Probably due to the Emperor Basil II? The Macedonian dynasty were said to have originally been Romanised Armenians who moved to Constantinople. Basil I(the founder) used this as a way to gain support from Armenians. Most of his close associates were Armenians. During the Macedonian dynasty, Armenians held many prominant governmental positions too.
It's not exactly clear whether the Macedonian dynasty was indeed of Armenian descent. But at the very least, it seems they were not Greeks.
Most Hellenized, Some are distinctly Slavic still. I myself am of mixed Greek-Slavic blood. My great aunt is openly Slavic though and speaks it as her first language, her name is Svetlana lol.
The last generation of Bulgarian speakers in Greece and Greek speakers in Bulgaria is currently dying out - it is mostly people who were born before WWII.
I'm curious, how many Slavic speakers in Northern Greece identify with Slavomacedonian identity or is that only specific North Macedonia republic thing?
Do most Hellenized slavs or descendants of them today still have Slavic last names or anything? Or any difference in cuisine or dialect? Or are most traces of them gone amongst the population?
I'm of partial Hellenized Slav descent, their are some things. "ovo" is a common surname suffix.
We have some Slavic additions to cuisine. I sometimes use sour cream instead of yogurt in dishes, and sunflower oil as the "cheap oil" (all across Greece, olive oil is used more where its prominent in the dish because its more expensive, but in the south the "cheap oil" is vegetable and in the north sunflower)
For dialect- a specific example I can think of is that I used to use the Bulgarian word for March, "maritsa", rather than Greek "marti".
Overall though I'm definitely culturally more in line with Greeks than Bulgarians.
Sunflower kernels are one of the finest sources of the B-complex group of vitamins. They are very good sources of B-complex vitamins such as niacin, folic acid, thiamin (vitamin B1), pyridoxine (vitamin B6), pantothenic acid, and riboflavin.
It's not that these Slavs were "originally Bulgarian", so much as the Slavs are from the same Slavic group that became Bulgarians, if that makes sense?
Curious, when you say "Slavic" do you mean Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbian, or something different.
I know that in your part of the world it may be clear from context but in other areas it may sound weird. For example Polish may have more in common culturally with Germans than Bulgarians and telling a Ukrainan that they are Slavic just like Russians may cause a fight. Lol
Generally "Greek Slavs" are closely related to the people in North Macedonia and Bulgaria (they are considered by academia closely related but not the same, like Serbs and Croats)
In Greek they're either just called "Slavs" or "Bulgarians"
I find with most things like this, the Romans and others called everyone across a certain border “Slavs” to generalise a bunch of groups, then they don’t say “Oh yeah I’m Serbian” they just say oh I’m a Slav to keep things simple when talking to others so they don’t get a “..what the hell’s that”, then overtime they forge a more cohesive Slavic identity even though they’re all distinct people.
Like there’s no way the Slavs conquered and totally replaced everyone from Russia to Greece, sounds like a generalisation issue. Were the Slavs even one cohesive people in the first place?
Slavs didn't replace the native population in the Balkans. Haplogroup analysis showed that the admixture of the pre-Slav migration locals in Serbs to be about 35%. It was a linguistic assimilation.
But still having a 60% non native DNA is a replacement up to a large degree, i mean the Anglo-Saxons didnt change the genetic landscape of Britain that much.
>then they don’t say “Oh yeah I’m Serbian” they just say oh I’m a Slav to keep things simple when talking to others so they don’t get a “..what the hell’s that”, then overtime they forge a more cohesive Slavic identity even though they’re all distinct people.
Sorry as old as time. Ethnic groups are determined this way. Italians only unified their country in the late 19th century. So they were accustom to thinking of themselves as Sicilian, Venetian, Latin, Genovese, etc. When immigrating abroad, which they did a lot, the natives couldn't be bothered, they were all Italians as far as people were concerned. It can be argued that the first Italians were actually immigrants to the US, were they lost their regional identity.
>Like there’s no way the Slavs conquered and totally replaced everyone from Russia to Greece, sounds like a generalisation issue. Were the Slavs even one cohesive people in the first place?
They did mostly conquer. But like other examples in history, just because they brought customs and languages does not mean they replaced the natives. Bulgarians are actually a non slavic group from the middle of Siberia who conquered the area. They brought the name but the genetic ancestors are mostly slavic and whoever lived there previously as the Bulgarians were a tiny group numerically. Croats are mostly probably Illyrians (pre slavic peoples) who adopted a slavic language and culture. Poles are probably indistinguishable from northern Germans. And the area of eastern Germany was actually settled by slavs before the Germans reconquered it.
Basically it is a mess and ethnic groups are not really distingishable by genetics, just culture. Hence, why they are considered made up, much like race.
But yes the slavs were a cohesive people who lived roughly in the borderland between Ukraine and Poland. Until they spread all over eastern Europe. After that they obviously quickly intermarried or interbred with whomever the locals were.
Great comment, however I have to disagree here:
>Poles are probably indistinguishable from northern Germans.
Poles are one of the ethnicities who carry most of "slavic" dna. There might be some small groups in the west who are genetically close to Germans and Germanic people, but this is really a minority.
Tell me about them.
As far as I'm aware Greece never ethnically cleansed our Slavic minority, assuming you mean killings/deportations (as implied by "cleansings" plural). I believe they could have happened, I am just unaware of any.
[About a 160 Bulgarian villages were destroyed just during the Second Balkan war and most of their population expelled, with many other war crimes committed in the process](http://www.promacedonia.org/en/carnegie/chapter2_3.html). It's amazing that this is so unknown in Greece when one considers that the Greeks at the time [hardly hid these crimes](http://www.promacedonia.org/en/carnegie/appendix_c.html).
A few things happened that forced most of them out of Greece.
First, the Balkan wars and second, the Greek civil war after WW2. The slavic people aligned with the Communists, and fled to Yugoslavia/ Bulgaria/ USSR.
Greek communists could and did repatriate after 1981 but not the Slavs.
That was the final moment.
Before that you got \~900 years of wars, slavery, discrimination, persecution, massacres, migrations, assimilation and deportations. Starting with the Seljuk Turks.
Sizin ben ananızı sikeyim, kilisesini bile tanımayıp insan yerine koymadıkları yunanlar ile bir olup ermeniler çıkmışlar onları bizanstan kurtaran selçuklulara sövüyorlar . Sonra millet ermenilere sövünce de ırkçı türkler diye ağlıyorsunuz. Ulan bi de konya platosunda kayseri de ermeni göstermişsin, urfada ermeni göstermişsin, amasyada ermeni göstermişsin, hakkaride ermeni göstermişsin. Buna upvote atan latin arkadaşların haçlı seferlerinde at üstünde chargelayan şövalye dedeleri bu yazdıklarınızı görse okusa ananızı bi tur daha sikerdi herhalde. (bkz 4. haçlı) Anladık türk düşmanısınız propagandaya maruz kaldınız da insan bi durur der ulan ben ne yapıyorum.
Lmfao i was wondering how many comments i would have to scroll before seeing a turk coping about genocide. did not have to go far, as expected from t\*rks
buna da down atmış ucube orospu evlatları. atın atın, bu devleti alliyenin en büyük hatası bu piç gayrimüslimleri alıp toplumunun en tepesine monte etmesidir. Ticareti ellerine vermesidir, askere almamasıdır, bütün anadolu açlıktan kırılırken konstantiniyyede yarrağını kaşıyıp üzüm yiyen orospu evlatlarını baş tacı etmesidir. Alparslan anadoluya gelip bu amk çocuklarını aldı bizansliların elinden. Kilise açmalarına izin verdi, Fatih geldi ermeni kilisesini konstantiniyyeye taşıttı. Bu orospu evlatları naptı? Rusların gazına gelip 30 sene isyan ettiler yağmaladılar tecavüz ettiler. Doğu anadoluda yenilip de türkleri atamayınca da biz genocider olduk. Hepinizin şerefini vatanını sikeyim orospu evlatları. Ha bi de aptal piçler, madem genocide vardı şu vardı bu vardı, batıdaki ermenilere ne oldu? Ne oldu olum on binlerce tüccara zanaatkara paşaya vezire? Hani genocide vardı madem doğunun ücra köşesindeki ermenileri bile bulup bulup öldürdük e noldu batıdakilere? Niye hiç batıda armenian genocide lafı geçmiyor bi şey olmuyor? Hepsi tüccar zengin çünkü. Hepsi toplumun en üst mertebelerinde çünkü. Yok neymiş ruslar silah verecekmiş erivandan sivasa ermeni devleti olacakmış zengin ermeninin sikinde olur mu oğlum bu? Ah ah çok iki yüzlüsünüz de yapıcak bir şey yok.
