Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis

[Милан М.]

Some early Slavic tribal and personal names and their etimology,my own work.


The Timochani, or Timochans (Serbian and Bulgarian Cyrillic: Тимочани) were a medieval South Slavic tribe that lived in the territory of present-day eastern Serbia, west of the Timok River, as well as in the regions of Banat, Syrmia and Moesia Superior.Earlier on the same place lived:
Timachi were a Thracian tribe in living by present-day Timok, Serbia, then part of Moesia Inferior (87 AD). It may have been an artificial creation by the Romans.In the 1st century before Claudius conquest of Thrace, Pliny the Elder lists them as one of the Moesian tribes alongside Dardanians, Celegeri, Triballi and Moesi.Worth mentioning Serbs were called Triballi by the Greeks.




The Berziti were a South Slavic tribe in Byzantine Macedonia in the 7th century AD the name is probably derrived from birch Slavic-breza,Thracian-berza.according to some authors part of them also settled in Brest,Belorussia.




The Strymonites or Strymonitai (Greek: Στρυμονῖται) were a tribe of Sclaveni in the region of the river Strymon (Struma) in Macedonia.The river's name comes from Thracian Strymón, derived from IE *sru "stream" akin to English stream, Old Irish sruaimm "river", Polish strumień "stream", Lithuanian straumuoe "fast stream"



The Drougoubitai, also Drogobitai or Dragobitai (Greek: Δρο[υ]γο[υ]βῖται/Δραγοβῖται), variously anglicized as Drugubites, Drogubites, Druguvites, Draguvites etc., were a South Slavic group (Sclaveni) in the Balkans in the 7th century.Two distinct branches are mentioned in the sources, one living in medieval Macedonia to the north and east of Thessalonica and around Veroia (in modern Greece), while the other lived in Thrace, around Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv in Bulgaria).The name could be derrived from Drugovi meaning friends,friendship,Thracian tribe Drugeri living in Thracia(Present Bulgaria)river Hebrus,today Maritsa recorded by Pliny the Elder has similar etymology Drugari meaning friends,friendship.




The Sagudates (Greek: Σαγουδάται, Sagoudatai) were a South Slavic tribe that lived in Macedonia, in the area between Thessaloniki and Veria.According to O.Pritsak is Schyntian origin,the fifth name, Sagudat-, with no suffix, is of Eastern Iranian origin: *sāka-dāt «gift of the stag» - the stag was the totem of the Scythians. The etymon *śāka, in Ossetian sag, is rendered in the Bactrian inscriptions as CΑΓΓΟ, CΑΓΟ; in the middle of the fourth century there was a Scythian people on the Danube called Saga-dares *sāga-dār «stag [totem] possessor». Old Persian dāta is Middle Persian, e.g. Pahlavi, d’t
Modern debate about the identity of the "Saka" is due partly to ambiguous usage of the word by ancient, non-Saka authorities. According to Herodotus, the Persians gave the name "Saka" to all Scythians.However, Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus, AD 23–79) claims that the Persians gave the name Sakai only to the Scythian tribes "nearest to them".The Scythians to the far north of Assyria were also called theSaka suni "Saka or Scythian sons" by the Persians.




The Rhynchines or Rhynchinoi (Greek: Ῥυγχίνοι) were a South Slavic tribe in the region of southern Macedonia in the 7th century. Their name probably derives from a local, unidentified river,could not find name and cognate.




The Melingoi or Milingoi (Greek: Μηλιγγοί) were a Slavic tribe in the Peloponnese in southern Greece during the Middle Ages.
Prince William II of Villehardouin (r. 1246–1278) awarded to the "great droungosa of the Melingoi" exemption from all duties except military service.The Melingoi are still attested during the 1330s in a number of founder's inscriptions attached to churches in Laconia,could not find similar name of the tribe or name.




Personal names
Perbundos (Greek: Περβοῦνδος, Perboundos) was a 7th-century king of the Rhynchinoi, a Slavic group in Macedonia.Perbun could be cognate with Perun-Slavic god of thunder,Lithuanian Perkunsas,Thracian Perkon,The name of an Indo-European god of thunder or the oak may be reconstructed as *perkwunos or *perkunos.Not sure if Slavs ever gave personal names according to deity.




Daurentius or Dauritas (Greek: Δαυρέντιος, Δαυρίτας) was a 6th-century South Slavic (Sclaveni) warlord 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" and had the envoys slain. Bayan then campaigned (in 578) against Daurentius' people, with aid from the Byzantines, and set fire to many of their settlements, although this did not stop the Slavic raids deep into the Byzantine Empire.K. Nikolaevič (1862) mentioned Daurentius, "the then king or grand prince of the Slavs", with the name Dobreta, which he rendered via the Greek pronounciation of β/b=ν/n.Sima Lukin Lazić (1863–1904), a Serbian "autochtonist",mentioned Daurentius as a Serb prince (1894)

 

[Милан М.]

Some ancient tribal names.

DOLONCAE, DOLONCI (Eth. Δόλογκοι), a Thracian tribe living in Thrace (Plin. Nat. 4.18; Solin. 10; Steph. B. sub voce Eustath. ad Dionys. Per. 323.)
Etimology in Slavic Dolina=valley or lowland.Slavic would be Dolinci,Dolinarci=lowlanders,inhabitants of valleys.
Also mentioned by Herodotus Dolonci or Dolonki (Greek: Δόλογκοι) is the name of a Thracian tribe in Thracian Chersonese.According to Herodotus, the Thracian tribe of Dolonci held possession of Chersonesus before the Greek colonization. Then, settlers from Ancient Greece, mainly of Ionian and Aeolian stock, founded about 12 cities on the peninsula in the 7th century BC.
Dolongi also corresponds to O. Ch. Sl. ДОЛОНГЪ (DOLONGǍ) – long one.


Thracian tribe Drugeri corresponds to drugari – comrades, but the actual meaning of the
ethnonym Drugeri is family, community, corresponding perfectly to Sl. word družina – family.
In my opinion Tracian tribe Drugeri is the same one as the Old Slavic Drugoviti,Drugovi meaning friends,comrades too.


MORISENI lived at the coast of Black Sea, their name corresponds to common Slavic word MORE – sea.Slavic would be Moričani-Inhabitants of sea coast.


OSERIATES (᾿οσερίατες), a tribe of Pannonia Superior, dwelling on the banks of the river Dravus; (Ptol. 2.15.2, Plin. Nat. 3.28.) Etimology from OZERO,JEZERO= Lake,inhabitants of lake.


Jāzyges v. Iazyges a Sarmatian people on the Danube name from ‘Iazik’ Jazik: language, people speaking the same language.The Iazyges were an ancient Sarmatian nomadic tribe who had swept westward in the 1st century BC further into Hungary and Serbia, settling in Dacia. They were constantly at war with the Romans.


Selletae living in Odrysae coresponds to Selo-village or verb seliti se to move from one to another place...

 

[Милан М.]

Ancient tribes,place names,with some exonyms.

The Roxolani according to some the name come ( from Alanic ruxsalan- "bright alan") were a Sarmatian people, who are believed to be an offshoot of the Alans, although according to Strabo they were the most remote of Scythian peoples.However in some South Slavic languages Rus mean blonde. The Roxolani avenged themselves in AD 92, when they joined the Dacians in destroying the Roman Legio XXI Rapax.
During Trajan's Dacian Wars, the Roxolani at first sided with the Dacians, providing them with most of their cavalry strength, but they were defeated in the first campaign of AD 101–102. They appear to have stood aside as neutrals during Trajan's final campaign of AD 105–106, which ended in the complete destruction of the Dacian state.The creation of the Roman province of Dacia brought Roman power to the very doorstep of Roxolani territory.
The name perhaps survived in couple Slavonic toponyms.A number of Russian anti-Normanist historians, such as Dmitry Ilovaisky, have linked the Roxolani with the Slavic Rus, who appeared in Eastern Europe some four centuries after the disappearance of the Roxolani. Such theories continue to be popular in Russia to this day. A wife of the 16th-century Ottoman Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent was known as Roxelana, an appellation which indicated her Ukrainian Slavic origin. Similarly, two villages in the Republic of Macedonia are called Ros and Rosoman, indicating that the Roxolani also influenced the South Slavs.Another village with exactly same name can be found on left bank of Dnister river: Roksolany Odessa Oblast, Ucraina.


