This video is dedicated to the topic of the Slavic invasion and/or migration into the Balkans during the 7th Century CE and the attendant issues and controversies.
Aside from Perun, another notable god from slavic history that you can still find representation of today is named Radegast. He's basically a pitch-black god of hospitality, and since you were going on about how important hospitality is to Slavs... It's basically like being kind to strangers because you never know if they may be a god in disguise. He's also the name Tolkien chose for his Brown Wizard of the Woods.
JayLeePoe Interesting. I just remembered the Czechs make a beer called Radegast. The lable has a old god like looking being on it. I never connected this to an old Slavic god.
Radegast was a town, and the god was Svarozhich. In Severschina region of Russia and Ukraine (it's around the border) there was the same town Radogoshch in Kievan Rus' times. Btw, there were more similar toponyms: Lubeck and Lubech for example.
Yeah, well on the OTHER side of Slavic lands-- in Moravia it's Radeghast, The Dear Guest. But I do appreciate the different ways slavs see and do things which are otherwise virtually the same. Even if you are more Norse-Mongol-Slav ;p But yes, similar toponyms are like similar names. For example, if we jump far away to Ancient History: Baal Zebub = Belzebub. Baal = Lord in old Phoenician, the progenitor of all our languages (95%?). Probably a king who commanded archer cavalry, which could be seen as deadly giant flies ripping apart the enemy. Other cultures might think of The Stranger as a dark, insidious character but Slavs treat him as a Dear Guest-- even seeing that he may be pure darkness.
@@elusiveeagle8597 yeee I know ..I was mocking the commenters. Maurikios was his name cause he spoke greek. Maurice is the rendering in english cause everyone wants to make a character as his own..nationalism ! And ..sorry to correct you. He was the emperor of the only roman empire..byzantine or eastern was the proper continuation.. The western part was a wannabe roman empire and that is the starting point of competition between western and eastern christianity
@@freesbee5326 yes you're right, he was the de facto Emperor of the Roman Empire, or whatever its boundaries were at the time. Its hard to get things 100% correctly, because one needs to know with who one is communicating with, in regards to historical knowledge. The endind of Maurikios reign is one of the most tragic episodes of of Byzantine history. Peace!
Glad I found your channel. Your videos are incredible. In particular I like the way you qualify what is known, what is unknown, what is partially known, and how a lot of history, especially in murky eras and regions such as this one, is comprised of best efforts at piecing together what was going on from incomplete information. At least, I really get that impression from your videos. This is way I like to study history, is keeping this historiography in mind. The study of history benefits from a skeptical mind more than is given credit for.
@@misterokatac We are not pushed to east. Eastern Slavs are slavianized, not real Slav. They became Slavic with the Christianisation thanks to Saint Tsar Boris Mikhail I and expansion of the Slavic influence to the East. But we're not pushed East. DNA shows that we have many things in common with people on Balkans millennia before someone uses the term Slavic.
Thank you so much for this amazing video. I am from the Balkans, Macedonia to be precise, and you did a great analysis on this complex historical issue. You also were spot on in identifying the biggest problem of the balkans today, and that is FACING REALITY. It is hard to achieve that in the Balkans, to renounce the national myths of pureness ecc and instead work together towards creating a better and more stable europe. But we are getting there, it's not that we don't wanna get there, its not like we are not trying. Its just that this is a complex world we live in xD Sadly, I have to say, the power disbalance between eastern and western Europe is not making these problems easier to solve. Because eastern Europe grows more divided and less willing to cooperate internally precisely because they rely too much on the west. Ultimately, this hinders the east's ability to solve its own issues. Great video, have a nice day.
In regards to the north, Baltic people used to inhabit a much larger region before the Slavic invasions, which made Baltic peoples much more defensive afterwards. This can be seen in the large amounts of man made hill forts, mounds, and ditches
2:14 I know it's not your understanding of Slavic Religion but Procopius description of it at that time but to say that it was monotheistic religion is absolutely incorrect. They were worshiping many Deities at that time, and below are just a few examples: Perun, the God of Thunder. Dzbog, the God of Fortune. Veles, the Shapeshifter. Belobog and Czernobog. Lada, Goddess of Love and Beauty. Marzanna, the Goddess of Winter and Death. Mokosh, the Fertility Goddess. Svarog, the Fire God. and I could easily mention 20+ more that we now know they worshipped before Christianity came.
You all need a Slavic Union and need every person between ages 15 and 40 to get some military training. You keep getting your asses kicked in wars. I am American - 25% Slav- and wish you'd unite the way the EU has. Russia, stop being a bully and work as a team.
@@wynnhorton1208 man thats straight up bs,we are best fighters in europe hand to hand combat shooting tanks you name it,we need more unity and less corrupt leaders
Far as proper academic circles in the Balkans go, no one really disputes the migration. Some might argue on the extent of it, one side favoring a mass-migration view and another claiming that it was more limited in scope (i.e. only an elite warrior class), but the historical sources unequivocally state that the event(s) happened. Those who dispute the migration are populist pseudohistorians who prey on the lowest common denominator's sensibilities, actual academics don't refute proper sources. And as of late we've got genetics more or less confirming that a large scale migration took place around that time, putting the final nail in the "autochthonist" school of thought's coffin.
True. But too bad there are still people who believe these autochthonists and even genetics won't convince them since they claim it's a Vatican-Vienna-Berlin propaganda.
I’m not sure what map in “Controversies and Problems” section should represent but it looks pretty inaccurate if representing ethnical map of western balcans in any period
Catholicism and germans made you weak...or...just Obedient. Wife commands and wives follow the parroch's will which follows vatican. What wife says is law otherwise no hanky-penky for little Pawěłczkscyťz ! East slavs technique was to focus on vodka. Balkaners solved the problem with slap-and-shut-the-faak-up Now they are evolved and need no more these ways.. There is porn on internet and everybody has an android phone
@@cv4809 civilized could mean many things. Usually when someone points hardly on this argument he/she is an imperialistic lover, a conservative, a racist and so on, from roman times. Everybody pretend his own culture to be better and so superior to others. I personally prefer a good big hearted man than an obedient one. An obedient that probably keeps all his frustration inside which could easily develop into who knows which kind of paranoia..into a pedophile, a bigot, a far right one or even worst a nationalist/patriot such a soldier !!
great video, the question that remains is what caused the population explosion for the slavs to be able to migrate in the first place? And how could they settle such a massive area, ie from Slovenia to Bulgaria, especially the craggy mountains of macedonia and bosnia? do you think the language just spread over time? also, what la guages were spoken in croatia, serbia, and bosnia before the slavic entrance?
I think its more a case of the byzantine empire that they were entering was severely de populated, following on from constant military campaigning and plague shenanigans, so it was less that there was a push from the slavic heartland to move them to the balkans and more the case that the desirable land and place in the Mediterranean, safe from steppe conflict was a large pull. The languages of the balkans have always been diverse but illyria would have been largely Latin speaking until the entrance of the slavs with another illyrian language similar to Albanian remaining in the background rural communities
@@cormacdonnelly365 Albanian language does not show to be indigenous in what was Illyria (i.e. modern day northern Albania, southern Montenegro and southwestern Kosovo). The Illyrian language we ignore but Illyrians'' onomatology (Agron, Gaulauros, Bato etc.) had some distinctive Greek element into it (but these names were not found in Greece, they were local to them), quite natural as they were neighbours of Greeks and could had been their tribal cousins. The Albanian language itself shows no signs of long-time cohabitation between Greeks and Latins as one would expect. The place also was not at all "remote" as it was the first Roman basis in the Balkans prior to invasion of Greece as well as later on it became a central nod in the Via Egnatia connecting Rome to Minor Asia via Greece. We learn from numerous writers that Illyrians were half Latinised, half Hellenised but the Albanian language shows none of that. On the contrary the Albanian language has the following characteristics : 1) It has no native words for anything to do with the sea but plenty of native words for mountains, rivers and lakes thus it is a language of a tribe that evolved away from the Mediterranean - Illyrians were maritime people however! 2) It has a massive foreign vocabulary and syntax influence, it is quite a mixed language just like English showing its foreign provenance with oldest loanwords from Latin, however not Classical Latin but late Roman Era Latin (interesting eh?) of the Eastern type (i.e. Danube region, Romania....) 3) Second oldest loanwords influence is the Slavic languages, Serbian and Bulgarian 4) Third oldest loanword influence is the Italian dialects, mostly of Venice 5) Last influence is Greek.... no, no ancient Greek here, but rather late medieval, early modern Greek. ... and all by magic some 10-15 years ago Austrian researchers discovered a forgotten medieval document in a Romanian monastery written in the Latin alphabet and in a language spoken in the region of western Romania back then. Unmistakenly linked to Albanian as they found! LOL! It is funny because quite many Albanians feel a connection to Romanians, these are Albanians of the Gege tribal lot (the more original Albanians since the Tosks are heavily mixed with Epirotan Greeks and appear more Mediterranean-like - Tosks automatically feel a connection to Greeks even when they do not want to openly admit it, LOL!)
@Milosh Simonovski Well that is exact. However in this case, Austrians along with Italians and Germans, each for his own objectives, had been very much anti-Serbian and anti-Greek and hugely pro-Albanian and very much supported the hypothesis of an indigenous Albanian nation coming down straight from Illyrians. These two researchers (one is not an ethnic Austrian, merely an Austrian citizen) have however proposed something else on the basis of the recently found manuscript. If you ask me, all it takes is to see the details and the nature of this manuscript. If indeed the language it was written is linked to Albanian then yes, it ties perfectly with many other elements that bind proto-Albanian speakers with the region of Romania. Let us not forget that the arrival of Slavs themselves occured under the pressure of Avars, i.e. Avars caused all those movements of tribes. And Avars originally set their basis in western Romania and Hungary (Pannonian region). However later they moved southwards, failed in their invasion of Greece (Constantinople, Thessalonica) and then their last bastion where they set up a local feudal state was in modern day North Albania, South Montenegro, Southwestern Kosovo. This was in the 9th-10th and up to 10th century AD before vanishing in the 11th century. In the 11th century we start having the first mentions of Albanians. Not saying that the Albanians were the descendants of Avars but very possibly they were just another of the tribes the Avars moved along. I.e. proto-Albanian speakers shifted places and installed in the Balkans just like proto-Slavs shifted and installed there. Of course this plot is not very popular among Albanians because they feel it "reduces" them to the same level of Slavs, Serbians and Bulgarians, i.e. as new comers and not as indigenous people. Albanians are emotionally tied to the idea of being indigenous. Yet, there is little in their language and culture to show an ancient indigenous nature of their nation. It really appears to be a recent one in the region.
@@dinos9607 Did you also hear about caucasus origin of albanians? and that they actually originate from modern day Dagestan in Russia, there is theory that they were brought up onto the balkans by Georgios Naniakos from Sicily.
The point about about the changing definition of democracy is interesting. Athenian society would never be referred to as democratic by modern societies where we assume that democracy must include universal suffrage. The connection between Dacians and Vlachs, Slav and northern Greeks/Macedonians, as well as Bulgars and Slavs is clouded in nationalism so the truth (interpretation) seems to depend more on your nationality. The proof of this is in the comments section
Do you believe that greek have slavic "Dna" to say it for everyone to understand; I know slavs are linguistic term but they had some specific genetics. Did when they assimilated in the greek culture affect the greek genetic heritage?
All are Indo-Europeans. Slavic, Greek, Italic, Germanic and Celtic people. One big European family. We can trace our langauges back to the proto-indo-european language.
@@dhu1919 Yet modern DNA research, by Western university, published in the nature magazine, finds that this was anything but the case. With Greeks From Peloponnese, Central Greece and thessaly being mostly descendents of pre Slavic Populations.
The funny thing is considering the traditional nationalist few of Turks & Greeks hating each other, because the north south Slavic arrow that went all the way down to the mid Peloponnese & the fact that like a lot of military invasions, The Osman Turks only mainly formed a military elite in Anatolia after invading. That over time the already residing Greek majority subject population assimilated to the language, culture & religion of their overlords, many pundits believe the average Anatolian Turk is more closely related to the Greeks of the Hellenistic World than contemporary mainland European peninsular Greeks are , that have the South Slav taint.
@@mickvonbornemann3824 You are out of your mind. Go read some of the genetic research by Harvard university. What you are saying is worng and inaccurate
Just look at "Macedonia" (FYROM). They have appropriated ancient Macedonian history as their own, despite them speaking a dialect of Bulgarian. It's incredible what people can be made to believe with enough propaganda.
Well DNA analysis disagrees with the "slav" theory. They cannot be one group of people or tribe because there's R1a and i2 haplogroups in Europe that are not related. If the slavs are R1a because of the area they came from, then the people in the balkans are not slavs because they mainly have the i2 haplogroup which has been in the balkans for 1000's of years. So today's Macedonians are not "slavs" but mainly ancient macedonians that have been there for 1000's of years. "Slav" is a religious reference for all the people of the slavic orthodox religion. The Macedonians invented the slavic/Macedonian alphabet in ohrid Macedonia in the 800's and then spread the slavic orthodox religion and alphabet through Europe and all the way to Russia.
Slavic origins and history is the most controversial theme out there. Every slavic nation has their own theory and lots of them contradict each other. I learned one thing in Ukraine, my Polish friends learned something different , Serbs learned a third version and westerners have a fourth version and so on. Its a endless debate
I think simplifying the issue into "versions" muddies the water. Whatever we can deduce from archeological findings and genetics is not a "version", it is as close to the truth as we can possibly get. Legends are hardly taken seriously in a scientific context. A real problem that does take place with any nation's history is that it gets taught in public school, where the government usually creates a narrative that is counter to reality. I can say this for certain, coming from Romania. It's sickening to me that millions of people get told a politically-motivated story based on who decides the curriculum. The only solution to this problem is looking at any evidence we might find, and drawing conclusions from those. You might come to the wrong conclusion, but making conclusions from unfounded information is worse.
goran bosnjak. yea its very similar, if other slavs speak slow i can understand most off it, and traditions are very similar. I'm saying that every one has a different version of WHERE the slavs came from
my family comes from Pelagonia in Macedonia, and we are not Slavs, our ancestors came from Knosos, they came out of Anatolia originally, people in this area have not been mixing much, our linguistics and culture have not changed much over the last few thousand years, and is closest related to Sanskrit
God of Lightning = Parom..slovaks still call him when things go bad - "Do Paroma,zase sa to jebe!!!!" ;P Americans might know him as Nicola Tesla - who was a Serbian Slav :D
An item in your summary of Procopius's history is confusing. How could their religion be "monotheistic", while at the same time being like Nordic, and/or, Greco-Roman polytheisms?
Just an correction: Map shown at: 7:27 is meaningless. There no Muslims (nor Turks) on Balkan before 12th-13th century AD. Did you put this map in the movie by accident?
You mean AD? The map seems to be based around the 19th century, it would explain the Albanian population stretching so far but it shows Eastern North Macedonia as fully muslim? That makes no sense.
How about the Rumanians in this period?How did such a large group speaking a Romance language very close to Latin manage to survive despite the Slavic,Bulgarian and Byzantine Greek influences and then morph into Wallachians and Moldavians?Maybe they were originally the Dacians that became romanised after Trajan's conquests.
Moldovans of Moldova have more than 30% of R1a (Z280, M458) which makes them the same level as Slovenes and Czechs. Except of Estonians (who are probably a mix of Finns and Balts) only Balto-Slavic peoples have these levels. Besides they have more than 15% of I2a-L621 the same as all Slavic peoples have except Poles and North Russians who have it a bit less (10 to 15%). If we compare Moldovans with Ukrainians and Croatians on R1a+I2a percentage we see 50-56% for Moldova and 62-67% for Ukraine & Croatia respectively. So you see :)
Becouse Swamps are fertile and numerous Slavs are most Numbered Ethnic group and living in bigest territory.Imagine how many Chinesse would be today if they lived in swamps...
Note that you mix things up about the Dacians. "Vlachs" do not necessarily come from Dacians. Vlachs are merely shepherds that speak latin tongue. They were viewed as "outsiders" and did not only inhabit modern romanian lands but were all over the balkans (even greece). The Dacians were resettled south of the Danube en masse by the Byzantines due to inability of the romans to protect these regions north of the danube. Futhermore the Dacian Kingdom covered Moesia as well. Those were same people south and north of the danube - thracians. Galerius himself comes from a place close to Serdika (Sofia) and he was Dacian (thracian).
@Alex C not really. The proto Germanic word was Walhaz which meant stranger. Doesnt necessarily mean romance speaker as obviously it was as applied similarly to the Welsh. It meant what it meant then stranger compared to the locals.
umm A few corrections Croats who moved to the Balkan at the beginning of 7 century came to the area with a formed parliament composed of chosen tribal leaders (župan= tribal leader) so you have to say that they had some political organization + there are some theories and evidences of Slavic states even before that in the area of Today Poland and Ukraine
What's your views on those that try and debunk the Slavic migration theory? Do you have any idea how many people lived in the Europe that time? They spoke in one language. This means they understood each other and there was enough room for everyone, so they didn't have reason to fight. So, who migrated and from where and who fighted with who and why? The language is a key to true history.
The fact that there are so many Slavic dialects in the lands from the Baltic to the Adriatic to the Black sea meant that Slavs were expanding, and going their own way, in all directions through these lands between these 3 seas for centuries upon centuries. In the beginning before spreading out, we are talking around 1,000 BCE conservatively, they all spoke some form of universal Slavic to put it simply, they call it Proto Slavic. Then, over the centuries separated by hundreds of miles, each community developed it's own Slavic variant. Slavs are an ancient race. If you go back far enough in history, then you will see that many words in Slavic languages today are very similar to Sanskrit. Look it up, Slavic compared to Sanskrit, and you will see how ancient Slavic roots are. I found it fascinating myself.
@@robertmarks317 Slavic and Sanskrit are both "satem" languages, deriving from Proto-Indo-European groups that initially migrated more towards the east from their origin near the Eastern Black sea. It's no wonder that Slavic is similar to Sanskrit then, and it absolutely supports the notion that Slavic languages have their origin in North-Eastern Europe.
@Alex C are you listening, he said Slavs themselves are ancient, not that they were on the Balkans (but there is plenty of evidence north of Chalkidiki was always Slavic)
Nuno dos Santos There is no such thing as a slav ethnicity. Slav is a religious term used by the Catholics during the eastern Roman Empire who called all the people of the slavic orthodox (pravo slaven) religion, “slavs” How many slavic nations are there???? About 14 How many “slavs” just in Europe???? About 400 million Are all these people from one tribe or ethnic group of people??? You have to be crazy to believe that. How many different nations do the slavs come from???? How many different DNA’s and ancient ancestors are all these nations made of??? Are the Serbians and Bosnians, who have Illyrian blood, the same as the Macedonians who have ancient Macedonian blood??? Or the same as the Bulgars from the Volga river??? Or the Russians who are vikings mixed with ancient sarmations????? Slavs are a slavic orthodox group of people, or people with a similar “slavic” language, including Croatians, slovenes, Polish and some others who are not slavic orthodox but speak a slavic language.
@@WatchmanofMKDN it's a linguistic group actually,since people from east of Russia to Macedonia speak pretty much the Same language These people had a common origin and later on expanded
Constantine V according to where SLAVS came from, they would have the R1a haplogroup. Us Macedonians and most others of the Balkans have the original Balkan i2 Y haplogroup. If our ancestors migrated there, we wouldn’t have the i2 oldest DNA in the Balkans. And how can slavs be the same people when their are different origins such as R1a and i2 ???
@@greendalf123 I can't post links, but google "Runes from Lány". To clear few things up, I'm not saying Slavs invented runes, or there are some extensive runic inscriptions that are Slavic (as of today we have few evidence). Runes were used in limited capacity even by Germanic people. However, we do have evidence Slavs used runes for a time, probubly under the influence of Germanic people they lived with/next to.
@@greendalf123there is very little evidence for the use of pre-christian writing but we do know they did use them, read about the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet for the mention of them.
I don't know if the ethnic map of South Slavs is just a simple error or malicious intent, but I have to point out that is probably made by some Albanian ultra nationalist and is comletely fake. For example, in this map, Serbs in Bosnia are almost non-existent which is ridiculous.
Maybe you can make a video about the emergence of the Romanian people. On one hand, there were the Byzantines who called themselves Romans, but who adopted Greek as their language, on the other hand there was a population North of the Danube who didn't call themselves Romans, but spoke a Latin language.
Romania comes from the word "Rum". Which is the word Muslims used for "Rome". When Muslims invaded the Balkans they pushed "The Romans"(Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs) to the north across the Danube so people concentrated there and formed fiefdoms like Wallachia, Moldova etc. They weren't even remotely Latin but rather Slavic, which is shown by their culture of the time. But "Romanians" back then got pinched between Muslim and Catholic empires and since they were Europeans and not Arabs they settled for adopting of Latin culture in exchange for some safety against Muslims. Thats how you got Romania, the land of Romans that are relatives to Serbs, but speak Latin.
@@Nista357 Many toponims in Romania have meanings in Sanskrit you frustrated slav'. Beside romanian is got thousands of Dacian words. You bulgars and serbs adopted even names of body components from us. Kur'( penis) from romanian cur'( but) from latin ,culus' Named wrongly , buzet'( cheek) from Dacian ,buza( lips) Only we have , magar'( donkey) and , ogar' ( greyhound) both with suffix ,gar' You are dark, but there are many kinds of dark genres for nations just like blond genres too. Romanians indeed look Latin about 40% There is a district romanian/ latin fizionomie like that of Iuliana Tudor or Paula Medrea Bianca Andreescu as well as blond Andreea Esca and others. Guys like Ernest Maftei or Florin Piersic, Ilarion Ciobanu have 0 % slavo/ balcanic features. You're just frustrated with yourself That all.
@@nestingherit7012 I'm not frustrated at all, maybe you are? I really don't know how does that make sense when Slavs had states since 6th/7th century and Romania emerged in 19th...