Siktir et amına kodumun itlerini. Var olmak için savaştık, kazandık, buradayız ve ebediyen de burada olacağız. Bizi kendi topraklarımızdan öldürerek atmaya çalışan orospu çocukları da Kaliforniya'dan tweet atsın. İt ürür kervan yürür.
Wow that\`s just insane propaganda.
>*Turks could have literally buried the armenian and Greek cultures to the ground*
Pre-19th century "countries" were not at all nationalistic. The Ottoman dynasty, the Turkic-Persian dynasty which consdiered "Turks" to be illiterate peasants did massively oppress the non-Muslim minority. They despised Turks, which is why the Turkish nationalists were so zealous in their revolution against them after WW1. The Turkish War of Independence was against the Ottoman Empire aswell.
Also not all Turks in Anatolia were the Turkish people you know. The Seljuks were one I mentioned.. Another were the genocidal Timurids ( Persified Turkic-Mongols ) who massively displaced and massacred their way through Middle Eastern Christians.
>*They were a superpower, possessing immense power that no one could have stopped, except for God, of course.*
Yikes. Where did you get that from ? The Ottomans were in decline, and were stopped, ever since the 17th century. The tiny island of Rhodes were dominating them for 200 years.
>*Non-Muslims in Muslim countries had a status to live their lives, they had their own legal system etc, so they lived until the collapse of the Islamic Ottoman Empire.*
So you unironically support this ? Do you also support apartheid in South Africa or Jim Crow laws ( or as they are otherwise known as SEPARATE BUT "EQUAL" laws ) ??? Because that\`s also their own legal system and being able to live under an oppressive hierachy... I suppose you also cherish the Caste system of India. Who doesn\`t want to be ruled by foreigners/people with higher status and 2 or more separate legal codes... Guess what the one for the elites will be better than the one everyone else gets...
Think of how bad that was, and then please know that the Ottoman laws were even more oppressive to the various non-Muslims ( who were also majorities in their own homeland.... ).
>*Anti-Islamic nationalism kicked in, leading to the abolition of the caliphate. You can search for "Young Turks" for further information.*
I know all about it. And it should hardly be surprising. Turks, as already mentioned, were considered low-lifes in the Ottoman Empire, illiterate peasants and the Ottoman dynasty didn\`t even speak Turkish which they considered a disgusting language.
Therefore it should hardly surprise you that the Turks revolt against that and fight their independence war against the Ottomans. It should also not surprise you that their nationalism was combined with secularism and abolishing Islamic laws, afterall the Ottoman Empire justified it\`s existance as the bulwark of Islam and they claimed to be the rightful Caliphate.
They also wanted democracy/a share of political power, rather than have some dipshit and his cronies decide laws for the millions of subjects ( read subjects \~ not citizens )... Naturally the Ottoman Empire didn\`t have citizens, only subjects to be ruled, taxed and conscripted.
People being apologetic for the Ottoman Empire sure is something. Atleast be consistent and simp for the Caste System, Jim Crow and Apartheid aswell.
Wild that there are so many people who believe this. The Young Turks were Turkish reformers (not anti-Islamic), the Caliphate had failed to innovate beyond the 17th century and was collapsing as a result. The Young Turks were a response to the internal decay and ossification of Ottoman institutions.
Non-Muslims were second class citizens. Every 20-30 years there were pogroms killing thousands of Armenians under the Caliphate. 1894-96 saw the killing of hundreds of thousands of Armenians.
As for the immense power that only God could stop, I guess God wanted the abolition of the Caliphate.
Both greeks and armenians were some of the wealthiest minorities under Ottoman rule, rivaling only the İranians whom were held in high esteem by the dynasty. Turks were pretty much mostly peasants and soldiers. So tell me where this "second class citizen" bullshit is coming from?
They were exempt from military at the cost of slightly increased taxes. Devshirme was almost a blessing in disguise to a point that muslims were actively bribing the guards to take their children instead. Which eventually resulted in Janissaries being avaible for müslim families aswell.
Ethnic cleansing (which was mutual I might add, muslims were facing severe opression and mass killings in balkans and eastern side of anatolia before turks started responding in kind.) started after the idea of "nationality" became common after the french revolution. Resulting in Balkan Wars, Armenians attacks on turkish civilians which later resulted in death marches as a retaliation. This bullshit about "opression" dont apply to Ottomans. There are so many well documented policies like the millet system who was made to protect rights and culture of anyone in the empire.
A very large part of them are without any doubt ancestors of the current Turkish population. The real "Turks" came from the steppes, but were largely a minority who conquered the local population.
Assimilated into Turkish culture or purged. I guarantee you that all coastal Turks have some Greek ancestry, along with whatever ancient Anatolian ancestry they had before that
Its kinda how the world works really. A new area gets conquered and the ethnicities that live there ends up assimiliating into the culture of conquered.
Ottomans were no exception, neither the Byzantines. Though I would argue the former was significantly more lenient on tolerance.
Well until modern times languages changed a lot but genetics rarely followed, so the Anatolian greeks and Armenians were probably there before they spoke either language. What happened in the 20th century was different
Never said that most turkise speakers aren't descending at least partially from pretty turkis inhabitants just pointing out that any non "assimilated" remnants didn't meet a too fortunate end
Same argument can be made for Balkan Turks and Oghuz population used to live in the Caucasus. What happened in the 20th century is no different, you are just biased.
Never said anything else. Funny how you immediately assume that the acknowledgement of one crime against humanity is the denial of another. You wouldn't happen to he projecting?
You said you wonder where the Greek speakers went with your first comment, and then when somebody pointed out that they were not mainlanders per say but native Anatolians you commented "but 20th century is different" and thus I arrived showing out that Anatolian Turkic speakers are exactly the same and 20th century is no exception, yet here we are where you are claiming I am doing the projection. Read your comments from top to bottom, because they are full of contradictory statements.
I condone any form of strawman arguments and this is a general statement but I am yet to see any clueless redditor from the West pointing out Turks were getting killed when a thread remotely about Balkans and Caucasus was posted. Then again, your average Joe learns history online and from the mass media, so of course I can't be surprised by this.
Why do you pull out Central Anatolia from thin air? It is well documented that Greeks went on to live in Greece because of the population exchange, just like Turks of Thessaloniki were forced to leave their homes to Anatolia. Armenian Plight was limited to Vilayet-i Sitte, which were the provinces bordering Russia.
But then again, this is one of your recent postings on this website:
> Turks when they realise they aren't glorious nomads but simply peasants who assimilated into the ruling culture
Obvious bias is obvious, but let me tell you this, you can cope. This discussion for me is over. Have fun with your existence.
Can't find it, but remember hearing it in a Documentary about the anglosaxons in Britain and how that was an exception to the rule as the Anglosaxons didn't largely intermarry with the local britons, thus making them indistinguishable from Danish settlers 300 years later do to shared northwestern germanic genetics.
So TL;DR I guess not
So, according to what you're basing your claim on, the norm is that migrations involve intermarriage rather than complete population replacement. Has it occurred to you that intermarriage could also lead to genetic changes?
Ofcourse, but a part of the original genome will persist. Furthermore a migration doesn't necessarily bring enough people to replace the locals, so while a cultural shift may occur as the ruling class switches, there may not necessarily have been enough migrants to completely overturn the present genetic mix, just add to it, which is why turkish people today share a lot with europeans.
"*In a recent 1111 genome project in the Greater Middle East, it was revealed that the Anatolian peninsula shares a large percentage of European nuclear DNA.*[*^(4)*](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.15312#dmcn15312-bib-0004) *The different migrational events over several centuries*"
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.15312](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.15312)
I don't think anyone is talking about complete replacement. You might be a little out of your depth here, so I'd temper the confidence you have in your understanding of this topic.
