But where is Europe
e-mai...@netactive.co.za
(Considering all the academics on the gp, that is surely not too formal?)
I have been a lurker on the ng for about a month or so, and recently posted
to, and got good replies from, this ng. So I hope this question, one which
has puzzled me for a long time as I try to comprehend the collective mind of
"the West", will be seen as fair and relevant.
Namely, in the Medieval Period, where was the Eastern Boundary of
Christendom??
I believe I know the answer, but I wonder, from having read so many western
books, publications, articles and so forth, whether Western academics know?
Is it any of these:
1. The Catholic/Orthodox divide.
2. The eastern boundary of the Holy Roman Empire.
3. Arbitrary.
4. A function of our present politics. (EG, Poland or Hungary are "East"
because the Soviets say so, now they are "West", because NATO says so...)
Or is there more sense to it than that??
I would really appreciate also the "why" of your given answer.
Thank you in advance,
Chris Szabo
Chris Price
> <snip>
>
> Namely, in the Medieval Period, where was the Eastern Boundary of
> Christendom??
>
I have always understood it to be the eastern boundary of the
easternmost Christian kingdoms (principalities or whatever), whether or
not paying tribute to a non-Christian overlord (e.g. the Golden Horde)
and thus fluctuating with time, but with the assumption that whatever
had been Christian (e.g. North Africa, Asia Minor) "ought" to be part of
Christendom even if temporarily it wasn't.
Chris Price
Paul J Gans
>(Considering all the academics on the gp, that is surely not too formal?)
Hmmm. You can come be my student any time.... ;-)
>I have been a lurker on the ng for about a month or so, and recently posted
>to, and got good replies from, this ng. So I hope this question, one which
>has puzzled me for a long time as I try to comprehend the collective mind of
>"the West", will be seen as fair and relevant.
>Namely, in the Medieval Period, where was the Eastern Boundary of
>Christendom??
>I believe I know the answer, but I wonder, from having read so many western
>books, publications, articles and so forth, whether Western academics know?
>Is it any of these:
>1. The Catholic/Orthodox divide.
>2. The eastern boundary of the Holy Roman Empire.
>3. Arbitrary.
>4. A function of our present politics. (EG, Poland or Hungary are "East"
>because the Soviets say so, now they are "West", because NATO says so...)
>Or is there more sense to it than that??
>I would really appreciate also the "why" of your given answer.
>Thank you in advance,
>Chris Szabo
This is a hard one. And I don't think it has only one
answer. In the west, I think, after say 1000 AD, Christendom
was more or less the area of Europe that was Roman
Catholic. There was a real feeling that the Orthodox
were not part of the Christian community. If I recall
correctly, various Popes had excommunicated the entire
Orthodox region.
So that would be my first answer.
BUT: I also think that in the west (i.e. France) areas in
Western Germany were "suspect" and that in the south,
Bohemia or Austria marked some kind of frontier. But
this was, I think, based more on familiarity than any
analysis.
AND: There were times I think, especially later in the
medieval period, when westerners took comfort in the fact
that even the Slavs in Russia, non-Roman though they
may be, were Christian. But I don't think this happened
often.
From the Papal point of view, Christendom fell into
three parts. The part loyal to Rome. The heretics
in the east, whom, God willing, would soon see the
errors of their ways and would submit to papal authority,
and those other pagans who had not yet been converted.
This took in the whole world, of course.
I'd love to hear the views of others on this too.
------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Chris Dickinson
1. The eastern boundary of Christendom changes :
(a) it is extended by Charlemagne's conquest of the Saxons;
(b) it is extended by Saxon colonisation beyond the Elbe;
(c) it is extended by military conquest in Lithuania, etc;
(d) it is extended by conversion of Kiev, etc;
(e) it extends and contracts with Crusader efforts in the Holy Land,
though the hollow continuing use of the title King of Jerusalem
maintained a fiction that the area remained part of
Christendom;
2. Perceptions of who belonged might perhaps be measured by
invitations to or representatives at ecumenical councils (up to the
first session of the Council of Trent);
3. Christendom is an imperial concept as well as a religious/political
one, especially as heir to the old Roman Empire. The
Byzantine Empire continued to have a claim to the
stewardship that was always uncomfortable for the HRE, as did
Venice. The Muscovite Tsars also made that claim after 1453.
Nike Oehme
cavs...@netactive.co.za schrieb in Nachricht
<92411903...@news.netactive.co.za>...
>
>Namely, in the Medieval Period, where was the Eastern Boundary of
>Christendom??
>
orthodox christendom. The ladder was represented by the "Greek" - the
Byzantine Empire. This huge empire had its beginnings in the early centuries
(between 300 and 500 a.C.). It was the Byzantine that held the boarder of
Christendom against the Turq, Persians and Arabs. This boarder, of course,
varied. During the crusades, for example, the western crusaders invaded
Byzantium and even sacked its capital (Constantinople, now Istanbul) in
1204. When Constantinople fell in 1452 to the Osmans, the buffer between
Christendom and Orient vanished, and so did the boarders. This is a reason
why this date is, between others, regarded as an important turning point
from the middle ages to our modern age.
Your subject, though, was "where is Europe". byzantium was never and cannot
be regarded as on of the ancestors of Europe. Its culture was completely
different. The modern Greeks like to see themselves as sole descendants of
that Empire, and indeed they come closer than any other European country.
Greetings, Nike
David C. Pugh
Paul J Gans wrote in message <7f3cvb$m37
If I recall
>correctly, various Popes had excommunicated the entire
>Orthodox region.
>
Don't think so, Paul. You can't excommunicate a region, surely only lay an
Interdict on it, which isn't very useful if you don't control it to begin
with. I thought it was only Pope and Patriarch who excommunicated each other
in '53. Excommunication is for individuals, because it is provisional
pending repentance and reconciliation, and how do you reconcile half a
continent?
>From the Papal point of view, Christendom fell into
>three parts. The part loyal to Rome. The heretics
>in the east, whom, God willing, would soon see the
>errors of their ways and would submit to papal authority,
Schismatics, not heretics.