@@nestingherit7012 Bro... In history Latins invaded the Balkans, not the other way around so the only ones who could be "stuck with the language they don't like" are Romanians, since Latin does not originate from the Balkans...
Very nice video! Although it feels back-handed sometimes but eitherway, it's much needed. This area of history has taken a back seat so it's refreshing to see more material about it. Especially since it's in English but not some weird anti-Slavic power fantasy that some Germans made up in the 19th century. You make it considerably less biased.
The presented theory is allochtonic theory about the Slavs appearing in Europe. There are however some archaeological findings (human bones- from which DNA was extracted or however it is called) that proves the opposite - the autochtonic theory. According to this theory - the DNA from the bones coming from peoples inhabiting territory of Moravia and Poland in pre Roman times does not differ from DNA of modern people living in this territory. That means, there were no significant genetic impact on indigenous peoples' DNA, which mean, there were no any great migration. Simply through the ages the languages, traditions and habits became more distinctive from each other.
Stop spewing such utter nonsense. Read "Cosmopolitanism at the Roman Danubian Frontier, Slavic Migrations, and the Genomic Formation of Modern Balkan Peoples" It was a flood of Slavs washing up the Balkans, just as contemporary Byzantine historians described it
The only evidence of Slavic migration is Constantine VII Porph. Which is highly debated as a source as he wrote it 300 years after the supposed migration. I don’t want to go too hard in the comment section but this video is incredibly misleading. Just on genetic basis 30-40 percent of Balkan dna is autochthonous.
Not true. I2 haplotip which is present around 50% is Southern Slavs is present around 25% in Ukranians and Belarusians, in Poles, Czechs and Slovaks around 10-15%. It ocmes from Slavs not from Balkan indigenous people
Slavic Paganism was monotheistic? Also, could've pointed out that some of that assimilation of Slavs by Greeks came as late as post-WW2, hence Bulgarian claims to Thrace and Macedonia during WW2
Procopius mixed few things up. There is a supreme god in slavic religion (Svarog/Svarod), but he does not interfere nor hold supreme power. Perun is not supreme god. Most honorable in dome places (especially ones who honor st. Elyjah the most today), but not supreme one. Serbs mostly prefer Scetovid, and Russians Dazhdbog/Dajbog.
Well, there are some interesting facts that we need to say too: 1. If we talk about DNA and Y haplogroups all modern-day Slavic countries have between 40%-70% of R1a and I2a haplogroups in total that are considered Slavic(specific branches of these haplogroups) with Bosnia, Belarus, and Poland with almost 70%. Even if we compare modern-day autosomal DNA it is very similar, especially between east and west Slavs(it is a huge amount of land mass much bigger than the Balkan). So genetics undoubtedly confirmed that we modern-day Slavs are descendants of one "nation" which originated in western Ukraine. 2. Linguistics undoubtedly confirms what genetics says too. Slavic tribes have word that they used to distinguish themselves from other ethnicities- SLOVENI which means the understandable ones, similarly, they called Germans-NEMCI which means muted ones. SLOVO means to speak, word. SLAVA means glory.
Mina SLOVO means letter And Slavic population from the Adriatic to the Black Sea have mostly I2a haplogroup genetics It is interesting that Skandinavian population has mostly I1a haplogroup genetics
@@greendalf123 point is that the whole euroasian steppe has R1a and R1b, if the Slavs came from the steppe to the Balkans why isn't R1 haplogroup dominant gene
@@milansimonovic8267 Haplogroup doesn't equal ethnicity. I2a is found in all Slavic nations at notable levels. A bottleneck means that when a group of Slavs left their homeland, they may have been predominantly males carrying haplogroup i2. Or, the haplogroup R1a individuals may have died to myriad circumstances which let i2a heavy individuals repopulate. What you WANT to look at is the autosomal DNA. What you find in early Balkan populations is (firstly a lack of both R1a and I2a haplogroups) a vast lack of north-eastern (balto-slavic) DNA. When you look at MODERN south Slavic populations with autosomal DNA you see that they have anywhere from 50%-60% north-eastern European DNA, which did NOT exist in the Balkans in the Roman era or prior.
First of all the most important Slavic god was Swietowit/Świętowid/Svatovit/Svetowit/Svetovid/Svevid - as there is many Slavic languages they are many different variant of spellings. His name means Świéty/Svati/Svieti = Holy/Saint and vit/vid from word Veda/wiedza = knowledge. He was a god with four faces represents N,S,E,W and also four season - spring, summer, autumn and winter. Each of this faces has different name and colour. Probably god named Bialobog/Bialovit/Bialoglow (bialy=white, bog-god, glowa=head) he was a god of North and winter. Jarovit/Garovit/Jaromil - god of east and Spring. As most of the records was destroyed during Teutonic Knights and Romans Christianisation of Slavic tribes it is difficult to put everything together but as we are Ind-European people so I find similarities in Hindu beliefs. Hindu four headed Brahma - god of creation is equivalent of Swietovit and he is part of Trimurti (triple deity) alongside with Shiva and Vishnu. In Slavic beliefs triple deity was called Triglow/Triglav/Triglav and those 3 are Svetovit= Brahma, Żiwie/Źiva/Živa/Diva = Shiva and I am not sure who is an equivalent of Vishnu. Meaning of Sanskrit vedas are Slavic Veda/wiedza = knowledge.
@@nestingherit7012 Śramati = Sarmaci. Both Devanagiri and 'spoken languages' (Slavic) have a common ancestor, written by knitting ropes, later replaced with runes and the mentioned written Sanskrit (thats when the division happend).
Maybe it isnt what you were trying to say, but vlachs did not emerge in the 11th century, but much earlier. Vlachs are all macedonians, illirians, thracians, and dacians which were latin speakers.
The term Vlach appeared as early as the 6th century, but the people it refers to have been more or less a continuous presence in the Balkans since BC. The identity of Vlachs seems to revolve a lot around the 5th legion Macedonica.
First time seeing this video. Presentation is good but deals with only the southern (YUGO) Slavs. You are missing the western and eastern Slavs. As such you do not answer the point you mentioned in the beginning that you would concern yourself with.
The endonym of Croats in their language is: Hrvati. In historical sources Hrvati are mentioned in Nestor's Chronicle for period of events in 9th and 10th century as one of 9 important tribes in area of Kievan Rus state (tribes mentioned by Nestor in territory of todays Ukraina, Belarus and western parts of todays Russia are: Polani (around Kiev, not Polani in territory of Poland), Severani (sever meaning north), Derevliani (probably in region of Polesie, id est todays Pripiat region in southern Belarus, because "drevo" means tree, as well as word "les" in some modern Slavic dialects and languages (les in Slovenian is wood), Radimichi (large tribal confederacy encompasing todays eastern Belarus, parts of northern Ukraina around river Uzh and to Chernigov city, and even parts of Russia), Viatichi /around Oka river, deep in todays western Russia, city Orel/, Hrvati (mentioned usually after Radimichi and before Duliebi/Voliniani, whatgives their location probably between modern city Zhitomir to Rovno/Rivno to Ternopol and to Lavov/Lviv; Duliebi/Voliniani, Ulichi, Tivertsi). Other Croats are mentioned for the period of 10th century in todays northern Czech in some Latin documents as: Chrouati et altera Crouati. Also, Croats are mentioned in Latin documents for 10th century living in "pagus Crouati" in todays southern Austria (modern region Kärnten, Carantania in documents from 8th and 10th century); also many toponyms in Carantania in period from 16th to 18th century bore names as: Crowati, Chrouati etc., with many names that are identical to placenames in northern Dalmatia and Lika region in modern Croatia (there is good historical article by historian Stjepan Antoljak on the subject of Croatian toponyms in southern Austria between Drava and Mura rivers. So, historicly through written documents we have Croatian ethnonym (in form: Hrvati, Chrouati, Chroati, Croati etc.) attested for 10th and 9th century from central-western Ukraina, in northern Czech (even little settlement in eastern Germany), in southern Austria and of course, in modern Croatia and Herzegovina and some western parts of modern Bosna, during the 9th and 10th century. Against Hrvati in Ukraina there was last mention for year 993 when ruler of Kiev, Volodimir, launched the military campaign, as Nestor of Kiev/Kiiv writes: Ide Volodimer na Hrvati...hrvatskija vojna (goes Volodimer against Croats.. Croatian war). During the census in 19 century in imperial Russia there was only cca. 17 000 people enlisted by nationality as Horvati, in western Ukraina (Galich region). The next what connects Hrvati in modern Hrvatska (Croatia) with populations in Ukraina is ikavian Slavic language(words in modern Ukrainian and in traditional Croatian as: rika /river/ versus reka in Srbian or "rijeka" in standard Croatian, in Polish:rzeka; tilo vs. telo, and tijelo (body), ciało in Polish; vitar (wind) versus vetar in Srbian and vjetar in standard Croatian
@@ginaibisi777 You obviously didn't watch this video, or you weren't paying much attention, or are just trolling. 13:40 he does mention Thracians, just in case you missed it.
Really enjoy your take on history as if seems to be correct - as I travel these areas - they help me get a sense of what was going down in the past Thanks
This is just western point of view. Some evidence are faked. Even on west they are a lot of sholars who claimed opposite. Mario Allinei, Giuseppe Sergi etc.
In my experience, Northern Greece still has a small population that is bilingual and will speak in a slavic language once they feel it's safe to do so.
@@paulinah2392 My mother's side of the family is from there. Back in the 70s and 80s slavic was more common than now. All my cousins, when I visited them, spoke both languages.
Paulina h keep living a life of being in denial lmao.. most of northern Greece still speak Slavic Macedonian but itsnbanned by the government... there are videos of the people there singing and dancing to Macedonian folk songs, but yet Greeks say they r Slav Greeks which’s makes no damn sense lol
Paulina h after 1 st ww about a million Slavs from northern Greece had been pushed away to Macedonia ( Yugoslavian) while the Turks from Kosovo, Nowadays Macedonia and some parts of Bulgaria went to Istanbul and around all over Europien parts of Turkey and Greek from nowadays europien parts of Turkey just replaces the slavs mostly around Solun (Tessalonika) That is happend from 1921 - 1925 That time Greek did very bad things
Zoran Todorovic Greece did very bad things all the way till today. No one is mentioning the mass exodus of Slav Macedonians from north Greece, and the genocide Greece did on Macedonians.... all this was happening after world war 2 as well
I believe it is a matter of time (a few generations most likely) that historians realise Slavs didn't really appear out of thin air and invade Eastern Europe. There is a Thracian tribe called Slovenes that neighboured the Roman Empire which is probably how they came to call us Slavs - they called everyone speaking this language the same way. Also the ancient authors often draw hereditary lines between ancient European tribes such as Scythians and Myrmidons and modern nations like Bulgaria.
@Dottor Cisafrulli Its most incorrect map what i ever seen . There is no Albanians in Podgorica, Skoplje , Greece . And there are a lot a lot of Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro . That map is only correct to you ! There are some good Albanians who know facts not like you !
@Redooo bruh its not accurate. He literally colored Serbs from Bosnia as Croats . Its like to say to Albanians from Macedonia are Bulgarians . Also Albanians are not majority in Podgorica and Skoplje . Actually West of North Macedonia is totally wrong
The Germanic people were not pushed by the slavs. The germanic moved to South and West Europe due to the fall of the Roman Empire. Then slavs inhabited the empty lands of goths and ostrogoths
There is a book called De Administrado Imperio written by Bizant emperor. In the book he gave to his son to help him rule, he said that Croats were a Slavic tribe who made a deal with Bizant. They defeated Avars in Dalmatia and in exchange emperor gave them land in the outskirts of the cities. Roman population moved to the cities (Zara, Salona etc) while Slavs remained in the outskirts. He also converted them to Christianity and said that they have a leader named Porgas. Its not a ficiton, that book is today in Paris in National library.
Hey Thersites, have you read Noel Malcolm’s ‘Kosovo, a short history’. I think it will give you some great insight on what happened with some of the indigenous and new people in the Balkans.
TheBeginning just talks about those people, Albanians, Serbs, and Vlachs. I don’t remember exactly, but I think he mentions Paleo-Balkanic people as well.
A lot of shitty comments, but i think your information here is spot on dude!... it's obvious that Slavs weren't "originally" natives in these regions (linguistically, physically and culturally) especially when south Slavs have a closer relation with east, west and north Slavs than Balkan antiquity itself... also the "Slavonic" alphabet wouldn't be could "SLAVonic" if not a single slav migrated into the Balkans.. obviously this was implemented for that specific purpose.. Also what's your views on those that try and debunk the Slavic migration theory?
Many historians and archeologists agree with Florin Curta’s research about the slavs Some of Florins quotes; ….Such population movements, however, cannot be defined as migration. There is simply no evidence for the idea that the inhabitants of the sixth and early seventh-century settlements in Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine were colonists from the North who migrated down to the Balkans. Nor does the idea of a “Slavic tide” covering the Balkans in the early 600s fit the existing archaeological data. South of the Danube river, no archaeological assemblage comparable to those found north of that river produced any clear evidence for such an event taking place. Instead of a great flood of Slavs coming out of the Pripet marshes, I envisage a form of group identity, which could arguably be called ethnicity and emerged in response to Justinian’s implementation of a building project on the Danube frontier and in the Balkans. The Slavs, in other words, did not come from the north, but became Slavs only in contact with the Roman frontier. So slav is a religious term and a name the Catholics called all the people of the slavic orthodox (pravo slaven) religion.
There is no such thing as a slav ethnicity. Slav is a religious term used by the Catholics during the eastern Roman Empire who called all the people of the slavic orthodox (pravo slaven) religion, “slavs” How many slavic nations are there???? About 14 How many “slavs” just in Europe???? About 400 million Are all these people from one tribe or ethnic group of people??? You have to be crazy to believe that. How many different nations do the slavs come from???? How many different DNA’s and ancient ancestors are all these nations made of??? Are the Serbians and Bosnians, who have Illyrian blood, the same as the Macedonians who have ancient Macedonian blood??? Or the same as the Bulgars from the Volga river??? Or the Russians who are vikings mixed with ancient sarmations????? Slavs are a slavic orthodox group of people, or people with a similar “slavic” language, including Croatians, slovenes, Polish and some others who are not slavic orthodox but speak a slavic language.
@@maugustyniak Older research considered that the high frequency of this subclade in the South Slavic-speaking populations to be the result of "pre-Slavic" paleolithic settlement in the region. Peričić et al. (2005) for instance place its expansion to have occurred "not earlier than the YD to Holocene transition and not later than the early Neolithic".[2][3][16][17] However the prehistoric autochthonous origin of the haplogroup I2 in the Balkans is now considered as out of date,[nb 1] as already Battaglia et al. (2009) observed highest variance of the haplogroup in Ukraine, and Zupan et al. (2013) noted that it suggests it arrived with Slavic migration from the homeland which was in present-day Ukraine.[22] The research by O.M. Utevska (2017) concluded that the haplogroup STR haplotypes have the highest diversity in Ukraine, with ancestral STR marker result "DYS448=20" comprising "Dnieper-Carpathian" cluster, while younger derived result "DYS448=19" comprising the "Balkan cluster" which is predominant among the South Slavs.[14] This "Balkan cluster" also has the highest variance in Ukraine, which indicates that the very high frequency in the Western Balkan is because of a founder effect.[14 Take it
That map is so incorrect 08:00 . There are a lot of Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro and there is just 5k Albanians in Podgorica . Podgorica has got 200k people so 5k Albanians cant be majority there ...
Very good summary of the issues and controversies. However, could have been more complete if you would have cited some theories about the slavic origin. Available in English is a book of a Romanian professor (Florin Curta - The Making of the Slavs) who argues that slavic "invasions" is a creation of Procopius and other historians willing to hide to their contemporaries the fact that Byzantine Empire was incapable of protecting its norther frontier. the settlement was in most cases peaceful (although fighting did occur) which enabled the quick symbiosis with Romanized population. He also argues that the term slav is un umbrela term form several populations more or less distantly related. He does not issue any theory about the actual origins of the Slavs. You could have also mentioned the theory according to which the Slavs originate in the free Dacians (carpi and costoboci and also the Chernyakhov culture) from northern Carpathian region. this latter theory (unsupported by most Romanian historians) may explain many loopholes in the Romanian and Bulgarian ethnogenesis.
Well, most of what the good professor Curta tries to say can not only be disputed, but literally laughed at. The very fact that this man presents himself as an "expert in Slavic history", while his theories can be debunked by banal enumeration of those rare records and archaeological finds, makes the matter ridiculous. What kind of peaceful migration could it be if the Byzantine sources state, quite precisely, the enslavement and murder of over 200,000 natives by Slavic invaders in just one wave of attacks (this is a huge number for that time and even if it is exaggerated, it tells us about at least how the Byzantines experienced these "peaceful migration"). Also, Thessaloniki was besieged at least 6 times and the surroundings were completely devastated. Salona on the Adriatic was completely burned down, and Sirmium fell at the very beginning of the invasion. These were some of the most important cities of the Eastern Roman Empire. These incursions and attacks lasted for about a hundred years, and only then did mass settlement begin. To me, it seems like a fairly strategically thought-out conquest. After they completely drove out the Avars in the 7th or 9th century (this is still debated) and settled the areas of Byzantium in which they penetrated, the Croats and Serbs, we can almost say- received recognition of their own conquest in the form of a "vassal relationship". So, Byzantium recognized the territory they occupied with the payment of a certain tribute. The Croats gained full independence and formed the first kingdom already a hundred years after the establishment of the recognized territory they inhabited, and soon it was the same with the Serbs. The Bulgarians had a slightly more complicated history, but they even managed to become the worst enemy of Byzantium. That "peaceful settlement of the Slavs" may have taken place in Curta's Romania (although I don't understand then why the Dacans took refuge in the mountainous parts of later Wallachia) but everything south of that was quite brutal. After only 100 to 200 years, all mentioning of the Thracians and Illyrians, peoples who inhabited those areas perhaps even a thousand years before, is lost. As for the theory of "free Dacans", you don't need to be a professor of history to understand the basis of that theory, which in principle even has some basis, but not in the way that Curta interprets it. Although the origin of the Dacans has not yet been clarified, there is every chance that they have a common origin with the Illyrians and that they were once Baltic tribes that migrated to the south. The Baltic and Slavic tribes have a common "ancestor" - the so-called Balto-Slavic group of peoples. The real term for the Slavs is actually not Slav, but slOven (that's why today we don't have SlAvenia and SlAvakia, but SlOvenia and SlOvakia) The Slavs had their own tribal names for themselves, but they called other peoples who spoke the same or similar languages "SlOv(jan)s" (those who know words, speakers), so then it is easily possible that the Illyrians and Dacans were also considered Slavs. This would also explain the sudden "disappearance" of the Illyrians. Maybe they didn't disappear at all, but accepted the name of the newcomers.
The genetic picture has come into peoples attention only recently the video was made most likely prior to the genetic discoveries that were made or rather properly publicized. Hell according to genetics the autochtonus theory of slavs seems correct and there was no invasion, slavs simply existed and remained but most likely began a period of potential interaction and expansion that was notable in the 6-7th centuries. (there is also heated debate about slavic writing, more nad more sources are appearing now that mention slavic writing, and the absolute mental gymnastics used to tow the current theory is astounding.)
@@boguslav9502 Well of course genetics suggests people never migrated, because regular people do hardly migrate. Cultures however do migrate, rulling classes migrate, warriors migrate, and it's those that brough slavic languages and cultures towards the Balkans.
Linguistic, textual, genetic and archaeological evidence for the Out of India Theory of Indo European Languages Baghpat Chariots, Weapons and the Horse in the Harappan Civilization - Dr. BK Manjul th-cam.com/video/fZvKpjjTpgg/w-d-xo.html Findings from the latest genetic study conducted by ASI in collaboration withe Reich Lab at Harvard using the ancient DNA from Rakhigarhi slides at 29:00 mark th-cam.com/video/Dio3Ep0nlv4/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/n4WFk0iEK5k/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/f0Lg1b_8N54/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/-wIu3dUsmtY/w-d-xo.html Here are the tribes that spread the Indo European languages from South Asia to West Asia, Central Asia and to Europe Avestan) Afghanistan: Proto-Iranian: Sairima (Śimyu), Dahi (Dāsa). NE Afghanistan: Proto-Iranian: Nuristani/Piśācin (Viṣāṇin). Pakhtoonistan (NW Pakistan), South Afghanistan: Iranian: Pakhtoon/Pashtu (Paktha). Baluchistan (SW Pakistan), SE Iran: Iranian: Bolan/Baluchi (Bhalāna). NE Iran: Iranian: Parthian/Parthava (Pṛthu/Pārthava). SW Iran: Iranian: Parsua/Persian (Parśu/Parśava). NW Iran: Iranian: Madai/Mede (Madra). Uzbekistan: Iranian: Khiva/Khwarezmian (Śiva). W. Turkmenistan: Iranian: Dahae (Dāsa). Ukraine, S, Russia: Iranian: Alan (Alina), Sarmatian (Śimyu). Turkey: Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian: Phryge/Phrygian (Bhṛgu). Romania, Bulgaria: Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian: Dacian (Dāsa). Greece: Greek: Hellene (Alina). Albania: Albanian: Sirmio (Śimyu). Shrikant Gangadhar Talageri talageri.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-rigveda-and-aryan-theory-rational_27.html Five waves of Indo-European expansion: a preliminary model (2018) Igor A Tonoyan-Belyayev I. Tonoyan-Belyayev www.academia.edu/36998766/Five_waves_of_Indo-European_expansion_a_preliminary_model_2018_
How do you explain the Eneti were Trojan allies and after the fall of Troy were led by the Trojan prince Antenor to the Baltic to met up with their Slavic cousins,the Venedi. They eventualy migrated to the Po Valley and became the Veneti. Many ancient Greek historians describe the Eneti as related to the Venedi from the present day Poland as far back as Homer-850 BC when he identified Veneti with Heneto-Paphlagones from Anatolia who were tall and blond people of handsome appearance.