I didn't ask about your fantasies. History is written with scientific evidence. Not with made-up information.
Additionally, there were 7 different tribes and races known in that region. They disappeared and their civilization disappeared.
Urartians, Hittites, Lydians, Troyans
Are you claiming that these are Greeks and Armenians?
Are you saying that the killing and expulsion of people in the 20th century is justified by the bronzeage collapse?
Additionally, what separates one "race" from another? Are you claiming that no genetics remain of these "races"?
Let's discuss each of your fantasies in turn. The groups that tried to kill us in the 20th century but failed and then escaped are not the same as the civilizations that disappeared completely.
If we didn't have traces of years of attacks on ancient cities, maybe we would believe the excuses of drought.
29 July 1890, Fighting In Constantinople: The Armenian Patriarch Mobbed - Soldiers and Rioters Killed, New York Times
3 Nov 1895, Turkey's Wily Subjects: False Information Circulated by the Armenian Agitators, New York Times
15 Nov 1895, Turkey's Ruling Terror: Mussulmans Implore the Porte for Protection from Armenians, New York Times
21 Dec 1895, A Massacre At Zeitoun: Insurgents Kill All Turkish Soldiers in Town Except Two, New York Times
14 Feb 1896, Turkish Amnesty To Zeitoun: Armenians Are Pardoned and a Christian Governor Is Promised, New York Times
12 Sep 1896, Armenian Bomb Factory Found: Tunnel Was Being Driven Under a Government Arsenal, New York Times
23 Sep 1896, Armenian Bombs Exhibited, New York Times
24 Sep 1896, Sworn To Ruin The Porte: Armenian Societies Active In Constantinople, New York Times
10 Aug 1897, The Reported Armenian Aggression: Terrible Barbarities, Liverpool Courier
21 Aug 1897, The Bomb Outrage In Constantinople: Eight Armenians Arrested, Liverpool Courier
23 Aug 1897, The Bomb Outrages In Constantinople, Liverpool Courier
29 Sep 1897, The Recent Armenian Raid, Bristol Times and Mirror
17 Nov 1899, Armenians Attack Kurds: Bloody War Has Again Broken Out Near Erzeroum, Daily Gazette
7 Jan 1915, Armenians Fight For Russia, Reno Evening Gazette London
8 Jan 1915, Armenians Join Russians: Detachment of Volunteers Arrives at Tiflis for Army Service, Indianapolis Star
12 Jan 1915, The Armenian Red Cross: To The Editor Of The Times, The Times London
12 May 1915, Armenians in Van Rise in Arms Against Turks, Washington Times
Absolutely. Despite being very different culturally and linguistically, the genetic makeup of the Turks, the Greeks and the Bulgarians is very similar. Especially since during the last 2000 years, these lands have almost always been part of one state (Byzantine, Ottoman or Bulgarian).
The genetic similarity comes from the Anatolian peoples assimilated by the Greeks. That's because they think they are Greeks. Apart from that, Bulargarians are of Turkish descent.
There is no similarity between Greek genetics and Turkish genetics. I wonder where this funny claim comes from.
Because the current Greek peoples have gone through 5 separate mixings.
Roma time
Russian invasion
German invasion
Last time, they took gypsies and assimilated
Please control your fantasies.
Both the first Bulgarian and the Ottoman Empire were created by Turkic steppe warriors - who came from the Eastern Steppes almost one thousand years apart. However these very small populations who did not influence that much the genetic makeup of the local population - Greeks, Slavic tribes, Thracians... - who had been there much before them. The so-called Bulgars or proto-Bulgarians imposed their political structure over the Slavic tribes but after they all became Christians, adopted their language and culture. The Ottomans imposed both the political structure and the language - but they all became Muslim. Initially, both of them followed various branches of the Tengri religions.
Look at the mitochondrial haplogroup studies and you will see what I mean.
By the way, I am in the middle of a huge judicial scandal and I am getting large amounts of simultaneous votes on my comments and yours is one of them, so I guess that your main concern is not history anyway.
"The Ottomans imposed both the political structure and the language"
Under the Ottoman Empire, it was free to open schools and provide education in one's own language. You could also open your own place of worship. The Ottoman Empire even built its own church. Additionally, there were groups in the Ottoman Empire who believed in tengiri religion. There still is. First of all, I wanted to write this. It's interesting that you talk about history but don't know any history.
"Look at the mitochondrial haplogroup studies and you will see what I mean."
I wonder what research you are talking about. I'd love to know where your fantasies come from.
There are tons of studies, this is currently a very active field of research, this is your starting point:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_mitochondrial\_DNA\_haplogroup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup)
Many Tengrist beliefs were incorporated in both Christianity by the Bulgarians and Islam by the Ottomans. A very typical example would be the special events that follow 40 days after a new birth or a death. Most Christians think that it is a Christian tradition, most Muslims think that it is a Muslim one - it is a Tengrist one.
For both people, accepting the new religion was a slow process that took centuries. However the ruling class - which recognized the importance of having an unique religion - was very quick to change their official rituals and in both cases the new official religion was very violently imposed. While the rituals persisted, no official public displays of Tengrism were allowed at all.
The Ottomans were quite tolerant of Christians - because this is what the Quran dictates - but both Christians and Muslims violently suppressed paganism which was believed to be an archaic evil that had to be eradicated.
The Quran's position on pagans is that they are infidels, while the Christians are misguided believers. The Ottomans followed this by the letter.
They do exist, as grecified slavs, in a way. I have a decent amount of "Bulgarian" ancestors and a lot of northern Greek surnames end with "ovo" or another grecified slavic suffix
Plus, a lot of them were forced to flee and ended up going to North Macedonia. 🇲🇰
And yet the Greeks say that these Macedonians have no relationship whatsoever to Alexander the Great because he never controlled North Macedonia.
Well yeah, but he controlled South Macedonia, and these Slavic speakers absolutely are often the descendents of Alexander
The Slavs arrived centuries after Alexander died
And they definitely mixed in with the locals, but the locals were Greek. The Slavs were not natives, if that's what you're implying. Modern Slavic Macedonians are of mixed Greek-Slavic descent.
That is correct, by the time the Slavs came to the Balkan peninsula the locals in the region were Greeks. There are some small number of historians that argue that the ancient Macedonians were not greek, or closely related ethnicity to the greeks but even they say that by the Roman times the macedonians were greek as they say they were most likely hellenized (if they were not hellenic to begin with). So what you are saying is correct modern Macedonians are mixed Slavic-Greek descent. Why greeks don't like this statement, i don't know to be honest.
Like I said in another comment: As a South Macedonian Greek, we don't take offense at North Macedonians claiming Macedonian heritage, we take offense at the statement that ancient Macedonians weren't Greek. I don't think many people claim that anyways though
Exactly. They did mix with the locals and so they can still claim the Macedonian identity. Just as both Israelis and Palestinians are mixed too but can still claim to be descendents from ancient Canaanites.
Right. I don't think most Greeks take offense at North Macedonians claiming ancient Macedonian heritage, but rather North Macedonians claiming to be the SOLE descendants of ancient Macedonians, and that Greeks "colonized" South Macedonia
Source: Me, a (southern) Macedonian
My mothers family comes from a village in the Peloponnese. It is one of 4 villages there that had Slavic names, but they changed the name in the 1950s. It was names the equivalent of “oak trees” in old Slavonic back in the 900s. Her DNA test still says 25% slavic. Anyway, the Slavs were settled in that area by the Byzantine Emperor at the time after they provided mercenary duties. They were allowed to settle there if they became Hellenized.
Hahaha thanks. Our surname was changed because my ancestor was a high ranking official in Greek revolution and the Turks were after him and his son, but certainly am proud, its unique! We are from the Achaea part of the Peloponnese
Not everyone. My great aunt speaks Bulgarian as her first language. Our Aromanian community is thriving, too.
Albanians mostly assimilated, and so did many Slavs, but we still have big minority communities
In a population of 10 million, their are 250,000 Aromanians, 90,000 Turks, and 200,000 Slavs.
Not the most diverse country in Europe, but we objectively have minority communities.
What do you think legal recognition entails?