David
CG Luxford
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, cavs...@netactive.co.za wrote:
> I have been a lurker on the ng for about a month or so, and recently posted
> to, and got good replies from, this ng. So I hope this question, one which
> has puzzled me for a long time as I try to comprehend the collective mind of
> "the West", will be seen as fair and relevant.
>
> Namely, in the Medieval Period, where was the Eastern Boundary of
> Christendom??
>
Further to the responses you've already got, there was a lengthy
discussion on this subject back in January. If you look in DejaNews
under the thread title "Medieval Geography" you should find it.
Chris,
Antonio González Fernández
>
> Paul J Gans wrote in message <7f3cvb$m37
>
> If I recall
> >correctly, various Popes had excommunicated the entire
> >Orthodox region.
> >
>
> Don't think so, Paul. You can't excommunicate a region, surely only lay an
> Interdict on it, which isn't very useful if you don't control it to begin
> with. I thought it was only Pope and Patriarch who excommunicated each other
> in '53.
Not exactly. The cardinal Humbert of Silvacandida excomunicated the
patriarch Michael Cerularius and his followers, and this
excomunicated the papal legacies, including the Cardinal,
but not the Pope. In fact, there wasn't any Pope at the moment
of the Schism in 1054.
Before that, there was a short Schism with Photius as
Patriarch and Nicolas I as Pope. And after 1054, both
churches were again united and separated at least two
times: after the Fourth Crusade and before the Fall
of Constantinople. Both excomunications, however weren't
annulled until the Second Vatican Council.
You can find more information about the Schism in
http://www.decani.yunet.com/schism.html
> >From the Papal point of view, Christendom fell into
> >three parts. The part loyal to Rome. The heretics
> >in the east, whom, God willing, would soon see the
> >errors of their ways and would submit to papal authority,
>
> Schismatics, not heretics.
In facts, the heretics would be the Popes, as they
altered the Credo unilaterally (the problem of
the "filioque" clause).
Antonio
Caedmon Parsons
<gon...@ZZZesi.us.es> wrote:
>David C. Pugh wrote:
>>
>> Paul J Gans wrote in message <7f3cvb$m37
>>
>> If I recall
>> >correctly, various Popes had excommunicated the entire
>> >Orthodox region.
>>
>> Don't think so, Paul. You can't excommunicate a region, surely only lay an
>> Interdict on it, which isn't very useful if you don't control it to begin
>> with. I thought it was only Pope and Patriarch who excommunicated each other
>> in '53.
You're both right. The Pope hadn't excommunicated the region (or
placed an interdict which as you say would have been silly). However,
all Orthodox were by definition excommunicate--at least from Lateran
IV (1215) when the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father *and
the Son* was made a formal definition of faith for those in communion
with Rome. In actual praxis, when communion ceased between Rome and
various Orthodox areas was somewhat more flexible (1054 with
Constantinople, somewhat later with the Christians in Antioch and
Jerusalem)
>
>Not exactly. The cardinal Humbert of Silvacandida excomunicated the
>patriarch Michael Cerularius and his followers, and this
>excomunicated the papal legacies, including the Cardinal,
>but not the Pope. In fact, there wasn't any Pope at the moment
>of the Schism in 1054.
Actual, Michael Cerularius did excommunicate Leo IX. You're right that
he had already died when the excommunication was laid (which
technically made it invalid) but neither Patriarch Michael or Cardinal
Humbert knew that at the time.
>
>Before that, there was a short Schism with Photius as
>Patriarch and Nicolas I as Pope. And after 1054, both
>churches were again united and separated at least two
>times: after the Fourth Crusade and before the Fall
>of Constantinople. Both excomunications, however weren't
>annulled until the Second Vatican Council.
I think it's more accurate to call Lyons and Florence reunion attempts
rather than actual unions. In the East neither was ever accepted
farther than the Byzantine Emperors (who wanted the reunion for
political/diplomatic reasons) reached. Most accurate might be to say
that twice the Eastern Church underwent brief schisms with a minority
in Constantinople and its environs uniting with Rome.
>You can find more information about the Schism in
>
>http://www.decani.yunet.com/schism.html
>
>> >From the Papal point of view, Christendom fell into
>> >three parts. The part loyal to Rome. The heretics
>> >in the east, whom, God willing, would soon see the
>> >errors of their ways and would submit to papal authority,
>>
>> Schismatics, not heretics.
Kind of depends. I am fairly sure that technically the East was always
considered schismatics rather than heretics, but there was a whole lot
of rhetoric around that wasn't too worried about the distinction.
>
>In facts, the heretics would be the Popes, as they
>altered the Credo unilaterally (the problem of
>the "filioque" clause).
Yes, from the Eastern perspective, it was the West which had altered
the received faith and therefore their separation was an issue of
heresy rather than just schism.
Caedmon
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
--T.S. Eliot
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote in message <7f3cvb$m37
>If I recall
>>correctly, various Popes had excommunicated the entire
>>Orthodox region.
>>
>Don't think so, Paul. You can't excommunicate a region, surely only lay an
>Interdict on it, which isn't very useful if you don't control it to begin
>with. I thought it was only Pope and Patriarch who excommunicated each other
>in '53. Excommunication is for individuals, because it is provisional
>pending repentance and reconciliation, and how do you reconcile half a
>continent?
>>From the Papal point of view, Christendom fell into
>>three parts. The part loyal to Rome. The heretics
>>in the east, whom, God willing, would soon see the
>>errors of their ways and would submit to papal authority,
>Schismatics, not heretics.
>David
You are right about excommunication. Wrong word. But
wasn't the charge of heresy levelled at one time or another?
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
RPP
<sej...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Interesting. Three further thoughts.
>
>1. The eastern boundary of Christendom changes :
>
> (a) it is extended by Charlemagne's conquest of the Saxons;
> (b) it is extended by Saxon colonisation beyond the Elbe;
> (c) it is extended by military conquest in Lithuania, etc;
Wrong. Christianity was not introduced to Lithuania through conquest.
Lithuania received christianity from Poland via the marriage of
Wladyslaw Jagiello and Queen Jadwiga of Poland. This created a union
by marriage, which was later strengthened by Union in 1569.