I read the vocabulary of the Thracians, old Balkan nation or group of tribes. They have many same or similar words as the Serbian or other Slavic languages. Thats means that we have been in contanc much earlier.
Where did you read this vocabulary? Can you share it to the rest of the world? You will be very rich if you will sell this documents because it will be the first written text in thracian we know. Let me know, ok?
@@dacicus090 You can compare similarities between Slavic language and 3.000 year old Sanskrit language. So Slavs were in India in 3000BC. But somehow Slavs didn't get to the Balkans until 700AD, even though their cradle was modern day Ukraine. Doesn't make sense.
Good work, as always. I've enjoyed your video but I have one thing to point out which you neglected, probably due to it not being your main subject of research. Nevertheless, I think it is important to point it out here. You have mentioned in your video that the Dacians, after having to deal with the Slavic invasion/migration, retreated into the mountains and stayed there up until the 11th century when they reemerged as Vlachs. For the overall romanic people who survived the fall of the Roman Empire and kept speaking latin (combined with influences of their native tongue) this is true, romanic people south of the Danube were overwhelmed by the Slavic migration and were forced to retreat into the mountains where they adopted, to a certain extent, the Slavic identity, even though groups of Aromanians and Megleromanians remain to this day, and they are identified as a distinct group of people, who talk a dialect of the modern Romanian language, so your point in this case is not entirely invalid. As for the Dacians, or, to better call them at this point in time, Daco-Romans, your point is not so valid. There are 2 reasons for this: The first one is that the Slavs didn't settle in so large numbers in modern day Romania and so didn't have such a predominant role in the politics and life of the Romanian space at this point in time. Actually, being fewer in number, the Slavs ended up being assimilated by the local population (being interested and attracted by the wealth of Eastern Rome, they were more interested in going to the south of the Danube, this explaining why they didn't end up assimilating the local population, because they weren't so numerous in order to do so) , so from this point of view it wouldn't be so justifiable for the Daco-Romans to retreat into the mountains and remain there for centuries, not being so pressed by the Slavs. The second reason has to do with the impracticality of such a course of action from the native population. It was and still is a trend in historiography to state that once the Slavs penetrated this space, the local population retreated into the mountains almost immediately. This however would mean that the Daco-Romans wold have to change their lifestyle almost over night: being moutain people, they could not grow crops (at least not at the same scale and efficiency as before) and could not grow animals as before, due to the more limited resources in space, food and time, winter there coming sooner and lasting for more months than at a lower altitude. One could say that they started to retreat at lower altitudes once winter arrived, but that would place them into conflict with the Slavs. Due to these difficulties, it is far more likely that the Daco-Romans did not adopt the mountain lifestyle which your video implies they did end up adopting and that they actually coexisted with the Slavs. This is supported by archeology and some modern Romanian historians. Otherwise, great video! I've learned some important things about the Slavs while watching it.
The point of difficulty of switching from lowland to highland lifestyle overnight is interesting. I have an anecdotal example: Friends family is from South of Serbia, where 200 years ago few families from Montenegro settled abandoned Villages in the mountains. What sets them apart from the surrounding villages is that they are all goat herders, industry that they have broth from rocky mountains of Montenegro, while the area being more suited for large cattle herding and other types of agricultural professions. It far from a bad idea. I guess goats love it there and the business is good. But 200 years ago those families did not settle in a new area and adapt to the local resources. Their idea was "this is what we know, this is what we will do". So how woul lowland farmers adapt to the mountains in one generation? Perhaps there were already highland Daco-Roman societies that were not included as much by the changes in the lowland demographics.
Genetics say that romanians are more slavic than bulgarians and less then serbs or croats. So there were many slavic people in Danube region and in the begining a part of protoromanians retreat not in the mountains but on higher altitudes or big forested areas, so slavs will dominate the plains around rivers. Later as there was no important slavic administrative or religious institutions north of the Danube romanians assimilated the slavs, but in the south of Danube most of them were assimilated by slavs. Why slavs will not have powerfull kingdooms north of Danube, because of still big movements of different tribes like avars, pechenegs, cumans, magyars and the sametime distance from Bizantine lands as a model and influence for an organized governement.
Daco-Romans? Romans were occupiers in Dacia, for nearly 200 years so why would Dacians adopt the occupiers' language? Slavs in the Balkans are descended directly from Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians - there was no Slavic invasion, no evidence at all for this. Rumanians had a Slavic language until Austro-Hungary latinized it 200 years ago, they even used Cyrillic. Finally, genetics of Serbs and Rumanians are exactly the same - how do you explain this?
@@NeborodVinchanski This is just garbage. Regarding the evidence it seems you can not see it even if sticked on your face. as you talk about genetic...here is a link you could read for some evidence, but i doubt you have the capacity to understand it. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1.full.pdf
19:45 That isn't correct there are still Greek cultures in Bovesia and Salento, where they speak Greek that is possibly from to Doric Settlers, and they have a unique culture. They have two dialects under italiot Greek called Griko.
Listen there are chronicles and real history, Slavs was in Europe much earlier, capitol was in today Augsburg in 1500bc, because of that river have name after King Lech, even today. Venecia is Wenecja after Slavic tribe which create city there. You can fallow Slaws roots from middle east and they are line of Japhet son of Noa
Please do more such videos about slavic history. Like you can see in commentaries, in our part of Europe is lack of "cold eye" sight in this subject and lack of basic knowledge. Decades of communistic propaganda replaced scientific discussion.
You are not right, this is not 'cold eye' version of slavic history, it is geraman XIX century propaganda. decades of comunism was another propaganda, both Russian comunists from XX century and German nationalist from XIX century claim the same that Slavs came from east in VI century, but this is not true, Slavs live here much much longer. Slavs are direct dscendants of Lusatian culture or even older. There are strong evidences for that (Slavs are in Central Europe much much longer than V century) and all chronicles can be explained with this version, the idea Slavs came late from east is base only on one week clue and misunderstanding how people behave when climate changes. there is no evidence for the migration. The slavs just came everywhere in Europe becausee they were here almost always and they suddenly prosper because of climeta change or maybe some inventions. Only thee name Slavs is new the people itself are old.
Its not just the south slavs and albania. Its also us, the hungarians and also romanians and slovakians that are like this. I am quite frankly sick and tired of all this bulls*** going around especially online! Makes me wish all of us wouldn't exist in the first place! But i suppose theres nothing we can change about this now.
Great video. It only amplifies the asinine behaviour in the Balkans when the tribalisation went 180 degrees the opposite with the rest of the modern society. Everyone else got bigger, while in the Balkans every tribe want's their national myths to be true and separate with the rest of the people. A clear diagnose of this is: narcissism of small differences. The worst thing about it is that a regular man from Balkans is politically illiterate, and the nation is most of the time taken as some genetic property, very often not separated with religion so there are so many chances to get in conflict with anyone over anything.
If Slavs came down in the 7th century, how did they manage to pass on to the Romans 6.000 Serbian Slavic words, and the Roman Republik was founded circa 700BC. Latin language was developing much earlier than that, until it was standardised. We are talking about at least 1.500 years gap. How did the words get to Rome from Russia? Internet, drones? Your pick.
A few Corrections are in order. Firstly, there are no Eastern Roman historians attributing the ease of Slavic settlement to Justinian's plague - which was spread all over Europe (despite its popular name and the worst scenario occurring in densely populated Constantinople) and almost certainly affected Slavs. Further on, based on all archaeological findings of both the Antes and the Sclavenes, we know for a fact that equipment was standardized in the sense that every excavated grave of a Slavic warrior features chainmail and sword (fashioned in East Roman style), an ax, round wooden shield, and a long spear. Some Slavic warriors were wearing belts with buckles adorned with Avar motifs, but they were most likely spoils of war or items of trade. The only group of Slavs that have fought without armor was warbands of young warriors who've fought entirely naked (barring the red paint on their body, hair, and face) and in melee (the ones that were described as being red-haired by Procopius), and some groups of Pannonian Wends who were tributaries of the Pannonian Avars, and relying on ambushes was a part of defensive strategies, and only against hosts that were too numerous and too well-armed, like the joint Avar-Roman host that assailed Sclavene territories after Daurentius slew Bayan's envoys and refused to pay tribute to him. Aside from that, both the Antes and the Sclavenes have utilized large breeds of horses for warfare, and matter of fact, an entire host of Antean and Sclavene horsemen was dispatched to evacuate Belisarius from Italy, which proves the aforementioned. Secondly, the Avars have only managed to subjugate the more passive parts of the Dudlebes, as well as parts of the Wends - certainly not the Antes and the Sclavenes, who were noted to have lived only under the reign of their own kings like Muzok and Mezamir (Antes) and chieftains like Radagast and Daurentius, of whom the latter was described as being the supreme chief of all Sclavenes. Procopius' early assessment of Slavic social structure was just that - an early assessment based off of early sightings of Slavic warbands that were initially considered to have been "small tribes governed by "military democracy". As interaction with Slavs intensified, he realized that the Slavs did exhibit an organized social structure, albeit admittedly, the Antes were the most centralized body of the Early Slavs, with a hereditary monarchy where one king reigned over all of the Antes, while among the Sclavenes, you've had one known supreme chieftain like the aforementioned Daurentius to whom other chieftains were subordinate, there was also a mention of Sclavene kings, like Perbundos, who led a coalition of Sclavene tribes deep into Greece. Likewise, the Avars were first invited to make a move against the Slavs by the Roman emperor Tiberius, and later on, Emperor Heraclius would invite Serbs and Croats from the distant Slavic northwest to liberate the northern provinces of the Avars and have them settle all those provinces as his vassals which he'd ennoble, which refutes any theory of the Sclavenes and Antes arriving to Southeastern Europe off of the back of the Avars. After all, the earliest Slavic raids deep into the Roman territory were accompanied by the enslavement of an estimated quarter of a million Romans in every province struck by the Slavs and the sacking and besieging of Roman cities, which were recorded as early as the first part of the 6th century - decades before the Avars were contacted by Emperor Tiberius, and before they reached the most distant part of the basin of the Danube. On top of that, the invading Sclavenes have also slain Asbadus/Asbados - the famed Roman/Gepid general, and have also annihilated his elite army, a feat which would've been impossible if the Slavs "only fought from afar", or worse, if they've "made no use of pitched organized warfare". The usage of poison arrows and guerrilla warfare was deployed only in defensive wars against a martially superior enemy - like against the combined Roman-Avar army during Maurice's campaign which was launched deep into Sclavene territories north of the Danube. In the work of Menander Protector, we find the following excerpt: "This movement of Avars against the Slavs did not only result from Emperor's envoys and the wish of Bayan to return the courtesy unto Romans for all the gestures of friendship and help that he had received from the Emperor but also because he held great hate for them (the Slavs) out of personal sentiment as well. The Avar leader has, therefore, sent envoys to Daurentius (Δαυρίτας) himself, and to his chieftains, calling on for their submission and enlistment among tribute-payers. Dauritas and the leaders alongside him replied: "Who is, then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that, we are certain for as long as wars are waged and swords are forged". Since the Slavs acted so haughtily, the Avars were no different in boasting. Then the scolds and insults resulted from that, being that the barbarians are of a narrow and proud mind, and the fight broke out. The Slavs, unable to control their anger, killed the envoys, as Bayan found out from another source. Because of that Bayan has long since raised accusations against the Slavs, fueling a secret hatred against them, mad for they refused him, and angry that from them he received an unforgivable insult, in the same time he thought he would do a favor to Caesar and likewise *find a rich land to plunder, for far too long has the land of Romans been plundered by Slavs, and theirs (Slavic) - never by any of other peoples*." Thirdly, the Early Slavs seized and inhabited a massive territory that spanned from the east of Germany to the Baltic and the very distant fringes of Eastern Europe. Matter of fact, the bulk of the Sclavenes have lived on the northern shores of the Danube and were bribed by Roman authorities into maintaining that status quo, at least temporarily. Also, Slavs weren't "monotheistic", they were henotheistic. Even though Perun was their chief god, they also recognized the existence of other gods as well, hence why the Sclavenes and the Antes worshipped Perun and Veles - which also reflected their lifestyles, which were very warlike and militarized and subsided on animal husbandry, fishing, hunting, gathering and the practice of a form of agriculture that required the burning of the soil, so they weren't nomadic, but certainly not entirely sedentary either. It's also important to note that Procopius also states that the Sclavenes and the Antes shared the same customs, beliefs, and institutions. The same goes for the Wends, which is also supported by the homogeneity of early Slavic aDNA, YDNA, and language, although material culture was far more varied (depending on which culture they defeated and assimilated). Fourthly, the role of the Avars in all of this is overemphasized, and for the following reasons: a) As mentioned before, they were invited by the Romans to defeat and subdue unruly peoples on the Danube, like the Antes (who were Roman allies from time to time as well), and during the next century or so will be the foremost "allies" of the Romans against the Slavs, up until Heraclius invites the Serbs and Croats (Sclavene tribes) to defeat and annihilate them south of the Danube. b) While it's true that the Avar hosts were initially the largest, they were in time overshadowed by the Sclavene hosts, which have, after realizing that the Roman authority on the Danube is no more, begun launching massive invasions that were also preludes to the permanent settling of the lands they've seized and initiated the assimilation of the peoples they've defeated and temporarily subjugated. c) Western historians tend to make the mistake of not distinguishing the Slavs, even though primary sources from that era have noted that the Early Slavs were divided into three groups: the Wends, the Sclavenes, and the Antes, which brings us to the point of the "100 000 Slavs" that were part of the Avar host - most of them were Pannonian Wend tributaries of the Avars, while the rest were Sclavene allies who, thanks to their arrangement with the Avars, were exempt from abiding by Avar-Roman peace treaties, and would continue raiding and marauding as they pleased, which brought great displeasure to Bayan senior and junior, and the Roman emperors as well. d) Slavs would've invaded and permanently settled the lands south of the Danube one way or the other, the involvement of the Avars has only somewhat hastened of process, and by subsequently making sure that the Sclavene tribes would form the overwhelming bulk of those who'd settle and seize the territories in question by waging exhaustive wars with the Antes. At most, the Avars were a strictly Pannonian phenomenon and were never masters of the "Balkans", which is also supported by archaeology and modern genetic studies, and given that you're made a mention of primary Roman/Greek sources, you should also know that there's not a single one of them that claims that the Slavs were migrating with the Avars, but that they were invading Southeastern Europe at the same time. You could potentially make that point for the aforementioned Pannonian Wends, but not for the bulk of the invading Slavs - who were Sclavenes and Antes. e) Sclavenes have besieged Thessalonica five times (in 586 or 597, 604, 615, 617, and 676), and only in two of those sieges were the Slavs assisted by the Avars.
Furthermore, the Franks, Avars, and Magyars have only influenced the military and administrative history of the Pannonian Wends, and they're the ancestors of the Slavs of Balaton, Nitra, Great Moravia, and Slovakia, and they've never formed the bulk of the Early Slavs, but merely a portion of the Wends (the Early West Slavs). To interpret the history of the rest of the Slavs through their particularity is rather tendentious, and even ignorant of the full extent of the history of the Early Medieval Slavs, whether they're West, East, or South Slavic. Matter of fact, the bulk of the Early Slavs was made of the Sclavenes and the Antes, and the overwhelming majority of primary sources from that era were based on peaceful and hostile interaction with them. Further on, the military and administrative history of the Antes and the Sclavenes was strictly a mixture of Slavic traditions and East Roman/Greek influences, which was reflected in the First Bulgarian Empire as well, where Slavic and Bulgar tribal and administrative traditions were integral parts of the state, yet the latter would be entirely ousted by the Slavo-Roman model as early as during the reign of Boris I. Procopius, Book V, XXVII, 134: "(...) This exploit, then, was accomplished by the Goths on the third day after they were repulsed by the assault on the wall. But twenty days after the city and harbor of Portus were captured, Martinus and Valerian arrived, bringing with them sixteen hundred horsemen, the most of whom were Huns and Sclaveni and Antae, who are settled above the Ister River not far from its banks. (...)" Procopius about Slavic invaders capturing and enslaving a lot of Romans: Procopius, Book VII, XIII - describing events in the year 545 AD: "(...) For a great throng of the barbarians, the Sclaveni, had, as it happened, recently crossed the Ister, plundering the adjoining country and enslaving a very great number of Romans. (...)" Procopius of Caesarea: "(...) In Illyria and Thracia, from the Ionian Gulf to Byzantine surrounding cities, where Hellas and Chersonese regions are situated, (...) the Sclavenes and the Antes, penetrating practically every year since Justinian administering the Roman Empire, were inflicting irreversible damage to their inhabitants. In each invasion, I estimate 200,000 Romans were either taken as prisoners or killed (...)" Procopius about Roman attempts to stop the Slavic invasion: "(...) the Empire wasn't able to find just one only man just as brave to undertake this task." Pope Gregory I in a letter to the Exarch of Italy from the year 599: "(...) It deeply afflicts and disquiets me the Slavic nation that menace us. It afflicts me from what I already suffer from you, it disquiets me because they have already started to penetrate into the Italic peninsula through Istria. (...)" And according to Priscus, 610 Slavic tribes flooded into Greece. Procopius of Caesarea: "(...) Nay further, they [the Slavs] do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair nor blond nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type (...)". Procopius of Caesarea: "(...) In more or less the same time [549 - 550] a Slavic army (...) gathered itself together and after crossing without encountering any resistance from anyone the river Ister [Danube], and later with similar ease the river Heuros, it divided itself for two parts. (...) Commanders of Roman garrisons in Illyria and Thrace fought against both those parts and even though they had already separated from each other, the Romans suffered - contrary to their expectations - a defeat and some of them fell dead on the spot, while others found salvation in escaping. (...) After all, garrisons had suffered such defeats at the hands of either one or the other of barbarian armies, one of the enemy bands fought against troops of Asbadus. He was a member of Emperor Justinian's personal guard (...) and he led a numerous and elite force of cavalry, which had been garrisoned for a long time inside the Thracian stronghold of Tdzurulon. But also, they were forced to retreat by the Slavs and most of them, shamefully escaping, got slaughtered, while Asbadus himself was captured and temporarily left alive, but soon after that the Slavs skinned him alive and threw him into a burning campfire. After that, the Slavs were plundering all neighboring Thracian and Illyrian lands without any obstacles and both of their two units captured many strongholds. (...) And those who had defeated Asbadus, later plundered, in turn, everything up to the sea coast, and captured in an assault the coastal city of Toperus (...) And they slaughtered 25,000 men, plundered everything, and enslaved all the children and all the women. (...)" John of Ephesus: "(...) In the third year after the death of Emperor Justin, during the reign of victorious Tiberius, the damned nation of the Slavs has risen, and marched through entire Hellas, through lands of Thessaly and Thrace, captured many cities and strongholds, plundered, burned, and robbed, seized the land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land. (...) they were plundering the country, burning it, and robbing, as far as the Great Walls [of Constantinople], and this is how they captured many thousands of cattle, as well as many other kinds of booty. (...) Until today, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in the lands of the Rhomaioi, without fear and concern, plundering, murdering and burning, getting rich and highjacking gold and silver, capturing horses and plenty of weapons; and they have learned to fight better than the Rhomaioi. (...)" Menander Protector: "(...) About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand Slavs broke into Thrace and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars. (...)" Strategikon of Maurice: "(...) They do not keep prisoners in perpetual slavery-like other peoples, but they demarcate for them a limited period of time, after which they give them a choice: they can return home after purchasing their freedom or stay among them as free people and friends. (...)" “Strategikon of Maurice: "...being freedom-loving, they are in no way inclined to become slaves or to obey, especially in their own land." (Strategikon of Maurice, ed. prep. V. V. Kuchma. SPb., 2004, p. 189)” Jordanes: "(...) These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalog of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venedi, Antes, and Sclaveni. (...) they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins (...) Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (...)" Procopius of Caesarea: "(...) Belisarius was eager to capture alive one of the men of note among the enemy, in order that he might learn what the reason might be why the barbarians were holding out in their desperate situation. And Valerian promised readily to perform such a service for him. For there were some men in his command, he said, from the nation of the Sclaveni, who are accustomed to concealing themselves behind a small rock or any bush which may happen to be near and pounce upon an enemy. In fact, they are constantly practicing this in their native haunts along the river Ister, both on the Romans and on the barbarians as well. (...)" Abraham ben Jacob (a 10th-century Sephardic Jewish traveler from Muslim Spain): "(...) Slavic countries extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Northern Ocean. (...) Generally speaking, Slavs are warlike and violent, and if not for their internal discord and lack of unity, no other nation would be able to match them in strength. (...)" And about the arrival of the Croats and Serbs (but it was much later - not during the 500’s, but during the 600’s): Constantine Porphyrogennetos, "De Administrando Imperio": "(...) their ancestors were Pagan Croats and Serbs, known also as White [Croats and Serbs]. Great Croatia, called also White [Croatia], until today is still Pagan, just like neighboring [Lusatian / West Slavic] Serbs [Sorbs] (...)" And another excerpt - "De Administrando Imperio": "(...) Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them, and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats. (...)" “Daurentius is the first Slavic chieftain to be recorded by name, by the Byzantine historian Menander Protector, who reported that the Avar khagan Bayan I sent an embassy, asking Daurentius and his Slavs to accept Avar suzerainty and pay tribute because the Avars knew that the Slavs had amassed great wealth after repeatedly plundering the Byzantine Balkan provinces. Daurentius reportedly retorted that "Others do not conquer our land, we conquer theirs [...] so it shall always be for us.” Daurentius (to the Avar envoy): "Who is, then, the man who basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that, we are certain for as long as wars are waged and swords are forged". I've extracted the most relevant quotes from the primary sources and DAI, hope it helps.