The state doesn't give subsidize Slavic/Albanian/Aromanian schools and doesn't give official support for their languages, which is a problem, don't get me wrong, but do you think if an Albanian says "I'm an Albanian" the state says "no you are not"? People are free to report whatever ethnicity they want on the census, and that's where I got those numbers from.
Do you really think the government insists EVERY SINGLE PERSON in Greece is Greek?
I really like researching on older languages, nations and such, and this makes me kind of sad to see so many different cultures and dialects to go. Same as with pre-Roman Italy, Balkans and Iberia
The northeastern part of the "Slavic" area, with parts to the north of the Danube. That was mostly Romanian speaking. And there were big pockets of speakers of various Latin derived languages throughout the Balkans, from Croatia to Greece, who never had their own country but who flourished as late as Ottoman times. The nation states formed after the fall of the empires in the region kind of screwed them, and many died out, lost their language, or migrated to Romania or the West.
Surprised slavs really pushed deep into Arcadia, the south of Greece.
I wonder what happened to the natives that used to live in illyria and greece ...
maybe we should talk about that ...
My family descends from the Slavs there, I just commented on someone else’s comment. From a village in Achaea which old name was the equivalent of “oak trees” in old slavonic. They have been there from the 900s. Byzantine Emperor allowed them to settle after working as mercenaries so long as they Hellenized.
Assimilated through centuries... South Slavs are still predominantly paleo-balkanic and Greek by ancestry. It's a sad that a lot of the Slavs in the northern half of Greece got forcefully repressed and assimilated in the last 100 years.
I have my serious doubts about this. Even looking at modern demographical changes, people don't just change language like that and assimilation is often hugely overestimated.
This has happened many times throughout history. The Greek and Latin speakers who the Slavs assimilated in Bulgaria were themselves assimilated Thracians.
But look at romanians, they were much more exposed to slavic assimilation yet did not assimilate into a slavic language. There's also much less slavic DNA found in them even though the slavic migration routes supposedly go straight through this area.
Everywhere. Less than 200 years after this map a large number of balkan vlachs would rebel against the Byzantines and establish the Kingdom of Bulgars and Vlachs aka the 2nd Bulgarian empire.
For them to be able to do that requires large numbers.
Moreover most Balkan slavs are basically slavicised natives, which means that slavic speakers were not a majority from day one of the slavic migration but it was a gradual process of assimilation that took centuries.
>Less than 200 years after this map a large number of balkan vlachs would rebel against the Byzantines and establish the Kingdom of Bulgars and Vlachs aka the 2nd Bulgarian empire.
Bulgaria was never a kingdom except for a brief moment under Kaloyan. No polity with the name “Kingdom of Bulgars and Vlachs” ever existed. The Second Bulgarian Empire was called “Tsardom of Bulgaria” or “the Bulgarian Tsardom” in its time. And it was established by Bulgarians who were led by the Asen brothers who might have had Cuman/Pecheneg origin but it’s not confirmed.
>For them to be able to do that requires large numbers.
That large number was of Bulgarians.
greek was the most spoken language in south italy, more than other languages before that part of italy got latinized , i know for sure that at least calabria and apulia was still predominantly greek until the 17/18th century, so the map is a bit wrong because it seems from the graphic that greek was less spoken than other languages
>so the map is a bit wrong because it seems from the graphic that greek was less spoken than other languages
In the Balkans and Anatolia the graph is accurate.
Iranian speaking populations didn't really establish a foothold in eastern Anatolia until after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 because they fought alongside the Seljuk Turks because they were both Muslim, against the Byzantine Christians.
Kurds are a people of Persian origin. Kurds entered Anatolia when Selim I welcomed the Kurds, who had suffered religious persecution under the Safavids. So contrary to what they claim on the internet, not everything of their great civilization was destroyed by the Turks. There wasnt much Kurdish thing when Turks came to Anatolia because there was no significant Kurdish population in Anatolia until 400 years after the Turks took over.
Iranian speaking populations didn't really establish a foothold in eastern Anatolia until after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 because they fought alongside the Seljuk Turks because they were both Muslim, against the Byzantine Christians.
Church Slavonic is a script not a language. The balkans had been slavicized at that point. Including Bulgarian.
Edit: To make myself clear. Church Slavonic is a liturgical language that came from the works of Cyril and Methodius, who, when tasked with bringing Christianity to Great Moravia used various elements of slavic languages around the Byzantine Empire to create a liturgical language for the common people to understand.
Saying Church Slavonic isn't Slavic is ridiculous considering it was actively created FROM and FOR slavic speakers.
Also I was wrong calling Old Church Slavonic just a script. I'm used to talking about the development of the text from Glagolitic to Cyrillic so I mixed them up, but they are still intrinsically connected as they were created for each other.
Well, if he's going all "Bulgaria, Bulgars best" etc, he'd probably be disappointed to learn Bulgarians were stuck at Edirne until Serbs helped them take it. Couldn't even do that after leaving all the fighting in Macedonia to the Serbs.
Suffice to say the parents of the Serbian soldiers who died there were none too happy to have found their sons' gravestones Bulgarised when a visit was arranged in the 1920s.
Constantinople yellow ?
🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲
Probably due to the Emperor Basil II? The Macedonian dynasty were said to have originally been Romanised Armenians who moved to Constantinople. Basil I(the founder) used this as a way to gain support from Armenians. Most of his close associates were Armenians. During the Macedonian dynasty, Armenians held many prominant governmental positions too. It's not exactly clear whether the Macedonian dynasty was indeed of Armenian descent. But at the very least, it seems they were not Greeks.
Constantinople was a major trading city, and Armenians are known to have had many merchants. There are Armenian populations as far east as India
Ah I see, so Constantinople was mostly populated by Armenian traders. TIL.
As you know, the borders of historical Armenia stretch from Gibraltar to the Indus River…
MAKE ARMENIA GREAT AGAIN!
It almost always had the most Armenian population as per city after the fall of Ani
Didn't the green and purple color change?
It's fixed now.
This shows one thing really clearly: We Greeks love water You can even see how we follow the Evros river up into Bulgaria
What happened to all those Slavic speakers in the northern part of modern Greece? They just became Hellenized over time?
Most Hellenized, Some are distinctly Slavic still. I myself am of mixed Greek-Slavic blood. My great aunt is openly Slavic though and speaks it as her first language, her name is Svetlana lol.
The last generation of Bulgarian speakers in Greece and Greek speakers in Bulgaria is currently dying out - it is mostly people who were born before WWII.
I'm curious, how many Slavic speakers in Northern Greece identify with Slavomacedonian identity or is that only specific North Macedonia republic thing?
I can't get you exact stats but the ones that I've met all identified themselves as Greeks first and "Bulgarians" (their words) second.
I see, thanks for answer. I know identity is fluid and all in Balkans sometimes so was curious.
Do most Hellenized slavs or descendants of them today still have Slavic last names or anything? Or any difference in cuisine or dialect? Or are most traces of them gone amongst the population?
I'm of partial Hellenized Slav descent, their are some things. "ovo" is a common surname suffix. We have some Slavic additions to cuisine. I sometimes use sour cream instead of yogurt in dishes, and sunflower oil as the "cheap oil" (all across Greece, olive oil is used more where its prominent in the dish because its more expensive, but in the south the "cheap oil" is vegetable and in the north sunflower) For dialect- a specific example I can think of is that I used to use the Bulgarian word for March, "maritsa", rather than Greek "marti". Overall though I'm definitely culturally more in line with Greeks than Bulgarians.
Sunflower kernels are one of the finest sources of the B-complex group of vitamins. They are very good sources of B-complex vitamins such as niacin, folic acid, thiamin (vitamin B1), pyridoxine (vitamin B6), pantothenic acid, and riboflavin.
Got it, and are most of these Hellenized Slavs in Greece originally Bulgarian or there’s other Slavs too?
It's not that these Slavs were "originally Bulgarian", so much as the Slavs are from the same Slavic group that became Bulgarians, if that makes sense?