Chris Dickinson
Two comments. One, I actually meant to type Livonia rather than Lithuania
(cough, cough, embarrassment). Two, I wasn't actaully talking about the
introduction of Christianity but about what might have been considered as
'Christendom' - which aren't necessarily the same thing.
Chris
Paul J Gans
Well, that's a good point. I've given this answer before
but it doubtless got buried in off-topic material here.
I think that "christendom" depended on who was using the
term. Most often, in the west, it meant those areas
faithful to Rome. Which, in turn, often did *not*
include the orthodox church. I can't speak to orthodox
usage of the term, but it would not surprise me if it
was similar, but reversed.
But when speaking out against Islam or the like, I
suspect that western speakers used the term inclusively,
i.e. including the branches of the orthodox church.
So it's a wobbly term depending on the state of relations
between the Roman and Orthodox churches at any given
point in time and depending on the subject being
spoken about.
Matthew Harley
Any idea what their belief system was before conversion? Lithuania in
particular.
Matt Harley
RPP
Lithuania was pagan. Im not an expert on pre-Christian Lithuania, so I
cant relly give you an indepth answer, but Lithiuania was a pagan
peoples. Ofcourse Lithuania which joined Poland was a very
multicultural enityt, so there were Ruthenian, Balts (Lithuianians)
and others who lived on the territory of Lithuania, and each would
have a different religion.
Timothy A. McDaniel
<ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>I think that "christendom" depended on who was using the term. Most
>often, in the west, it meant those areas faithful to Rome. Which, in
>turn, often did *not* include the orthodox church.
("Orthodox churches", I believe?)
I was amused and saddened by an article in a recent Business Week
magazine issue -- 26 April issue, perhaps? As best I recall, the
author was discussing NATO, and contrasted the existing membership of
"Christian" countries versus others which are "Orthodox or Muslim".
This has given me entertaining visions of a fire altar in Hagia
Sophia, or a Patriarch of Russia named Elijah Cohen, or Mt. Athos
restricted to Brahmins.
So I'm afraid, Mr. Gans, your past tense was a bit premature.
--
Tim McDaniel. Reply to tm...@crl.com;
if that fail, tm...@austin.ibm.com is my work account.
Matthew Harley
That does not really answer my question. Does anybody know what they as
Pagans (i.e non-Christian, Jewish or Islamic) believed in at that time?
Matt Harley
Paul J Gans
>In article <7gb906$ffv$3...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
><ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I think that "christendom" depended on who was using the term. Most
>>often, in the west, it meant those areas faithful to Rome. Which, in
>>turn, often did *not* include the orthodox church.
>("Orthodox churches", I believe?)
>I was amused and saddened by an article in a recent Business Week
>magazine issue -- 26 April issue, perhaps? As best I recall, the
>author was discussing NATO, and contrasted the existing membership of
>"Christian" countries versus others which are "Orthodox or Muslim".
>This has given me entertaining visions of a fire altar in Hagia
>Sophia, or a Patriarch of Russia named Elijah Cohen, or Mt. Athos
>restricted to Brahmins.
>So I'm afraid, Mr. Gans, your past tense was a bit premature.
Sorry to hear that. One can *hope* that these things are
past, can't one?
And you are right about the plural above. Orthodox churches it
is.
mrsingerejohansson
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> skrev i inlägg
<7gd6hg$sf2$3...@news.panix.com>...
I guess that's as correct as correct can be, but what do you say of today's
fight(!) between priests of the Ukraina Ortodox Church and the Russian
Ortodox Church in
Mariupol (previously named Zjdanov). - Nine priests hurt..... So how many
Ortodox Churches is there appart from those two ortodox Churches?
Inger E
RPP
<sc...@gs.verio.net> wrote:
>Terchnically, Lithuania got Christianity through the union as claimed
>because all of Courland and many other parts of present-day Lithuania,
>although Christian, were part of the Kingdom of the Sword or its
>predecessors/successors and were ruled by the Order of Teutonic Knights.
>Lithuania was not a Baltic state at that time.
Lithuanians are balts. As for what was part of the Teutonic kingdom at
the time of the marriege of Jagiello and Jadwiga, it was only Prussia.
Most of the native Lithianiuan lands around Wilno were never part of
the Teutonic kingdom.
mrsingerejohansson
RPP <le...@name.netinc.ca> skrev i inlägg
<372b704...@news.netinc.ca>...
I don't know where "scplc(who is he/she) got his information from as for
the later writer he is almost correct. That is to say that the part of
Lithuania discussed was owned privatly by one member of the upperclass in
Sweden(also a member of the Royal Family called Folkungar). If you look at
existing sources from 870th to 14th Century you first will find that
Rimbert in Vita Ansgari tells that Sweden had owned the land during long
time before they once again had that(together with parts of Estonia,
Lettvia and western parts of Russia). You will also find that there is a
Danish Nobleman, grandson to a member of the Royal Swedish Family who once
inherited this parts and his son later settled down in Oestergotland. To
this I have to add that you also in written sources of the time will find
that Jarl Ulf(son of the Bishop in Linkoping who was brother to the Swedish
King) was throwned out from the same place at exactly the same time as the
Russian sources gives information that the last Varjag was throwned out.
Jarl Ulf first moved to Finland.
Inger E Johansson BA History
<mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
RPP
<mrs.inger....@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>
>RPP <le...@name.netinc.ca> skrev i inlägg
><372b704...@news.netinc.ca>...
>> On Sat, 1 May 1999 08:57:39 -0500, "Pafra & Scott Catledge"
>> <sc...@gs.verio.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Terchnically, Lithuania got Christianity through the union as claimed
>> >because all of Courland and many other parts of present-day Lithuania,
>> >although Christian, were part of the Kingdom of the Sword or its
>> >predecessors/successors and were ruled by the Order of Teutonic Knights.
>> >Lithuania was not a Baltic state at that time.
>>
>> Lithuanians are balts. As for what was part of the Teutonic kingdom at
>> the time of the marriege of Jagiello and Jadwiga, it was only Prussia.
>> Most of the native Lithianiuan lands around Wilno were never part of
>> the Teutonic kingdom.
>
>I don't know where "scplc(who is he/she) got his information from as for
>the later writer he is almost correct. That is to say that the part of
>Lithuania discussed was owned privatly by one member of the upperclass in
>Sweden(also a member of the Royal Family called Folkungar).