Those who attribute the success of the Slavic invasion and colonization of Roman territories to the Avars omit the following: a) Serbs didn't invade in the 6th, but in the mid-7th century, and in toe with the Croats, and were tasked with exterminating all Avars south of the Danube and ruling all the provinces they’d liberate at the request of emperor Heraclius. b) The Slavs who've invaded, conquered, and colonized Southeastern Europe were the Sclavenes and Antes, not the “Avaroslavs”, who were noted to have been Pannonian Wends, and were, aside from the Greeks/Romans themselves, also distinguished from other Slavs on that very basis by Fredegar, and were mentioned only twice in all primary Greek sources, during the Siege of Constantinople in 626, and during one of the many Slavic sieges of Thessaloniki, where Saint Demetrius states they arrived to assist the already present Sclavenes who've besieged the city, lured by promises of the city’s wealth. c) By the time the Avars arrived at the Danubian basin at the invitation of emperor Tiberius, who had invited them for the sole purpose of waging war against the Sclavenes, Antes, and Kutrigurs, the Slavs were already invading and raiding Southeastern Europe for roughly forty years, and as deep as Southern Peloponnesus, Crete and the outer walls of Constantinople. d) All primary sources, like Jordanes, Procopius, Saint Demetrius, John of Ephesus, Theophylact of Simocatta, and Menander Protector state that the Sclavenes and the Antes were under the rule of their rulers like Mezamir, Muzhok, Dervan/Daurentius, and Radogost, and weren't subdued by the Avars, and distinguish them from the aforementioned Avaroslavs (Pannonian Wends). e) Attributing the success of the Slavic invasion and colonization of Southeastern Europe to the Avars is, aside from being contradictory to all primary Roman/Greek sources, since the very purpose of the invitation of the Avars was to wage war against the Slavs and the Kutrigurs, which is exemplified in the joint Avar-Roman invasion of Daurentius' realm, also a textbook example of 19th and 20th-centuries German, Italian, Greek, Hungarian and Austrian anti-Slavism designed to undermine the legitimacy of Slavic history, the geopolitical realities of Slavic territories, and to portray Slavs as a subsidiary mass of naturally subordinate peoples. Sources: Jordanes, Procopius, Saint Demetrius, John of Ephesus, Theophylact of Simocatta, and Menander Protector, De Administrando Imperio, Sima Cirkovic, Tibor Zivkovic, Dimitry Obolensky, and Frederick Hamilton Jackson.
Modern Western interpretations of medieval sources would indicate the Slavic area as being the main reservoir of slaves in the whole period of the Early Middle Ages, beginning probably in the 6th century, and with a peak around the 10th. This preference for slaves of Slavic origin - so strong as to make Slavs the slaves by antonomasia - has been easily explained: in that period Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this detail is most important as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders - mostly Venetian, Genoese and Jewish - did not violate the new principles of the “Societas Christiana”, introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century, according to which baptized people must be excluded from slavery. What should be noted is that aside from this being a mere theory, it is also historically and etymologically inaccurate, and unconvincing. After all, the Medieval Latin words for “Slav” and “Slave” are not etymologically related. The Medieval Latin word for “slave”, and with it, its root as well, predates the first sightings and contact of mainland European civilization with the Slavs. The evolution of the name of Slavs "Sloveni/ Slaveni" comes from PIE *klew (to hear) evolving into proto-Slavic *slovo/ *slava (word/ fame), finally evolving into Sloveni/ Slaveni (those glorious/ those who understand each other). Meanwhile, the English word for "slave" comes from the Latin word "clavis/ clavus" (a key/ nail), which bore the Latin word "inclavare" (to lock in), ultimately giving rise to the word "sclavus" (slave - "a locked one"), which most likely entered the English language, along with a major portion of Romance words, with the Norman invasion. In 1881, a proper etymology was expressed, according to which the Greek word Σκλάβινοι does not stem from the self-name of the Slavs, but from the Greek verb σκυλεύο - "to extract spoils of war", and resonates in the manner in which Slavs and other ethnicities were enslaved - as prisoners of war. The aforementioned etymologies are free of politicization, are accurate, and are firmly rooted in history and linguistics. Based on this, the self-name of the Slavs and their Modern Helleno-Latin name coincided phonetically purely accidentally (F. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache 1881/1989/2002), and the thesis where the modern word for “Slave” is not rooted in the self-name of the Slavs, and is refuted.” (Gerhard Kobler - Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch 1995, Korth Georg - Zur Etymologie des Wortes 'Slavus' (Sklave) 1970, and Daniel Scholten - Deutsch für Dichter und Denker: Unsere Muttersprache in neuem Licht, 2020). The aforementioned theory and etymology are furthered by Korth Georg, Friedrich Kluge, Gerhard Kobler, and Daniel Scholten (and Grimm’s German Dictionary). Further on, the cognate with Sloveni/Slaveni is the word Sclavinii/ Slabini, a Latin that denotes Slavic ethnic groups. From a purely historical perspective, Greece and Gaul were Rome’s main reservoir of slaves for centuries, while the Irish were the main reservoir of slaves for their Normano-English oppressors for more than half a millennium, and before them, to Norsemen as well. Dublin was the largest slave market in Western Europe. Its main sources of supply were the Irish hinterland, Wales and Scotland, while in the Far and the Middle East, the Turkmen tribes would supply the largest portion of Eurasia with innumerable slaves for nearly a millennium. Aside from that, just during the earliest stage of the Slavic invasion of Roman territory south of the Danube (6th century), a fifth of a million Roman citizens (Procopius) were enslaved by the Sclavenes (early South Slavs) in just one Roman province, and just during a single raid, the number of their slaves kept growing as more and more provinces and their capitals fell to the aforementioned Slavs. In reality, the majority of slaves in the 6th and 7th centuries were the Christian Romans, not their Slavic captors. Granted the Slavs didn't enslave their enemies permanently, but they've enslaved them nonetheless, and in numbers that are substantially greater than the number of Slavs who were enslaved by non-Slavs during the entirety of the middle ages, and it renders the aforementioned non-Slavs as being more fitting to have their ethnonyms made “synonymous” with slavery The Western terminology for "slave", to a certain extent, is similar in form to the self-designation of the Slavs ("Sloven", "Slavjan" etc.) Their existence served as the basis for numerous anti-Slavic statements, theories, and consecutive waves of propaganda, which have sometimes acquired the scope of genuine mythologies. Moreover, these ideas were even given an academic platform. As it happened more than once, when “not entirely” adequate premises gained an academic platform and were entrenched there since. The premise of "Slavs" is the root of words for "slaves" found a permanent foothold in Western Academia, giving rise to a series of pseudoscientific, inform, but questionable, in essence, representations and statements. The essence of these premises is that these words are related to the ethnonym of the Slavs, allegedly, "due to the fact that in the Early Middle Ages, the Slavs became objects of the slave trade, which led to the use of their ethnonym as a designation for slaves." Sometimes, it was even argued that Western Europeans, whose languages contain these words, directly, massively, and regularly turned the Slavs into slaves, and in general, other far-reaching conclusions were made, such as that the "Slavs are slaves" and the Western Europeans are "their masters." Moreover, in the 18-19th century in Western European journalism, the idea was persistently exaggerated that even the word "Slav" itself comes from the Latin or Greek word for "slave". This was the “think tank” of an 18th-century French historian and publicist. Polemics regarding this myth and premise are found even in Dostoevsky’s "Diary of a Writer". As for the idea of the origin of the word "Slav" coming from the word for slaves - at the present time, it is not considered scientific and has long been recognized as erroneous, or even deliberately Slavophobic. The birthplace of this terminology is the ERE. In the Early Middle Ages, in the so-called Medieval Greek, the word "σκλάβος" (read as "sklavos" - "slave") appeared. Further - from the ERE and Medieval Greek, this word found its way to Medieval Latin (and from there to Medieval French) - the official, as well as international legal, political, commercial, and scientific language of Western Europe. Moreover, in different languages, it appears in different timelines. In accordance with Webster's Dictionary, the word appears in English only in the 14th century, while Webster gives an etymological origin of the basis of the premise of this stream of Slavic slaves dating back to the 10th century, specifically during the reign of Henry the Fowler and Otto I, therefore moot and chronologically off by several centuries. Thus, the direct appearance of these words in Western European languages, for reasons allegedly of the abundant trade in Slavic slaves, is excluded. Since the word has a clearly traceable and understandable history. And it did not arise in the West, but in ERE. The word for “slave” in Medieval Greek derives from the Greek verb skyleúo - meaning “to get spoils of war”, the first-person singular of which looks like skyláo. This etymology is established thanks to the following sources: F. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache. 1881/1989/2002, siehe Sklave: “... zu gr. skyleuein, skylan, V. zu gr. Skylon ", Gerhard Köbler, Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1995, Sektion "Slaven" and Daniel Scholten, Deutsch für Dichter und Denker: Unsere Muttersprache in neuem Licht, Sklave und Slawe “. Thus, it is proven that the Greek word "sklav", "slave" - comes from the abovementioned Med. Greek word, the original meaning of which was "seized in war".This etymology, and Georg Korth’s "Zur Etymologie des Wortes 'Slavus' (Sklave)" refutes the premise that the Med. Greek and modern Western word for “slave” derived from the self-name of the Slavs. This etymology is furthered by Korth Georg, Friedrich Kluge, Gerhard Kobler, and Daniel Scholten (and Grimm’s German Dictionary). Furthermore, it turns out that the "Slavs" and all these numerous Western European "sklavas" are only homonyms. There are innumerable examples of such consonant coincidences (both within the same languages, and between words from different languages). This is a fairly common occurrence, especially among Indo-European languages. Thus, in the ERE, a new word was found and associated with the verb that means "to seize trophies of war", which was from then on used to denote slaves. At the same time, the previous word for slave, which previously meant slaves, was repurposed to denote indentured serfs attached to the land they’ve toiled.
The only Slavs that were subjugated by the Avars were the Pannonian Wends (the rest of the Wends were either independent or vassals of the Franks), while the Sclavenes and Antes who formed the bulk of the Early Slavs, and the Slavs who've invaded and colonized Roman territories in Europe were independent, sovereign entities, and either at war with the Avars or allied with them, depending on the tribe (unlike the subdued Pannonian Wends). Based on the overwhelming majority of archaeological findings, on nearly all primary sources (like Strategikon of Maurice, Menander Protector, and Procopius, first and foremost) and the toponymy of Southeastern Europe, we know that the Slavs have played the leading role in the invasion of Southeastern Europe and that they were perceived as Rome's greatest threat on the Northern Limes, not the Avars, who in reality, were invited by Rome as their allies against the Slavs, as Menander Protector put its: "(...) About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand Slavs broke into Thrace and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars. (...)" Crediting the Avars for the success of the Slavic invasion and colonization is first and foremost a modern, primarily German, Austrian, Hungarian, and even Greek narrative that has virtually no substantiation in history that originated in the writings of Pavel Jozef Safarik's dubious assessment of the early history of the South Slavs, and can only be attributed to ahistorical, political agendas that should be reviled and demonized in academic discourse, not adopted. We also know that at the time, the Avars didn't dare to invade Slavic lands by themselves, yet again, based on Menander's report: "This movement of Avars against the Slavs did not only result from Emperor's envoys and the wish of Bayan to return the courtesy unto Romans for all the gestures of friendship and help that he had received from the emperor but also because he held great hate for them (the Slavs) out of personal sentiment as well. The Avar leader has, therefore, sent envoys to Daurentius (Δαυρίτας) himself, and to his chieftains, calling on for their submission and enlistment among tribute-payers. Daurentius and the leaders alongside him replied: "Who is, then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that, we are certain for as long as wars are waged and swords are forged". Since the Slavs acted so haughtily, the Avars were no different in boasting. Then the scolds and insults resulted from that, being that the barbarians are of a narrow and proud mind, and the fight broke out. The Slavs, unable to control their anger, killed the envoys, as Bayan found out from another source. Because of that Bayan has long since raised accusations against the Slavs, fueling a secret hatred against them, mad for they refused him, and angry that from them he received an unforgivable insult, in the same time he thought he would do a favor to Caesar and likewise *find a rich land to plunder, for far too long has the land of Romans been plundered by Slavs, and theirs (Slavic) - never by any of other peoples*." We also know the following from the Strategikon of Maurice: "...being freedom-loving, they are in no way inclined to become slaves or to obey, especially in their own land." (Strategikon of Maurice, ed. prep. V. V. Kuchma. SPb., 2004, p. 189)”. Maurice and his successors fought primarily against Slavs, and he dedicated the majority of his Strategikon's chapters on barbarian enemies to the Slavs and the Antes, whom he and as we've mentioned before, Rome as well saw as its greatest threat to the Northern Limes. Also, the Serbs and Croats didn't just settle Roman land but also waged war against the Avars at the behest of Heraclius, and "exterminated" every Avar South of the Danube, as Frederick Hamilton Jackson puts it: "The war with Persia in 600-614 strained the Roman resources and thus denuded the coast of soldiers, therefore the Avars and Slavs inroads ravaged as they pleased under Heraclius (610-640), who had called in the latter to drive out the Avars; Narona, Salona, Epidaurus, Burnum, and Rhizinium were destroyed. In 641 Pope John IV., a Dalmatian by birth, sent Abbot John to Istria and Dalmatia to ransom prisoners and collect relics. The Croats and Serbs exterminated the Avars in the middle of the seventh century and delivered the province, the Croats occupying the west to the river Cetina, the Serbs the east from the Cetina to Albania. De Administrando Imperio says the same: "Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them, and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats.". Sources: De Administrando Imperio and the Shores of the Adriatic by Frederick Hamilton Jackson.
@@numenoreaneternity6682 facinating. Do you think it is possible to get sources in thelibrary, i would really like to read more. i read all you have written and it really sparked my interest.
You fail to mention that prior to the so called migration of Slavs from the Caucasus region, there already were civilizations in Poland. Consequently, the time period of recorded migration is not the actual period of migration. Meaning Slavs in small numbers came into the Central European location, Biskupin for example, centuries before the mass, recorded migration. These first groups numbering in perhaps a hundred or so individuals (including Lustians) setup Biskupin and other small enclaves before sending back messengers to the main civilization camps in the Caucasus and informing them about green, flat, rich pastures in the east filled with game of all kind. In addition, they told them these lands were distant enough to be out of the reach of the eastern Mongol horde. These messengers compelled the massive Slav drive east. Unrecorded Slav civilization can be traced back to approximately 800 BCE. The proof is in the archeological sites like Biskupin.
This is confusing and conflicts with other history with which I am familiar. I was under the impression that the Goths used to live in Poland. That they didn’t move out of there until like the fifth century. Something like that. That is when they went South into the Roman lands because they were pushed by the Huns. Are you saying that it was. Slavs who did this? As for the Mongols, they were very far away from this land. All the way in the far east. There is no record of them even in central Asia until 1221 when they started their conquering. That is 700 years after Procopius and 900 years after the Gothic wars. I do believe this is in the time of the Gokturks but, I am not sure.
@@philomelodia Poland was officially established in 966, so they were there in unorganized tribal societies for hundreds of years prior. I have never come across any info about Goths being in the area.
Slavs didn't migrated in the 7th century to europe,slavs lives in europe since 8678BC.And 3322 years before,they have lived on north coast of the black sea.And i can conferm that migration of the slavs is lie,becouse if it was true,then 2.500.000 slavs would be migrating to europe.Lot of slavic history is falsification written by the nordic school in the 1890,but manny slavic truths has been discovered and perserved.And some documentaries about slavs are on spoken serbian language without english subtitle,so we unfortunately get to be uninformed.But i can recomend youtube videos,Slavs For 10700 Years In Europe,Slava True Story Of The Slavic Glory,and 6 part video Arkaim Swastika City.
It is interesting that Slavs and Bulgarians are not mentioned like Slavs. Might be confusing for people now because there is to many nations out of Slavs nowadays.
Only document that is talking about migration of Slavs is Porfirogenits one, in that document Byzantine emperior Porfirogenit uses titles that are not called that way in Romeya-Byzantia in his time, He uses words from Western and Catolic world, such ignorance is not possible for man of that position and rank in Byzantia, also he describes some events that ocured after His death, only this two are indeniable proofs that significant parts of Porfirogenits work is falcificated, by the wrong terms, that falcificator used is visible that He is from Vaticans falcificating school, Slavs never migrated on Balcan, We are from here, We migrated to north, so still oficial history is based on rough brutal falcificates.
Biggest evidence of Slavic settlements is the fact that the Peloponnesus region was called “Despotate of the Morea” until the formation of Modern Greece.Morea derives from the Slavic term “More” for sea or ocean.
Morea is a type of tree🤦. You idiot. Read the genetic research which explains How you are wrong. And Peloponnesian Greeks are descendants of their ancient Greek ancestors. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718&ved=2ahUKEwi-tZ3dxtvvAhUHhv0HHeE_D6oQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0LbcKElz2Vh2GVBzfYqRsM I am glad I opened your eyes
Of course it isn't, although à migration can end up having similar or worse results to an invasion (live the Slavic migration) and sometimes an invasion might be less destructive than massive migrations since it only affects the elite (like the germanic invasions).
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YpQnHoQvZt4/mqdefault.jpg)
![ถ้าพี่วุ้นท้อง แป้งจะท้องไปด้วยกัน !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeyEnVMwitA/mqdefault.jpg)
Aside from Perun, another notable god from slavic history that you can still find representation of today is named Radegast. He's basically a pitch-black god of hospitality, and since you were going on about how important hospitality is to Slavs... It's basically like being kind to strangers because you never know if they may be a god in disguise. He's also the name Tolkien chose for his Brown Wizard of the Woods.
JayLeePoe Interesting. I just remembered the Czechs make a beer called Radegast. The lable has a old god like looking being on it. I never connected this to an old Slavic god.
Radegast was a town, and the god was Svarozhich. In Severschina region of Russia and Ukraine (it's around the border) there was the same town Radogoshch in Kievan Rus' times. Btw, there were more similar toponyms: Lubeck and Lubech for example.
Yeah, well on the OTHER side of Slavic lands-- in Moravia it's Radeghast, The Dear Guest. But I do appreciate the different ways slavs see and do things which are otherwise virtually the same. Even if you are more Norse-Mongol-Slav ;p But yes, similar toponyms are like similar names. For example, if we jump far away to Ancient History:
Baal Zebub = Belzebub. Baal = Lord in old Phoenician, the progenitor of all our languages (95%?). Probably a king who commanded archer cavalry, which could be seen as deadly giant flies ripping apart the enemy.
Other cultures might think of The Stranger as a dark, insidious character but Slavs treat him as a Dear Guest-- even seeing that he may be pure darkness.
Cool!
@@kyriljordanov2086 The beer brand is named after the old Slavic god.
Dude, turn off your text notifications!
Thank you, I was going bonkers trying to find out what beeps on my computer.
@@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi 😂
I bet Napoleon read Maurices advice about attacking slavs in the winter.
spoilers ahead NO HE DID NOT!
Maurice? Was he a general during french revolution?
@@freesbee5326 Maurice was Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire in the late 6th century.
@@elusiveeagle8597 yeee I know ..I was mocking the commenters.
Maurikios was his name cause he spoke greek. Maurice is the rendering in english cause everyone wants to make a character as his own..nationalism !
And ..sorry to correct you.
He was the emperor of the only roman empire..byzantine or eastern was the proper continuation..
The western part was a wannabe roman empire and that is the starting point of competition between western and eastern christianity
@@freesbee5326 yes you're right, he was the de facto Emperor of the Roman Empire, or whatever its boundaries were at the time.
Its hard to get things 100% correctly, because one needs to know with who one is communicating with, in regards to historical knowledge.
The endind of Maurikios reign is one of the most tragic episodes of of Byzantine history.
Peace!
Glad I found your channel. Your videos are incredible. In particular I like the way you qualify what is known, what is unknown, what is partially known, and how a lot of history, especially in murky eras and regions such as this one, is comprised of best efforts at piecing together what was going on from incomplete information. At least, I really get that impression from your videos. This is way I like to study history, is keeping this historiography in mind. The study of history benefits from a skeptical mind more than is given credit for.
As much as I love my homeland the balkans , every time I read these comments , I wish that I was born somewhere else lol
Any video about slavic origins the comments turn into a shitshow
Literally... I have went through a couple of videos of this type, and now I am left with an identity crisis even though I did a DNA test. XD
The noises are very distracting. ...otherwise, engaging.
Haha all my neighbors are cutting grass or metals so I’m glad I can hear the voice 😂
Rush 🅱️yzantium.
Basil II wants to know your location
Perfect
What reading would you recommend on this topic
I'm from the Balkans, this lecture is really good. Man, the slavs were so anarchistic, such a kickass tribe.
Not truth. They have always kick our ass. We just defend. We are not people of agresion. We are pushed to east just like Indians toward West.
Ironically, Russia would have returned to it's roots if it was taken over by the anarchists instead of the soviet communists.
Except, they don't exist.
@@misterokatac We are not pushed to east. Eastern Slavs are slavianized, not real Slav. They became Slavic with the Christianisation thanks to Saint Tsar Boris Mikhail I and expansion of the Slavic influence to the East. But we're not pushed East. DNA shows that we have many things in common with people on Balkans millennia before someone uses the term Slavic.
They had tribes with hierarchies and a priest class called Volkhvs so no, they weren’t anarchistic
Thank you so much for this amazing video. I am from the Balkans, Macedonia to be precise, and you did a great analysis on this complex historical issue.
You also were spot on in identifying the biggest problem of the balkans today, and that is FACING REALITY.
It is hard to achieve that in the Balkans, to renounce the national myths of pureness ecc and instead work together towards creating a better and more stable europe. But we are getting there, it's not that we don't wanna get there, its not like we are not trying. Its just that this is a complex world we live in xD Sadly, I have to say, the power disbalance between eastern and western Europe is not making these problems easier to solve. Because eastern Europe grows more divided and less willing to cooperate internally precisely because they rely too much on the west. Ultimately, this hinders the east's ability to solve its own issues.
Great video, have a nice day.
In regards to the north, Baltic people used to inhabit a much larger region before the Slavic invasions, which made Baltic peoples much more defensive afterwards. This can be seen in the large amounts of man made hill forts, mounds, and ditches
Baltic peoples like Lithuanians also ruled too many Slavic peoples
Not really @@papazataklaattiranimam
2:14 I know it's not your understanding of Slavic Religion but Procopius description of it at that time but to say that it was monotheistic religion is absolutely incorrect. They were worshiping many Deities at that time, and below are just a few examples:
Perun, the God of Thunder.