Rascia, Rascians
The first attested appearance of the name Raška is in a charter from Kotor dated to 1186, in which Stefan Nemanja is mentioned as župan of Rascia (Prince of Serbia).
However, Rascia appears scarcely in Serbian and never in Byzantine works to denote the state
The name is derived from the name of the region's most important fort, Ras which first appears in the work de aedificiis of Byzantine Procopius in its earlier form as Arsa."Rascia" continued to serve as an exonym for Serbia in West European sources since late 12th century.
Connections have been made with the personal names of Thracian kings Rhescuporis of Odrysia (Ραισκούπορις, r. 240 BC - 215 BC) and Rhescuporis of Sapaea r. 48-41 BC. He also had a brother, Rascus and the geographical name Ratiaria (founded 4th century BC, near Archar, in modern Bulgaria)
Other connections have been made with the Etruscan civilization (800 BC–264 BC, The Etruscans called themselves Rasenna, which was syncopated to Rasna or Raśna)
Some toponyms conected with this name:
Connected to Raška, Raci
Raszków, several toponyms in Poland
Raszów, several toponyms in Poland
Raszowa, several toponyms in Poland
Raszyn, several toponyms in Poland
Rașcov, in Transnistria
Račice, in Czech Republic
Račje Selo, in Slovenia.

Raska, two places, Serbia
Raskaj, Kosovo, Serbia
Raskovo, Kosovo, Serbia
Rashkovo, in Sofia, Bulgaria
Rašćani, in Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rašeljke, in Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Raško Polje, in Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rasna, in Brestovac, Croatia




Rhesus of Thrace Rhesus (Greek: Ῥῆσος, Rhêsos) was a Thracian king who fought on the side of Trojans in Iliad, Book X.His name (a Thracian anthroponym) probably derives from PIE *reg-, 'to rule', showing a satem-sound change.
Many Resava toponyms appear in Serbia which could be connected with names mentioned prior.
Resava (Serbian Cyrillic: Ресава) refers to several toponyms and related topics, all of them located around the river Resava in central Serbia:
Resava (river), a river
Resava, a region, surrounding the river
Resava, a monastery
Resava school, a cultural movement in 14th-15th century
Resava Coal Mines, (or REMBAS) coal mines in the Resava river valley
Resava Cave, a cave and popular tourist attraction




Triballi this Thracian tribe has etymologically been connected with the Serbs,as many medieval Byzantine historians referred to the Serbs as the Triballians.Serbian name for Triballians is "Srblji/Србљи", Thracians is Rašani - Serbian state under name Rascia, present-day Serbia. Trebinje, a present city of Herzegovina and historical Serbian principality (Travunija, sometimes rendered as Triballia) has also been connected with this tribe.
Toponyms Trebište ( Macedonia ), Trebinje ( Bosna ), Trebijovi ( Bosna ), Trbovlje ( Slovenia ), Trebišov ( Slovakia ), Trebatica ( Slovakia ), Třeboň ( Czechia ), Třebíč ( Bohemia ), Trebovo ( Russia ), Trzebinia ( Poland ) ....

Other Related hydronyms river Ibar in Serbia, Ibr in Ukraine.

Dukla, mountain pass in the Carpatians, Duklja in Montenegro, Doklea (Ptolemy)Dukljans,Docleans Montenegrins.Dukla [ˈdukla] is a town and an eponymous municipality in southeastern Poland, in the Subcarpathian Voivodship.

 

[Милан М.]

Vinko Pribojević (Latin: Vincentius Priboevius mid-15th century - after 1532) was a Venetian Slavic historian and ideologue, best known as the founder of the pan-Slavic ideology.He was one of the most important Croatian and global Latinists who created the ideological molds of the future, is also the ancestor of the Croatian Illyrian movement of the 19th century which was supressed by Yugoslavism later and of the pan-Slavic ideology that was embraced by all Slavic peoples.I don't post this text for nationalistic agendas,but it was written once uppon a time and this oratio ,his speech, most probably made in Venice in 1525, left a deep impression on the Venetians, who published it in Latin and Italian several times over the following years.

The Glory of the Slavs - Pribojevic's Pan-Slavic version
of the history


Do not be afraid by the diversity of the names, due to the vastness of the lands
inhabited by the descendants of Thyras, it was unavoidable for them to be named
differently. Under their rule are, not to mention the old names of the regions, Ruscia,
Cassubia, Pruscia, Masouia, Vandalia, Moscouia, Polonia, Slesia, Morauia, Bohemia,
Panonia, Carniola, Hystria, Lybumia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Bosna, Rascia, Dardania,
Seuria, Myssia and Bulgaria once called Macedonia.^^'"


After establishing Thyras at the root of his genealogical tree, Pribojevic embarks on
the complicated task of connecting other nations to the Thracians. He does this
through a highly subjective and uncritical compilation of statements of various
ancient authors. This line of argumentation, which seeks to establish the connection
between other ancient nations and Thracians, is interesting because it clearly
illustrates Pribojevic's methodological position. Therefore it will be shortly addressed
here.
First Pribojevic claims, relying on Strabon, that the Thracians use the same language
as Mysians. Second, according to Appian from Alexandria, the Myssians are
considered to be lllyrians, and that is why the Romans considered the Thracian and
lllyrian language as one and the same. Furthermore the "Gets who are later called the
Goths" (according to Isidore of Seville, St. Antonin etc.), use the same language as
the Dacians and Myssians, as confirmed by Strabon again. From here Pribojevic
draws the obvious conclusion: the Myssians, lllyirians, Dacians and Gets are all
descendants of the Thracians, and thus of Thyras, son of Japhet son of Noah.^^^
From here, Pribojevic, continues to use similar arguments (analysis of which is
subject of next chapter), and thus adding many others to the list of Slavic peoples:
the Macedonians, Istrians and Vandals, completes his long lists of ancient nations he
declared Slavs.
After successfully creating such a "pseudo-historical framework, Pribojevic unfolds
his narrative and presents to his readers the glorious deeds of the Slavs. Things set as
they were, made Pribojevic's job an easy one. He does not have a problem with the
lack of sources or materials, now, at his hand are the masterpieces of classical
literature and historiography. Where once was emptiness and silence, now hundreds
of voices shouted.


For information on the lllyirans and Thracians, Pribojevic could chose from Pliny,
Polibyus, Strabo, Appian, Lucius Flor and many more, for the Goths and Vandals at
his disposal were Isidore of Seville, Paulus Orosius and Jordanes. Furthermore,
Quintus Curtius Rufus provided him with an excellent materials for Alexander of
Macedonia. He also used the latest achievements of humanistic historiography, the
most cited author in Pribojevic's Oratio is his Venetian contemporary, Marco
Antonio Coccio, known as Sabellico. With such a vast quantity of materials at his
disposal, there was (almost)^^"* no need for him, to invent and falsify data.
According to Hvar Dominican, it was the Slavs who conquered Persia, Africa and
Hispania, sacked Rome and gave to the world such learned men as Aristotle and St.
Jerome, or powerful monarchs such as Alexander or Diocletian. In front of his
audience, rescued from oblivion emerged a glorious history of Slavhood, its
numerous heroes, saints, popes, king and emperors^^^ resurrected parade in their full


Dalmatia, Bosna, Rascia, Dardania, Seuria, Myssia et Bulgaria, quae olim Macedonia dicebatur.


The long list of Roman emperors Pribojevic considers Slavs contains 23 entries, plus two
emperors of the Holy Roman Empire.


glory and greatness; the worthy sons of populus Slavus. Let us give Pribojevic the
closing words in this short summary of his narrative:


Who can bestow high enough praise to the Slavs to reflect their glory? With their
bravery they had humbled the arrogant Persians, weakened the mighty Assyrians and
Medes, overthrown the famed Egyptians, defeated the brave Greeks, conquered the
indomitable Scythians, overcome the numerous Indians, overpowered the strong
Germans, defeated dexterous Hispanians, tamed the savage Gauls, emasculated the
proud Romans, and annihilated the sly Carthagians,Thus I have done according to
my abilities, but, by far not enough as the dignity of the Slavs demands.
The final result was an impressive one, not only because Pribojevic managed to
include in his construction, all the peoples of antiquity (and their histories) who
lived in the lands presently inhabited by the Slavs (plus few more, like wandering
Goths and Vandals), but also managed to support it by a consistent theory.
The criteria applied by Pribojevic are not social or religious. Thracians, Macedonians
and lllyrians in the service of the Grand Turk are still Slavs, no matter what religion
they confess:


