Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 24, 2009 10:23:41 GMT -5
what i wanna say is that greeks lack many of the typical yugoslav-bulgarian characteristics: 1) we live longer (traditionally, even when we were fed worse than the rest of the balkanians) 2) we have better teeth (thats apparent difference between greeks and yugoslavs) 3) we dont get mad when we drink 4) we do better in economics and theoretical sciences but we suck in engineering and actual "on-the-ground" tasks. ... ... All the above, are clear indications of substantially different DNA. I am 100% confident. I know i have no slavic blood, and i am sure for the rest of greeks as well. As far as peloponesians are concerned, their mentality is ages away from the slavic one.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 24, 2009 10:25:58 GMT -5
I think it makes sense. There was never that big infusion of slavs into that region, it was mainly inhabited by greeks and albanians. there are some records of slav and bulgarian raids in epirus but its not comparable to thrace etc.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 24, 2009 10:26:32 GMT -5
The assimilation theory is flawed by any means... Its like saying that the Indians in America will eventually assimilate the Spanish and the English there... Cannot be done.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 24, 2009 10:27:22 GMT -5
I think it makes sense. There was never that big infusion of slavs into that region, it was mainly inhabited by greeks and albanians. there are some records of slav and bulgarian raids in epirus but its not comparable to thrace etc. if you mean SERB and Slav, yes... stop playing silly... for Jesus sake.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 24, 2009 10:29:11 GMT -5
except that Epirus is a rugged and mountainous region. it is proven that slavs loved the vallies, the mountains were slavised gradually, if there were lots of slavic settlements in the vallies.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 24, 2009 10:29:49 GMT -5
I think it makes sense. There was never that big infusion of slavs into that region, it was mainly inhabited by greeks and albanians. there are some records of slav and bulgarian raids in epirus but its not comparable to thrace etc. MAKEDONIA IS ANOTHER STORY... people were talking slav there till 20th century. Could you say, that those slavs came from Peloponese/Sterea? Who knows... One thing is sure. One either is slav and KNOWS it, or he is not slav and DOES NOT have clue.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 24, 2009 10:32:05 GMT -5
except that Epirus is a rugged and mountainous region. it is proven that slavs loved the vallies, the mountains were slavised gradually, if there were lots of slavic settlements in the vallies. In that case, Greece as a whole was a bad choice from the very start. Greece GENERALLY is mountainous.... Also what do you mean: gradually? Move from a better place to a worse place? Thats insane Ioan. We need a good theory, not a 100% stupid one.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 24, 2009 10:32:49 GMT -5
I think it makes sense. There was never that big infusion of slavs into that region, it was mainly inhabited by greeks and albanians. there are some records of slav and bulgarian raids in epirus but its not comparable to thrace etc. if you mean SERB and Slav, yes... stop playing silly... for Jesus sake. no I mean BULGAR raids, not Serbian. Serbian were done much much later: in the time of Dushan During the 6th century various Slavic tribes began raids that lasted intermittently through the tenth century. According to the opinions of reliable historians, the Slavs were nomadic peoples, and, in time, were absorbed by the local population. As a result, scant evidence remains attesting to their passage, and this includes some place names in the mountain regions where they settled The Bulgarian raids had a greater impact on the region: circa AD 929 they completely leveled Nicopolis and other Epirotan cities. Nevertheless, the Byzantine emperor Basil “the Bulgar-slayer” finally rid Epirus and the rest of the Greek peninsula of the Bulgarian danger. VERSUS When Constantinople was retaken, Epirus was for a short period (ca. 1335) incorporated into the Byzantine Empire, which, however, never succeeded in recovering its previous glory. The Serbs formed a powerful state and began to push southward, reaching as far as the river Genusus and the gates of Thessalonica. In 1349 Stephen Dushan occupied all of western Greece, reaching as far as Acarnania, and proclaimed himself emperor of “the Serbs and the Romans.” Many Albanians, who had helped him in his conquests, came from the areas north and settled in Epirus. we are talking about centuries apart and the bulgarian "excursions" were obviously more dangerous.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 24, 2009 10:33:58 GMT -5
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 24, 2009 10:37:20 GMT -5
except that Epirus is a rugged and mountainous region. it is proven that slavs loved the vallies, the mountains were slavised gradually, if there were lots of slavic settlements in the vallies. In that case, Greece as a whole was a bad choice from the very start. Greece GENERALLY is mountainous.... Also what do you mean: gradually? Move from a better place to a worse place? Thats insane Ioan. We need a good theory, not a 100% stupid one. thats not a new teory, its pretty old and among the more accepted: that slavs took mainly the vallies, the old balkanic people moved to the mountains and later were slaviced. thats prooven by the vlachs and the karakatchans who maintained their latin and greek speech in the mountains, being mainly shepards. most of the vlachs were shepards meaning living away from vallies and agricultural land.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 24, 2009 10:37:36 GMT -5
"During the 6th century various Slavic tribes began raids that lasted intermittently through the tenth century. According to the opinions of reliable historians, the Slavs were nomadic peoples, and, in time, were absorbed by the local population."