Dzbog, the God of Fortune.
Veles, the Shapeshifter.
Belobog and Czernobog.
Lada, Goddess of Love and Beauty.
Marzanna, the Goddess of Winter and Death.
Mokosh, the Fertility Goddess.
Svarog, the Fire God.
and I could easily mention 20+ more that we now know they worshipped before Christianity came.
Its considered monotheistic because Perun was above all gods, a main god.
Actually, it seems like he misspoke since he later said that it had many chief gods!. so he probably meant Poly, not mono!
Slavs don’t like leaders cause we know how much it sucks to be bossed around 👌🏼👍
You all need a Slavic Union and need every person between ages 15 and 40 to get some military training. You keep getting your asses kicked in wars. I am American - 25% Slav- and wish you'd unite the way the EU has. Russia, stop being a bully and work as a team.
@@wynnhorton1208 man thats straight up bs,we are best fighters in europe hand to hand combat shooting tanks you name it,we need more unity and less corrupt leaders
Hey Thersites, can i ask you how an exam you would take about this subject or the other courses about east roman history would be like?
Far as proper academic circles in the Balkans go, no one really disputes the migration. Some might argue on the extent of it, one side favoring a mass-migration view and another claiming that it was more limited in scope (i.e. only an elite warrior class), but the historical sources unequivocally state that the event(s) happened.
Those who dispute the migration are populist pseudohistorians who prey on the lowest common denominator's sensibilities, actual academics don't refute proper sources. And as of late we've got genetics more or less confirming that a large scale migration took place around that time, putting the final nail in the "autochthonist" school of thought's coffin.
True. But too bad there are still people who believe these autochthonists and even genetics won't convince them since they claim it's a Vatican-Vienna-Berlin propaganda.
Exactly. The Pseudo-Macedonians are excited with Florin Curta's nonsense.
I’m not sure what map in “Controversies and Problems” section should represent but it looks pretty inaccurate if representing ethnical map of western balcans in any period
True, it's one of most atrocious ethnic maps I ever saw.
Reading comments by Southern Slavs and Eastern Slavs on TH-cam I feel like we, the Western Slavs, are very peaceful and rational people. ;)))
We are indeed, but that’s because our circumstances are better. We don’t have to fight anymore really unlike Russians and Balkan Slavs
@@IhaveBigFeet cuz u are not slavs, slavs are war tribe and fight is in their blood
simple as that
Catholicism and germans made you weak...or...just Obedient.
Wife commands and wives follow the parroch's will which follows vatican.
What wife says is law otherwise no hanky-penky for little Pawěłczkscyťz !
East slavs technique was to focus on vodka.
Balkaners solved the problem with slap-and-shut-the-faak-up
Now they are evolved and need no more these ways..
There is porn on internet and everybody has an android phone
@@freesbee5326 replace weak/obedient with civilized and you got it right
@@cv4809 civilized could mean many things. Usually when someone points hardly on this argument he/she is an imperialistic lover, a conservative, a racist and so on, from roman times. Everybody pretend his own culture to be better and so superior to others.
I personally prefer a good big hearted man than an obedient one. An obedient that probably keeps all his frustration inside which could easily develop into who knows which kind of paranoia..into a pedophile, a bigot, a far right one or even worst a nationalist/patriot such a soldier !!
great video, the question that remains is what caused the population explosion for the slavs to be able to migrate in the first place? And how could they settle such a massive area, ie from Slovenia to Bulgaria, especially the craggy mountains of macedonia and bosnia? do you think the language just spread over time? also, what la guages were spoken in croatia, serbia, and bosnia before the slavic entrance?
Great questions... Even the wisest academic cannot answer that because official narrative about Slavs is fake.
I think its more a case of the byzantine empire that they were entering was severely de populated, following on from constant military campaigning and plague shenanigans, so it was less that there was a push from the slavic heartland to move them to the balkans and more the case that the desirable land and place in the Mediterranean, safe from steppe conflict was a large pull. The languages of the balkans have always been diverse but illyria would have been largely Latin speaking until the entrance of the slavs with another illyrian language similar to Albanian remaining in the background rural communities
@@cormacdonnelly365 Albanian language does not show to be indigenous in what was Illyria (i.e. modern day northern Albania, southern Montenegro and southwestern Kosovo). The Illyrian language we ignore but Illyrians'' onomatology (Agron, Gaulauros, Bato etc.) had some distinctive Greek element into it (but these names were not found in Greece, they were local to them), quite natural as they were neighbours of Greeks and could had been their tribal cousins. The Albanian language itself shows no signs of long-time cohabitation between Greeks and Latins as one would expect. The place also was not at all "remote" as it was the first Roman basis in the Balkans prior to invasion of Greece as well as later on it became a central nod in the Via Egnatia connecting Rome to Minor Asia via Greece. We learn from numerous writers that Illyrians were half Latinised, half Hellenised but the Albanian language shows none of that. On the contrary the Albanian language has the following characteristics :
1) It has no native words for anything to do with the sea but plenty of native words for mountains, rivers and lakes thus it is a language of a tribe that evolved away from the Mediterranean - Illyrians were maritime people however!
2) It has a massive foreign vocabulary and syntax influence, it is quite a mixed language just like English showing its foreign provenance with oldest loanwords from Latin, however not Classical Latin but late Roman Era Latin (interesting eh?) of the Eastern type (i.e. Danube region, Romania....)
3) Second oldest loanwords influence is the Slavic languages, Serbian and Bulgarian
4) Third oldest loanword influence is the Italian dialects, mostly of Venice
5) Last influence is Greek.... no, no ancient Greek here, but rather late medieval, early modern Greek.
... and all by magic some 10-15 years ago Austrian researchers discovered a forgotten medieval document in a Romanian monastery written in the Latin alphabet and in a language spoken in the region of western Romania back then. Unmistakenly linked to Albanian as they found! LOL! It is funny because quite many Albanians feel a connection to Romanians, these are Albanians of the Gege tribal lot (the more original Albanians since the Tosks are heavily mixed with Epirotan Greeks and appear more Mediterranean-like - Tosks automatically feel a connection to Greeks even when they do not want to openly admit it, LOL!)
@Milosh Simonovski Well that is exact. However in this case, Austrians along with Italians and Germans, each for his own objectives, had been very much anti-Serbian and anti-Greek and hugely pro-Albanian and very much supported the hypothesis of an indigenous Albanian nation coming down straight from Illyrians. These two researchers (one is not an ethnic Austrian, merely an Austrian citizen) have however proposed something else on the basis of the recently found manuscript. If you ask me, all it takes is to see the details and the nature of this manuscript. If indeed the language it was written is linked to Albanian then yes, it ties perfectly with many other elements that bind proto-Albanian speakers with the region of Romania. Let us not forget that the arrival of Slavs themselves occured under the pressure of Avars, i.e. Avars caused all those movements of tribes. And Avars originally set their basis in western Romania and Hungary (Pannonian region). However later they moved southwards, failed in their invasion of Greece (Constantinople, Thessalonica) and then their last bastion where they set up a local feudal state was in modern day North Albania, South Montenegro, Southwestern Kosovo. This was in the 9th-10th and up to 10th century AD before vanishing in the 11th century. In the 11th century we start having the first mentions of Albanians. Not saying that the Albanians were the descendants of Avars but very possibly they were just another of the tribes the Avars moved along. I.e. proto-Albanian speakers shifted places and installed in the Balkans just like proto-Slavs shifted and installed there.
Of course this plot is not very popular among Albanians because they feel it "reduces" them to the same level of Slavs, Serbians and Bulgarians, i.e. as new comers and not as indigenous people. Albanians are emotionally tied to the idea of being indigenous. Yet, there is little in their language and culture to show an ancient indigenous nature of their nation. It really appears to be a recent one in the region.
@@dinos9607 Did you also hear about caucasus origin of albanians? and that they actually originate from modern day Dagestan in Russia, there is theory that they were brought up onto the balkans by Georgios Naniakos from Sicily.
The point about about the changing definition of democracy is interesting. Athenian society would never be referred to as democratic by modern societies where we assume that democracy must include universal suffrage.
The connection between Dacians and Vlachs, Slav and northern Greeks/Macedonians, as well as Bulgars and Slavs is clouded in nationalism so the truth (interpretation) seems to depend more on your nationality. The proof of this is in the comments section
Universal suffrage was a mistake.
They came as nomads from the steppe, so might have had "kurultai" for electing leaders / khans.
Do you believe that greek have slavic "Dna" to say it for everyone to understand; I know slavs are linguistic term but they had some specific genetics. Did when they assimilated in the greek culture affect the greek genetic heritage?
Yes. Greeks, especially those on the mainland, absorbed a lot of Slavs. Byzantine accounts described Athens surrounded by "a sea of Slavs".
All are Indo-Europeans. Slavic, Greek, Italic, Germanic and Celtic people. One big European family. We can trace our langauges back to the proto-indo-european language.
@@dhu1919 Yet modern DNA research, by Western university, published in the nature magazine, finds that this was anything but the case. With Greeks From Peloponnese, Central Greece and thessaly being mostly descendents of pre Slavic Populations.
The funny thing is considering the traditional nationalist few of Turks & Greeks hating each other, because the north south Slavic arrow that went all the way down to the mid Peloponnese & the fact that like a lot of military invasions, The Osman Turks only mainly formed a military elite in Anatolia after invading. That over time the already residing Greek majority subject population assimilated to the language, culture & religion of their overlords, many pundits believe the average Anatolian Turk is more closely related to the Greeks of the Hellenistic World than contemporary mainland European peninsular Greeks are , that have the South Slav taint.
@@mickvonbornemann3824 You are out of your mind. Go read some of the genetic research by Harvard university. What you are saying is worng and inaccurate
"I'm Slavic and what I want to believe about my history is more important than history itself" lmao keep up the great work!
Papagei Taucher serbians in a nutshell
nah this is pure bullshit everyone that isn't spoon fed by western propaganda knows that
Slavic people have their true history in their hearts
Just look at "Macedonia" (FYROM). They have appropriated ancient Macedonian history as their own, despite them speaking a dialect of Bulgarian. It's incredible what people can be made to believe with enough propaganda.
Well DNA analysis disagrees with the "slav" theory. They cannot be one group of people or tribe because there's R1a and i2 haplogroups in Europe that are not related. If the slavs are R1a because of the area they came from, then the people in the balkans are not slavs because they mainly have the i2 haplogroup which has been in the balkans for 1000's of years. So today's Macedonians are not "slavs" but mainly ancient macedonians that have been there for 1000's of years.
"Slav" is a religious reference for all the people of the slavic orthodox religion. The Macedonians invented the slavic/Macedonian alphabet in ohrid Macedonia in the 800's and then spread the slavic orthodox religion and alphabet through Europe and all the way to Russia.
Bro great channel! Very informative and Epimethean.
17:09: assimilation is hard to Thrace? :)
Slavic origins and history is the most controversial theme out there. Every slavic nation has their own theory and lots of them contradict each other. I learned one thing in Ukraine, my Polish friends learned something different , Serbs learned a third version and westerners have a fourth version and so on. Its a endless debate
I think simplifying the issue into "versions" muddies the water. Whatever we can deduce from archeological findings and genetics is not a "version", it is as close to the truth as we can possibly get. Legends are hardly taken seriously in a scientific context.
A real problem that does take place with any nation's history is that it gets taught in public school, where the government usually creates a narrative that is counter to reality. I can say this for certain, coming from Romania. It's sickening to me that millions of people get told a politically-motivated story based on who decides the curriculum.
The only solution to this problem is looking at any evidence we might find, and drawing conclusions from those. You might come to the wrong conclusion, but making conclusions from unfounded information is worse.
goran bosnjak. yea its very similar, if other slavs speak slow i can understand most off it, and traditions are very similar. I'm saying that every one has a different version of WHERE the slavs came from
my family comes from Pelagonia in Macedonia, and we are not Slavs, our ancestors came from Knosos, they came out of Anatolia originally, people in this area have not been mixing much, our linguistics and culture have not changed much over the last few thousand years, and is closest related to Sanskrit
@@FamMitrevski so your Greek?
Serbs are the worst of all 😂😂 full of lies.
God of Lightning = Parom..slovaks still call him when things go bad - "Do Paroma,zase sa to jebe!!!!" ;P
Americans might know him as Nicola Tesla - who was a Serbian Slav :D
Piorun w Polsce!
Sława!
Srbi se odmah odazivaju na pomen Nikole Tesle!
He was an albanian man. His real name was Niqola Teshla Hoxha
@@decimusausoniusmagnus5719 hahahahha what
@Dottor Cisafrulli hahahahahah 2hat
An item in your summary of Procopius's history is confusing. How could their religion be "monotheistic", while at the same time being like Nordic, and/or, Greco-Roman polytheisms?
Just an correction: Map shown at: 7:27 is meaningless. There no Muslims (nor Turks) on Balkan before 12th-13th century AD. Did you put this map in the movie by accident?
You mean AD? The map seems to be based around the 19th century, it would explain the Albanian population stretching so far but it shows Eastern North Macedonia as fully muslim? That makes no sense.
How about the Rumanians in this period?How did such a large group speaking a Romance language very close to Latin manage to survive despite the Slavic,Bulgarian and Byzantine Greek influences and then morph into Wallachians and Moldavians?Maybe they were originally the Dacians that became romanised after Trajan's conquests.
Moldovans of Moldova have more than 30% of R1a (Z280, M458) which makes them the same level as Slovenes and Czechs. Except of Estonians (who are probably a mix of Finns and Balts) only Balto-Slavic peoples have these levels. Besides they have more than 15% of I2a-L621 the same as all Slavic peoples have except Poles and North Russians who have it a bit less (10 to 15%). If we compare Moldovans with Ukrainians and Croatians on R1a+I2a percentage we see 50-56% for Moldova and 62-67% for Ukraine & Croatia respectively. So you see :)
@@rdtgr8 spot on brother
"Something thats emotionally charged". No shit lmao, just look at the comments
You mentioned at about 16:20 that Christianity had a lot of trouble in its spread into rural areas in an earlier video. Which video is that?
So glad I found this show!!!
Becouse Swamps are fertile and numerous Slavs are most Numbered Ethnic group and living in bigest territory.Imagine how many Chinesse would be today if they lived in swamps...
Swamps & Hoes 😁
Note that you mix things up about the Dacians. "Vlachs" do not necessarily come from Dacians. Vlachs are merely shepherds that speak latin tongue. They were viewed as "outsiders" and did not only inhabit modern romanian lands but were all over the balkans (even greece).
The Dacians were resettled south of the Danube en masse by the Byzantines due to inability of the romans to protect these regions north of the danube. Futhermore the Dacian Kingdom covered Moesia as well. Those were same people south and north of the danube - thracians. Galerius himself comes from a place close to Serdika (Sofia) and he was Dacian (thracian).
@Alex C everywhere there are shepherds who sound weird (strangers to the land). Wales and Welsh is also based on the same root word.
@Alex C not really. The proto Germanic word was Walhaz which meant stranger. Doesnt necessarily mean romance speaker as obviously it was as applied similarly to the Welsh. It meant what it meant then stranger compared to the locals.
Dacians and Thracians were generally different. No proof of ethnic interchangeability, but they did have connections with the Moesi as you say.
@@Userius1 according to Roman's and Greeks they were same. Same language, customs etc
@@Userius1 in fact the dacian kingdom spanned the wester part of moesia
What's up with the background noise? Is your kid playing with a Walmart light saber or something?
"Thomas had never seen such a mess again" regarding anything Balkanic. On the other hand, great video!
I love the continuous comments of the Druid Artuditus in the background, too bad his colleague Cythripios wasn't there too.
umm A few corrections Croats who moved to the Balkan at the beginning of 7 century came to the area with a formed parliament composed of chosen tribal leaders (župan= tribal leader) so you have to say that they had some political organization + there are some theories and evidences of Slavic states even before that in the area of Today Poland and Ukraine
Lubes in Lusitania.
Ljubuski in Hercegovina
10:03 Any suggestions which is this country :D
I don't get Slavs commenting here trying to "debunk" history, it's not like Greece is going to use that as cassus belli to take back all that land. 😆
What's your views on those that try and debunk the Slavic migration theory? Do you have any idea how many people lived in the Europe that time? They spoke in one language. This means they understood each other and there was enough room for everyone, so they didn't have reason to fight. So, who migrated and from where and who fighted with who and why? The language is a key to true history.
The fact that there are so many Slavic dialects in the lands from the Baltic to the Adriatic to the Black sea meant that Slavs were expanding, and going their own way, in all directions through these lands between these 3 seas for centuries upon centuries. In the beginning before spreading out, we are talking around 1,000 BCE conservatively, they all spoke some form of universal Slavic to put it simply, they call it Proto Slavic. Then, over the centuries separated by hundreds of miles, each community developed it's own Slavic variant. Slavs are an ancient race. If you go back far enough in history, then you will see that many words in Slavic languages today are very similar to Sanskrit. Look it up, Slavic compared to Sanskrit, and you will see how ancient Slavic roots are. I found it fascinating myself.
@@robertmarks317 Slavic and Sanskrit are both "satem" languages, deriving from Proto-Indo-European groups that initially migrated more towards the east from their origin near the Eastern Black sea. It's no wonder that Slavic is similar to Sanskrit then, and it absolutely supports the notion that Slavic languages have their origin in North-Eastern Europe.
@Alex C are you listening, he said Slavs themselves are ancient, not that they were on the Balkans (but there is plenty of evidence north of Chalkidiki was always Slavic)
@Alex C Go read Romanian history and you will see that it is the truth.
@Alex C Yeah sure, their leaders were called "Voivodes" and were named Slavomir, Vladislav Rade, etc.
True Dacians 😂😂😂😂
Well, you were right about one thing for sure: judging from the coments, you just can't get balkan people to agree on annything on this subject.
you can't get any slavs to agree :D
Nuno dos Santos
There is no such thing as a slav ethnicity. Slav is a religious term used by the Catholics during the eastern Roman Empire who called all the people of the slavic orthodox (pravo slaven) religion, “slavs”
How many slavic nations are there????
About 14
How many “slavs” just in Europe????
About 400 million
Are all these people from one tribe or ethnic group of people???
You have to be crazy to believe that.
How many different nations do the slavs come from???? How many different DNA’s and ancient ancestors are all these nations made of???
Are the Serbians and Bosnians, who have Illyrian blood, the same as the Macedonians who have ancient Macedonian blood??? Or the same as the Bulgars from the Volga river??? Or the Russians who are vikings mixed with ancient sarmations?????
Slavs are a slavic orthodox group of people, or people with a similar “slavic” language, including Croatians, slovenes, Polish and some others who are not slavic orthodox but speak a slavic language.
@@WatchmanofMKDN it's a linguistic group actually,since people from east of Russia to Macedonia speak pretty much the Same language
These people had a common origin and later on expanded
Constantine V according to where SLAVS came from, they would have the R1a haplogroup.
Us Macedonians and most others of the Balkans have the original Balkan i2 Y haplogroup.
If our ancestors migrated there, we wouldn’t have the i2 oldest DNA in the Balkans.
And how can slavs be the same people when their are different origins such as R1a and i2 ???
@@WatchmanofMKDN modern Macedonians may no be genetically Slavs but you are linguistically and culturally assimilated by Slavs
Wonderful stuff, thank you
Your 8:40 demographic map is off for Bosnia showing Serbs as Croats in the Republic of Serbia region.
Also Eastern North Macedonia being fully muslim LOL. I don't know what time period that map is based on.
Also, slavs did use runic alphabet, but most of the writings were lost long befor slavic migration.
no
@@greendalf123 um, yes
@@daca8395 source
@@greendalf123 I can't post links, but google "Runes from Lány".
To clear few things up, I'm not saying Slavs invented runes, or there are some extensive runic inscriptions that are Slavic (as of today we have few evidence). Runes were used in limited capacity even by Germanic people. However, we do have evidence Slavs used runes for a time, probubly under the influence of Germanic people they lived with/next to.
@@greendalf123there is very little evidence for the use of pre-christian writing but we do know they did use them, read about the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet for the mention of them.
God of lightning - Perun. Indeed, a bolt of lightning in Polish is "Piorun"
Bolt is another word for nail, calk - ПИРОН
@@AlexanderKKolarov Sława!
hmm...like the viking/norse Þórunn? pronounced thorunn, from Thor, the god of lightning...interesting
@@oresama93 Yes, they both stem from the same Indo-European deity
Helloooo Pazardjik, Plovdiv and the rest of the Thracian valley! I miss you guys!
Our comments about we don't know will change nothing now. But is very interesting to hear.
I don't know if the ethnic map of South Slavs is just a simple error or malicious intent, but I have to point out that is probably made by some Albanian ultra nationalist and is comletely fake. For example, in this map, Serbs in Bosnia are almost non-existent which is ridiculous.
Maybe you can make a video about the emergence of the Romanian people. On one hand, there were the Byzantines who called themselves Romans, but who adopted Greek as their language, on the other hand there was a population North of the Danube who didn't call themselves Romans, but spoke a Latin language.
Romania comes from the word "Rum". Which is the word Muslims used for "Rome". When Muslims invaded the Balkans they pushed "The Romans"(Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs) to the north across the Danube so people concentrated there and formed fiefdoms like Wallachia, Moldova etc. They weren't even remotely Latin but rather Slavic, which is shown by their culture of the time.
But "Romanians" back then got pinched between Muslim and Catholic empires and since they were Europeans and not Arabs they settled for adopting of Latin culture in exchange for some safety against Muslims.
Thats how you got Romania, the land of Romans that are relatives to Serbs, but speak Latin.
@@Nista357
Many toponims in Romania have meanings in Sanskrit you frustrated slav'.
Beside romanian is got thousands of Dacian words.
You bulgars and serbs adopted even names of body components from us.
