryI'm no historian, but this explains quite well my point.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 15, 2009 12:01:40 GMT -5
Wow fazlinho, that was ummmmm, really shyte... at explaining what we're after.
What's this about you bringing up 100 cases? You actually made a reference to something about "100000 times in history." Is that what you're talking about?
You say you are no historian but it explains quite well your point. I doubt you really believe that. I mean look at it. It's basically saying that the slavs were a bunch of unorganised seljaci who could not take the larger fortified Vlach towns but they were able to take prisoners whilst the larger populated Vlach towns apparently just took five. wtf. The entire explanation is totally laughable. The majority took the language of the minority peasants? It's the opposite of what you said about taking the language of your master. And Vlachs taking slav words for agriculture. I've heard the exact opposite as well that slavs took Vlach words for agriculture because they were the seljaci.
There's only one document I'm aware of that shows a slav/Vlach population demographic (The Decani Charter) covering present day Kosovo, Montenegro & Serbia and it shows Vlachs & Albanians at about 10% of the population. It was done a long time after slavic estimated time of arrival so that may not paint an accurate picture but there you go. I'd love to know of other sources that help paint a dempgraphic picture. You & Srbobran seem happy with Igenea going with slavs being at 20-30% & I'm just not seeing an adequate explanation for it.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Aug 15, 2009 12:24:36 GMT -5
Several Points
1) Serboi - Northern Iranian Sarmatian tribe that originated from Caucasus that would have been Nordic Iranian by race as other northern Iranians (Scythians and Sarmatians).
2) Dinarics in Ukraine would have easily derived themselves from primarily Romanian and to lesser extent Serbian settlers.
3) Byzantines were fighting wars of survival against Persia and Arabs in 600s AD in Anatolia which left much of Balkans undefended and thus open for barbarian attack that brings Avars and Slavs in Balkans. Provinces of Thrace and Illyria are given less military priority versus south Greece and cities of Thessaloniki and Constantinople. The population is overwhelmingly native but the process of Slavizantion (Slavs dominating valleys while many natives escape for higher ground) starts.
4) Crusaders deal a final blow to Byzanines (~1200) that creates as a end result free Serbia and free Bulgaria. By this time natives have been largely slavized anyway and if they havent then the process would have accelerated at this point.
5) Today's ethnic nationalism that many display here is a recent product (within last two hundred years) and has nothing to do with middle ages (religion used as primary means of self-identity) and not to mention prior to that.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Aug 15, 2009 12:35:10 GMT -5
What difference does it make if my response isn't point by point? Explain. Anyways, that's weak man, grow a pair and just admit you're wrong, you not having a response is all that's telling me.
Its not scattered at all, buddy, you're just making excuses, each paragraph is basically about one thing and if you actually had something to say, you could easily respond to each point I made.
And again, quit twisting my words. I barely accept Nadja as a Serb (I'm not even sure if I do). And the whole me being more of a Serb than you was just a response (probably an accurate one too) to you labelling me and the rest of South Serbs as Bulgarians.
Actually, I think Ignea is BS. Never speak on my behalf again.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 15, 2009 12:45:18 GMT -5
1) Serboi - Northern Iranian Sarmatian tribe that originated from Caucasus that would have been Nordic Iranian by race as other northern Iranians (Scythians and Sarmatians). Ancient DNA of 13 Sarmatian remains from Pokrovka and Meirmagul kurgans was extracted for comparative analysis. Most of the genetic traits determined were of western Eurasian origin, while only a few were of central/east Asian origin. 2) Dinarics in Ukraine would have easily derived themselves from primarily Romanian and to lesser extent Serbian settlers. No. And especially bulls**t about Serbian settlers in New Serbia (Ukraine). You're massively contradicting yourself by reversing things & saying that the Serb settlers left a trace in Ukraine and zippo the other way Mr Wannabe Greek Emperor. And also the Ukrainian Dinarics were not described as Romanian Dinarics but as being more similar to south slav Dinarics. Here you go again; "...Reclus, in the eighties of the past century. At that time he noticed the closer relationship of the Ukrainians to the Southern Slavs." Srbobran, you're responses have continued to degenerate into childish bulls**t which it just making me more convinced of the alternative.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Aug 15, 2009 13:56:06 GMT -5
lets be fair... Slavs were no seljaci. They ruled the balkan penisula from 500 AD to 1500 AD. In mainland Greece, the Greek church handles all Church matters thus we retained peacefully our language. But political power/organization was 100% slavic.
The theory of the seljaci slavs suits the western agenda of raping history.
Arsenije, i think Slav language pevailed because: a) it was more FRESH b) VIVID c) accurate
in short SUPERIOR to other balkan languages. The fact that greek was preserved, we greeks we owe it to the kindness and sincerity of our slav political leadership. Between the slav-occupied epirus and the greek-dominant crete during renaisance/enlightment there was a HUGE gap in culturing greek language.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Aug 15, 2009 16:29:36 GMT -5
PROVE me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 15, 2009 21:52:45 GMT -5
"You know whats really retarded? You'll accept some freakinGerman as fvcking Serbs but you won't accept an actual Serb from Kosovo as a Serbia? You disgust me. Kosovo was the first place settled by Serbs upon our arrival so I'm probably "more" of a Serb than you are (my family has roots in Kosovo dating back seven hundred years when my family name was mentioned in a chronicle listing them as being present in Brankovic's army at Kosovo) People with your divisive attitude are the reason Serbs were never united, the reason they never will be united, and the reason why our fvcking national motto is utterly meaningless to us."
I agree 100% Srbobran, nothing against brate Arsenije. I've read 50% of vojvodina serbs ancestry is either from vardarska or kosovo. My mum used to tell me that serbs are gods gifts to others but to our own we are azz-hol*s!.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 16, 2009 0:33:44 GMT -5
"lets be fair... Slavs were no seljaci. They ruled the balkan penisula from 500 AD to 1500 AD. In mainland Greece, the Greek church handles all Church matters thus we retained peacefully our language. But political power/organization was 100% slavic." Its a yes and no, most of the balkans slavs adopted superior cultures from the east or west. Csar Dushan wanted his empire to be a serbo-greek empire, he deeply admired greek cilivisation
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Aug 16, 2009 2:02:37 GMT -5
Guys, its not Arsenije's problem. My very wife (originally from Krajina), once told me that southern serbs are not serbs, and she stills thinks that spending an evening in Nis is dangerous.... She was at Brcko, and i was with my parents in Nis, and sent me an SMS not to stay late (after 21:00!!!)
WTF?
I mean western anti-serb propaganda is more effective among serbs rather than foreigners?
Anyway, to me all serbs are the same.
Arsenije, Srbobran, pesronal insults aside, please write down accurately your differences concerning serbdom (customs, language, manerisms, philosophy) the main ingredients of human mind and lets see how different you two are.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Aug 16, 2009 2:02:49 GMT -5
Several Points 4) Crusaders deal a final blow to Byzanines (~1200) that creates as a end result free Serbia and free Bulgaria. Bulgaria was already free of the Byzantines in 1185. Byzantine empire was taken by the Latins in 1204. I agree with Srbobran. The preslavic populace must ve contributed alot to the southern slavs, at least genetically. I do not believe that slavs came and killed 3-4 million people. The fact that the Romanians remain today is another proove: probably its due to the fact that Serbia and Bulgaria had states where the official curch and administration language was Slavic. Romanians organized their state much later.
|
|