Thats the primary BS here. HOW CAN THEY BE ABSORBED WHEN THEY HAVE A 1000% INCOMPATIBLE CIVILIZATION WITH THE LOCALS? HOW CAN THEY BE ABSORBED WHEN THEY GAVE NAME TO EVERY INCH OF THIS LANDS?
THATS FUCKING INSANE TO BELIEVE THE ASSIMILATION THEORY....
THE ASSIMILATION THEORY IS IDIOTIC BY INTUITION AND DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE WORLD AROUND US, SMTH TRUE (NATURAL) SCIENCES ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 24, 2009 10:39:05 GMT -5
In that case, Greece as a whole was a bad choice from the very start. Greece GENERALLY is mountainous.... Also what do you mean: gradually? Move from a better place to a worse place? Thats insane Ioan. We need a good theory, not a 100% stupid one. thats not a new teory, its pretty old and among the more accepted: that slavs took mainly the vallies, the old balkanic people moved to the mountains and later were slaviced. thats prooven by the vlachs and the karakatchans who maintained their latin and greek speech in the mountains, being mainly shepards. most of the vlachs were shepards meaning living away from vallies and agricultural land. OK, my dear Ioan, i hope you understand how the above 10000000% contradicts the assimilation theory, since here you are talking about the exact opposite.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 24, 2009 10:43:35 GMT -5
as a conclusion, in order to find the truth one must have: 1) LOVE for the greek lands 2) Adequate amounts of technical knowledge 3) Adequate amounts of mathematical-scientific education 4) to be a Greek native 5) to have respect for the other balkanians 6) to have unlimited access in libraries, books, etc... (cause as we know internet depicts just a tiny portion of the mankind's intellectual work..) 7) to know at least Serbian or Slovenian
All the above are not an easy set of assumptions.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 24, 2009 12:17:30 GMT -5
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 Ipoteºti-Cândeºti 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/South_SlavsI agree with the abovementioned teory.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 24, 2009 18:25:21 GMT -5
Serbs have avar, hunnic......B.S!. I would agree that serbs have native balkanic (thracian, illyrian, dacian etc...) and non balkanic slavic. You bulgars have bulgar and hunnic etc....
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 24, 2009 23:55:01 GMT -5
first u are torlak, second yes serbs have avar blood, also iranian, since the serboi according to plinii are iranians. and thats just some blood, there is more.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 24, 2009 23:57:17 GMT -5
we can not believe what we want, we have to face the facts. novi, with u there is too many, i wish, i think etc. thats not history, its sciencefiction.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 25, 2009 0:22:43 GMT -5
Ioan, once you realize that blind copying pasting like an idiot, without processing what you copy/paste with your own mind, will never make you brain's rusted engine to higher RPMs. You will never "produce" new truths or knowledge. For this fact, i dont consider you neither an equal to us, nor a reliable re-transmitter of knowledge. (since you cant be no producer)
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 25, 2009 0:29:15 GMT -5
"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 Ipoteºti-Cândeºti culture."
Classic BS. Oh yeah, Slavs were not organized, they were inferior and later got assimilated (classic greek theory), but they preferred the valleys=(fertile lands)!! (for which the biggest wars have been fought), plus they gave name to every single village and city in Greece! Sounds pretty logical! Oh, and later they got assimilated! By the natives who were hiding in the mountains! I mean its obvious!
The only explanation for me is: The slavs either died of some disease, striking only Slavic DNA, or Moved to Yugoslavia, or Moved to Makedonia
I am the ONLY reliable greek to study this, since i have no fear of being proven slav, since my kids are already slav!! So i am not plagued by this idiotic tendency to skew every fact to meet my agenda! + I am not plagued by the idiotic anti-greek tendencies of idiots like falmerayer, who claimed in his idiocy that we are descendants of the slavs... TRUTH MOTHERf**kERS!!!
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 25, 2009 0:31:15 GMT -5
i do not want to "produce" your sciencefiction. There are arheologists, I prefer to believe them, as every logical person would.
|
|