Kur'( penis) from romanian cur'( but) from latin ,culus'
Named wrongly , buzet'( cheek) from Dacian ,buza( lips)
Only we have , magar'( donkey) and , ogar' ( greyhound) both with suffix ,gar'
You are dark, but there are many kinds of dark genres for nations just like blond genres too.
Romanians indeed look Latin about 40%
There is a district romanian/ latin fizionomie like that of Iuliana Tudor or Paula Medrea Bianca Andreescu as well as blond Andreea Esca and others.
Guys like Ernest Maftei or Florin Piersic, Ilarion Ciobanu have 0 % slavo/ balcanic features.
You're just frustrated with yourself
That all.
@@nestingherit7012 I'm not frustrated at all, maybe you are?
I really don't know how does that make sense when Slavs had states since 6th/7th century and Romania emerged in 19th...
@@Nista357
You are ,ovici'
Cose you got stuck to a surname and language that you don't like.
@@nestingherit7012 Bro... In history Latins invaded the Balkans, not the other way around so the only ones who could be "stuck with the language they don't like" are Romanians, since Latin does not originate from the Balkans...
Very nice video! Although it feels back-handed sometimes but eitherway, it's much needed.
This area of history has taken a back seat so it's refreshing to see more material about it. Especially since it's in English but not some weird anti-Slavic power fantasy that some Germans made up in the 19th century. You make it considerably less biased.
Learnt stuff, thanks.
The presented theory is allochtonic theory about the Slavs appearing in Europe. There are however some archaeological findings (human bones- from which DNA was extracted or however it is called) that proves the opposite - the autochtonic theory. According to this theory - the DNA from the bones coming from peoples inhabiting territory of Moravia and Poland in pre Roman times does not differ from DNA of modern people living in this territory. That means, there were no significant genetic impact on indigenous peoples' DNA, which mean, there were no any great migration. Simply through the ages the languages, traditions and habits became more distinctive from each other.
Stop spewing such utter nonsense.
Read "Cosmopolitanism at the Roman Danubian Frontier, Slavic Migrations, and the Genomic Formation of Modern Balkan Peoples"
It was a flood of Slavs washing up the Balkans, just as contemporary Byzantine historians described it
@@dinsel9691the northern slavs didnt migrate
The only evidence of Slavic migration is Constantine VII Porph. Which is highly debated as a source as he wrote it 300 years after the supposed migration. I don’t want to go too hard in the comment section but this video is incredibly misleading. Just on genetic basis 30-40 percent of Balkan dna is autochthonous.
Not true. I2 haplotip which is present around 50% is Southern Slavs is present around 25% in Ukranians and Belarusians, in Poles, Czechs and Slovaks around 10-15%. It ocmes from Slavs not from Balkan indigenous people
Slavic Paganism was monotheistic? Also, could've pointed out that some of that assimilation of Slavs by Greeks came as late as post-WW2, hence Bulgarian claims to Thrace and Macedonia during WW2
Procopius mixed few things up. There is a supreme god in slavic religion (Svarog/Svarod), but he does not interfere nor hold supreme power. Perun is not supreme god. Most honorable in dome places (especially ones who honor st. Elyjah the most today), but not supreme one. Serbs mostly prefer Scetovid, and Russians Dazhdbog/Dajbog.
Well, there are some interesting facts that we need to say too:
1.
If we talk about DNA and Y haplogroups all modern-day Slavic countries have between 40%-70% of R1a and I2a haplogroups in total that are considered Slavic(specific branches of these haplogroups) with Bosnia, Belarus, and Poland with almost 70%. Even if we compare modern-day autosomal DNA it is very similar, especially between east and west Slavs(it is a huge amount of land mass much bigger than the Balkan).
So genetics undoubtedly confirmed that we modern-day Slavs are descendants of one "nation" which originated in western Ukraine.
2.
Linguistics undoubtedly confirms what genetics says too.
Slavic tribes have word that they used to distinguish themselves from other ethnicities- SLOVENI which means the understandable ones, similarly, they called Germans-NEMCI which means muted ones.
SLOVO means to speak, word.
SLAVA means glory.
Mina SLOVO means letter
And Slavic population from the Adriatic to the Black Sea have mostly I2a haplogroup genetics
It is interesting that Skandinavian population has mostly I1a haplogroup genetics
@@milansimonovic8267 I2a majority among south slavs is probably due to a population bottleneck.
@@greendalf123 point is that the whole euroasian steppe has R1a and R1b, if the Slavs came from the steppe to the Balkans why isn't R1 haplogroup dominant gene
@@milansimonovic8267 Haplogroup doesn't equal ethnicity. I2a is found in all Slavic nations at notable levels.
A bottleneck means that when a group of Slavs left their homeland, they may have been predominantly males carrying haplogroup i2. Or, the haplogroup R1a individuals may have died to myriad circumstances which let i2a heavy individuals repopulate.
What you WANT to look at is the autosomal DNA. What you find in early Balkan populations is (firstly a lack of both R1a and I2a haplogroups) a vast lack of north-eastern (balto-slavic) DNA. When you look at MODERN south Slavic populations with autosomal DNA you see that they have anywhere from 50%-60% north-eastern European DNA, which did NOT exist in the Balkans in the Roman era or prior.
@@greendalf123don't brake slavic ❤ like that😂
First of all the most important Slavic god was Swietowit/Świętowid/Svatovit/Svetowit/Svetovid/Svevid - as there is many Slavic languages they are many different variant of spellings. His name means Świéty/Svati/Svieti = Holy/Saint and vit/vid from word Veda/wiedza = knowledge. He was a god with four faces represents N,S,E,W and also four season - spring, summer, autumn and winter. Each of this faces has different name and colour. Probably god named Bialobog/Bialovit/Bialoglow (bialy=white, bog-god, glowa=head) he was a god of North and winter. Jarovit/Garovit/Jaromil - god of east and Spring. As most of the records was destroyed during Teutonic Knights and Romans Christianisation of Slavic tribes it is difficult to put everything together but as we are Ind-European people so I find similarities in Hindu beliefs. Hindu four headed Brahma - god of creation is equivalent of Swietovit and he is part of Trimurti (triple deity) alongside with Shiva and Vishnu. In Slavic beliefs triple deity was called Triglow/Triglav/Triglav and those 3 are Svetovit= Brahma, Żiwie/Źiva/Živa/Diva = Shiva and I am not sure who is an equivalent of Vishnu. Meaning of Sanskrit vedas are Slavic Veda/wiedza = knowledge.
Veda slavic, not Sanskrit?😂
Propagandicika.
@@nestingherit7012 Śramati = Sarmaci.
Both Devanagiri and 'spoken languages' (Slavic) have a common ancestor, written by knitting ropes, later replaced with runes and the mentioned written Sanskrit (thats when the division happend).
@@conceptofeverything8793 but why ,sra' instead of ,sar'?
Fake.
@@nestingherit7012xD
@@nestingherit7012 bo jak Mati sra to nie idzie wytrzymać xD
Maybe it isnt what you were trying to say, but vlachs did not emerge in the 11th century, but much earlier. Vlachs are all macedonians, illirians, thracians, and dacians which were latin speakers.
The term Vlach appeared as early as the 6th century, but the people it refers to have been more or less a continuous presence in the Balkans since BC. The identity of Vlachs seems to revolve a lot around the 5th legion Macedonica.
Hello, nice video. In the last map "Romania" is written over today Turkey, needs to be edited.
Thanks for the information 👍
First time seeing this video. Presentation is good but deals with only the southern (YUGO) Slavs. You are missing the western and eastern Slavs. As such you do not answer the point you mentioned in the beginning that you would concern yourself with.
Paul Boucek this video is just on the Balkans mainly, which is where all south slavs reside. The title should have been more precise.
The endonym of Croats in their language is: Hrvati. In historical sources Hrvati are mentioned in Nestor's Chronicle for period of events in 9th and 10th century as one of 9 important tribes in area of Kievan Rus state (tribes mentioned by Nestor in territory of todays Ukraina, Belarus and western parts of todays Russia are: Polani (around Kiev, not Polani in territory of Poland), Severani (sever meaning north), Derevliani (probably in region of Polesie, id est todays Pripiat region in southern Belarus, because "drevo" means tree, as well as word "les" in some modern Slavic dialects and languages (les in Slovenian is wood), Radimichi (large tribal confederacy encompasing todays eastern Belarus, parts of northern Ukraina around river Uzh and to Chernigov city, and even parts of Russia), Viatichi /around Oka river, deep in todays western Russia, city Orel/, Hrvati (mentioned usually after Radimichi and before Duliebi/Voliniani, whatgives their location probably between modern city Zhitomir to Rovno/Rivno to Ternopol and to Lavov/Lviv; Duliebi/Voliniani, Ulichi, Tivertsi). Other Croats are mentioned for the period of 10th century in todays northern Czech in some Latin documents as: Chrouati et altera Crouati. Also, Croats are mentioned in Latin documents for 10th century living in "pagus Crouati" in todays southern Austria (modern region Kärnten, Carantania in documents from 8th and 10th century); also many toponyms in Carantania in period from 16th to 18th century bore names as: Crowati, Chrouati etc., with many names that are identical to placenames in northern Dalmatia and Lika region in modern Croatia (there is good historical article by historian Stjepan Antoljak on the subject of Croatian toponyms in southern Austria between Drava and Mura rivers. So, historicly through written documents we have Croatian ethnonym (in form: Hrvati, Chrouati, Chroati, Croati etc.) attested for 10th and 9th century from central-western Ukraina, in northern Czech (even little settlement in eastern Germany), in southern Austria and of course, in modern Croatia and Herzegovina and some western parts of modern Bosna, during the 9th and 10th century. Against Hrvati in Ukraina there was last mention for year 993 when ruler of Kiev, Volodimir, launched the military campaign, as Nestor of Kiev/Kiiv writes: Ide Volodimer na Hrvati...hrvatskija vojna (goes Volodimer against Croats.. Croatian war). During the census in 19 century in imperial Russia there was only cca. 17 000 people enlisted by nationality as Horvati, in western Ukraina (Galich region). The next what connects Hrvati in modern Hrvatska (Croatia) with populations in Ukraina is ikavian Slavic language(words in modern Ukrainian and in traditional Croatian as: rika /river/ versus reka in Srbian or "rijeka" in standard Croatian, in Polish:rzeka; tilo vs. telo, and tijelo (body), ciało in Polish; vitar (wind) versus vetar in Srbian and vjetar in standard Croatian
You made it through this video without talking about the "illyrians" using pyrrhus double headed eagle as their banner. Pretty impressive
Impressive not😂 he didn't even mention the Thracians(Dardanians) either 😂 this is just about the Slaves 😂😂😂 the precious Slavs😂😂😂 not😂😂😂😂😂
@@ginaibisi777 You obviously didn't watch this video, or you weren't paying much attention, or are just trolling. 13:40 he does mention Thracians, just in case you missed it.
Really enjoy your take on history as if seems to be correct - as I travel these areas - they help me get a sense of what was going down in the past
Thanks
This is just western point of view. Some evidence are faked. Even on west they are a lot of sholars who claimed opposite. Mario Allinei, Giuseppe Sergi etc.
Slava rodu
Slava!
Slava brat!
Slava rodu i svima koji misle svojom glavom .
@@daca8395 slava narodzie
@Armin Wessler Bas tako .
In my experience, Northern Greece still has a small population that is bilingual and will speak in a slavic language once they feel it's safe to do so.
They are mainly hellinized they do not speak any Slavic language. Those who do are very few some hundreds
@@paulinah2392 My mother's side of the family is from there. Back in the 70s and 80s slavic was more common than now. All my cousins, when I visited them, spoke both languages.
Paulina h keep living a life of being in denial lmao.. most of northern Greece still speak Slavic Macedonian but itsnbanned by the government... there are videos of the people there singing and dancing to Macedonian folk songs, but yet Greeks say they r Slav Greeks which’s makes no damn sense lol
Paulina h after 1 st ww about a million Slavs from northern Greece had been pushed away to Macedonia ( Yugoslavian) while the Turks from Kosovo, Nowadays Macedonia and some parts of Bulgaria went to Istanbul and around all over Europien parts of Turkey and Greek from nowadays europien parts of Turkey just replaces the slavs mostly around Solun (Tessalonika) That is happend from 1921 - 1925
That time Greek did very bad things
Zoran Todorovic Greece did very bad things all the way till today. No one is mentioning the mass exodus of Slav Macedonians from north Greece, and the genocide Greece did on Macedonians.... all this was happening after world war 2 as well
It's a bit weird that the video-creator uses BCE/CE but still uses the archaic "Eastern Europe" for everything in Central Europe and the Balkans.
I believe it is a matter of time (a few generations most likely) that historians realise Slavs didn't really appear out of thin air and invade Eastern Europe. There is a Thracian tribe called Slovenes that neighboured the Roman Empire which is probably how they came to call us Slavs - they called everyone speaking this language the same way. Also the ancient authors often draw hereditary lines between ancient European tribes such as Scythians and Myrmidons and modern nations like Bulgaria.
The map at 8:00 is generally inaccurate but we'll let it pass
@Dottor Cisafrulli Its most incorrect map what i ever seen . There is no Albanians in Podgorica, Skoplje , Greece . And there are a lot a lot of Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro . That map is only correct to you ! There are some good Albanians who know facts not like you !
@Redooo bruh its not accurate. He literally colored Serbs from Bosnia as Croats . Its like to say to Albanians from Macedonia are Bulgarians . Also Albanians are not majority in Podgorica and Skoplje . Actually West of North Macedonia is totally wrong
Such contempt for the Slavs, considering their expansion strategy was more successful than the Germanics who were pressure by the Slavs to move.
The Germanic people were not pushed by the slavs. The germanic moved to South and West Europe due to the fall of the Roman Empire. Then slavs inhabited the empty lands of goths and ostrogoths
@@erigreca3297west europe is celts central and north is germanic
There is a book called De Administrado Imperio written by Bizant emperor. In the book he gave to his son to help him rule, he said that Croats were a Slavic tribe who made a deal with Bizant. They defeated Avars in Dalmatia and in exchange emperor gave them land in the outskirts of the cities. Roman population moved to the cities (Zara, Salona etc) while Slavs remained in the outskirts. He also converted them to Christianity and said that they have a leader named Porgas. Its not a ficiton, that book is today in Paris in National library.
I would think the Germanic migrations that took apart the Western Roman Empire would make it in the top 2 list?
Hey Thersites, have you read Noel Malcolm’s ‘Kosovo, a short history’. I think it will give you some great insight on what happened with some of the indigenous and new people in the Balkans.
TheBeginning just talks about those people, Albanians, Serbs, and Vlachs. I don’t remember exactly, but I think he mentions Paleo-Balkanic people as well.
RESPONSE TO NOEL MALCOLM`S BOOK
"KOSOVO. A SHORT HISTORY"
Type this in google and read it is in english
And of course mr. Malcolm would not respond to the debate because his book is propaganda.
@@devastaterzx6906Albanians are Paleobalkanic
A lot of shitty comments, but i think your information here is spot on dude!... it's obvious that Slavs weren't "originally" natives in these regions (linguistically, physically and culturally) especially when south Slavs have a closer relation with east, west and north Slavs than Balkan antiquity itself... also the "Slavonic" alphabet wouldn't be could "SLAVonic" if not a single slav migrated into the Balkans.. obviously this was implemented for that specific purpose.. Also what's your views on those that try and debunk the Slavic migration theory?
Apparently genetic studies... Oops. Someone beat me to it.
@Gibbon Resurrected hehehe best reply
Many historians and archeologists agree with Florin Curta’s research about the slavs
Some of Florins quotes;
….Such population movements, however, cannot be defined as migration. There is simply no evidence for the idea that the inhabitants of the sixth and early seventh-century settlements in Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine were colonists from the North who migrated down to the Balkans. Nor does the idea of a “Slavic tide” covering the Balkans in the early 600s fit the existing archaeological data. South of the Danube river, no archaeological assemblage comparable to those found north of that river produced any clear evidence for such an event taking place.
Instead of a great flood of Slavs coming out of the Pripet marshes, I envisage a form of group identity, which could arguably be called ethnicity and emerged in response to Justinian’s implementation of a building project on the Danube frontier and in the Balkans. The Slavs, in other words, did not come from the north, but became Slavs only in contact with the Roman frontier.
So slav is a religious term and a name the Catholics called all the people of the slavic orthodox (pravo slaven) religion.
There is no such thing as a slav ethnicity. Slav is a religious term used by the Catholics during the eastern Roman Empire who called all the people of the slavic orthodox (pravo slaven) religion, “slavs”
How many slavic nations are there????
About 14
How many “slavs” just in Europe????
About 400 million
Are all these people from one tribe or ethnic group of people???
You have to be crazy to believe that.
How many different nations do the slavs come from???? How many different DNA’s and ancient ancestors are all these nations made of???
Are the Serbians and Bosnians, who have Illyrian blood, the same as the Macedonians who have ancient Macedonian blood??? Or the same as the Bulgars from the Volga river??? Or the Russians who are vikings mixed with ancient sarmations?????
Slavs are a slavic orthodox group of people, or people with a similar “slavic” language, including Croatians, slovenes, Polish and some others who are not slavic orthodox but speak a slavic language.
@@maugustyniak Older research considered that the high frequency of this subclade in the South Slavic-speaking populations to be the result of "pre-Slavic" paleolithic settlement in the region. Peričić et al. (2005) for instance place its expansion to have occurred "not earlier than the YD to Holocene transition and not later than the early Neolithic".[2][3][16][17] However the prehistoric autochthonous origin of the haplogroup I2 in the Balkans is now considered as out of date,[nb 1] as already Battaglia et al. (2009) observed highest variance of the haplogroup in Ukraine, and Zupan et al. (2013) noted that it suggests it arrived with Slavic migration from the homeland which was in present-day Ukraine.[22]
The research by O.M. Utevska (2017) concluded that the haplogroup STR haplotypes have the highest diversity in Ukraine, with ancestral STR marker result "DYS448=20" comprising "Dnieper-Carpathian" cluster, while younger derived result "DYS448=19" comprising the "Balkan cluster" which is predominant among the South Slavs.[14] This "Balkan cluster" also has the highest variance in Ukraine, which indicates that the very high frequency in the Western Balkan is because of a founder effect.[14
Take it
At the beginning you state slavs are monotheistic and then compare their beliefs to roman and Greek polytheism. ?????
That map is so incorrect 08:00 . There are a lot of Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro and there is just 5k Albanians in Podgorica . Podgorica has got 200k people so 5k Albanians cant be majority there ...
montenegrins are slavicized albanians
Very good summary of the issues and controversies. However, could have been more complete if you would have cited some theories about the slavic origin. Available in English is a book of a Romanian professor (Florin Curta - The Making of the Slavs) who argues that slavic "invasions" is a creation of Procopius and other historians willing to hide to their contemporaries the fact that Byzantine Empire was incapable of protecting its norther frontier. the settlement was in most cases peaceful (although fighting did occur) which enabled the quick symbiosis with Romanized population. He also argues that the term slav is un umbrela term form several populations more or less distantly related. He does not issue any theory about the actual origins of the Slavs. You could have also mentioned the theory according to which the Slavs originate in the free Dacians (carpi and costoboci and also the Chernyakhov culture) from northern Carpathian region. this latter theory (unsupported by most Romanian historians) may explain many loopholes in the Romanian and Bulgarian ethnogenesis.
Hands off from Carpii.
Florin Curta was a idiot who also argued with himself.
Barely understood meaning in all his explanations.
Well, most of what the good professor Curta tries to say can not only be disputed, but literally laughed at. The very fact that this man presents himself as an "expert in Slavic history", while his theories can be debunked by banal enumeration of those rare records and archaeological finds, makes the matter ridiculous. What kind of peaceful migration could it be if the Byzantine sources state, quite precisely, the enslavement and murder of over 200,000 natives by Slavic invaders in just one wave of attacks (this is a huge number for that time and even if it is exaggerated, it tells us about at least how the Byzantines experienced these "peaceful migration"). Also, Thessaloniki was besieged at least 6 times and the surroundings were completely devastated. Salona on the Adriatic was completely burned down, and Sirmium fell at the very beginning of the invasion. These were some of the most important cities of the Eastern Roman Empire. These incursions and attacks lasted for about a hundred years, and only then did mass settlement begin. To me, it seems like a fairly strategically thought-out conquest. After they completely drove out the Avars in the 7th or 9th century (this is still debated) and settled the areas of Byzantium in which they penetrated, the Croats and Serbs, we can almost say- received recognition of their own conquest in the form of a "vassal relationship". So, Byzantium recognized the territory they occupied with the payment of a certain tribute. The Croats gained full independence and formed the first kingdom already a hundred years after the establishment of the recognized territory they inhabited, and soon it was the same with the Serbs. The Bulgarians had a slightly more complicated history, but they even managed to become the worst enemy of Byzantium. That "peaceful settlement of the Slavs" may have taken place in Curta's Romania (although I don't understand then why the Dacans took refuge in the mountainous parts of later Wallachia) but everything south of that was quite brutal. After only 100 to 200 years, all mentioning of the Thracians and Illyrians, peoples who inhabited those areas perhaps even a thousand years before, is lost. As for the theory of "free Dacans", you don't need to be a professor of history to understand the basis of that theory, which in principle even has some basis, but not in the way that Curta interprets it. Although the origin of the Dacans has not yet been clarified, there is every chance that they have a common origin with the Illyrians and that they were once Baltic tribes that migrated to the south. The Baltic and Slavic tribes have a common "ancestor" - the so-called Balto-Slavic group of peoples. The real term for the Slavs is actually not Slav, but slOven (that's why today we don't have SlAvenia and SlAvakia, but SlOvenia and SlOvakia) The Slavs had their own tribal names for themselves, but they called other peoples who spoke the same or similar languages "SlOv(jan)s" (those who know words, speakers), so then it is easily possible that the Illyrians and Dacans were also considered Slavs. This would also explain the sudden "disappearance" of the Illyrians. Maybe they didn't disappear at all, but accepted the name of the newcomers.