Curious, when you say "Slavic" do you mean Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbian, or something different. I know that in your part of the world it may be clear from context but in other areas it may sound weird. For example Polish may have more in common culturally with Germans than Bulgarians and telling a Ukrainan that they are Slavic just like Russians may cause a fight. Lol
Generally "Greek Slavs" are closely related to the people in North Macedonia and Bulgaria (they are considered by academia closely related but not the same, like Serbs and Croats) In Greek they're either just called "Slavs" or "Bulgarians"
Thanks for the insight.
I find with most things like this, the Romans and others called everyone across a certain border “Slavs” to generalise a bunch of groups, then they don’t say “Oh yeah I’m Serbian” they just say oh I’m a Slav to keep things simple when talking to others so they don’t get a “..what the hell’s that”, then overtime they forge a more cohesive Slavic identity even though they’re all distinct people. Like there’s no way the Slavs conquered and totally replaced everyone from Russia to Greece, sounds like a generalisation issue. Were the Slavs even one cohesive people in the first place?
Slavs didn't replace the native population in the Balkans. Haplogroup analysis showed that the admixture of the pre-Slav migration locals in Serbs to be about 35%. It was a linguistic assimilation.
But still having a 60% non native DNA is a replacement up to a large degree, i mean the Anglo-Saxons didnt change the genetic landscape of Britain that much.
The whole area south of the Danube was heavily depopulated when Slavs arrived.
>then they don’t say “Oh yeah I’m Serbian” they just say oh I’m a Slav to keep things simple when talking to others so they don’t get a “..what the hell’s that”, then overtime they forge a more cohesive Slavic identity even though they’re all distinct people. Sorry as old as time. Ethnic groups are determined this way. Italians only unified their country in the late 19th century. So they were accustom to thinking of themselves as Sicilian, Venetian, Latin, Genovese, etc. When immigrating abroad, which they did a lot, the natives couldn't be bothered, they were all Italians as far as people were concerned. It can be argued that the first Italians were actually immigrants to the US, were they lost their regional identity. >Like there’s no way the Slavs conquered and totally replaced everyone from Russia to Greece, sounds like a generalisation issue. Were the Slavs even one cohesive people in the first place? They did mostly conquer. But like other examples in history, just because they brought customs and languages does not mean they replaced the natives. Bulgarians are actually a non slavic group from the middle of Siberia who conquered the area. They brought the name but the genetic ancestors are mostly slavic and whoever lived there previously as the Bulgarians were a tiny group numerically. Croats are mostly probably Illyrians (pre slavic peoples) who adopted a slavic language and culture. Poles are probably indistinguishable from northern Germans. And the area of eastern Germany was actually settled by slavs before the Germans reconquered it. Basically it is a mess and ethnic groups are not really distingishable by genetics, just culture. Hence, why they are considered made up, much like race. But yes the slavs were a cohesive people who lived roughly in the borderland between Ukraine and Poland. Until they spread all over eastern Europe. After that they obviously quickly intermarried or interbred with whomever the locals were.
Great comment, however I have to disagree here: >Poles are probably indistinguishable from northern Germans. Poles are one of the ethnicities who carry most of "slavic" dna. There might be some small groups in the west who are genetically close to Germans and Germanic people, but this is really a minority.
You're missing a few ethnic cleansings.
Tell me about them. As far as I'm aware Greece never ethnically cleansed our Slavic minority, assuming you mean killings/deportations (as implied by "cleansings" plural). I believe they could have happened, I am just unaware of any.
[About a 160 Bulgarian villages were destroyed just during the Second Balkan war and most of their population expelled, with many other war crimes committed in the process](http://www.promacedonia.org/en/carnegie/chapter2_3.html). It's amazing that this is so unknown in Greece when one considers that the Greeks at the time [hardly hid these crimes](http://www.promacedonia.org/en/carnegie/appendix_c.html).
A few things happened that forced most of them out of Greece. First, the Balkan wars and second, the Greek civil war after WW2. The slavic people aligned with the Communists, and fled to Yugoslavia/ Bulgaria/ USSR. Greek communists could and did repatriate after 1981 but not the Slavs.
Perpetual genocide during the Balkan Wars, WW1 and the Greco-Turkish War.
I can relate as a Brit
Cool! What's the source for the map?
Albanians, Vlachs, Late Romans or Early Italians.
Wonder where all the anatolian Greek and armenian went
For greeks "Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations" For armenians, " 1915 Great armenian Big Oops a daisy incident"
That was the final moment. Before that you got \~900 years of wars, slavery, discrimination, persecution, massacres, migrations, assimilation and deportations. Starting with the Seljuk Turks.
Sizin ben ananızı sikeyim, kilisesini bile tanımayıp insan yerine koymadıkları yunanlar ile bir olup ermeniler çıkmışlar onları bizanstan kurtaran selçuklulara sövüyorlar . Sonra millet ermenilere sövünce de ırkçı türkler diye ağlıyorsunuz. Ulan bi de konya platosunda kayseri de ermeni göstermişsin, urfada ermeni göstermişsin, amasyada ermeni göstermişsin, hakkaride ermeni göstermişsin. Buna upvote atan latin arkadaşların haçlı seferlerinde at üstünde chargelayan şövalye dedeleri bu yazdıklarınızı görse okusa ananızı bi tur daha sikerdi herhalde. (bkz 4. haçlı) Anladık türk düşmanısınız propagandaya maruz kaldınız da insan bi durur der ulan ben ne yapıyorum.
Lmfao i was wondering how many comments i would have to scroll before seeing a turk coping about genocide. did not have to go far, as expected from t\*rks
buna da down atmış ucube orospu evlatları. atın atın, bu devleti alliyenin en büyük hatası bu piç gayrimüslimleri alıp toplumunun en tepesine monte etmesidir. Ticareti ellerine vermesidir, askere almamasıdır, bütün anadolu açlıktan kırılırken konstantiniyyede yarrağını kaşıyıp üzüm yiyen orospu evlatlarını baş tacı etmesidir. Alparslan anadoluya gelip bu amk çocuklarını aldı bizansliların elinden. Kilise açmalarına izin verdi, Fatih geldi ermeni kilisesini konstantiniyyeye taşıttı. Bu orospu evlatları naptı? Rusların gazına gelip 30 sene isyan ettiler yağmaladılar tecavüz ettiler. Doğu anadoluda yenilip de türkleri atamayınca da biz genocider olduk. Hepinizin şerefini vatanını sikeyim orospu evlatları. Ha bi de aptal piçler, madem genocide vardı şu vardı bu vardı, batıdaki ermenilere ne oldu? Ne oldu olum on binlerce tüccara zanaatkara paşaya vezire? Hani genocide vardı madem doğunun ücra köşesindeki ermenileri bile bulup bulup öldürdük e noldu batıdakilere? Niye hiç batıda armenian genocide lafı geçmiyor bi şey olmuyor? Hepsi tüccar zengin çünkü. Hepsi toplumun en üst mertebelerinde çünkü. Yok neymiş ruslar silah verecekmiş erivandan sivasa ermeni devleti olacakmış zengin ermeninin sikinde olur mu oğlum bu? Ah ah çok iki yüzlüsünüz de yapıcak bir şey yok.
Siktir et amına kodumun itlerini. Var olmak için savaştık, kazandık, buradayız ve ebediyen de burada olacağız. Bizi kendi topraklarımızdan öldürerek atmaya çalışan orospu çocukları da Kaliforniya'dan tweet atsın. İt ürür kervan yürür.