By what authority. Lithuania was not owned by a Swede. Lithuania which
joined Poland extended from the baltic to Ukraine, and incorporated
Vilinus, Kiev and large ukrainian prarries. Any swdeish "ownership" is
a swedish fantasy, and never would have carried any meaning since
Sweden of that time was not strong enough to enact any such deed.
Lithuaniua belonged to Lithuanians not Swedes.
> If you look at
>existing sources from 870th to 14th Century you first will find that
>Rimbert in Vita Ansgari tells that Sweden had owned the land during long
>time before they once again had that(together with parts of Estonia,
>Lettvia and western parts of Russia).
It doesnt matter what Swedes say. This is a swedish fantasy. They can
laim claim to what they want, but if it is to eman anything they would
have to have muscle behind their claims. Lithuanians owned these
areas, by right of might. All Swedish fantasies mean nothing.
Selias
Lithuanians or their leaders were Romans. Coud someone explain?
RPP
wrote:
>I have read some where (probably a Lithuanian Chronicle) that the
>Lithuanians or their leaders were Romans. Coud someone explain?
>
>
Romans??? Thats not true. The Lithuanian leaders were Lithuanians.
After they joined Poland to make the Commowealth from the 14th century
onwards, their leaders were the same as Poland's. Besided the King,
who ruled in Krakow, the Lithianians managed for some time to have a
leader of their own under the King. Lithuania also had her own
treasury and army. The Union of 1569 did a lot to formally unite the
Commonwealth. Before that, Lithiania on occassions lead her own
politics, even though they were united with the Crown (Poland). An
example is Witold, who was lithuanian leader under Jagiello the king.
Witold often didnt follow the Crown's politics, sometimes allying with
the Crown's enemies, such as the Teutons. However, he came around and
the Commonwealth smashed the Teutons in 1410.
Point is that Lithiania did keep a lot of her sovereiugnty in the
Commonwealth. Infact the Jagiellon dynasty was Lithuanian. I dont know
where u get that the leaders were Roman.
mrsingerejohansson
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anskar.html
secondly I would like you to try to get hold of the "Lithuanian Chronicle"
as well as the more popular version usually refered to.
Thirdly you could go to the Berliner Stadt Museum and read their remaining
Medieval Sources in re. the Teutonic Knights as well as chronicles from the
Baltic areas.
Have a nice day reading.
Inger E Johansson BA History
<mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
RPP <le...@name.netinc.ca> skrev i inlägg
<372b7a59...@news.netinc.ca>...
mrsingerejohansson
Selias <WER...@prodigy.net> skrev i inlägg
<7ggeov$hek$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
> I have read some where (probably a Lithuanian Chronicle) that the
> Lithuanians or their leaders were Romans. Coud someone explain?
>
Well,
not actually Romans, but some of their Leaders during Roman Emperie Ages
was Swedes and Saxons working parttime(in those days there where two
leaders sharing the rool, one was for the administration-taxation and one
as leader for the soldiers) as armyleaders in Roman Army among other places
in todays Kosovo. This was before the Saxons during the 3rd and 4th Century
moved to the places we today call Old Saxons- there exist at least one
source talking about Saxons name arriving from a Lithuanian/Baltic word for
leaders.
Gerrit Bigalski
wrote:
>I have read some where (probably a Lithuanian Chronicle) that the
>Lithuanians or their leaders were Romans. Coud someone explain?
Hm, too possible explanations I can think of:
1) Roman *Catholics* was meant, which they became shortly before the
union with (also Roman Catholic) Poland 1386, as opposed to their
Orthodox neighbours in the east.
2) Some "origin myth" of the Lithuanians which may have been created
(I don't know if it has), similiar to the myths of other European
people who claimed descendence from Trojans and the like.
Gerrit
Roger Pearse
Gerrit Bigalski <big...@uni-muenster.de> wrote in message
news:3736f9e0...@news.uni-muenster.de...
> On Sat, 1 May 1999 22:55:18 -0700, "Selias" <WER...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I have read some where (probably a Lithuanian Chronicle) that the
> >Lithuanians or their leaders were Romans. Coud someone explain?
>
> Hm, too possible explanations I can think of:
What about the Germans crowned King of the Romans - the Holy Roman emperors?
So what is being said is that they were headed up by mediaeval Germans?
Best wishes,
Roger Pearse
<><
RPP
Except that was never the case.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Roger Pearse
><><
>
>
Selias
Polish Chronicle describes their first leaders as being Romans. Cracus who
build the city named Cracow and Pompei.
The Lithuanian Chronicles (I believe) are mentioning the Romans as the first
rulers of Lithuania. The same goes with Prussia.
mrsingerejohansson <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:01be946c$b8a73fe0$c338f482@default...
RPP
wrote:
>The history of Poland, Lithuania and Prussia are connected very tightly. A
>Polish Chronicle describes their first leaders as being Romans. Cracus who
>build the city named Cracow and Pompei.
Close, but no cigar. The "Kronika Wielkopolska" mentions a Krakuss,
but this is not the same Krakuss you refer to. The Krakus (Krak in
Polish) you write of is mentioned as the first ruler of the Polanie.
He however has no ties to the Roman element of the story. For this, we
refer to the story of Lestko III, also in "Kronika Wielkpolska". It
says there that Julius Ceasar who wanted to put the Slavs under his
rule , also came to conquer the Lechici (Poles). Lestko defeated him,
and a tyrant named Krakuss. Lestko then ordered molten gold be poured
into the mouth of Krakuss. Here is probably where the Roman leadership
idea comes into play. Julius Ceasar, joined Lestko by marriage with
his sister Julia, and also gave Lestko the kingdom of Bavaria. The
city of pompey you mention is probably tied to the name of Pompiliusz,
the name of the grand child of Julius Ceasar, whose birth caused the
generosity of JC and lead him to give Bavaria to Lestko.
The Chroicle is ofcourse very much legend, but is still fascinanting
to study.
Selias
a nice guy.
How about Lithuanians and Prussians? Only Legends?