So there is no reason for anyone to bepuzzled that Ottoman Sultan put so much praise
in people of Slavic origin, that almost all of his commanders are appointed from their
ranks, and that he maintains the corps, almost 20,000 strong for his personal guard
composed of Thracians, Macedonians and Illyrians.'"'^
Experience has shown, especially in this unfortunate times of ours, that Ottoman heirs,
by the use of Slavic troops overcame kingdoms, obtained empires, took over strongly
fortified cities and with all forces press to ruin the roman empire, and if the hand of
the God almighty do not assist us, they will destroy the true faith.
Language is an unavoidable element of almost all of Pribojevic's argumentation. As
shown in chapter two, Pribojevic after declaring Thyras as a father of the Slavs,
immediately applied language as a connecting criteria. The link that connects
lllyrians, Myssians, Dacians and Goths to the Thracians is built solely on records
claiming the usage of a common language by all of these nations.^"*^
A full discussion concerning the name and the nature of the common language,
follows in the sections below. For now, I only wish to mention that Pribojevic
designates that common language as Slavic. He states that there exists the unity of
language among the descendants Thyras, and later in his argumentation in favor of
Slavic ethnicity of Macedonians and Istrians claims that they speak Slavic. Apart
from this, he states that the Russians are also using Dalmatarum sermone.^'^'^
Through this language unity, Pribojevic claims a continuity of the present
inhabitants of Balkan peninsula with those from Antiquity.
The case of the kinship among the Dacians, lUyrians and Goths is of lesser
importance, because it was less likely to be disputed. Therefore Pribojevic wastes
little space for a further elaboration of this unity: several short quotes by a few
ancient authorities were sufficient. But the claim on the Slavic character of two other
ethnic groups, those of the 16*'' century Macedonians and Istrians, both not ancient
but rather contemporary, associated with real and disputable territories and claims
on their historical heritage, required more elaborate and sound argumentation. The
argumentation employed by Pribojevic in these two cases, to prove the Slav ethnic
identity of the Macedonians and Istrians provide us with an excellent case study in
application of his identifying mechanism.


Macedonian question


To prove the Slavic character of the Macedonians, Pribojevic's first step was to prove
that their language is not same as that of the Greeks. To achieve this, he used an
anecdote found in History of Alexander the Great by Quintus Curtius Rufus.
According to the story told by Rufus (and retold by Pribojevic), when Philotas son of
Parmenio was put on trial in front of the Macedonian army (large part of which were
the Greeks), Alexander asked him, "Philotas, the Macedonians are going to judge
you, state whether you will use your mother- tongue in front of them." Philotas
answered that he will not, because not everyone will be able to understand him,
which provoked Alexander to respond, that Philota hates his mother-tongue.^"*^


The conclusion Pribojevic draws from this short story is that Philotas decided not to
speak his native language (Macedonian) in front of the army because it was a
different one from the common language of the entire army (Greek). Since the
Macedonians and Greeks did not speak the same language, they can not be
considered the same people. So Hvar Dominican argues:
it has become the custom of old, that the unity of the descent is proved by unity of the
speech, and thus we consider as the members of the same kin, only those who have in
tender age together with the mothers milk, also mothers-tongue received.'^'
This, for him proves that the Macedonians have always, as today, spoke only the
Slavic language, and are therefore Slavs.

 

[Yetos]

Vinko Pribojević (Latin: Vincentius Priboevius mid-15th century - after 1532) was a Venetian Slavic historian and ideologue, best known as the founder of the pan-Slavic ideology.He was one of the most important Croatian and global Latinists who created the ideological molds of the future, is also the ancestor of the Croatian Illyrian movement of the 19th century which was supressed by Yugoslavism later and of the pan-Slavic ideology that was embraced by all Slavic peoples.I don't post this text for nationalistic agendas,but it was written once uppon a time and this oratio ,his speech, most probably made in Venice in 1525, left a deep impression on the Venetians, who published it in Latin and Italian several times over the following years.



Macedonian question


To prove the Slavic character of the Macedonians, Pribojevic's first step was to prove
that their language is not same as that of the Greeks. To achieve this, he used an
anecdote found in History of Alexander the Great by Quintus Curtius Rufus.
According to the story told by Rufus (and retold by Pribojevic), when Philotas son of
Parmenio was put on trial in front of the Macedonian army (large part of which were
the Greeks), Alexander asked him, "Philotas, the Macedonians are going to judge
you, state whether you will use your mother- tongue in front of them." Philotas
answered that he will not, because not everyone will be able to understand him,
which provoked Alexander to respond, that Philota hates his mother-tongue.^"*^


The conclusion Pribojevic draws from this short story is that Philotas decided not to
speak his native language (Macedonian) in front of the army because it was a
different one from the common language of the entire army (Greek). Since the
Macedonians and Greeks did not speak the same language, they can not be
considered the same people. So Hvar Dominican argues:
it has become the custom of old, that the unity of the descent is proved by unity of the
speech, and thus we consider as the members of the same kin, only those who have in
tender age together with the mothers milk, also mothers-tongue received.'^'
This, for him proves that the Macedonians have always, as today, spoke only the
Slavic language, and are therefore Slavs.

in fact modern claims that Makedonian as a Western Greek with Aeolian is closer to Germanic than to Slavic, (R1a maybe?)
search the Aeolian aspirations, will do you good,

Slavic languages as rest Greek turn the vellar-palatal to dental,
Makedonians as primitive Greeks keep the vellars sometimes but always the palatal

 

[Милан М.]

in fact modern linguists claim that Makedonian as a Western Greek with Aeolian is closer to germanic than to Slavic,
search the Aeolian aspirations, will do you good,

I already said that this was Vinko Pribojevic speech and not my work and claims,so i will not argue over it,Macedonian language is scarcely attested,I doubt we can classify the language and even not with Greek,cause even if those were the Macedonian attested words there are many "Thracian and Illyrian" one.

 

[Милан М.]

in fact modern claims that Makedonian as a Western Greek with Aeolian is closer to Germanic than to Slavic, (R1a maybe?)
search the Aeolian aspirations, will do you good,

Slavic languages as rest Greek turn the vellar-palatal to dental,
Makedonians as primitive Greeks keep the vellars sometimes but always the palatal

What is your opinion on the origin of the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantine empire? apart from political disscusion of modern nations.
Basil was born to peasant parents in late 811 (or sometime in the 830s in the estimation of some scholars) at Charioupolis in the Byzantine theme of Macedonia (an administrative division corresponding to the area of Adrianople in Thrace). Contemporary Byzantine Thrace was inhabited by people of Slavic, Greek and Armenian origins. Claims have been made for an Armenian,Slavic,or indeed "Armeno-Slavonic" origin for Basil I. The Irish Byzantinist John Bagnell Bury dismissed claims of his being of Slavic origin on the basis that the Arabs viewed all Macedonians as Slavs (Saqaliba), a view supported by the Greek Peter Charanis, a prominent historian who specialized in ethnic studies of the Byzantine Empire.It must also be understood that the contemporary term "Macedonian" referred to a theme (province) of that name located in western Thrace, rather than the ancient and modern region of Macedonia. The author of the only dedicated biography of Basil I in English has concluded that it is impossible to be certain what the ethnic origins of the emperor were, though Basil was definitely reliant on the support of Armenians in prominent positions within the Byzantine Empire.However, scholarship remains divided on this issue, as claims have also been made that members of the Macedonian dynasty spoke a Slavic dialect alongside Greek.

The Origin of The Dynasty
The question of the origin of the founder of the Macedonian dynasty has called forth many contradictory opinions, mainly because sources vary greatly on this point. While Greek sources speak of the Armenian or Macedonian extraction of Basil I, and Armenian sources assert that he was of pure Armenian blood, Arabic sources call him a Slav. On the one hand, the generally accepted name "Macedonian" is applied to this dynasty, but on the other hand, some scholars still consider Basil an Armenian, and still others, especially Russian historians prior to the seventies of the nineteenth century, speak of him as a Slav. The majority of scholars consider Basil an Armenian who had settled in Macedonia, and speak of his dynasty as the Armenian dynasty. But in view of the fact that there were many Armenians and Slavs among the population of Macedonia, it might be correct to assume that Basil was of mixed Armeno-Slavonic origin. According to one historian who has made a special study of Basil’s time, his family might have had an Armenian ancestry, which later intermarried with Slavs, who were very numerous in this part of Europe, and gradually became very much Slavonized.A more exact definition of the Macedonian dynasty from the point of view of its ethnographic composition might be Armeno-Slavic. In recent years scholars have succeeded in determining that Basil was born in the Macedonian city of Charioupolis.