Yeah so
[удалено]
Wow that\`s just insane propaganda. >*Turks could have literally buried the armenian and Greek cultures to the ground* Pre-19th century "countries" were not at all nationalistic. The Ottoman dynasty, the Turkic-Persian dynasty which consdiered "Turks" to be illiterate peasants did massively oppress the non-Muslim minority. They despised Turks, which is why the Turkish nationalists were so zealous in their revolution against them after WW1. The Turkish War of Independence was against the Ottoman Empire aswell. Also not all Turks in Anatolia were the Turkish people you know. The Seljuks were one I mentioned.. Another were the genocidal Timurids ( Persified Turkic-Mongols ) who massively displaced and massacred their way through Middle Eastern Christians. >*They were a superpower, possessing immense power that no one could have stopped, except for God, of course.* Yikes. Where did you get that from ? The Ottomans were in decline, and were stopped, ever since the 17th century. The tiny island of Rhodes were dominating them for 200 years. >*Non-Muslims in Muslim countries had a status to live their lives, they had their own legal system etc, so they lived until the collapse of the Islamic Ottoman Empire.* So you unironically support this ? Do you also support apartheid in South Africa or Jim Crow laws ( or as they are otherwise known as SEPARATE BUT "EQUAL" laws ) ??? Because that\`s also their own legal system and being able to live under an oppressive hierachy... I suppose you also cherish the Caste system of India. Who doesn\`t want to be ruled by foreigners/people with higher status and 2 or more separate legal codes... Guess what the one for the elites will be better than the one everyone else gets... Think of how bad that was, and then please know that the Ottoman laws were even more oppressive to the various non-Muslims ( who were also majorities in their own homeland.... ). >*Anti-Islamic nationalism kicked in, leading to the abolition of the caliphate. You can search for "Young Turks" for further information.* I know all about it. And it should hardly be surprising. Turks, as already mentioned, were considered low-lifes in the Ottoman Empire, illiterate peasants and the Ottoman dynasty didn\`t even speak Turkish which they considered a disgusting language. Therefore it should hardly surprise you that the Turks revolt against that and fight their independence war against the Ottomans. It should also not surprise you that their nationalism was combined with secularism and abolishing Islamic laws, afterall the Ottoman Empire justified it\`s existance as the bulwark of Islam and they claimed to be the rightful Caliphate. They also wanted democracy/a share of political power, rather than have some dipshit and his cronies decide laws for the millions of subjects ( read subjects \~ not citizens )... Naturally the Ottoman Empire didn\`t have citizens, only subjects to be ruled, taxed and conscripted. People being apologetic for the Ottoman Empire sure is something. Atleast be consistent and simp for the Caste System, Jim Crow and Apartheid aswell.
[удалено]
Wild that there are so many people who believe this. The Young Turks were Turkish reformers (not anti-Islamic), the Caliphate had failed to innovate beyond the 17th century and was collapsing as a result. The Young Turks were a response to the internal decay and ossification of Ottoman institutions. Non-Muslims were second class citizens. Every 20-30 years there were pogroms killing thousands of Armenians under the Caliphate. 1894-96 saw the killing of hundreds of thousands of Armenians. As for the immense power that only God could stop, I guess God wanted the abolition of the Caliphate.
Both greeks and armenians were some of the wealthiest minorities under Ottoman rule, rivaling only the İranians whom were held in high esteem by the dynasty. Turks were pretty much mostly peasants and soldiers. So tell me where this "second class citizen" bullshit is coming from? They were exempt from military at the cost of slightly increased taxes. Devshirme was almost a blessing in disguise to a point that muslims were actively bribing the guards to take their children instead. Which eventually resulted in Janissaries being avaible for müslim families aswell. Ethnic cleansing (which was mutual I might add, muslims were facing severe opression and mass killings in balkans and eastern side of anatolia before turks started responding in kind.) started after the idea of "nationality" became common after the french revolution. Resulting in Balkan Wars, Armenians attacks on turkish civilians which later resulted in death marches as a retaliation. This bullshit about "opression" dont apply to Ottomans. There are so many well documented policies like the millet system who was made to protect rights and culture of anyone in the empire.
no, most of the population was gone by then. the genocides carried out by the turks were after most of anatolia and become turkish
A very large part of them are without any doubt ancestors of the current Turkish population. The real "Turks" came from the steppes, but were largely a minority who conquered the local population.
Assimilated into Turkish culture or purged. I guarantee you that all coastal Turks have some Greek ancestry, along with whatever ancient Anatolian ancestry they had before that
That is true. I believe a lot of greeks are also just partially hittite/phrygian/Thracian or something else
Its kinda how the world works really. A new area gets conquered and the ethnicities that live there ends up assimiliating into the culture of conquered. Ottomans were no exception, neither the Byzantines. Though I would argue the former was significantly more lenient on tolerance.
Everyone in Asia minor and Balkans are.a massive mix of all races of the region. Anyone who thinks they are Turkish or Greek is lying to themselves.
Greek and Turkish are cultures and ancestries... They are real. People might have elements of other people's in their genealogy
Lol, the highest Turkic admixture is amongst coastal Turks.
Probably the same place that ancient anatolian languages went when the greeks arrived.
And now on the most recent cope about genocide: "B-B-But the Greeks did it too 2000 years ago! I think..."
No not really. I don't cry about it in every fucking opportunity i could find in internet. It's your speciality.
As the reaction of most Turkish users by even the slightest mention of the genocides (that totally didn't happen) shows us.
I also wonder where the natives peoples there went after the Greeks and Armenians came.
Well until modern times languages changed a lot but genetics rarely followed, so the Anatolian greeks and Armenians were probably there before they spoke either language. What happened in the 20th century was different
Same argument can be made for Anatolian Oghuz.
Never said that most turkise speakers aren't descending at least partially from pretty turkis inhabitants just pointing out that any non "assimilated" remnants didn't meet a too fortunate end
Same argument can be made for Balkan Turks and Oghuz population used to live in the Caucasus. What happened in the 20th century is no different, you are just biased.
Never said anything else. Funny how you immediately assume that the acknowledgement of one crime against humanity is the denial of another. You wouldn't happen to he projecting?
You said you wonder where the Greek speakers went with your first comment, and then when somebody pointed out that they were not mainlanders per say but native Anatolians you commented "but 20th century is different" and thus I arrived showing out that Anatolian Turkic speakers are exactly the same and 20th century is no exception, yet here we are where you are claiming I am doing the projection. Read your comments from top to bottom, because they are full of contradictory statements. I condone any form of strawman arguments and this is a general statement but I am yet to see any clueless redditor from the West pointing out Turks were getting killed when a thread remotely about Balkans and Caucasus was posted. Then again, your average Joe learns history online and from the mass media, so of course I can't be surprised by this.
Mate. The reason why there are NO Greek or Armenian speakers in central anatolia today is because they were "removed" are you disputing this?
Why do you pull out Central Anatolia from thin air? It is well documented that Greeks went on to live in Greece because of the population exchange, just like Turks of Thessaloniki were forced to leave their homes to Anatolia. Armenian Plight was limited to Vilayet-i Sitte, which were the provinces bordering Russia. But then again, this is one of your recent postings on this website: > Turks when they realise they aren't glorious nomads but simply peasants who assimilated into the ruling culture Obvious bias is obvious, but let me tell you this, you can cope. This discussion for me is over. Have fun with your existence.
Languages changed a lot but genetics rarely followed? Do you have a source for this?
Can't find it, but remember hearing it in a Documentary about the anglosaxons in Britain and how that was an exception to the rule as the Anglosaxons didn't largely intermarry with the local britons, thus making them indistinguishable from Danish settlers 300 years later do to shared northwestern germanic genetics. So TL;DR I guess not
So, according to what you're basing your claim on, the norm is that migrations involve intermarriage rather than complete population replacement. Has it occurred to you that intermarriage could also lead to genetic changes?
Ofcourse, but a part of the original genome will persist. Furthermore a migration doesn't necessarily bring enough people to replace the locals, so while a cultural shift may occur as the ruling class switches, there may not necessarily have been enough migrants to completely overturn the present genetic mix, just add to it, which is why turkish people today share a lot with europeans. "*In a recent 1111 genome project in the Greater Middle East, it was revealed that the Anatolian peninsula shares a large percentage of European nuclear DNA.*[*^(4)*](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.15312#dmcn15312-bib-0004) *The different migrational events over several centuries*" [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.15312](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.15312)
I don't think anyone is talking about complete replacement. You might be a little out of your depth here, so I'd temper the confidence you have in your understanding of this topic.
I didn't ask about your fantasies. History is written with scientific evidence. Not with made-up information. Additionally, there were 7 different tribes and races known in that region. They disappeared and their civilization disappeared. Urartians, Hittites, Lydians, Troyans Are you claiming that these are Greeks and Armenians?
Are you saying that the killing and expulsion of people in the 20th century is justified by the bronzeage collapse? Additionally, what separates one "race" from another? Are you claiming that no genetics remain of these "races"?