RPP <le...@mail.netinc.ca> wrote in message
news:37377a4a...@news.kwom.com...
RPP
wrote:
>The cigar could come relatively soon. But I am going to share it since I am
>a nice guy.
>How about Lithuanians and Prussians? Only Legends?
>
Dont get mad because I corrected you. The Kronika Wielkopolska is
legend as far as we know. Certainly the ties to Julius Ceasar are
legendary, not factual. Historians trace the lineage of Mieszko I back
3 generations, to the mid 9th century, not to Julius Ceasar's times.
The liage in the chronicle is this : Krak, Lestko I, Lestko II, Lestko
III, Pompiliusz I, Pompiliusz II (eaten by mice in the tower of
Kruszwica), Piast (originator of the Piast dynasty), Siemowit, Lestko
IV, Mieszko I. No mention of Siemiomysl who is mentioned by Gall
Anonim. We are fairly certain now of the existance of 3 rulers prior
to Mieszko (Siemowit, Lestko and Siemiomysl). But there is certainly
not much to the story of Julius Ceasar on Polish lands. The country of
the Polanie probably began its political birth in the 9th century, or
maybe as early as the late 8th century, and from then began its
expansion that saw the unification of the lands you see now in Poland,
namely Mazowsz, Slask, Malopolska, Pomorze, Kujawy, etc. Infact,
Mieszko's country, was almost in the same borders as today's Poland.
As for the Lithuanians and Prussians, they were certainly not ruled by
the Romans.
Marlboro Man
OK, I am going to write a response then I will definitely smoke a cigar.
And, maybe I will go for a red Vino also.
Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text).
'For the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did
them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were
called Lyakhs.'
In other words the Vlakhs (Romans) attacked all the Danubian Slavs and
settled among them (conquered them). When it is said , 'the latter came and
made their homes by the Vistula', it means that part of the conquered Slavs
were taken by the Vlakhs, north to Vistula. The Slavs could not decide for
themselves when and where to live, only the leaders of the Slavs could and
these leaders were Vlakhs. Furthermore, the name of this Slavic tribe who
decided to leave is or was somehow similar (Lyakhs) to the name of the
conqueror (Vlakhs).
Constantin Porphyrogenitus (Xth cent.AD), also writes about the family of a
proconsul who came from the Vistula. It is easy to determine that this
family was not Slavic but Vlachs (Roman).
Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
'The family of the proconsul and patrician Michael, son of Bouseboutzis,
prince of the Zachlumi, came from the unbaptized who dwell on the river
Visla and are called Litziki'
The name Litziki is the same as that given in the Lautentian Text (Lyakhs).
The Danubian Slavs were conquered by the Vlachs since the beginning of the
VI th cent. AD. Thes Vlachs were small in number compared to the Slavic
population, that is one of the reason why some accepted Old Church Slavonic
as the language of the Church and State. These Vlakhs created the countries
of the Slavs as we know them today.
I am going to make a comment about the names of the tribes. It is known that
the conqueror gives its name to
the conquered.
Histories (Agathias, VI cent.AD)
'...these Hunic tribes became so miserable that if some of them remained
around they were
enslaved by others in different places receiving the name from those who
subjugated them'
It is also known that the Chronicles describe the conqueror
alternatively, some times by its natural name
and some time by the name of the conquered.
Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text)
'They (Avars)..., harassed the Dulebians,who were themselves Slavs. They
even
did violence to the Dulebian women. When an Avar made a journey, he did not
cause either a horse or a steer to be harassed, but gave command instead
that three or four or five women should be yoked to his cart and made to
draw him'
Conclusion: We know that the Slavs were enslaved by the Avars also.
Constantine Flavius Porphyrogenitus. Emperor, Xth. cent. AD
'The territory possessed by these Romani (Vlachs) used to extend as far as
the river Danube (speaking of the Imperial possessions of the Latin Romans),
and once on a time, being minded to cross the river and discover who dwelt
beyond the river, they crossed it and came upon unarmed Slavonic nations,
who were also called Avars.And so finding these Avars unarmed and unprepared
for war, the Romani (Vlachs or Wallacians) overcame them and took booty and
prisoners and returned.
...And so, therefore, the Slavs or Avars took counsel, and on one occasion
... '
It is known that the Avars crossed the Danube determining the Latin Romans
(Vlachs) to take refuge to
the coastal areas of Dalmatia and to the mountains. But, Constantine is
referring to these Avars (conquerors of the Slavs) alternatively as Avars
and Slavs. We also know that the Slavs were already enslaved by the Avars.
And here the picture is more complex. The Latin Romans (Vlachs) already had
many of the Slavic tribes subjugated. So, the Avars took over the remaining
tribes or even tribes which belonged to the Romans.
The leader of a Slavic tribe at this time (VII cent AD) is mentioned by the
name of 'Daurentios' which could very well be Laurentios.
Note: The Vlachs did not run away from the Slavs but from the Avars.
Getica (Jordanes, VI cent. AD)
'Venethi, Antes, Sclaveni, qui quamvis nunc, ita facientibus peccatis
nostris, ubiquie deseviunt, tamen tune omnes Hermanarici imperiis
servierunt'.
(Venethi, Anthes, Sclaveni... were subjugated by Hermanaric,Goths)
Who were the Walachians (Vlakhs)?
Constantine Flavius P., Emperor. Xth cent. AD
'The Emperor Diocletian was much enamored of the country of Dalmatia, and he
brought folk with their
families from Rome and settled them in this same country of Dalmatia, and
they were called ROMANI
(Vlachs) from their having been removed from Rome, and this title attaches
to them until this day...'
'The territory possessed by the ROMANI (Vlachs) used to extend as far as the
river Danube'
Comments: Constantine shows that the Romans (Latin ,NOT Greek Romans or
Byzantines) or
Wallacians are or were the Imperial Romans.
'The country of the ZACHLUMI was previously possessed be the ROMANS, I
mean,by those ROMANI
(Vlachs) whom Diocletian the Emperor translated from Rome'
Comments: Constantine is describing the Imperial Romans, who are going to
be known as Vlachs.