Basil II the Macedonian - Miniature painting on parchment
Basil’s life previous to his election to the throne was very unusual. As an unknown youth he came to Constantinople to seek his fortune, and there attracted the attention of courtiers by his tall stature, his enormous strength, and his ability to break in the wildest horses. Stories of young Basil reached Emperor Michael III. He took him to court and later became completely subject to his new favorite, who was soon proclaimed co-ruler and crowned with the imperial crown in the temple of St. Sophia. He repaid these favors received from the Emperor very brutally: When he noticed that Michael was becoming suspicious of him, he ordered his men to slay his benefactor, and then proclaimed himself emperor (867-86). After him the throne passed on to his sons, Leo VI the Philosopher or the Wise (886-9I2),and Alexander (886-913). Leo's son, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-59), remained indifferent to affairs of state and devoted all his time to literary work in the midst of the most learned men of his time. The administrative power was in the hands of his father-in-law, the skillful and energetic admiral, Romanus Lecapenus (919-44). In the year 944 the sons of Romanus Lecapenus forced their father to abdicate and retire to a monastery, and declared themselves emperors. They were deposed in 945 by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who ruled independently from 945 until 959. His son, Romanus II, reigned only four years (959-63), leaving at his death his widow Theophano with two minor sons, Basil and Constantine. Theophano married the capable general, Nicephorus Phocas, who was proclaimed emperor (Nicephorus II Phocas, 963-69). His reign ceased when he was slain, and the throne passed to John Tzimisces (969-76), who claimed the imperial title because he had married Theodora, a sister of Romanus II and a daughter of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. Only after the death of John Tzimisces did the two sons of Romanus II, Basil II, surnamed Bulgaroctonus (the Bulgar-Slayer, 970-1025) and Constantine VIII (976-1028), become rulers of the Empire. Administrative power was concentrated mainly in the hands of Basil II, under whom the Empire rose to its highest power and glory. With his death began the period of decline for the Macedonian dynasty. After the death of Constantine VIII the aged senator, Romanus Argyrus, married to Constantine's daughter, Zoe, became emperor and ruled from 1028 until 1034. Zoe survived him, and at the age of about fifty-six married her lover, Michael the Paphlagonian, who was proclaimed emperor at his wife's entreaty, and ruled as Michael IV the Paphlagonian from 1034 to 1041. During his reign and in the brief reign of his nephew, Michael V Calaphates (1041-42), another accidental and insignificant figure, there was much disturbance and acute discontent in the Empire, which ended in the deposition and blinding of Michael V. For about two months the Byzantine Empire was ruled by the unusual combination of authority in the hands of Zoe, widowed for the second time, and of her younger sister, Theodora.

Even if he had drop of Slavonic blood Basil II destroyed the Slavic polity of another man that started as mere rebel of Slavonic origin and rose to prominence from the same region of Macedonia Tsar Samuel.Even origin of Samuel are disputed between Slavic,Armenian and Bulgar although he was not descendant of the Bulgarian Khan dynasty,they find on inscriptions King of Bulgars,to him maybe that meant what to Charlemagne Roman meant,but modern day nationalism make it happen.Even St.Methodius is claimed to be Greek and that by Slavonic nations,as it is hard for them to anknowledge certain things.

 

[Милан М.]

One of the largest rebellion in Byzantine history led by Thomas the Slav.



Thomas the Slav (c. 760 – October 823 AD) was a 9th-century Byzantine military commander, most notable for leading a wide-scale revolt in 821–23 against Emperor Michael II the Amorian (ruled 820–29).


An army officer of Slavic origin from the Pontus region (now north-eastern Turkey), Thomas rose to prominence, along with the future emperors Michael II and Leo V the Armenian (r. 813–820), under the protection of general Bardanes Tourkos.Hence his epithet of "the Slav", which has been applied to him only in modern times.
Nothing is known about his family and early life, except that his parents were poor and that Thomas himself had received no education. Given that he was between 50 and 60 years old at the time of the rebellion, he was probably born around 760.
The 11th-century Theophanes Continuatus states that Thomas was descended from South Slavs resettled in Asia Minor by successive Byzantine emperors.
Two different accounts of Thomas's life are recounted in both Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus. According to the first account, Thomas first appeared in 803 accompanying general Bardanes Tourkos, and pursued a military career until launching his revolt in late 820. In the second version, he came to Constantinople as a poor youth and entered the service of a man with the high court rank of patrikios.
Thomas's rebellion was one of the largest in the Byzantine Empire's history, but its precise circumstances are unclear due to competing historical narratives, which have come to include claims fabricated by Michael to blacken his opponent's name. Consequently, various motives and driving forces have been attributed to Thomas and his followers.

Background and motives

On Christmas Day 820, Leo was murdered in the palace chapel by officials under the direction of Michael the Amorian, who was quickly crowned emperor.At about the same time, Thomas launched a rebellion in the Anatolic Theme. Sources are divided on the exact chronology and motives of the revolt. George the Monk, the hagiographic sources, and a letter from Michael II to the western emperor Louis the Pious claim that Thomas had risen up against Leo before Michael's usurpation. This chronology is followed by almost all later Byzantine chroniclers like Genesios, Theophanes Continuatus, and Skylitzes, as well as a number of modern scholars like John B. Bury and Alexander Kazhdan. In his study of Thomas and the revolt, Paul Lemerle dismisses this timeline as a later attempt by Michael to justify his revolt as a response to Leo's failure to suppress the rebellion, and to exculpate himself of the early defeats suffered by the imperial forces.Some recent studies follow Lemerle and prefer the account of Symeon Logothetes—generally considered the most accurate of the 10th-century sources—according to which Thomas rebelled a few days after the murder of Leo and in reaction to it.


Two rivals fought for a crown, which one of them had seized, but could not yet be said to have firmly grasped. Michael had been regularly elected, acclaimed, and crowned in the capital, and he had the advantage of possessing the Imperial city. [Thomas] had the support of most of the Asiatic provinces; he was only a rebel because he failed.
John B. Bury


Consequently the empire became divided in a struggle that was less a rebellion against the established government and more a contest for the throne between equal contenders. Michael held Constantinople and the European provinces, controlled the imperial bureaucracy, and had been properly crowned by the Patriarch, but he had come to the throne through murder, while Thomas gained support and legitimacy through his claim to avenge the fallen Leo, and he won the backing of themes both in Asia and later in Europe.Thomas was a well-known, popular, and respected figure in Asia Minor, where Leo V had enjoyed considerable support. Michael, on the other hand, was virtually unknown outside the capital; his military record was unremarkable, he was uneducated and coarse of manner, his stutter earned him ridicule, and he was reputed to sympathize with the heretical religious sect of the Athinganoi, to which his family had belonged.


Byzantine accounts of Thomas's rebellion state that he did not in fact claim the throne under his own name but assumed the identity of Emperor Constantine VI, who had been deposed and murdered by his mother, Irene of Athens, in 797.Most modern scholars follow Lemerle, who dismisses this as yet another later fabrication. If it contains any truth, it is possible that this story may originate from Thomas choosing to be crowned under the regnal name of "Constantine", but there is no evidence for such an act.The possible appropriation of Constantine VI's identity is linked in some Byzantine sources with the statement that Thomas was a rumoured supporter of iconolatry, as opposed to Michael's support for iconoclasm: it was under Constantine VI that veneration of the icons was restored. Nevertheless, the ambiguous phrasing of the sources, the iconoclast leanings of many themes in Asia Minor, and Thomas's alliance with the Arabs seem to speak against any open commitment to icon worship on his part.However, given Michael II's conciliatory approach during his early reign, the icon worship controversy does not seem to have been a major issue at the time, and in the view of modern scholars most probably did not play a major role in Thomas's revolt. The image of Thomas as an iconophile champion opposed to the iconoclast Michael II in later, Macedonian-era sources was probably the result of their own anti-iconoclast bias.Warren Treadgold furthermore suggests that if true, Thomas's claim to be Constantine VI may have been little more than a tale circulated to win support, and that Thomas pursued a "studied ambiguity" towards icons, designed to attract support from iconophiles. In Treadgold's words, "Thomas could be all things to all men until he had conquered the whole empire, and then he would have time enough to disappoint some of his followers".


The account of Theophanes Continuatus on Thomas's revolt states that in this time, "the servant raised his hand against his master, the soldier against his officer, the captain against his general". This has led some scholars, chiefly Alexander Vasiliev and George Ostrogorsky, to regard Thomas's revolt as an expression of widespread discontent among the rural population, which suffered under heavy taxation. Other Byzantinists, notably Lemerle, dismiss rural discontent as a primary factor during the revolt.