Looking at genetics, the picture actually looks quite different.
The genetic picture has come into peoples attention only recently the video was made most likely prior to the genetic discoveries that were made or rather properly publicized. Hell according to genetics the autochtonus theory of slavs seems correct and there was no invasion, slavs simply existed and remained but most likely began a period of potential interaction and expansion that was notable in the 6-7th centuries. (there is also heated debate about slavic writing, more nad more sources are appearing now that mention slavic writing, and the absolute mental gymnastics used to tow the current theory is astounding.)
@@boguslav9502
I'd say you're right
@@boguslav9502 Well of course genetics suggests people never migrated, because regular people do hardly migrate. Cultures however do migrate, rulling classes migrate, warriors migrate, and it's those that brough slavic languages and cultures towards the Balkans.
@@boguslav9502 Don't worry brat, our time will come. Slava! :)
Linguistic, textual, genetic and archaeological evidence for the Out of India Theory of Indo European Languages
Baghpat Chariots, Weapons and the Horse in the Harappan Civilization - Dr. BK Manjul
th-cam.com/video/fZvKpjjTpgg/w-d-xo.html
Findings from the latest genetic study conducted by ASI in collaboration withe Reich Lab at Harvard using the ancient DNA from Rakhigarhi
slides at 29:00 mark
th-cam.com/video/Dio3Ep0nlv4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/n4WFk0iEK5k/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/f0Lg1b_8N54/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/-wIu3dUsmtY/w-d-xo.html
Here are the tribes that spread the Indo European languages from South Asia to West Asia, Central Asia and to Europe
Avestan) Afghanistan: Proto-Iranian: Sairima (Śimyu), Dahi (Dāsa).
NE Afghanistan: Proto-Iranian: Nuristani/Piśācin (Viṣāṇin).
Pakhtoonistan (NW Pakistan), South Afghanistan: Iranian: Pakhtoon/Pashtu (Paktha).
Baluchistan (SW Pakistan), SE Iran: Iranian: Bolan/Baluchi (Bhalāna).
NE Iran: Iranian: Parthian/Parthava (Pṛthu/Pārthava).
SW Iran: Iranian: Parsua/Persian (Parśu/Parśava).
NW Iran: Iranian: Madai/Mede (Madra).
Uzbekistan: Iranian: Khiva/Khwarezmian (Śiva).
W. Turkmenistan: Iranian: Dahae (Dāsa).
Ukraine, S, Russia: Iranian: Alan (Alina), Sarmatian (Śimyu).
Turkey: Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian: Phryge/Phrygian (Bhṛgu).
Romania, Bulgaria: Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian: Dacian (Dāsa).
Greece: Greek: Hellene (Alina).
Albania: Albanian: Sirmio (Śimyu).
Shrikant Gangadhar Talageri
talageri.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-rigveda-and-aryan-theory-rational_27.html
Five waves of Indo-European expansion: a preliminary model (2018)
Igor A Tonoyan-Belyayev
I. Tonoyan-Belyayev
www.academia.edu/36998766/Five_waves_of_Indo-European_expansion_a_preliminary_model_2018_
Fantastic video
How do you explain the Eneti were Trojan allies and after the fall of Troy were led by the Trojan prince Antenor to the Baltic to met up with their Slavic cousins,the Venedi. They eventualy migrated to the Po Valley and became the Veneti. Many ancient Greek historians describe the Eneti as related to the Venedi from the present day Poland as far back as Homer-850 BC when he identified Veneti with Heneto-Paphlagones from Anatolia who were tall and blond people of handsome appearance.
I read the vocabulary of the Thracians, old Balkan nation or group of tribes. They have many same or similar words as the Serbian or other Slavic languages. Thats means that we have been in contanc much earlier.
That means that Serbian borrowed from Thracian.
Where did you read this vocabulary? Can you share it to the rest of the world? You will be very rich if you will sell this documents because it will be the first written text in thracian we know. Let me know, ok?
@@pavelsanda3149 true, but mostly because Slavic languages are just a continuation of Thracian
@@dacicus090 He doesn't need writing, other sources have given their words for things.Still, look up Rolistine ring
@@dacicus090 You can compare similarities between Slavic language and 3.000 year old Sanskrit language. So Slavs were in India in 3000BC. But somehow Slavs didn't get to the Balkans until 700AD, even though their cradle was modern day Ukraine. Doesn't make sense.
Good work, as always. I've enjoyed your video but I have one thing to point out which you neglected, probably due to it not being your main subject of research. Nevertheless, I think it is important to point it out here.
You have mentioned in your video that the Dacians, after having to deal with the Slavic invasion/migration, retreated into the mountains and stayed there up until the 11th century when they reemerged as Vlachs.
For the overall romanic people who survived the fall of the Roman Empire and kept speaking latin (combined with influences of their native tongue) this is true, romanic people south of the Danube were overwhelmed by the Slavic migration and were forced to retreat into the mountains where they adopted, to a certain extent, the Slavic identity, even though groups of Aromanians and Megleromanians remain to this day, and they are identified as a distinct group of people, who talk a dialect of the modern Romanian language, so your point in this case is not entirely invalid.
As for the Dacians, or, to better call them at this point in time, Daco-Romans, your point is not so valid.
There are 2 reasons for this:
The first one is that the Slavs didn't settle in so large numbers in modern day Romania and so didn't have such a predominant role in the politics and life of the Romanian space at this point in time. Actually, being fewer in number, the Slavs ended up being assimilated by the local population (being interested and attracted by the wealth of Eastern Rome, they were more interested in going to the south of the Danube, this explaining why they didn't end up assimilating the local population, because they weren't so numerous in order to do so) , so from this point of view it wouldn't be so justifiable for the Daco-Romans to retreat into the mountains and remain there for centuries, not being so pressed by the Slavs.
The second reason has to do with the impracticality of such a course of action from the native population.
It was and still is a trend in historiography to state that once the Slavs penetrated this space, the local population retreated into the mountains almost immediately.
This however would mean that the Daco-Romans wold have to change their lifestyle almost over night: being moutain people, they could not grow crops (at least not at the same scale and efficiency as before) and could not grow animals as before, due to the more limited resources in space, food and time, winter there coming sooner and lasting for more months than at a lower altitude.
One could say that they started to retreat at lower altitudes once winter arrived, but that would place them into conflict with the Slavs.
Due to these difficulties, it is far more likely that the Daco-Romans did not adopt the mountain lifestyle which your video implies they did end up adopting and that they actually coexisted with the Slavs.
This is supported by archeology and some modern Romanian historians.
Otherwise, great video! I've learned some important things about the Slavs while watching it.
The point of difficulty of switching from lowland to highland lifestyle overnight is interesting.
I have an anecdotal example:
Friends family is from South of Serbia, where 200 years ago few families from Montenegro settled abandoned Villages in the mountains. What sets them apart from the surrounding villages is that they are all goat herders, industry that they have broth from rocky mountains of Montenegro, while the area being more suited for large cattle herding and other types of agricultural professions.
It far from a bad idea. I guess goats love it there and the business is good.
But 200 years ago those families did not settle in a new area and adapt to the local resources. Their idea was "this is what we know, this is what we will do".
So how woul lowland farmers adapt to the mountains in one generation?
Perhaps there were already highland Daco-Roman societies that were not included as much by the changes in the lowland demographics.
Genetics say that romanians are more slavic than bulgarians and less then serbs or croats.
So there were many slavic people in Danube region and in the begining a part of protoromanians retreat not in the mountains but on higher altitudes or big forested areas, so slavs will dominate the plains around rivers. Later as there was no important slavic administrative or religious institutions north of the Danube romanians assimilated the slavs, but in the south of Danube most of them were assimilated by slavs. Why slavs will not have powerfull kingdooms north of Danube, because of still big movements of different tribes like avars, pechenegs, cumans, magyars and the sametime distance from Bizantine lands as a model and influence for an organized governement.
Daco-Romans? Romans were occupiers in Dacia, for nearly 200 years so why would Dacians adopt the occupiers' language?
Slavs in the Balkans are descended directly from Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians - there was no Slavic invasion, no evidence at all for this.
Rumanians had a Slavic language until Austro-Hungary latinized it 200 years ago, they even used Cyrillic.
Finally, genetics of Serbs and Rumanians are exactly the same - how do you explain this?
@@NeborodVinchanski This is just garbage.
Regarding the evidence it seems you can not see it even if sticked on your face.
as you talk about genetic...here is a link you could read for some evidence, but i doubt you have the capacity to understand it.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1.full.pdf
@@raulepure9840 th-cam.com/video/9kaVLLH6x6M/w-d-xo.html
How Serbs Became Rumanians
This is mostly about south Slavs.... I think it should be stated in the title.....
19:45 That isn't correct there are still Greek cultures in Bovesia and Salento, where they speak Greek that is possibly from to Doric Settlers, and they have a unique culture. They have two dialects under italiot Greek called Griko.
Listen there are chronicles and real history, Slavs was in Europe much earlier, capitol was in today Augsburg in 1500bc, because of that river have name after King Lech, even today. Venecia is Wenecja after Slavic tribe which create city there. You can fallow Slaws roots from middle east and they are line of Japhet son of Noa
Please do more such videos about slavic history. Like you can see in commentaries, in our part of Europe is lack of "cold eye" sight in this subject and lack of basic knowledge. Decades of communistic propaganda replaced scientific discussion.
oh yeah cold blooded rational history is just too much for some people
You are not right, this is not 'cold eye' version of slavic history, it is geraman XIX century propaganda. decades of comunism was another propaganda, both Russian comunists from XX century and German nationalist from XIX century claim the same that Slavs came from east in VI century, but this is not true, Slavs live here much much longer. Slavs are direct dscendants of Lusatian culture or even older. There are strong evidences for that (Slavs are in Central Europe much much longer than V century) and all chronicles can be explained with this version, the idea Slavs came late from east is base only on one week clue and misunderstanding how people behave when climate changes. there is no evidence for the migration. The slavs just came everywhere in Europe becausee they were here almost always and they suddenly prosper because of climeta change or maybe some inventions. Only thee name Slavs is new the people itself are old.
Slavs were known before as Dans. People living from Baltic to Egypt.
Its not just the south slavs and albania. Its also us, the hungarians and also romanians and slovakians that are like this. I am quite frankly sick and tired of all this bulls*** going around especially online! Makes me wish all of us wouldn't exist in the first place! But i suppose theres nothing we can change about this now.
@@tiami3886 Oh, for fuck's sake... lol )))
My question is, who where the Trojans???
Great video. It only amplifies the asinine behaviour in the Balkans when the tribalisation went 180 degrees the opposite with the rest of the modern society. Everyone else got bigger, while in the Balkans every tribe want's their national myths to be true and separate with the rest of the people. A clear diagnose of this is: narcissism of small differences.
The worst thing about it is that a regular man from Balkans is politically illiterate, and the nation is most of the time taken as some genetic property, very often not separated with religion so there are so many chances to get in conflict with anyone over anything.
What is that beeping
I was getting barraged with texts while I was recording and I was in too much of a hurry to reset the recording.
how about fuckin mute it?
He is focused on the recording and how about you dont swear.
Proto-Slavic Tribes came to Europe first at least at early Bronze Age. Is huge list of evidence ... but I need to make 2 hour video about it .
More early
You are an idiot.
They didn't come from somewhere they always been there
this all migration is nonsense
You didn’t mention the plague of 541
If Slavs came down in the 7th century, how did they manage to pass on to the Romans 6.000 Serbian Slavic words, and the Roman Republik was founded circa 700BC.
Latin language was developing much earlier than that, until it was standardised. We are talking about at least 1.500 years gap. How did the words get to Rome from Russia? Internet, drones? Your pick.
A few Corrections are in order.
Firstly, there are no Eastern Roman historians attributing the ease of Slavic settlement to Justinian's plague - which was spread all over Europe (despite its popular name and the worst scenario occurring in densely populated Constantinople) and almost certainly affected Slavs. Further on, based on all archaeological findings of both the Antes and the Sclavenes, we know for a fact that equipment was standardized in the sense that every excavated grave of a Slavic warrior features chainmail and sword (fashioned in East Roman style), an ax, round wooden shield, and a long spear. Some Slavic warriors were wearing belts with buckles adorned with Avar motifs, but they were most likely spoils of war or items of trade. The only group of Slavs that have fought without armor was warbands of young warriors who've fought entirely naked (barring the red paint on their body, hair, and face) and in melee (the ones that were described as being red-haired by Procopius), and some groups of Pannonian Wends who were tributaries of the Pannonian Avars, and relying on ambushes was a part of defensive strategies, and only against hosts that were too numerous and too well-armed, like the joint Avar-Roman host that assailed Sclavene territories after Daurentius slew Bayan's envoys and refused to pay tribute to him. Aside from that, both the Antes and the Sclavenes have utilized large breeds of horses for warfare, and matter of fact, an entire host of Antean and Sclavene horsemen was dispatched to evacuate Belisarius from Italy, which proves the aforementioned.
Secondly, the Avars have only managed to subjugate the more passive parts of the Dudlebes, as well as parts of the Wends - certainly not the Antes and the Sclavenes, who were noted to have lived only under the reign of their own kings like Muzok and Mezamir (Antes) and chieftains like Radagast and Daurentius, of whom the latter was described as being the supreme chief of all Sclavenes. Procopius' early assessment of Slavic social structure was just that - an early assessment based off of early sightings of Slavic warbands that were initially considered to have been "small tribes governed by "military democracy". As interaction with Slavs intensified, he realized that the Slavs did exhibit an organized social structure, albeit admittedly, the Antes were the most centralized body of the Early Slavs, with a hereditary monarchy where one king reigned over all of the Antes, while among the Sclavenes, you've had one known supreme chieftain like the aforementioned Daurentius to whom other chieftains were subordinate, there was also a mention of Sclavene kings, like Perbundos, who led a coalition of Sclavene tribes deep into Greece. Likewise, the Avars were first invited to make a move against the Slavs by the Roman emperor Tiberius, and later on, Emperor Heraclius would invite Serbs and Croats from the distant Slavic northwest to liberate the northern provinces of the Avars and have them settle all those provinces as his vassals which he'd ennoble, which refutes any theory of the Sclavenes and Antes arriving to Southeastern Europe off of the back of the Avars. After all, the earliest Slavic raids deep into the Roman territory were accompanied by the enslavement of an estimated quarter of a million Romans in every province struck by the Slavs and the sacking and besieging of Roman cities, which were recorded as early as the first part of the 6th century - decades before the Avars were contacted by Emperor Tiberius, and before they reached the most distant part of the basin of the Danube. On top of that, the invading Sclavenes have also slain Asbadus/Asbados - the famed Roman/Gepid general, and have also annihilated his elite army, a feat which would've been impossible if the Slavs "only fought from afar", or worse, if they've "made no use of pitched organized warfare". The usage of poison arrows and guerrilla warfare was deployed only in defensive wars against a martially superior enemy - like against the combined Roman-Avar army during Maurice's campaign which was launched deep into Sclavene territories north of the Danube.
In the work of Menander Protector, we find the following excerpt: "This movement of Avars against the Slavs did not only result from Emperor's envoys and the wish of Bayan to return the courtesy unto Romans for all the gestures of friendship and help that he had received from the Emperor but also because he held great hate for them (the Slavs) out of personal sentiment as well. The Avar leader has, therefore, sent envoys to Daurentius (Δαυρίτας) himself, and to his chieftains, calling on for their submission and enlistment among tribute-payers. Dauritas and the leaders alongside him replied: "Who is, then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that, we are certain for as long as wars are waged and swords are forged". Since the Slavs acted so haughtily, the Avars were no different in boasting. Then the scolds and insults resulted from that, being that the barbarians are of a narrow and proud mind, and the fight broke out. The Slavs, unable to control their anger, killed the envoys, as Bayan found out from another source. Because of that Bayan has long since raised accusations against the Slavs, fueling a secret hatred against them, mad for they refused him, and angry that from them he received an unforgivable insult, in the same time he thought he would do a favor to Caesar and likewise *find a rich land to plunder, for far too long has the land of Romans been plundered by Slavs, and theirs (Slavic) - never by any of other peoples*."
Thirdly, the Early Slavs seized and inhabited a massive territory that spanned from the east of Germany to the Baltic and the very distant fringes of Eastern Europe. Matter of fact, the bulk of the Sclavenes have lived on the northern shores of the Danube and were bribed by Roman authorities into maintaining that status quo, at least temporarily. Also, Slavs weren't "monotheistic", they were henotheistic. Even though Perun was their chief god, they also recognized the existence of other gods as well, hence why the Sclavenes and the Antes worshipped Perun and Veles - which also reflected their lifestyles, which were very warlike and militarized and subsided on animal husbandry, fishing, hunting, gathering and the practice of a form of agriculture that required the burning of the soil, so they weren't nomadic, but certainly not entirely sedentary either. It's also important to note that Procopius also states that the Sclavenes and the Antes shared the same customs, beliefs, and institutions. The same goes for the Wends, which is also supported by the homogeneity of early Slavic aDNA, YDNA, and language, although material culture was far more varied (depending on which culture they defeated and assimilated).
Fourthly, the role of the Avars in all of this is overemphasized, and for the following reasons:
a) As mentioned before, they were invited by the Romans to defeat and subdue unruly peoples on the Danube, like the Antes (who were Roman allies from time to time as well), and during the next century or so will be the foremost "allies" of the Romans against the Slavs, up until Heraclius invites the Serbs and Croats (Sclavene tribes) to defeat and annihilate them south of the Danube.
b) While it's true that the Avar hosts were initially the largest, they were in time overshadowed by the Sclavene hosts, which have, after realizing that the Roman authority on the Danube is no more, begun launching massive invasions that were also preludes to the permanent settling of the lands they've seized and initiated the assimilation of the peoples they've defeated and temporarily subjugated.
c) Western historians tend to make the mistake of not distinguishing the Slavs, even though primary sources from that era have noted that the Early Slavs were divided into three groups: the Wends, the Sclavenes, and the Antes, which brings us to the point of the "100 000 Slavs" that were part of the Avar host - most of them were Pannonian Wend tributaries of the Avars, while the rest were Sclavene allies who, thanks to their arrangement with the Avars, were exempt from abiding by Avar-Roman peace treaties, and would continue raiding and marauding as they pleased, which brought great displeasure to Bayan senior and junior, and the Roman emperors as well.
d) Slavs would've invaded and permanently settled the lands south of the Danube one way or the other, the involvement of the Avars has only somewhat hastened of process, and by subsequently making sure that the Sclavene tribes would form the overwhelming bulk of those who'd settle and seize the territories in question by waging exhaustive wars with the Antes. At most, the Avars were a strictly Pannonian phenomenon and were never masters of the "Balkans", which is also supported by archaeology and modern genetic studies, and given that you're made a mention of primary Roman/Greek sources, you should also know that there's not a single one of them that claims that the Slavs were migrating with the Avars, but that they were invading Southeastern Europe at the same time. You could potentially make that point for the aforementioned Pannonian Wends, but not for the bulk of the invading Slavs - who were Sclavenes and Antes.
e) Sclavenes have besieged Thessalonica five times (in 586 or 597, 604, 615, 617, and 676), and only in two of those sieges were the Slavs assisted by the Avars.
Furthermore, the Franks, Avars, and Magyars have only influenced the military and administrative history of the Pannonian Wends, and they're the ancestors of the Slavs of Balaton, Nitra, Great Moravia, and Slovakia, and they've never formed the bulk of the Early Slavs, but merely a portion of the Wends (the Early West Slavs). To interpret the history of the rest of the Slavs through their particularity is rather tendentious, and even ignorant of the full extent of the history of the Early Medieval Slavs, whether they're West, East, or South Slavic. Matter of fact, the bulk of the Early Slavs was made of the Sclavenes and the Antes, and the overwhelming majority of primary sources from that era were based on peaceful and hostile interaction with them. Further on, the military and administrative history of the Antes and the Sclavenes was strictly a mixture of Slavic traditions and East Roman/Greek influences, which was reflected in the First Bulgarian Empire as well, where Slavic and Bulgar tribal and administrative traditions were integral parts of the state, yet the latter would be entirely ousted by the Slavo-Roman model as early as during the reign of Boris I.
Procopius, Book V, XXVII, 134:
"(...) This exploit, then, was accomplished by the Goths on the third day after they were repulsed by the assault on the wall. But twenty days after the city and harbor of Portus were captured, Martinus and Valerian arrived, bringing with them sixteen hundred horsemen, the most of whom were Huns and Sclaveni and Antae, who are settled above the Ister River not far from its banks. (...)"
Procopius about Slavic invaders capturing and enslaving a lot of Romans:
Procopius, Book VII, XIII - describing events in the year 545 AD:
"(...) For a great throng of the barbarians, the Sclaveni, had, as it happened, recently crossed the Ister, plundering the adjoining country and enslaving a very great number of Romans. (...)"
Procopius of Caesarea:
"(...) In Illyria and Thracia, from the Ionian Gulf to Byzantine surrounding cities, where Hellas and Chersonese regions are situated, (...) the Sclavenes and the Antes, penetrating practically every year since Justinian administering the Roman Empire, were inflicting irreversible damage to their inhabitants. In each invasion, I estimate 200,000 Romans were either taken as prisoners or killed (...)"
Procopius about Roman attempts to stop the Slavic invasion:
"(...) the Empire wasn't able to find just one only man just as brave to undertake this task."
Pope Gregory I in a letter to the Exarch of Italy from the year 599:
"(...) It deeply afflicts and disquiets me the Slavic nation that menace us. It afflicts me from what I already suffer from you, it disquiets me because they have already started to penetrate into the Italic peninsula through Istria. (...)"
And according to Priscus, 610 Slavic tribes flooded into Greece.
Procopius of Caesarea:
"(...) Nay further, they [the Slavs] do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair nor blond nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type (...)".