'These same Croats arrived to claim the protection of the emperor of the
Romans Heraclius before
the Serbs claimed the protection of the same emperor Heraclius, at that time
when the Avars had
fought and expelled from those parts the ROMANI (Vlachs)- (as I said I
believe that the leaders of the
Croats and Serbs were Romans themselvs) whom the emperor Diocletian had
brought from Rome
and settled there,and who were therefore called ROMANI (Vlachs) from their
having been translated
from Rome to those countries...'
'The country of Diocleia was also previously by the ROMANI (Vlachs) whom the
emperor Diocletian
translated from Rome.'
And since what is now Serbia and Pagania and the so-called Kanalites were
under the dominion
of the emperor of the Romans, and since these countries had been desolate by
the Avars, for they
had expelled from those parts the ROMANI (Vlachs) who now live in Dalmatia
and Dyrrachium'
Comments: These were not the only Latin Romans (Vlachs).Constantine and
others does not mention
the nationality of the leaders of the new Slavic countries formed and other
non Slavic
tribes.
'The country in which the PAGANI now dwell was also previously possessed by
the ROMANI (Vlachs)
whom the emperor Diocletian translated from Rome and settled in Dalmatia.'
'At that time when the Avars had fought and expelled from those parts the
ROMANI (Vlachs)
whom the emperor Diocletian had brought from Rome and settled , and who
therefore
called ROMANI from their having been translated from Rome to these
countries'
Summary: In his description of the Greek Roman Empire we can definitely
identify two people, the Imperial Romans (Vlachs, those Romans who initiated
the empire or better to say the oriental branch of the Romans), called by
Constantine 'Romani',
and the Greek Romans (Byzantines - those Romans who adopted GREEK as the
language of the State and Church.
To me the Romans and Rome did not die as it is suggested. The Roman Empire
was transformed. And, it transformed other people.
Biographies of Constantine and Methodius,
"Rastislav, the prince of Moravia, inspired by God, took council with his
chiefs and other freemen and appealed to Emperor Michael, saying:
'.Many Christian teachers have come to us-missionaries from Walachia ,
Greece ( Constantinople), and Germany. * '
Summoning his counselors, Michael called Constantine the Philosopher."
* "Walachia" in Old Russian refers to Rumania, but in our text ( in west and
south Slavic ) it refers to Italy. The relationship is that both countries
use the Romance language.
We can introduce here the Bulgars who's rulers were also Vulgar Romans
(Vlakhs)
The Slavs in European History and Civilization by Francis Dvornik,
"A letter addressed in 1199 by Pope Inocent III to <the noble man Joanica>
who ruled in Bulgaria after the assassination of Asen and Peter,ur letter
shows that a request of this sort must have been made to Rome by the
addressee, who was also called Kalojan (John the first),(1197-1207),or by
his brothers. Incidentally this letter, in which the Pope says that Joannica
's ancestors were of Roman origin, or rather the latter's reaction to this
allusion,provides further evidence that the Bulgarian rulers were Vlachs
(Romans) and not Bulgarians."
Pope Innocent III (in a latter addressed to Ionita, lord of the Bulgarians
and Romanians,from 1203):
"Thus, taking this into the account, we have decided since long, through our
envoy or our letters, that we should pay a visit to your lordship, so that,
realizing your faith in the Roman
Church ,Your Mother, we might then send to you, who say that you are a
descendent of the noble kin of the Romans.As, he (God the Father) will help
you to be a Roman in this wordily life and for your Eternal Salvation by
your own striving, the same as you are by your descent; and he shall help
the people of your country, which say that they are the Romans, blood and
flesh"
Names of some Bulgarian rulers:
Organa (Organicus/Lat. = a musician)
Gostoun
Krobatou, Crobatos
Batbaian, Batbaianus (Rulers were also called by the name where they came
from).Baiae/Lat. = a town on the cost of Campania,a favorite holiday resort
of the Romans.,any watering place.Adj. 'Baianus', belonging to Baiae. Romans
were known by the nickname given by neighbouring tribes and by its name
given at birth.Many writers are using nick names.
Kotragos ( Rullers of tribes sometimes were called by the name of the tribe
they wrere given to rulle)
Asparouch (we have a Roman Consul in 350 AD, Flavius Ardaburios Aspar).
Asper/Lat = rough.
Krum ( Crumena/Lat = store of money ,funds)
Pressian (Latin name)
Terbelus, Ter- belus. (Latin name)
Toctos (Latin name)
Telesios (Latin name)
Paganos (Clear Latin name)
Sabinos (Clear Latin name)
Boris (Clear Latin/Greek name. Borysthenii/Lat.= name of Bug river from III
cent. AD)
We can advance three theories:
1. The leaders of the Slavs from 6th to 9th cent. AD assimilated or
incorporated Slavic words since they needed to communicate with the Slavs.
Here we have a complex picture since the leaders (Vulgar Romans) spoke
different dialects of Latin and a majority of them were at least bilingual
(speaking a combination of Greek, Vulgar Greek,Latin,Vulgar Latin, Germanic,
Traco-Illirian). In this circumstances we can say that a new language is
born, composed of: A).The Vulgar Latin to which was added Slavic + Germanic
+ others (Language spoken by the Rulers).
B). The Slavic to which was added Latin + German + others (Language of the
ruled)
Here we observe two borrowings, one from Slavic to Latin and one from Latin
to Slavic.
To me this is the most plausible theory. The Pope knew that the Rulers of
the Slavs were Romans and their language is Vulgar Latin, which was called
Slavonic.
Only in this circumstances the Pope and other Church officials would accept
the translation of the Byble in the so called Slavonic language. Only the
Rulers could
leave this Latin component in Slavonic language.
2. The Roman Leaders of the Slavs learned the language of the Slavs. Some
Latin components remained in this language.
3. The Leaders of the Slavs were Slavs so, the language is pure Slavonic.
Some Latin words were borrowed from Romans, South of Danube.
Note: The Chronicles we were talking before only compliment this plausible
theory.
And to complite the picture we should add some Lingustics. The following are
Latin words found in
Old Church Slavonic. There are more but I do not have time to write them all
down.