Genesios and other chroniclers further state that Thomas won the support of "Hagarenes, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medians, Abasgians, Zichs, Iberians, Kabirs, Slavs, Huns, Vandals, Getae, the sectarians of Manes, Laz, Alanians, Chaldians, Armenians and every kind of other peoples". This has led to modern claims that Thomas's rebellion represented an uprising of the empire's non-Greek ethnic groups,but according to Lemerle, this exaggerated account is yet another piece of hostile disinformation. It is almost certain, however, that Thomas could count on support among the empire's Caucasian neighbours, for the presence of Abasgians, Armenians, and Iberians in his army is mentioned in the near-contemporary letter of Michael II to Louis the Pious. The reasons for this support are unclear; Thomas may have made unspecified promises to their rulers, but Lemerle suggests that the Armenians might have in part been motivated by revenge for Leo, their murdered kinsman.


Outbreak and spread of the revolt in Asia Minor

As commander of the Foederati, Thomas was based at Amorion, city in Phrygia, Asia Minor , the capital of the Anatolic Theme. Although junior to the theme's strategos (military governor), his proclamation received widespread support throughout Asia Minor. Within a short time, all the Asian themes supported Thomas, except for the Opsician Theme under the patrician Katakylas, a nephew of Michael II, and the Armeniac Theme, under its strategos, Olbianos. The Thracesian Theme wavered between the two rivals, but finally threw its support behind Thomas. More than two-thirds of the empire's Asian army eventually aligned with Thomas, while the defection of the provincial tax officials provided him with much-needed revenue.


Michael's first response was to order the Armeniac army to attack Thomas. The Armeniacs were easily defeated in battle and Thomas proceeded through the eastern parts of the Armeniac Theme to occupy the frontier region of Chaldia.His conquest of the Armeniac province was left incomplete because the Abbasids, taking advantage of the Byzantine civil war, launched raids by land and sea against southern Asia Minor, where Thomas had left few troops. Instead of returning to face these raids, Thomas launched a large-scale invasion of his own against Abbasid territory in spring 821, either in Syria (according to Bury and others) or in Arab-held Armenia (according to Treadgold).Thomas then sent an emissary to the Caliph al-Ma'mun, who was sufficiently impressed by Thomas's show of force to receive his proposals, especially in view of the Caliphate's own problems with the rebellion of the Khurramites under Babak Khorramdin. Thomas and Ma'mun concluded a treaty of peace and mutual alliance. The Caliph allowed Thomas to recruit men from Arab-ruled territories, and gave leave for him to cross the border and travel to Arab-held Antioch, where he was crowned emperor by the iconophile Patriarch of Antioch,In exchange, Thomas is said to have promised to cede unspecified territories and become a tributary vassal of the Caliph, though the agreement's exact terms are left unclear in the sources. At about the same time, Thomas adopted an young man of obscure origin, whom he named Constantius and made his co-emperor.


Meanwhile, Michael II tried to win support among the iconophiles by appointing a relative of his as Archbishop of Ephesus, but his plan failed when the latter refused to be consecrated by the avowedly iconoclast Patriarch Antony I Kassimates. In an effort to consolidate his hold on the provinces, and especially the two Asian themes still loyal to him, Michael proclaimed a 25 percent reduction in taxes for 821–822.
By summer 821, Thomas had consolidated his position in the East, though the Opsician and Armeniac themes still eluded his control. He set his sights on the ultimate prize, Constantinople, the possession of which alone conferred full legitimacy to an emperor. Thomas assembled troops, gathered supplies, and built siege machines. To counter the powerful Imperial Fleet stationed in the capital, he built new ships to augment his existing fleet, which came from the Cibyrrhaeot and Aegean Sea naval themes, and possibly included task forces from the theme of Hellas.Thomas recalled Gregory Pterotos, a general and nephew of Leo V whom Michael had exiled to the island of Skyros, and gave him command of the fleet. By October, the thematic fleets loyal to Thomas had finished assembling at Lesbos, and Thomas's army began marching from the Thracesian Theme towards Abydos, where he intended to cross over into Europe.


At this point, Thomas suffered his first reversal of fortune: before his departure for Abydos, he had sent an army under his adoptive son Constantius against the Armeniacs. Constantius was ambushed by strategos Olbianos and killed, although the army was able to withdraw with relatively few casualties. Constantius's severed head was sent to Michael, who dispatched it to Thomas at Abydos.Thomas was undaunted by this relatively minor setback, and crossed over into Europe some time in late October or early November. There, Constantius was soon replaced as co-emperor by another obscure individual, a former monk whom Thomas also adopted and named Anastasius.


Siege of Constantinople


Constantinople and its walls during the Byzantine era
Anticipating Thomas's move, Michael had gone out at the head of an army to the themes of Thrace and Macedonia in Constantinople's European hinterland and strengthened the garrisons of several fortresses there to secure the loyalty of their populace. When Thomas landed, the people of the European themes welcomed him with enthusiasm, and Michael was forced to withdraw to Constantinople. Volunteers, including many Slavs, flocked to Thomas's banner. As he set out towards Constantinople, chroniclers recount that his army swelled to some 80,000 men.The capital was defended by the imperial tagmata, augmented by reinforcements from the Opsician and Armeniac themes. Michael had ordered the city walls to be repaired, and chained off the entrance to the Golden Horn, while the Imperial Fleet further guarded the capital from the sea. Nevertheless, judging from Michael's passive stance, his forces were inferior to Thomas's; Warren Treadgold estimates Michael's army to have numbered approximately 35,000 men.
Thomas's fleet arrived at the capital first. Facing no opposition from the Imperial Fleet, the rebels broke or unfastened the chain and entered the Golden Horn, taking station near the mouths of the Barbysos river, where they awaited the arrival of Thomas and his army.Thomas arrived in early December. The sight of his huge force did not cow the capital's inhabitants: unlike the provinces, the capital's citizens and garrison stood firmly behind Michael. To further encourage his troops, Michael had his young son Theophilos lead a procession along the walls, carrying a piece of the True Cross and the mantle of the Virgin Mary, while a large standard was hoisted on top of the Church of St. Mary at Blachernae, in full view of both armies.
After subduing the cities around the capital, Thomas resolved to attack Constantinople from three sides, perhaps hoping his assault would impress its inhabitants or lead to defections. His deputies Anastasius and Gregory Pterotos would attack the Theodosian land and sea walls, respectively, while he would lead the main attack against the less formidable defenses protecting Blachernae. All of Thomas's forces were amply supplied with siege engines and catapults, and his fleet fielded quantities of Greek fire in addition to large shipborne catapults.Each of Thomas's attacks failed: the defenders' artillery proved superior and kept Thomas's engines away from the land walls, while adverse winds hindered the fleet from taking any meaningful action. Deciding that operations in the midst of winter were hazardous and unlikely to succeed, Thomas suspended all further attacks until spring and withdrew his army to winter quarters.
Michael used the respite to ferry in additional reinforcements from Asia Minor and repair the walls of Blachernae. When Thomas returned in spring, he decided to focus his attack on the Blachernae sector. Before the offensive, Michael himself ascended the walls and addressed Thomas's troops, exhorting them to abandon their commander and promising amnesty if they would defect. Thomas's army viewed the plea as a sign of weakness, and advanced confidently to begin the assault, but as they neared the wall, the defenders opened the gates and attacked. The sudden onslaught drove back Thomas's army; at the same time, the Imperial Fleet defeated Thomas's ships, whose crews broke and fled to the shore in panic.This defeat diminished Thomas's naval strength, and although he continued blockading the capital by land, the loss demoralized his supporters, who began defecting. Gregory Pterotos, whose family was in Michael's hands, resolved to desert Thomas, followed by a small band of men loyal to him. He departed the rebel camp, headed west, and sent a monk to inform Michael of his defection, but the monk failed to circumvent the blockade and reach the capital. Upon learning of this defection, Thomas reacted quickly: with a select detachment, he followed Gregory, defeated his troops and killed the deserter.
Thomas exploited this small victory for all it was worth, widely proclaiming that he had defeated Michael's troops "by land and sea". He sent messages to the themes of Greece, whose support had been lukewarm until that point, demanding additional ships. The themes responded forcefully, sending their squadrons, allegedly numbering 350 vessels, to join him. Thus reinforced, Thomas decided to launch a two-pronged assault against Constantinople's sea walls, with his original fleet attacking the wall of the Golden Horn, and the new fleet attacking the south coast, looking towards the Sea of Marmara. Michael, however, did not remain idle: his own fleet attacked the thematic force soon after it arrived at its anchorage in Byrida. Using Greek fire, the Imperial Fleet destroyed many of the rebel vessels and captured most of the remaining ships. Only a few managed to escape and rejoin Thomas's forces.
Through this victory, Michael secured control of the sea, but Thomas's army remained superior on land and continued its blockade of Constantinople. Minor skirmishes ensued for the remainder of the year, with Michael's forces sallying forth from the city to attack Thomas's forces. Although both sides claimed minor successes in these clashes, neither was able to gain a decisive advantage.
The Bulgarians under Omurtag attack Thomas's army.
Michael turned to the empire's northern neighbour, Bulgaria, for help. The two states were bound by a 30-year treaty signed under Leo V, and the Bulgarian ruler, khan Omurtag (r. 814–831), was happy to respond to Michael's request for assistance. A later tradition, reported by Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus, holds that Omurtag acted of his own accord and against Michael's will, but this is almost universally rejected as a version started or at least encouraged by Michael, who did not wish to be seen encouraging "barbarians" to invade the empire.The Bulgarian army invaded Thrace, probably in November 822 (Bury believes that the Bulgarian attack occurred in spring 823), and advanced towards Constantinople. Thomas raised the siege, and marched to meet them with his army. The two armies met at a plain with an aqueduct near Heraclea (hence known as the Battle of Kedouktos in the Byzantine sources) . The accounts of the subsequent battle differ: the later sources state that Thomas lost the battle, but the near-contemporary George the Monk states that Thomas "killed many Bulgarians". Given the lack of Bulgarian activity after the battle, most modern scholars (with the notable exception of Bury) believe that Thomas won the battle.