Procopius of Caesarea:
"(...) In more or less the same time [549 - 550] a Slavic army (...) gathered itself together and after crossing without encountering any resistance from anyone the river Ister [Danube], and later with similar ease the river Heuros, it divided itself for two parts. (...) Commanders of Roman garrisons in Illyria and Thrace fought against both those parts and even though they had already separated from each other, the Romans suffered - contrary to their expectations - a defeat and some of them fell dead on the spot, while others found salvation in escaping. (...) After all, garrisons had suffered such defeats at the hands of either one or the other of barbarian armies, one of the enemy bands fought against troops of Asbadus. He was a member of Emperor Justinian's personal guard (...) and he led a numerous and elite force of cavalry, which had been garrisoned for a long time inside the Thracian stronghold of Tdzurulon. But also, they were forced to retreat by the Slavs and most of them, shamefully escaping, got slaughtered, while Asbadus himself was captured and temporarily left alive, but soon after that the Slavs skinned him alive and threw him into a burning campfire. After that, the Slavs were plundering all neighboring Thracian and Illyrian lands without any obstacles and both of their two units captured many strongholds. (...) And those who had defeated Asbadus, later plundered, in turn, everything up to the sea coast, and captured in an assault the coastal city of Toperus (...) And they slaughtered 25,000 men, plundered everything, and enslaved all the children and all the women. (...)"
John of Ephesus:
"(...) In the third year after the death of Emperor Justin, during the reign of victorious Tiberius, the damned nation of the Slavs has risen, and marched through entire Hellas, through lands of Thessaly and Thrace, captured many cities and strongholds, plundered, burned, and robbed, seized the land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land. (...) they were plundering the country, burning it, and robbing, as far as the Great Walls [of Constantinople], and this is how they captured many thousands of cattle, as well as many other kinds of booty. (...) Until today, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in the lands of the Rhomaioi, without fear and concern, plundering, murdering and burning, getting rich and highjacking gold and silver, capturing horses and plenty of weapons; and they have learned to fight better than the Rhomaioi. (...)"
Menander Protector:
"(...) About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand Slavs broke into Thrace and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars. (...)"
Strategikon of Maurice:
"(...) They do not keep prisoners in perpetual slavery-like other peoples, but they demarcate for them a limited period of time, after which they give them a choice: they can return home after purchasing their freedom or stay among them as free people and friends. (...)"
“Strategikon of Maurice:
"...being freedom-loving, they are in no way inclined to become slaves or to obey, especially in their own land." (Strategikon of Maurice, ed. prep. V. V. Kuchma. SPb., 2004, p. 189)”
Jordanes:
"(...) These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalog of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venedi, Antes, and Sclaveni. (...) they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins (...) Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (...)"
Procopius of Caesarea:
"(...) Belisarius was eager to capture alive one of the men of note among the enemy, in order that he might learn what the reason might be why the barbarians were holding out in their desperate situation. And Valerian promised readily to perform such a service for him. For there were some men in his command, he said, from the nation of the Sclaveni, who are accustomed to concealing themselves behind a small rock or any bush which may happen to be near and pounce upon an enemy. In fact, they are constantly practicing this in their native haunts along the river Ister, both on the Romans and on the barbarians as well. (...)"
Abraham ben Jacob (a 10th-century Sephardic Jewish traveler from Muslim Spain):
"(...) Slavic countries extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Northern Ocean. (...) Generally speaking, Slavs are warlike and violent, and if not for their internal discord and lack of unity, no other nation would be able to match them in strength. (...)"
And about the arrival of the Croats and Serbs (but it was much later - not during the 500’s, but during the 600’s):
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, "De Administrando Imperio":
"(...) their ancestors were Pagan Croats and Serbs, known also as White [Croats and Serbs]. Great Croatia, called also White [Croatia], until today is still Pagan, just like neighboring [Lusatian / West Slavic] Serbs [Sorbs] (...)"
And another excerpt - "De Administrando Imperio":
"(...) Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them, and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats. (...)"
“Daurentius is the first Slavic chieftain to be recorded by name, by the Byzantine historian Menander Protector, who reported that the Avar khagan Bayan I sent an embassy, asking Daurentius and his Slavs to accept Avar suzerainty and pay tribute because the Avars knew that the Slavs had amassed great wealth after repeatedly plundering the Byzantine Balkan provinces. Daurentius reportedly retorted that "Others do not conquer our land, we conquer theirs [...] so it shall always be for us.”
Daurentius (to the Avar envoy): "Who is, then, the man who basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that, we are certain for as long as wars are waged and swords are forged".
I've extracted the most relevant quotes from the primary sources and DAI, hope it helps.
Those who attribute the success of the Slavic invasion and colonization of Roman territories to the Avars omit the following:
a) Serbs didn't invade in the 6th, but in the mid-7th century, and in toe with the Croats, and were tasked with exterminating all Avars south of the Danube and ruling all the provinces they’d liberate at the request of emperor Heraclius.
b) The Slavs who've invaded, conquered, and colonized Southeastern Europe were the Sclavenes and Antes, not the “Avaroslavs”, who were noted to have been Pannonian Wends, and were, aside from the Greeks/Romans themselves, also distinguished from other Slavs on that very basis by Fredegar, and were mentioned only twice in all primary Greek sources, during the Siege of Constantinople in 626, and during one of the many Slavic sieges of Thessaloniki, where Saint Demetrius states they arrived to assist the already present Sclavenes who've besieged the city, lured by promises of the city’s wealth.
c) By the time the Avars arrived at the Danubian basin at the invitation of emperor Tiberius, who had invited them for the sole purpose of waging war against the Sclavenes, Antes, and Kutrigurs, the Slavs were already invading and raiding Southeastern Europe for roughly forty years, and as deep as Southern Peloponnesus, Crete and the outer walls of Constantinople.
d) All primary sources, like Jordanes, Procopius, Saint Demetrius, John of Ephesus, Theophylact of Simocatta, and Menander Protector state that the Sclavenes and the Antes were under the rule of their rulers like Mezamir, Muzhok, Dervan/Daurentius, and Radogost, and weren't subdued by the Avars, and distinguish them from the aforementioned Avaroslavs (Pannonian Wends).
e) Attributing the success of the Slavic invasion and colonization of Southeastern Europe to the Avars is, aside from being contradictory to all primary Roman/Greek sources, since the very purpose of the invitation of the Avars was to wage war against the Slavs and the Kutrigurs, which is exemplified in the joint Avar-Roman invasion of Daurentius' realm, also a textbook example of 19th and 20th-centuries German, Italian, Greek, Hungarian and Austrian anti-Slavism designed to undermine the legitimacy of Slavic history, the geopolitical realities of Slavic territories, and to portray Slavs as a subsidiary mass of naturally subordinate peoples.
Sources: Jordanes, Procopius, Saint Demetrius, John of Ephesus, Theophylact of Simocatta, and Menander Protector, De Administrando Imperio, Sima Cirkovic, Tibor Zivkovic, Dimitry Obolensky, and Frederick Hamilton Jackson.
Modern Western interpretations of medieval sources would indicate the Slavic area as being the main reservoir of slaves in the whole period of the Early Middle Ages, beginning probably in the 6th century, and with a peak around the 10th. This preference for slaves of Slavic origin - so strong as to make Slavs the slaves by antonomasia - has been easily explained: in that period Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this detail is most important as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders - mostly Venetian, Genoese and Jewish - did not violate the new principles of the “Societas Christiana”, introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century, according to which baptized people must be excluded from slavery. What should be noted is that aside from this being a mere theory, it is also historically and etymologically inaccurate, and unconvincing. After all, the Medieval Latin words for “Slav” and “Slave” are not etymologically related. The Medieval Latin word for “slave”, and with it, its root as well, predates the first sightings and contact of mainland European civilization with the Slavs. The evolution of the name of Slavs "Sloveni/ Slaveni" comes from PIE *klew (to hear) evolving into proto-Slavic *slovo/ *slava (word/ fame), finally evolving into Sloveni/ Slaveni (those glorious/ those who understand each other). Meanwhile, the English word for "slave" comes from the Latin word "clavis/ clavus" (a key/ nail), which bore the Latin word "inclavare" (to lock in), ultimately giving rise to the word "sclavus" (slave - "a locked one"), which most likely entered the English language, along with a major portion of Romance words, with the Norman invasion. In 1881, a proper etymology was expressed, according to which the Greek word Σκλάβινοι does not stem from the self-name of the Slavs, but from the Greek verb σκυλεύο - "to extract spoils of war", and resonates in the manner in which Slavs and other ethnicities were enslaved - as prisoners of war. The aforementioned etymologies are free of politicization, are accurate, and are firmly rooted in history and linguistics. Based on this, the self-name of the Slavs and their Modern Helleno-Latin name coincided phonetically purely accidentally (F. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache 1881/1989/2002), and the thesis where the modern word for “Slave” is not rooted in the self-name of the Slavs, and is refuted.” (Gerhard Kobler - Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch 1995, Korth Georg - Zur Etymologie des Wortes 'Slavus' (Sklave) 1970, and Daniel Scholten - Deutsch für Dichter und Denker: Unsere Muttersprache in neuem Licht, 2020). The aforementioned theory and etymology are furthered by Korth Georg, Friedrich Kluge, Gerhard Kobler, and Daniel Scholten (and Grimm’s German Dictionary).
Further on, the cognate with Sloveni/Slaveni is the word Sclavinii/ Slabini, a Latin that denotes Slavic ethnic groups. From a purely historical perspective, Greece and Gaul were Rome’s main reservoir of slaves for centuries, while the Irish were the main reservoir of slaves for their Normano-English oppressors for more than half a millennium, and before them, to Norsemen as well. Dublin was the largest slave market in Western Europe. Its main sources of supply were the Irish hinterland, Wales and Scotland, while in the Far and the Middle East, the Turkmen tribes would supply the largest portion of Eurasia with innumerable slaves for nearly a millennium. Aside from that, just during the earliest stage of the Slavic invasion of Roman territory south of the Danube (6th century), a fifth of a million Roman citizens (Procopius) were enslaved by the Sclavenes (early South Slavs) in just one Roman province, and just during a single raid, the number of their slaves kept growing as more and more provinces and their capitals fell to the aforementioned Slavs. In reality, the majority of slaves in the 6th and 7th centuries were the Christian Romans, not their Slavic captors. Granted the Slavs didn't enslave their enemies permanently, but they've enslaved them nonetheless, and in numbers that are substantially greater than the number of Slavs who were enslaved by non-Slavs during the entirety of the middle ages, and it renders the aforementioned non-Slavs as being more fitting to have their ethnonyms made “synonymous” with slavery
The Western terminology for "slave", to a certain extent, is similar in form to the self-designation of the Slavs ("Sloven", "Slavjan" etc.) Their existence served as the basis for numerous anti-Slavic statements, theories, and consecutive waves of propaganda, which have sometimes acquired the scope of genuine mythologies. Moreover, these ideas were even given an academic platform. As it happened more than once, when “not entirely” adequate premises gained an academic platform and were entrenched there since. The premise of "Slavs" is the root of words for "slaves" found a permanent foothold in Western Academia, giving rise to a series of pseudoscientific, inform, but questionable, in essence, representations and statements. The essence of these premises is that these words are related to the ethnonym of the Slavs, allegedly, "due to the fact that in the Early Middle Ages, the Slavs became objects of the slave trade, which led to the use of their ethnonym as a designation for slaves." Sometimes, it was even argued that Western Europeans, whose languages contain these words, directly, massively, and regularly turned the Slavs into slaves, and in general, other far-reaching conclusions were made, such as that the "Slavs are slaves" and the Western Europeans are "their masters."
Moreover, in the 18-19th century in Western European journalism, the idea was persistently exaggerated that even the word "Slav" itself comes from the Latin or Greek word for "slave". This was the “think tank” of an 18th-century French historian and publicist. Polemics regarding this myth and premise are found even in Dostoevsky’s "Diary of a Writer". As for the idea of the origin of the word "Slav" coming from the word for slaves - at the present time, it is not considered scientific and has long been recognized as erroneous, or even deliberately Slavophobic. The birthplace of this terminology is the ERE. In the Early Middle Ages, in the so-called Medieval Greek, the word "σκλάβος" (read as "sklavos" - "slave") appeared. Further - from the ERE and Medieval Greek, this word found its way to Medieval Latin (and from there to Medieval French) - the official, as well as international legal, political, commercial, and scientific language of Western Europe. Moreover, in different languages, it appears in different timelines. In accordance with Webster's Dictionary, the word appears in English only in the 14th century, while Webster gives an etymological origin of the basis of the premise of this stream of Slavic slaves dating back to the 10th century, specifically during the reign of Henry the Fowler and Otto I, therefore moot and chronologically off by several centuries. Thus, the direct appearance of these words in Western European languages, for reasons allegedly of the abundant trade in Slavic slaves, is excluded. Since the word has a clearly traceable and understandable history. And it did not arise in the West, but in ERE.
The word for “slave” in Medieval Greek derives from the Greek verb skyleúo - meaning “to get spoils of war”, the first-person singular of which looks like skyláo. This etymology is established thanks to the following sources: F. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache. 1881/1989/2002, siehe Sklave: “... zu gr. skyleuein, skylan, V. zu gr. Skylon ", Gerhard Köbler, Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1995, Sektion "Slaven" and Daniel Scholten, Deutsch für Dichter und Denker: Unsere Muttersprache in neuem Licht, Sklave und Slawe “. Thus, it is proven that the Greek word "sklav", "slave" - comes from the abovementioned Med. Greek word, the original meaning of which was "seized in war".This etymology, and Georg Korth’s "Zur Etymologie des Wortes 'Slavus' (Sklave)" refutes the premise that the Med. Greek and modern Western word for “slave” derived from the self-name of the Slavs. This etymology is furthered by Korth Georg, Friedrich Kluge, Gerhard Kobler, and Daniel Scholten (and Grimm’s German Dictionary). Furthermore, it turns out that the "Slavs" and all these numerous Western European "sklavas" are only homonyms. There are innumerable examples of such consonant coincidences (both within the same languages, and between words from different languages). This is a fairly common occurrence, especially among Indo-European languages. Thus, in the ERE, a new word was found and associated with the verb that means "to seize trophies of war", which was from then on used to denote slaves. At the same time, the previous word for slave, which previously meant slaves, was repurposed to denote indentured serfs attached to the land they’ve toiled.
The only Slavs that were subjugated by the Avars were the Pannonian Wends (the rest of the Wends were either independent or vassals of the Franks), while the Sclavenes and Antes who formed the bulk of the Early Slavs, and the Slavs who've invaded and colonized Roman territories in Europe were independent, sovereign entities, and either at war with the Avars or allied with them, depending on the tribe (unlike the subdued Pannonian Wends). Based on the overwhelming majority of archaeological findings, on nearly all primary sources (like Strategikon of Maurice, Menander Protector, and Procopius, first and foremost) and the toponymy of Southeastern Europe, we know that the Slavs have played the leading role in the invasion of Southeastern Europe and that they were perceived as Rome's greatest threat on the Northern Limes, not the Avars, who in reality, were invited by Rome as their allies against the Slavs, as Menander Protector put its:
"(...) About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand Slavs broke into Thrace and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars. (...)"
Crediting the Avars for the success of the Slavic invasion and colonization is first and foremost a modern, primarily German, Austrian, Hungarian, and even Greek narrative that has virtually no substantiation in history that originated in the writings of Pavel Jozef Safarik's dubious assessment of the early history of the South Slavs, and can only be attributed to ahistorical, political agendas that should be reviled and demonized in academic discourse, not adopted.
We also know that at the time, the Avars didn't dare to invade Slavic lands by themselves, yet again, based on Menander's report: "This movement of Avars against the Slavs did not only result from Emperor's envoys and the wish of Bayan to return the courtesy unto Romans for all the gestures of friendship and help that he had received from the emperor but also because he held great hate for them (the Slavs) out of personal sentiment as well. The Avar leader has, therefore, sent envoys to Daurentius (Δαυρίτας) himself, and to his chieftains, calling on for their submission and enlistment among tribute-payers. Daurentius and the leaders alongside him replied: "Who is, then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that, we are certain for as long as wars are waged and swords are forged".
Since the Slavs acted so haughtily, the Avars were no different in boasting. Then the scolds and insults resulted from that, being that the barbarians are of a narrow and proud mind, and the fight broke out. The Slavs, unable to control their anger, killed the envoys, as Bayan found out from another source. Because of that Bayan has long since raised accusations against the Slavs, fueling a secret hatred against them, mad for they refused him, and angry that from them he received an unforgivable insult, in the same time he thought he would do a favor to Caesar and likewise *find a rich land to plunder, for far too long has the land of Romans been plundered by Slavs, and theirs (Slavic) - never by any of other peoples*."
We also know the following from the Strategikon of Maurice: "...being freedom-loving, they are in no way inclined to become slaves or to obey, especially in their own land." (Strategikon of Maurice, ed. prep. V. V. Kuchma. SPb., 2004, p. 189)”. Maurice and his successors fought primarily against Slavs, and he dedicated the majority of his Strategikon's chapters on barbarian enemies to the Slavs and the Antes, whom he and as we've mentioned before, Rome as well saw as its greatest threat to the Northern Limes.
Also, the Serbs and Croats didn't just settle Roman land but also waged war against the Avars at the behest of Heraclius, and "exterminated" every Avar South of the Danube, as Frederick Hamilton Jackson puts it: "The war with Persia in 600-614 strained the Roman resources and thus denuded the coast of soldiers, therefore the Avars and Slavs inroads ravaged as they pleased under Heraclius (610-640), who had called in the latter to drive out the Avars; Narona, Salona, Epidaurus, Burnum, and Rhizinium were destroyed. In 641 Pope John IV., a Dalmatian by birth, sent Abbot John to Istria and Dalmatia to ransom prisoners and collect relics. The Croats and Serbs exterminated the Avars in the middle of the seventh century and delivered the province, the Croats occupying the west to the river Cetina, the Serbs the east from the Cetina to Albania. De Administrando Imperio says the same:
"Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them, and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats.".
Sources: De Administrando Imperio and the Shores of the Adriatic by Frederick Hamilton Jackson.
@@numenoreaneternity6682 facinating. Do you think it is possible to get sources in thelibrary, i would really like to read more.
i read all you have written and it really sparked my interest.
You fail to mention that prior to the so called migration of Slavs from the Caucasus region, there already were civilizations in Poland. Consequently, the time period of recorded migration is not the actual period of migration. Meaning Slavs in small numbers came into the Central European location, Biskupin for example, centuries before the mass, recorded migration. These first groups numbering in perhaps a hundred or so individuals (including Lustians) setup Biskupin and other small enclaves before sending back messengers to the main civilization camps in the Caucasus and informing them about green, flat, rich pastures in the east filled with game of all kind. In addition, they told them these lands were distant enough to be out of the reach of the eastern Mongol horde. These messengers compelled the massive Slav drive east. Unrecorded Slav civilization can be traced back to approximately 800 BCE. The proof is in the archeological sites like Biskupin.
Dziękuje...great contribution!
@@joannamcdee9061 Dzięki
This is confusing and conflicts with other history with which I am familiar. I was under the impression that the Goths used to live in Poland. That they didn’t move out of there until like the fifth century. Something like that. That is when they went South into the Roman lands because they were pushed by the Huns. Are you saying that it was. Slavs who did this? As for the Mongols, they were very far away from this land. All the way in the far east. There is no record of them even in central Asia until 1221 when they started their conquering. That is 700 years after Procopius and 900 years after the Gothic wars. I do believe this is in the time of the Gokturks but, I am not sure.
@@philomelodia Poland was officially established in 966, so they were there in unorganized tribal societies for hundreds of years prior. I have never come across any info about Goths being in the area.
Slavs didn't migrated in the 7th century to europe,slavs lives in europe since 8678BC.And 3322 years before,they have lived on north coast of the black sea.And i can conferm that migration of the slavs is lie,becouse if it was true,then 2.500.000 slavs would be migrating to europe.Lot of slavic history is falsification written by the nordic school in the 1890,but manny slavic truths has been discovered and perserved.And some documentaries about slavs are on spoken serbian language without english subtitle,so we unfortunately get to be uninformed.But i can recomend youtube videos,Slavs For 10700 Years In Europe,Slava True Story Of The Slavic Glory,and 6 part video Arkaim Swastika City.
It is interesting that Slavs and Bulgarians are not mentioned like Slavs. Might be confusing for people now because there is to many nations out of Slavs nowadays.
Only document that is talking about migration of Slavs is Porfirogenits one, in that document Byzantine emperior Porfirogenit uses titles that are not called that way in Romeya-Byzantia in his time, He uses words from Western and Catolic world, such ignorance is not possible for man of that position and rank in Byzantia, also he describes some events that ocured after His death, only this two are indeniable proofs that significant parts of Porfirogenits work is falcificated, by the wrong terms, that falcificator used is visible that He is from Vaticans falcificating school, Slavs never migrated on Balcan, We are from here, We migrated to north, so still oficial history is based on rough brutal falcificates.
Biggest evidence of Slavic settlements is the fact that the Peloponnesus region was called “Despotate of the Morea” until the formation of Modern Greece.Morea derives from the Slavic term “More” for sea or ocean.
Morea is a type of tree🤦. You idiot. Read the genetic research which explains How you are wrong. And Peloponnesian Greeks are descendants of their ancient Greek ancestors.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718&ved=2ahUKEwi-tZ3dxtvvAhUHhv0HHeE_D6oQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0LbcKElz2Vh2GVBzfYqRsM
I am glad I opened your eyes
This explanation is not very likely. It is speculation. It is named after mulberry trees.
What a joke why on earth would you name it sea? Morea comes from morus meaning leaf due to its shape
The invasion/migration distinction is a modern mockery. Both are the exact same thing, actually.
So if I move to a different area I'm invading it? Sweet, I'm going to go invade my neighboring town!
Of course it isn't, although à migration can end up having similar or worse results to an invasion (live the Slavic migration) and sometimes an invasion might be less destructive than massive migrations since it only affects the elite (like the germanic invasions).
but where before
So are we done now with saying that Slav Macedonians are pure Slavs and have no relation to the area that they live in?