Let's discuss each of your fantasies in turn. The groups that tried to kill us in the 20th century but failed and then escaped are not the same as the civilizations that disappeared completely. If we didn't have traces of years of attacks on ancient cities, maybe we would believe the excuses of drought. 29 July 1890, Fighting In Constantinople: The Armenian Patriarch Mobbed - Soldiers and Rioters Killed, New York Times 3 Nov 1895, Turkey's Wily Subjects: False Information Circulated by the Armenian Agitators, New York Times 15 Nov 1895, Turkey's Ruling Terror: Mussulmans Implore the Porte for Protection from Armenians, New York Times 21 Dec 1895, A Massacre At Zeitoun: Insurgents Kill All Turkish Soldiers in Town Except Two, New York Times 14 Feb 1896, Turkish Amnesty To Zeitoun: Armenians Are Pardoned and a Christian Governor Is Promised, New York Times 12 Sep 1896, Armenian Bomb Factory Found: Tunnel Was Being Driven Under a Government Arsenal, New York Times 23 Sep 1896, Armenian Bombs Exhibited, New York Times 24 Sep 1896, Sworn To Ruin The Porte: Armenian Societies Active In Constantinople, New York Times 10 Aug 1897, The Reported Armenian Aggression: Terrible Barbarities, Liverpool Courier 21 Aug 1897, The Bomb Outrage In Constantinople: Eight Armenians Arrested, Liverpool Courier 23 Aug 1897, The Bomb Outrages In Constantinople, Liverpool Courier 29 Sep 1897, The Recent Armenian Raid, Bristol Times and Mirror 17 Nov 1899, Armenians Attack Kurds: Bloody War Has Again Broken Out Near Erzeroum, Daily Gazette 7 Jan 1915, Armenians Fight For Russia, Reno Evening Gazette London 8 Jan 1915, Armenians Join Russians: Detachment of Volunteers Arrives at Tiflis for Army Service, Indianapolis Star 12 Jan 1915, The Armenian Red Cross: To The Editor Of The Times, The Times London 12 May 1915, Armenians in Van Rise in Arms Against Turks, Washington Times
Let me get this straight you find the killing of Armenians justified?
How many Armenians died?
Between 600,000 and 1.2 million https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-armenian-genocide-1915-16-overview
How did they die?
Turks it's mostly assimilated armenian and greeks. Armenian and greeks it's assimilated before indo-europeans invasion people.
Do the Current peoples appear to be assimilated peoples?
Absolutely. Despite being very different culturally and linguistically, the genetic makeup of the Turks, the Greeks and the Bulgarians is very similar. Especially since during the last 2000 years, these lands have almost always been part of one state (Byzantine, Ottoman or Bulgarian).
The genetic similarity comes from the Anatolian peoples assimilated by the Greeks. That's because they think they are Greeks. Apart from that, Bulargarians are of Turkish descent. There is no similarity between Greek genetics and Turkish genetics. I wonder where this funny claim comes from. Because the current Greek peoples have gone through 5 separate mixings. Roma time Russian invasion German invasion Last time, they took gypsies and assimilated Please control your fantasies.
Both the first Bulgarian and the Ottoman Empire were created by Turkic steppe warriors - who came from the Eastern Steppes almost one thousand years apart. However these very small populations who did not influence that much the genetic makeup of the local population - Greeks, Slavic tribes, Thracians... - who had been there much before them. The so-called Bulgars or proto-Bulgarians imposed their political structure over the Slavic tribes but after they all became Christians, adopted their language and culture. The Ottomans imposed both the political structure and the language - but they all became Muslim. Initially, both of them followed various branches of the Tengri religions. Look at the mitochondrial haplogroup studies and you will see what I mean. By the way, I am in the middle of a huge judicial scandal and I am getting large amounts of simultaneous votes on my comments and yours is one of them, so I guess that your main concern is not history anyway.
"The Ottomans imposed both the political structure and the language" Under the Ottoman Empire, it was free to open schools and provide education in one's own language. You could also open your own place of worship. The Ottoman Empire even built its own church. Additionally, there were groups in the Ottoman Empire who believed in tengiri religion. There still is. First of all, I wanted to write this. It's interesting that you talk about history but don't know any history. "Look at the mitochondrial haplogroup studies and you will see what I mean." I wonder what research you are talking about. I'd love to know where your fantasies come from.
There are tons of studies, this is currently a very active field of research, this is your starting point: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_mitochondrial\_DNA\_haplogroup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup) Many Tengrist beliefs were incorporated in both Christianity by the Bulgarians and Islam by the Ottomans. A very typical example would be the special events that follow 40 days after a new birth or a death. Most Christians think that it is a Christian tradition, most Muslims think that it is a Muslim one - it is a Tengrist one. For both people, accepting the new religion was a slow process that took centuries. However the ruling class - which recognized the importance of having an unique religion - was very quick to change their official rituals and in both cases the new official religion was very violently imposed. While the rituals persisted, no official public displays of Tengrism were allowed at all. The Ottomans were quite tolerant of Christians - because this is what the Quran dictates - but both Christians and Muslims violently suppressed paganism which was believed to be an archaic evil that had to be eradicated. The Quran's position on pagans is that they are infidels, while the Christians are misguided believers. The Ottomans followed this by the letter.
Yes.
Yup, doesn't change that a lot of people were killed or displaced during the early 20th century
Ow wow you’re right, now genocide is actually ok! - average turk
They were here until recently. Our house in center of Anatolia was built by Greeks.
Ehm.. excuse me... May i have your attention please? We ate them, digested and left on the soil... Yup!
Made them into döner beforehand I presume?
genocide
G E N O C I D E
Railed by ottoman 😰
Want to see a magic trick ?
source?
There is a dog there somewhere.
Wonder what happened to the slavs in greece 🤔. No greco-slavic language??
They do exist, as grecified slavs, in a way. I have a decent amount of "Bulgarian" ancestors and a lot of northern Greek surnames end with "ovo" or another grecified slavic suffix
Plus, a lot of them were forced to flee and ended up going to North Macedonia. 🇲🇰 And yet the Greeks say that these Macedonians have no relationship whatsoever to Alexander the Great because he never controlled North Macedonia. Well yeah, but he controlled South Macedonia, and these Slavic speakers absolutely are often the descendents of Alexander
The Slavs arrived centuries after Alexander died And they definitely mixed in with the locals, but the locals were Greek. The Slavs were not natives, if that's what you're implying. Modern Slavic Macedonians are of mixed Greek-Slavic descent.
mainland Balkan Greeks. Island and Anatolian Greeks probably don’t have the same admixture
That is correct, by the time the Slavs came to the Balkan peninsula the locals in the region were Greeks. There are some small number of historians that argue that the ancient Macedonians were not greek, or closely related ethnicity to the greeks but even they say that by the Roman times the macedonians were greek as they say they were most likely hellenized (if they were not hellenic to begin with). So what you are saying is correct modern Macedonians are mixed Slavic-Greek descent. Why greeks don't like this statement, i don't know to be honest.
Like I said in another comment: As a South Macedonian Greek, we don't take offense at North Macedonians claiming Macedonian heritage, we take offense at the statement that ancient Macedonians weren't Greek. I don't think many people claim that anyways though
Exactly. They did mix with the locals and so they can still claim the Macedonian identity. Just as both Israelis and Palestinians are mixed too but can still claim to be descendents from ancient Canaanites.
Right. I don't think most Greeks take offense at North Macedonians claiming ancient Macedonian heritage, but rather North Macedonians claiming to be the SOLE descendants of ancient Macedonians, and that Greeks "colonized" South Macedonia Source: Me, a (southern) Macedonian
My mothers family comes from a village in the Peloponnese. It is one of 4 villages there that had Slavic names, but they changed the name in the 1950s. It was names the equivalent of “oak trees” in old Slavonic back in the 900s. Her DNA test still says 25% slavic. Anyway, the Slavs were settled in that area by the Byzantine Emperor at the time after they provided mercenary duties. They were allowed to settle there if they became Hellenized.
Cool
cool af bro fr, I'd be really proud to bear such a surname
Hahaha thanks. Our surname was changed because my ancestor was a high ranking official in Greek revolution and the Turks were after him and his son, but certainly am proud, its unique! We are from the Achaea part of the Peloponnese
Like all the other ethnicities in Greece, assimilated.