Defeat and death of Thomas, end of the revolt


Thomas was unable to resume the siege: aside from the heavy casualties his army likely suffered, his fleet, which he had left behind in the Golden Horn, surrendered to Michael during his absence. Thomas set up camp at the plain of Diabasis, spending winter and early spring some 40 kilometres (25 mi) west of Constantinople. While a few of his men deserted, the bulk remained loyal.Finally, in late April or early May 823, Michael marched with his troops against Thomas, accompanied by the generals Olbianos and Katakylas with new troops from Asia Minor. Thomas marched to meet them and planned to use a stratagem to outwit his opponents: his men, ostensibly demoralized, would pretend to flee, and when the imperial army broke ranks to pursue them, they would turn back and attack. However, Thomas's troops were by now weary of the prolonged conflict, and their submission was unfeigned. Many surrendered to Michael, while others fled to nearby fortified cities. Thomas sought refuge in Arcadiopolis with a large group; his adopted son Anastasius went with some of Thomas's men to Bizye, and others fled to Panium and Heraclea.
Michael blockaded Thomas's cities of refuge but organized no assaults, instead aiming to capture them peacefully by wearing out their defenders. His strategy was motivated by the political and propaganda expedient of appearing merciful—"in order to spare Christian blood", as Michael himself put it in his letter to Louis the Pious—but also, according to the chroniclers, by fear of demonstrating to the Bulgarians that the Byzantine cities' fortifications could fall to attack.In Asia Minor, Thomas's partisans hoped to lure Michael away by allowing the Arabs free passage to raid the provinces of Opsikion and Optimaton, which were loyal to the emperor. Michael was unmoved and continued the blockade. His troops barred access to Arcadiopolis with a ditch. To conserve supplies, the blockaded troops sent away women and children, followed by those too old, wounded, or otherwise incapable of bearing arms. After five months of blockade, Thomas's loyalists were eventually forced to eat starved horses and their hides. Some began deserting by lowering themselves with ropes over the city walls or jumping from them. Thomas sent messengers to Bizye, where the blockade was less close, to arrange a relief attempt by Anastasius. Before anything could be done, however, the exhausted troops at Arcadiopolis surrendered their leader in exchange for an imperial pardon.Thomas was delivered to Michael seated on a donkey and bound in chains. He was prostrated before the emperor, who placed his foot on his defeated rival's neck and ordered his hands and feet cut off and his corpse impaled. Thomas pleaded for clemency with the words "Have mercy on me, oh True Emperor!" Michael only asked his captive to reveal whether any of his own senior officials had had dealings with Thomas. Before Thomas could respond, the Logothete of the Course, John Hexaboulios, advised against hearing whatever claims a defeated rebel might make. Michael agreed, and Thomas's sentence was carried out immediately.


When the inhabitants of Bizye heard of Thomas's fate, they surrendered Anastasius, who suffered the same fate as Thomas. In Panium and Heraclea, Thomas's men held out until an earthquake struck in February 824. The tremor severely damaged the wall of Panium, and the city surrendered. The damage at Heraclea was less severe, but after Michael landed troops at its seaward side, it too was forced to surrender.In Asia Minor, Thomas's loyalists mostly submitted peacefully, but in the Cibyrrhaeot Theme, resistance lingered until suppressed by strategos John Echimos. In the Thracesian theme, Thomas's soldiers turned to brigandage. The most serious opposition was offered in central Asia Minor by two officers, who had possibly served Thomas as strategoi: Choireus, with his base at Kaballa northwest of Iconium, and Gazarenos Koloneiates, based at Saniana, southeast of Ancyra. From their strongholds, they spurned Michael's offer of a pardon and the high title of magistros and raided the provinces that had gone over to him. Soon, however, Michael's agents persuaded the inhabitants of the two forts to shut their gates against the officers. Choireus and Koloneiates then tried to seek refuge in Arab territory but were attacked en route by loyalist troops, captured, and crucified.


Aftermath and effects


The end of Thomas the Slav's great rebellion was marked by Michael II's triumph, held in May 824 in Constantinople. While he executed Thomas's volunteers from the Caliphate and perhaps also the Slavs, the sheer number of individuals involved, the necessity of appearing clement and sparing with Christian lives, and the need to restore internal tranquillity to his realm compelled Michael to treat Thomas's defeated partisans with leniency: most were released after being paraded in the Hippodrome during his celebration, and only the most dangerous were exiled to remote corners of the empire. In an effort to discredit his opponent, Michael authorized an "official" and heavily-distorted version of Thomas's life and revolt. The document was written by the deacon Ignatios and published in 824 as Against Thomas. This report quickly became the commonly-accepted version of events.


Thomas failed in spite of his qualities and the widespread support he had gained, which brought him control of most of the empire. Lemerle holds that several factors played a role in his defeat: the Asian themes he did not subdue supplied reinforcements to Michael; Thomas's fleet performed badly; and the Bulgarian offensive diverted him away from the capital and weakened his army. But the most decisive obstacles were the impregnable walls of Constantinople, which ensured that an emperor who controlled Constantinople could only be overthrown from within the city.


Thomas's rebellion was the "central domestic event" of Michael II's reign, but it was not very destructive in material terms: except for Thrace, which had suffered from the prolonged presence of the rival armies and the battles fought there, the larger part of the empire was spared the ravages of war. The Byzantine navy suffered great losses, with the thematic fleets in particular being devastated, while the land forces suffered comparatively few casualties.This is traditionally held to have resulted in a military weakness and internal disorder which was swiftly exploited by the Muslims: in the years after Thomas's rebellion, Andalusian exiles captured Crete and the Tunisian Aghlabids began their conquest of Sicily, while in the East, the Byzantines were forced to maintain a generally defensive stance towards the Caliphate.More recent scholarship has disputed the degree to which the civil war was responsible for Byzantine military failures during these years, citing other reasons to explain them: Warren Treadgold opines that the empire's military forces recovered fairly quickly, and that incompetent military leadership coupled with "the remoteness of Sicily, the absence of regular troops on Crete, the simultaneity of the attacks on both islands, and the government's long-standing lack of interest in sea-power" were far more responsible for the loss of the islands.

 

[MOESAN]

either this either that Sun always shine when is not cloudy,

you can search Duridanov's work and Georgiev's, Itrust them a lot,
I could also give you some Greek thracologist, who search Thracian in Greek language, but these 2 are enough,
anyway I wrote in many previous threads about, so i am not going to repeat,
by the little true Thracian we know, they even are connected with Armenian and Scottish,
the myth of Balto-Slavic origin of Thracian seems anachronistic, they are either brother languages or sprunk from Thracian
it is rather the oposite,
in Fact sometimes I believe that even Gothic/Germanic sprunk from Thracian, but many linguists in forum show me not

remember thracian was spoken even in Kaspian sea and minor Asia as historians say

Tios Bakchos (Phrygian Thracian) become Θεος compined with Dios, and Bog
Thracian Muca = tribe Scottish Mac = clan Slavic Muscι Μuscarat = man Iran Muka =son
bekos = food Bread goes peka pekara in Slavic
mezena horseman exists only in Albanian Romanian
ostas river water Bulgarian uostije
saldas gold Slavic Zalta Zlata
as you see you can not put Thracian in modern, or connected with just one group,
they are even connected with Avestan Homeric and Indian

I'm a bit out of topic here, Yetos, but some examples cannot prove anything; the seldom thracian words we have are by definition of an old stage of I-Ean dialect and it is easy to find words (cognates) shared by different today families of I-Ean languages, when searching old stages or proto-stages. I can show you celtic words cognate with slavic words, what cannot prove a recent common origin nor even recent contacts. This applies too to some of the "slavic" placenames of Pannonia cited by Milan, I think. Indo-Iranian languages share too some words with occidental I-Ean modern languages, germanic by instance. Nobody would say old Indo-iranian was not already a well enough separated language from western I-Ean ones.
By the way, I don't see any evident link between the 'mac' ('mab') / 'muka' words and the slavic words formed upon 'musc-'

concenring 'med' ("drink"): welsh 'medd' : "hydromel" - welsh 'meddw', breton 'mezw' : "drunk" -
that said, I agree a common satem origin and archaïc forms can explain the most of the thracian and balto-slavic convergences, without making all the same of them.

