Thread: History Lesson

Some suggestions on 1. When historically Slavs came to settle to the Balkans? From where they came?

I have studied a chapter Освоение славянами Балканского полуострова и Пелопоннеса in В. В. Седов. СЛАВЯНЕ Историко-археологическое исследование. (Освоение славянами балканского полуострова и пелопоннеса. Валентин Седов. Славяне. Историко-археологическое исследование. Книги по истории онлайн. Электронная библиотека). I hope to reread this chapter in authentic copy, and may look through other chapters.

Это одна из монографий на тему славян.

So the brief summary is that the movement was from Middle and Lower Danube in 6-7th centuries (as they were spreading all accross that area). Very often as military raids, sometimes in coordination with Turkic tribes (авары) against the Byzantines (weakened by wars with Persia in this period). Settlers/colonists (mostly agriculturist Slavs) would then move to lands secured in miliary raids. It doesn't mean all colonisation was warlike though. The colonisation was in different ways and at different times. Basically it's spread accross 6-9th centuries.

Now it is known that assimilition in different directions is taking place all accross the Balkans (Slavs mix with Byzantines and are romanised, or the local peoples in other places are assimilated into Slavic communities). So as a result modern Slavic peoples (former Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria with its Islamic influence) can be viewed as the descendants of Slavs that came to dominate the respective regions. On the other hand, assimilation of Slavs takes place in Greece (Slavic presence in Greece in 7-8th centuries) where Slavs are completely assimilated into the Greek culture (Slavs in what is today Eastern Romania seem to mix with the local peoples and take part in Romanian ethnogenesis, though this matter is contraversial according to most Romanian scholars; Slavs in Albania are also assimilated).

The chapter in that book is fascinating, looking forward to dealing with it again.

Originally Posted by alexsms

On the other hand, assimilation of Slavs takes place in Greece (Slavic presence in Greece in 7-8th centuries) where Slavs completely assimilate into the Greek culture (Slavs in what is today Eastern Romania seem to mix with the local peoples and take part in Romanian ethnogenesis, though this matter is contraversial according to most Romanian scholars; Slavs in Albania are also assimilated).

Based on what you mention what I should believe about the people of FYROM who claim that Alexander the Great (who lived in 350 BC) was not Greek but Slav from the time Slavs had presence in the region after the 7th century AC (i.e. more than 1000 years after his death). Why they believe these things? Why they try to twist the Historical Truth?

So the Slavs are a branch of the Indo-European peoples.
They were living as different tribes in an area where is the today Ukraine. From where they come from? From India? From Siberia?

I think they came from the same place as all other Indo-European peoples came. The question is where and when they parted from other Indo-European peoples. The linguists who study Indo-European languages assert that there are two main branches of these languages: centum and satem languages. Centum-satem isogloss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This partition occurred approximately 4000 years B.C.
Here is a map of the сentum/satem languages distribution in 2000 B.C.:

Very approximate diachronic map showing the centum (blue) and satem (red) areals. The hypothetical area of origin of satemization according to the inventor of the idea, von Bradke, is shown in darker red, which happens also to be the range of the Sintashta/Abashevo/Srubna cultures. Whether the map is accurate in many of its other details depends on the time period considered.

Slavic languages are satem languages whether most languages of Western Europe are centum ones. When did the Proto-Slavic language parted from ancient Satem language I don't know.

Three additional historical questions:
1. When historically Slavs formed a common alphabet based on the Greek alphabet?
2. When they become Christians?
3. When the tsars came in to power? (I think there are two dynasties).

1. The Slavs don't have common alphabet. Most of the Eastern and South Slavic peoples use the Cyrilic alphabet but the Western and some of South Slavic peoples use the Latin alphabet.
2. Not all of Slavic people are Christians, but the majority is. The Western Slavs are mostly Catholic, although they earlier used to be Orthodox Christians, most of Eastern and South Slavic people are Orthodox Christians.
You probably want to read something about Saints Cyril and Methodius:
Saints Cyril and Methodius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. The answer depends on what meaning you put into the word "tsar". The monarchs who ruled ancient Russian principalities used to call themselves "князь" (prince). The word "tsar" is probably the Slavic pronunciation of the Latin word "Caesar" which means a ruler of an Empire. So the first Russian Tsar was the monarch who proclaimed Russia to be an Empire, and Moscow to be The 3-rd Rome. It was Ivan IV the Terrible. All his predecessors were "Great Princes" (Великие Князья).

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

Based on what you mention what I should believe about the people of FYROM who claim that Alexander the Great (who lived in 350 BC) was not Greek but Slav from the time Slavs had presence in the region after the 7th century AC (i.e. more than 1000 years after his death). Why they believe these things? Why they try to twist the Historical Truth?

All of these theories are only theories, they cannot be accepted as the ultimate truth. There a lot of inconsistencies in that theories and there are numerous enthusiasts trying to refute them. The problem is that most of the alternate theories have no less inconsistencies. So, maybe the people from FYROM want to believe in one of such alternative theories? Make them indulgence. Why does it bothers you so much?

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

Why they believe these things? Why they try to twist the Historical Truth?

Можно сказать так: мало ли что говорят разные люди))) One can say this - who cares what different people say on different matters. People may invent different things. At the same time critical thinking and analysis are required everywhere. Intellectual honesty, right?

The world is full of self-proclaimed experts. This site is not the exception))))

Thank you now I feel more educated.
1. Conclusion 1: Not all slavs use the Cyrillic alpaphet. I didn't know that.
2. Conclusion 2: We have a separation from the other Indo-europeans in 4000 BC. So in a sense Russians and Europeans have the same old historical roots. We have a separation of the old languages to сentum/satem languages.
3. Conclusion 3: The word tsar comes from the word ceasar. First by the name tsar was Ivan the Terrible.

Perhaps you think that they teach us this things in our schools in Europe.
Not at all. The only thing we are taught for Russians is about the Russian-Japanese war in 1905, the revolution of 1905, the revolutions of 1917 - 18, the civil war, the role of Soviet Union in WWII and of course the Cold War. Nothing else. This forum should provide more historical facts if Russian history for foreigners.
We don't want just to learn the language. We want also to learn the mainstream Russian history (i.e not opinions).

P.S. What people in FYROM believes is just their problem. By the way they also believe that Cleopatra was Slav. Borrowing the history of other nations as I understood is a common practice for nations that don't have rich history. If you don't have history you don't steal it ... you just try to create your own.

So in a sense Russians and Europeans have the same old historical roots

Russians are Europeans as well as all other Slavic folks. Look, this is the map of Europe:



Although there are some different views on the actual borders of Europe, all agree that it spans to the East on to the Ural mountains:

P.S. What people in FYROM believes is just their problem. By the way they also believe that Cleopatra was Slav. Borrowing the history of other nations as I understood is a common practice for nations that don't have rich history. If you don't have history you don't steal it ... you just try to create your own.

You are right - what they believe is their problem, but your opinion on what they believe is only your problem, not theirs. You have said earlier that you don't like to turn a discussion into a dispute, can't you see how you do it yourself? "Steal" is a very strong and insulting word, don't you think that insulting whole nations is not a trait appropriate to an educated and civilized person?
As for history ... A long history doesn't necessary mean a rich one and visa-versa.