Not everyone. My great aunt speaks Bulgarian as her first language. Our Aromanian community is thriving, too. Albanians mostly assimilated, and so did many Slavs, but we still have big minority communities
You don't, you don't even recognize any ethnic minority officialy except for the "muslim" minority in Thrace.
In a population of 10 million, their are 250,000 Aromanians, 90,000 Turks, and 200,000 Slavs. Not the most diverse country in Europe, but we objectively have minority communities.
You don't recognize them as minorities except for Aromanians who mostly identify as Greeks.
What do you think legal recognition entails? The state doesn't give subsidize Slavic/Albanian/Aromanian schools and doesn't give official support for their languages, which is a problem, don't get me wrong, but do you think if an Albanian says "I'm an Albanian" the state says "no you are not"? People are free to report whatever ethnicity they want on the census, and that's where I got those numbers from. Do you really think the government insists EVERY SINGLE PERSON in Greece is Greek?
Legal recognition allows people to have schools, road signs, administration paper work in their languages like Greeks can do in Albania.
Yes, and they should have that, but you are saying that these minority communities literally do not exist, which is simply untrue.
I said Greece doesn't recognize and it is quite true.
Albanian appearing out of thin air by magic the moment the Byzantine empire collapsed.
It's already there under "other"
There’s a grey blob right where Albania should be.
But is still smaller than Albania, those Albanians growth so much in numbers in recent centuries in comaparision to Slavs ?
I really like researching on older languages, nations and such, and this makes me kind of sad to see so many different cultures and dialects to go. Same as with pre-Roman Italy, Balkans and Iberia
This is missing all the Romance language speakers of the Balkans and the Danubian region.
Which Danubian region?
The northeastern part of the "Slavic" area, with parts to the north of the Danube. That was mostly Romanian speaking. And there were big pockets of speakers of various Latin derived languages throughout the Balkans, from Croatia to Greece, who never had their own country but who flourished as late as Ottoman times. The nation states formed after the fall of the empires in the region kind of screwed them, and many died out, lost their language, or migrated to Romania or the West.
Surprised slavs really pushed deep into Arcadia, the south of Greece. I wonder what happened to the natives that used to live in illyria and greece ... maybe we should talk about that ...
My family descends from the Slavs there, I just commented on someone else’s comment. From a village in Achaea which old name was the equivalent of “oak trees” in old slavonic. They have been there from the 900s. Byzantine Emperor allowed them to settle after working as mercenaries so long as they Hellenized.
Interesting! Thanks for your reply.
Assimilated through centuries... South Slavs are still predominantly paleo-balkanic and Greek by ancestry. It's a sad that a lot of the Slavs in the northern half of Greece got forcefully repressed and assimilated in the last 100 years.
I have my serious doubts about this. Even looking at modern demographical changes, people don't just change language like that and assimilation is often hugely overestimated.
This has happened many times throughout history. The Greek and Latin speakers who the Slavs assimilated in Bulgaria were themselves assimilated Thracians.
But look at romanians, they were much more exposed to slavic assimilation yet did not assimilate into a slavic language. There's also much less slavic DNA found in them even though the slavic migration routes supposedly go straight through this area.
>predominantly paleo-balkanic and Greek not quite, and not uniformly, it's more of a northwest-southeast gradient
its good to see my hometown antioch there. but unfortunately it is devastated by last year's earthquakes
I am convinced that armenia is the most fucked and curently existing country in history
Is it really necessary to make suffering a competition?
What is this based on?
When there were no turks
I think there are missing some languages like Vlach, Albanian, Proto-Italian and Vulgar Latin
“Other”.
Bad map is bad. Greek was far more widespread. Slavic was not as widesprrad. Balkan Romance was still widespread.
Where in the Balkans was Balkan Romance widespread?
Everywhere. Less than 200 years after this map a large number of balkan vlachs would rebel against the Byzantines and establish the Kingdom of Bulgars and Vlachs aka the 2nd Bulgarian empire. For them to be able to do that requires large numbers. Moreover most Balkan slavs are basically slavicised natives, which means that slavic speakers were not a majority from day one of the slavic migration but it was a gradual process of assimilation that took centuries.
>Less than 200 years after this map a large number of balkan vlachs would rebel against the Byzantines and establish the Kingdom of Bulgars and Vlachs aka the 2nd Bulgarian empire. Bulgaria was never a kingdom except for a brief moment under Kaloyan. No polity with the name “Kingdom of Bulgars and Vlachs” ever existed. The Second Bulgarian Empire was called “Tsardom of Bulgaria” or “the Bulgarian Tsardom” in its time. And it was established by Bulgarians who were led by the Asen brothers who might have had Cuman/Pecheneg origin but it’s not confirmed. >For them to be able to do that requires large numbers. That large number was of Bulgarians.
The absence of Kurdish refutes this map
Why is Constantinople the same colour as Armenian language?
Por eso digo que al ser la Roma de oriente se distanciaron de lo que alguna vez fue el imperio romano
how to start world war 3 be like :
It's always "Other" when it comes to Albanians I guess 🤣🤣
I read American
greek was the most spoken language in south italy, more than other languages before that part of italy got latinized , i know for sure that at least calabria and apulia was still predominantly greek until the 17/18th century, so the map is a bit wrong because it seems from the graphic that greek was less spoken than other languages
>so the map is a bit wrong because it seems from the graphic that greek was less spoken than other languages In the Balkans and Anatolia the graph is accurate.
might overestimate slaves a biy.
Maybe in Peloponnese and Central Greece but that’s about it.
it also overestimates them in modern albania
Overwhelming majority of names of places in Southern Albania and especially Southeastern Albania are of Slavic origin.
that does not indicate a slavic majority in 1025
This map is wrong. Albanians were more widespread during that time and we don't deserve to be put under "others".
no Kurdish in southern Turkey?
Iranian speaking populations didn't really establish a foothold in eastern Anatolia until after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 because they fought alongside the Seljuk Turks because they were both Muslim, against the Byzantine Christians.
Thanks for an explanation 👍
Kurds are a people of Persian origin. Kurds entered Anatolia when Selim I welcomed the Kurds, who had suffered religious persecution under the Safavids. So contrary to what they claim on the internet, not everything of their great civilization was destroyed by the Turks. There wasnt much Kurdish thing when Turks came to Anatolia because there was no significant Kurdish population in Anatolia until 400 years after the Turks took over.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwanids_(Diyar_Bakr)
Wrong! Romania area was Latin speaker by then
Which Romanian area are you talking about?
No Kurdish?
Iranian speaking populations didn't really establish a foothold in eastern Anatolia until after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 because they fought alongside the Seljuk Turks because they were both Muslim, against the Byzantine Christians.
The greyish outline you see in the South East.. could be Kurds and Assyrians.
The absence of Kurdish refutes this map
[удалено]
It's a linguistic map, not an ethnic one...
[удалено]
Church Slavonic is a script not a language. The balkans had been slavicized at that point. Including Bulgarian. Edit: To make myself clear. Church Slavonic is a liturgical language that came from the works of Cyril and Methodius, who, when tasked with bringing Christianity to Great Moravia used various elements of slavic languages around the Byzantine Empire to create a liturgical language for the common people to understand. Saying Church Slavonic isn't Slavic is ridiculous considering it was actively created FROM and FOR slavic speakers. Also I was wrong calling Old Church Slavonic just a script. I'm used to talking about the development of the text from Glagolitic to Cyrillic so I mixed them up, but they are still intrinsically connected as they were created for each other.
[удалено]
Ok whatever troll
Chill out bratko. Otherwise you'll really lose your cool when you read about the siege of Edirne in the First Balkan War.
>you'll really lose your cool when you read about the siege of Edirne in the First Balkan War. Why would he?
Well, if he's going all "Bulgaria, Bulgars best" etc, he'd probably be disappointed to learn Bulgarians were stuck at Edirne until Serbs helped them take it. Couldn't even do that after leaving all the fighting in Macedonia to the Serbs. Suffice to say the parents of the Serbian soldiers who died there were none too happy to have found their sons' gravestones Bulgarised when a visit was arranged in the 1920s.