 

[Милан М.]

in fact modern claims that Makedonian as a Western Greek with Aeolian is closer to Germanic than to Slavic, (R1a maybe?)
search the Aeolian aspirations, will do you good,

Slavic languages as rest Greek turn the vellar-palatal to dental,
Makedonians as primitive Greeks keep the vellars sometimes but always the palatal

The Paeonians have used the sun as a symbol even before the Macedonians?what does you thing from where is adopted?

This was find in the village in North Macedonia here,non active vulcano with very ancient settlements arround,one of the oldest ancient observatories discovered in Kokino which is very near.

This is from some other site,sun on pottery in Bylazora

Ancient Paeonia with it's capital Byla Zora,which in Slavic mean white dawn,near Veles,in Thesally there is town Volos,Slavic deity Veles.

Was the Macedonians and Paeonians related people?
No offense to you but i think the Greek state has no moral right neither the international powers to dictate what people will use as symbol or call themselves,maybe it is just their memory which can not be erased by show of force.Macedonia as a region precede every other modern state in the region,so deny it,it's just someone wish for land grab from the neighbors.

 

[Милан М.]

I find this coins online but it's interesting by whom were used trough history.depicts the head of a boar pierced by an arrow.

Kingdom of Paeonia, Paeonia was independent of Macedonia from 359 to 286 B.C.

Kingdom of Paeonia, Patraos left, 335 - 315 B.C.

The Coat of arms of Triballia (Serbian: Грб Трибалије/Grb Tribalije or Грб Тривалије/Grb Trivalije) is a historical coat of arms attributed to medieval Serbia by various armorials, and is today depicted in several Serbian municipality coat of arms in Šumadija. The Triballi were an ancient tribe whose ethnonym was used as an exonym for Serbs by the Byzantines in the Middle Ages.The Triballian coat of arms depicts the head of a boar pierced by an arrow. It was adopted by Karađorđe into the seal of the Revolutionary Serbian government (the Praviteljstvujušči sovjet serbski), alongside the Serbian cross.

Serbian Emperor's coa, Prussian ed. Chronicle of the Council of Constance (before 1437)

Serbian (Triballia) coat of arms, Wernigeroder Schaffhausensches Wappenbuch (between 1486 and 1492)

Government seal during the First Serbian Uprising (1805–1813)

 

[Милан М.]

Some early Slavic names:

Neboulos (Greek: Νέβουλος) was a South Slavic military commander in the service of the Byzantine emperor Justinian II 685–695 and 705–711


Perbundos (Greek: Περβοῦνδος, Perboundos) was a 7th-century king of the Rhynchinoi, a Slavic group in Macedonia.


Late 8th century Greek chronicler Theophanes writes Slavic names as Άρδάγαστος (Ardágastos) and Δαργαμηρός (Dargamērós)
Old Church Slavonic versions of these names would be Radogostъ and Dragoměrъ.

What is interesting names are connected to deities;

Neboulos probably is derrived from Nebo-sky,Nebeleizis(Gebeleizis) was the deity of the Getae.

Perbundos Slavic god of thunder Perun,Thracian Perkon/Perkun etc

Radogast,Radegast is is an old god of Slavic mythology.

Daurentius-Davor is an old South Slavic given name possibly derived from the prehistoric Slavic god of war (equivalent of Mars) or from an old exclamation expressing joy or sorrow.other variants-Davorin.


Other names.
Mezamir was the chieftain of the Antes, an early Slavic tribal confederation in Eastern Europe and had a brother, Kelagast.
Dragoměrъ
Vladimir
Tihomir leader of Belegezites in 7th century.
Some Getae similar names Valamir,Vidimer.


Dervan is another name.


In my opinion the ending Slav in Slavic names like;
Miroslav
Vladislav
which in our language come from Slava-glory seem to be the last in our names,since names like those are recorded bit later.

 

[Милан М.]

Yetos this is interesting about Macedonian royals,this is in Bylazora.Text from Ancient origins.





18 JANUARY, 2015 - 13:13 APRILHOLLOWAY
Astronomical alignment of geoglyph in Republic of Macedonia may point to Royal connection

A multidisciplinary study of a geoglyph located atop a hill in Kanda in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), has unravelled a series of incredible features of the ancient structure, including the artificial construction of the hill an astronomical alignment with the constellation of Cassiopeia, which may point to a connection with Macedonian royalty.
The research was carried out by the SB Research Group (SBRG), an international and
interdisciplinary team of researchers (from Italy, Croatia, Serbia, Finland and United Kingdom) that combines astronomy, philosophy, mythology, mathematics and physics in the study of ancient sites and temples in Europe.
The SBRG combined multiple methods, including infra-/ultrasound research, AMT measurements, binary algorithm synthesis from audio waves, data sonification, and dowsing, to study the ancient geoglyph and hill, which is located in the vicinity of the town of Sveti Nikole in Kanda. The hill is an egg-shaped mound, perfectly oriented North-South, measuring approximately 85 meters (280ft) by 45 meters (148ft). On top of the hill is a geoglyph of a giant symbol sitting within an oval ditch.
“The whole structure, with its shape and symbolism, resembles a cosmic egg – the source of primordial creation,” reports the research team in a paper titled ‘Archaeoacoustic analysis of the ancient site of Kanda (Macedonia)’.

Aerial photograph of the hill and geoglyph in Kanda. Credit: SBRG​

Artificial Hill

An aerial analysis using an infrared camera revealed a different composition of the soil in the hill compared to the surrounding soil.
“This difference is particularly evident when comparing the uncultivated field to the left on South side of the Geoglyph,” the researchers write. “In this area, the same vegetation covers the soil, yet two different colours are visible due to the different composition of the soil refracted by the sun light in different ways.”
The researchers maintain that this supports the hypothesis that the hill is man-made and was built as a ritual mound, either by reshaping an existing hill or constructing it from scratch on the flat field.
They report: “since the soil does not match the surrounding area, it would certainly appear that this mound has been carefully constructed with a specific purpose in mind. What exactly that purpose is remains to be investigated in future.”

The research team were able to determine that the soil composition of the hill is different to the surrounding soil, pointing to an artificial construction. Credit: SBRG​

Underground chamber and water source

The SBRG carried out an electromagnetic spectrum analysis at the site of the Geoglyph, which indicated a high probability of there being an underground water stream. This result was also supported by infrasound and audio-magnetotelluric (AMT) recordings. The water appears to be located at the centre of the hill and geoglyph, or at some point along its major axis.
In addition, further electromagnetic spectrum values obtained through audio-magnetotelluric recordings also point to the possibility of an underground chamber (or several smaller cavities).
“Our measurements do not allow high-precision results,” the researchers write, “but further and detailed analysis of the measured values could provide a better indication of the shape of that object”.
Geoglyph symbology

On top of the artificial mound, is a geoglyph of a symbol enclosed within an oval ditch. According to the researchers, the geoglyph carries a deep symbolic meaning and may reflect a connection to Macedonian royalty. They write:

In the Macedonian transcription of the demotic script the Geoglyph symbol represents the god Se, the all-seeing and all sustaining deity of Macedonia. Se was the firstborn son of the Great Mother and the Supreme God of ancient Macedonians who created the whole Universe. Thus, Se was also called The First. The Supreme Creator and the Great Mother have also created Macedonia and they incarnate in the personages of the king and queen of Macedonia. This theology is completely in line with the Dionysian mystery schools to which belonged Olympia, the mother of Alexander the Great, which is mentioned by Plutarch in his text ‘Life of Alexander’.
​

​

The mysterious symbol found on top of the artificial hill in Kanda. Credit: SBRG​

Astronomical alignment

The research team found that the geoglyph is aligned to the constellation of Cassiopeia, which is named after queen Cassiopeia in Greek mythology, who boasted about her unrivalled beauty.
“Symbol in question is aligned to the constellation of Cassiopeia which in mythology is known as the Queen of Heaven, the Great Mother and the mother of Andromeda who becomes the wife of the savior Perseus,” the researchers write. “The importance of Perseus in Macedonian mythology cannot be overestimated. This name appears in the royal dynasty: the last Macedonian king was Perseus. There are numerous coins from the Macedonian royal mint with the depictions of mythical Perseus who seems to have been the “higher self”
of Macedonian kings.”
Intriguingly, the constellation of Cassiopeia lies directly to the north and stands vertically above the geoglyph in the skies zenith at sunrise on 21/22 July (the birth date of Alexander the Great). Cassiopeia makes a full circle around Polaris (the Pole Star) every day and its vertical alignment with Polaris coincides with the sunrise on the day believed to be the birthday of Alexander the Great.