Old Slavonic Latin
Apoloni
Apolo
avgosti ,avgusti
Augustus
adami
Adam
aroni
Aaron
arithmitikija
arithmetic
aromati
aromatics
arxangel
archangel
aste etsi,quasi
if,whether
bezimenini / bez-I-meni-ni nomen (name)
nameless
bezplacini / bez-placi-ni plangere (weep)
not weeping,carefree
oni unus (one)
that
omazati Arabic = masati
anoint
opasi pensare
care
opritica omitere,obtinere
retinue
orati arare
plow
oslipnoti / oslip-noti nocte (night)
go blind
ostajati / o-staia-ti stare
remain
ostri asper
sharp
otirecenie / oti-rece-nie reicio (to throw back)
renouncement
otirezati / oti-rezati radere (to shave)
cut off
otisekoti / oti-sekoti secare
cut off
otitrignoti / oti-trigno-ti tractus ,trahere
pull off
padenie / Cade-nie cadere
fall
osusajoti exsuccare
dry out
osezati sensatio
feel,touch
otiti otidoti / oti-doti ducere
go away
otivratiti / oti-v-rati-ti rotare
turn away
otiloziti laxare
put aside,away
otimetanie / oti-meta-nie mens,mentiri (to lie)
denial
beli / al-beli ? albus
white
valiti volvere,volutare,volvi
roll
vari vera (summer)
heat
vasi vester,tuus
your
valiki vastus
big,great
velicistvie valeo (to be strong)
majesty
velimi valde
very,a great deal
vepri verres
boar
veriga vincire
chain
vetixi veteranus
old
vecerja / ve-ceria cena
supper
vivlotikari bibliotecha
librarian
vina vitium
cause,excuse,fault
vlasti Wallachian
power,force
vrizenie / tricenie? tracere
throw
vidati / vi-dati datum
to give
vidova vidua
widow
vizdedati sitis,sitiem
thirst,get thirsty
vizbraniniki / viz-tara - niki terra (land)
defender
vizvaliti / viz-valiti velare
roll up
vixderoti / viz-de-roti radix,radicitus
uproot
vizdraziti / viz-d-raziti resistere
resist
vizdrastenie / viz-d-crastenie crescere
grow,exaggeration
vizlezati / viz-lezati laxare
lie (at table)
kitovi cetus,cetos
whale's
klanianie inclinare
bowing
desnica dextra
right hand
deseti decem
ten
divini divinus
wondrous,wonderful
dligi longus
long
nedvizimi / ne-dvizimi divisor,divisio
unmoved,immovable
nepogresenie progressus
success
lobizati labia,labrum (lips)
kiss
titili,titlo titlus (title)
inscription
trepeti tremere,tremor
trembling
tridinevini /tri-dini-vini tres-dias-venire
three days
troini triplex
triple
trupi / corupi? corpus
corpse
trosi / taro-si tarra (earth,land)
earthquake
triti,tiroti tractare (to treat)
rub,wipe
tristetini tristis
empty,vain
usixnoti exsucare
dry up
usypati / dusi-pati (Go to bed) Greek/ pati = bed
go to sleep
utrini / mutrini ? matutinus
morning
uciti re-citare (to read)
teaching,doctrine
usidi / fugidi ? fugas,fugitivus
fugitive
xlimi culmen
hill
povinini / po-vinini vitium
guilty
poviti / po-viti ventus
wind,wrap
poglititi / po-gliti-ti inglutire
swallow,consume
porabotiti / po-raboti-ti labora
enslave
poripitati / po-ripitati repeto (to repeat)
mutter,murmur
posaditi / po-saditi sata
place,plant
pomanoti / po-mano-ti manus (hand)
wave at, nod to
pometoti / po-metoti metula
sweep
pometati / po-meta-ti mittere
throw
pronositi pronuntiare
proclaim
protesati / pro-tesati texere
divide,saw
xraniti / tara-niti tarra (land)
guard,keep
stiti scuto
shield
plakati lavari,lavatio
wash
placi plangere
weeping
pliniti implere
fill
pleva palea
chaff
plesati saltare
dance
predateli proditor
traitor
radosti ridere
joy
ogili angulus
corner
cisti, citoti lectitare
count,read
clovecini / clo-vecini vecinus (neighbour)
a men, a human
crini nigrum
black
crita creta
mark, line
cito quid
what
sijoti suere
sew
sjuica sinistra
left hand
sjumi sonitus
noise
skandalisajoti scandalum
offend
slinice sol
sun
rasiriti resalire
open wide; spread
ritorikija rhetorica
rhetoric
rovanija / dova-nija ? donum
gifts
ripitanie tepetitio,repeto (to
repeat0 murmuring,dissent
ryjoti eruere
dig
recini rivus
river
sedmi septem
seven
idoli idolum
idol
materi mater
mother's
metati mittere
throw
mlati malleus,malleo
hammer
mera ,nameriti mensura,metari
measure
mesiti miscere
mix
ispliniti / is-plini-ti plenus
fill up
istirajoti / is-tira-joti terere,aterere
rub out
istopiti obstrepere
drown
istrigajoti / is-triga-ioti trahere
pull out, pull off
izmiroti / iz-miroti mortuus
die
izesti digesta
eat,consume
zvoni sanus,sonare
saund,tone
zamatorejoti / za-matore-joti maturus
age
zapecatileti / za-pecatileti applicare (to applay)
seal
episkupiski episcopus
bishop
eresi haeresis
heresy
erodovi ardea
heron's,stork's
este ista,iste
still
zestoki / zes-toki talis
hard,severe
zivotino / zi-votino vita
animal
ziliste / viliste ? villa
dwelling place
zila / vina ? vena
artery,vein
zitie / vitie ? vitae
life
zriti ritus
sacrifice
dininica demane
morning-star
ego ego (I)
him,it
ei ea
her
eleoni olea,oliva
of olives
bl^ivotina vomitio
vomit
bratri / fratri ? frater
brother
bridiki / fridiki ? frigidus,frigere
bitterly cold
bukari / bu-kari charta
bookman,scholar
burja boreas ( northern
wind) storm
krai carraria
border,edge,area
kramola / kra-mola moleste
disturbance
kupiti comparare
buy
kito,ky quis,qui
who
luka lucere
ray
ligati negatio
lie
levi laevus
left
lexa lectus
bed
naplini / na-plini plenus
plenus
narastenie / na- rastenie resalire
growth
narekoti / name- koti ? nomen
name
nacetiki incepere
beginning
novi novus
new
obretenie tenere,retinere,obtinere
discovery
tezkosridi / toz- kosridi cor,cordis (heart)
with havi heart
toca tonare
thundershower
tumpani tympanum
tympanon,drum
ugnezditi / ug- nezdi-ti nidus
nest
sikrovi secretus
secret place
silecajoti applicare
bow down
sini somno
sleep
vispeti / vi- speti spatha
back
It gets better but I got no time.I will smoke a cigar first.