The pattern made by Cassiopeia and Polaris, the Pole Star, resembles the geoglyph atop the mound. Credit: SBRG​

“It is at this very sunrise that we have a picture that exactly responds to our Geoglyph by which a perfect harmony of Sky and Earth is being formed,” report the researchers. “The similarity is breathtaking.”
The fact that the constellation of Cassiopeia with Polaris mirrors the geoglyph on the ritual mound, at sunrise on the date that Alexander the Great was born, has led the research team to suggest that the mound could be a tomb of someone from his dynasty.

Celestial-earthly mirror: As above so below. Geoglyph shaped like cosmic egg reflecting the celestial picture. The moment and symbolism coincides with the birthday of Alexander the Great. Credit: SBRG​

Vicinity to site of Macedonian royals

The geoglyph mound is located close to an archaeological site known as Bylazora, a Paeonian city from the period of early classic antiquity. It was initially believed that Bylazora, which was first excavated in 2008, was merely a citadel of the Paeonians, which historians connect to Illyrians, Thracians, Greeks, Macedonians or even Pelasgians. However, according to SBRG, the last archaeological findings at Bylazora suggested the site was connected to the Macedonian kings. The site includes elaborate temples and buildings and is believed to be a formal town of the Macedonian royals.

Aerial photograph of Bylazora. Credit: SBRG​

The fascinating findings at the geoglyph of Kanda shed new light on this mysterious construction. And while the discoveries raise more questions than answers, the researchers believe that, taken together, the findings suggest that the mound may be the burial place of a very important person from Macedonian history. Only time will tell.
Excavations are yet in progress.

 

[Милан М.]

Stobi developed from a Paeonian settlement established in the Archaic period. Located on the northern side of a terrace, the early town covered an area of about 25,000 m2 (270,000 sq ft).The name Stobi is Paeonian and meant "post, pillar" and is akin, Old Church Slavonic stoboru "pillar",Macedonian Slavic stolb meaning "post, pillar" Old Prussian stabis "rock" English staff, Old English stapol "post", and archaic Greek stobos "scolding, bad language"
In 168 BC, the Romans defeated Perseus and Macedonia was divided into four nominally independent republics. The town was first mentioned in 197 BC by Livius.
Roman theatre

Baptisterium in the basilica

Ruins at Stobi

Relief

 

[Милан М.]

Old customs of Slavic wifes;

Pseudo Maurice the author of Strategikon in his long chapter about Sclavenes in the Balkan campaigns writes that Slavic wifes commit suicide uppon the dead of their husband.
Herodotus thousand years earlier mention how Thracian wifes commit suicide uppon the death of their husband.

Meda of Odessos (Ancient Greek: Μήδα Mḗda), died 336 BC, was a Thracian princess, daughter of the king Cothelas of Getae and wife of king Philip II of Macedon father of Alexander the Great. Philip married her after Olympias.Jordanes call her Medopa himself of Getic descend.According to N. G. L. Hammond, when Philip died, Meda committed suicide so that she would follow Philip to the Ades,.The people of Macedonia,buried her with him at the Great Tumuli of Vergina, in a separate room.

Now if Theophylact Simocatta call the Sclavenes Getae and tell as that that is their older name,some "striking" similarities also in culture or coincidence,if we take in mind that Sclavinia was not ethnic adjective but territory out of Roman control something like Enclave today,which he was some of the first authors to use such political interpratations,in today historiography translated as "Slavs" which made their first appearance in the 6th century.

 

[arvistro]

That is not necessarily Slavic. Sati is also Indo-Iranian and I am not sure about Germanics.

 

[Милан М.]

That is not necessarily Slavic. Sati is also Indo-Iranian and I am not sure about Germanics.

Wait a minute India is too far from the Balkans,Getae lived on the Balkans and above not in India,we have authors that say that that is the older name of the Sclavenes which in same time appear in same places with same customs? you should explain all that i guess.

 

[arvistro]

Only Indian part of Indo-Iranians lived in India, the Iranian tribes (Scythians) lived in Europe too and were known to Greeks. Quick google give me this:
http://adaniel.tripod.com/sati.htm
Even though Sati is considered an Indian custom or a Hindu custom it was not practiced all over India by all Hindus but only among certain communities of India. On the other hand, sacrificing the widow in her dead husband's funeral or pyre was not unique only to India. In many ancient communities it was an acceptable feature. This custom was prevalent among Egyptians, Greek, Goths, Scythians and others. Among these communities it was a custom to bury the dead king with his mistresses or wives, servants and other things so that they could continue to serve him in the next world.
Another theory claims that Sati was probably brought to India by the Scythians invaders of India. When these Scythians arrived in India, they adopted the Indian system of funeral, which was cremating the dead. And so instead of burying their kings and his servers they started cremating their dead with his surviving lovers. The Scythians were warrior tribes and they were given a status of warrior castes in Hindu religious hierarchy. Many of the Rajput clans are believed to originate from the Scythians. Later on other castes who claimed warrior status or higher also adopted this custom.

 

[Милан М.]

Only Indian part of Indo-Iranians lived in India, the Iranian tribes (Scythians) lived in Europe too and were known to Greeks. Quick google give me this:
http://adaniel.tripod.com/sati.htm
Even though Sati is considered an Indian custom or a Hindu custom it was not practiced all over India by all Hindus but only among certain communities of India. On the other hand, sacrificing the widow in her dead husband's funeral or pyre was not unique only to India. In many ancient communities it was an acceptable feature. This custom was prevalent among Egyptians, Greek, Goths, Scythians and others. Among these communities it was a custom to bury the dead king with his mistresses or wives, servants and other things so that they could continue to serve him in the next world.
Another theory claims that Sati was probably brought to India by the Scythians invaders of India. When these Scythians arrived in India, they adopted the Indian system of funeral, which was cremating the dead. And so instead of burying their kings and his servers they started cremating their dead with his surviving lovers. The Scythians were warrior tribes and they were given a status of warrior castes in Hindu religious hierarchy. Many of the Rajput clans are believed to originate from the Scythians. Later on other castes who claimed warrior status or higher also adopted this custom.

I was not talking about Scythians i post something different,apart from that Goths cited here are the Getae which i was writing for,Herodotus will surely knew if the Greeks used this before the Thracians but could be adopted custom later from the Thracians.Thracians,Scythian,Indian,Greek,Egyptian connection surely existed so this is no new,also in other religious beliefs.

 

[Милан М.]

Similarities between Herodotus to Abraham ben Jacob of different people in different times? Vinko Pribojevic,Mario Alinei and some other supporters of such ethnogensis.

Herodotus about the Thracians:

The Thracians are the most powerful people in the world,second most numerous after the Indians; and if they had one head, or were agreed among themselves, it is my belief that their match could not be found anywhere,
and that they would very far surpass all other nations. But such union
is impossible for them, and there are no means of ever bringing it
about. Herein therefore consists their weakness. The Thracians bear
many names in the different regions of their country, but all of them
have like usages in every respect, excepting only the Getae, the Trausi,
and those who dwell above the people of Creston.


Abraham ben Jacob (a 10th century Sephardic Jewish traveller from Muslim Spain):


Slavic countries extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Northern Ocean.Generally speaking, Slavs are warlike and violent, and if not their internal discord and lack of unity, no other nation would be able to match them in strength. (...)"


In Herodotus eyes and time perhaps this was how Thracian lands looked like.

Ever since Vinko Pribojevic the founder of the Pan Slavic movement established Thyras and the Thracians as father of the Slavs in the 16th century,Currently Mario Alinei the author of Paleolithic continuity support such ethnogenesis of the Slavs,which i am myself supporter of such ethnogenesis which make much more sense to me.