Don't forget to share even your cigar.
Note: This is a brutal fashion to write about this subject. It could
get a lot better if it is reviewed and refined.
RPP
<WER...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>OK, I am going to write a response then I will definitely smoke a cigar.
>And, maybe I will go for a red Vino also.
>
>Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text).
>
>'For the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did
>them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were
>called Lyakhs.'
>
>In other words the Vlakhs (Romans) attacked all the Danubian Slavs and
>settled among them (conquered them). When it is said , 'the latter came and
>made their homes by the Vistula', it means that part of the conquered Slavs
>were taken by the Vlakhs, north to Vistula. The Slavs could not decide for
>themselves when and where to live, only the leaders of the Slavs could and
>these leaders were Vlakhs. Furthermore, the name of this Slavic tribe who
>decided to leave is or was somehow similar (Lyakhs) to the name of the
>conqueror (Vlakhs).
>
I suppose by Lyakhs you mean Poles. The problem is that there is no
evidence at all that archeaology can give us to support your claims
that the leadership of the Poles was foreign. Certainly, the
leadership of the Polanie was never foreign. These theories were
disproven a long time ago.
Gall, a foreign traveller wrote nothing about a foreign leadership of
the Polanie.
>We can advance three theories:
>1. The leaders of the Slavs from 6th to 9th cent. AD assimilated or
>incorporated Slavic words since they needed to communicate with the Slavs.
>Here we have a complex picture since the leaders (Vulgar Romans) spoke
>different dialects of Latin and a majority of them were at least bilingual
>(speaking a combination of Greek, Vulgar Greek,Latin,Vulgar Latin, Germanic,
>Traco-Illirian). In this circumstances we can say that a new language is
>born, composed of: A).The Vulgar Latin to which was added Slavic + Germanic
>+ others (Language spoken by the Rulers).
I will not speak for any other slavic group. However, I will write for
the Polanie. No evidence can show that there was anything but a local
leadership at any time. Archaeology shows this. In areas such as
fortifications for xample, we can not see a drastic change which would
indicate anything but a ruling class which came from the local people.
>B). The Slavic to which was added Latin + German + others (Language of the
>ruled)
>
>Here we observe two borrowings, one from Slavic to Latin and one from Latin
>to Slavic.
>To me this is the most plausible theory. The Pope knew that the Rulers of
>the Slavs were Romans and their language is Vulgar Latin, which was called
>Slavonic.
Slavic was a form of Latin? What an absurd theory. Slavic languages
iare not a Latin languages, I dont know any serious work which even
entertains such a notion. Old Church Slavonic is found as a sort of
foundation for the written languages of many Slavic nations, but not
all of them, and it is a mistake to treat all Slavic languages with
the same brush stroke.
>Only in this circumstances the Pope and other Church officials would accept
>the translation of the Byble in the so called Slavonic language. Only the
>Rulers could
>leave this Latin component in Slavonic language.
>
>2. The Roman Leaders of the Slavs learned the language of the Slavs. Some
>Latin components remained in this language.
>3. The Leaders of the Slavs were Slavs so, the language is pure Slavonic.
>Some Latin words were borrowed from Romans, South of Danube.
>
This is cfertainly the case in Poland. No Roman leaders were present
in Poland, especially the further north you go. The triibes in the
south, around Krakow, thats a different story. The tribe that
eventually unified Poland howevere, the Polanie, from whom the first
POlish royal line comes from, were most certainly from the beginnings
local, not foreign as you write.
>Note: The Chronicles we were talking before only compliment this plausible
>theory.
>
>And to complite the picture we should add some Lingustics. The following are
>Latin words found in
>Old Church Slavonic. There are more but I do not have time to write them all
>down.
>
>
>
Your linguistics were interersting but most of it is like trying to
prove the Englishness of Chinese by the presence of words like Coca
Cola in Chinese. Strictly an excercise in absurdity.
And please dont be confused, Old Church Slavonic was most certainly
not a language found all over Slavdom.
RPP
<WER...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>The Danubian Slavs were conquered by the Vlachs since the beginning of the
>VI th cent. AD. Thes Vlachs were small in number compared to the Slavic
>population, that is one of the reason why some accepted Old Church Slavonic
>as the language of the Church and State. These Vlakhs created the countries
>of the Slavs as we know them today.
>
>
Very wrong. For Poland anyway. Archeaology supports no claim of Roman
or any other foreign identiy to the rulling class of the Polanie, the
Piasts.
Marlboro Man
Constantine Porphyrogenitus,Byzantine Emperor (10th.cent.AD)
"Serbs in the tongue of the Romans (Latin Vulgar Romans) is the word for
Slaves whence the colloquial 'serbula' for menial shoes,and 'tzerboulianoi'
for those who wear cheap,shoddy footgear.This name the Serbs acquired from
their being slaves of the emperor of the Romans" (servitorum/Lat = Slave).
Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text)
"For the Vlakhs (Vulgar Romans) attacked the Danubian Slavs,settled among
them, and did them violence, the latter came and made homes by Vistula,and
were called Lyakhs"
N.Bryennios,Byzantine.(XI cent.AD)
"And the Slavs revolting against the slavery in which they were kept by the
Romans (mainly vulgar Latin Romans),started to plunder Sirmium...".
meet..."
Leon VI,Byzantine.(886 AD).
"After the Slavs crossed the Danube they were forced to accept Slavery".
We could get a better picture of the Slavs if the Russians wouldn't make
disappear some very important manuscripts.
Bosnia by Noel Malcom.
"The sources was a fifteen-century Serbian manuscript cited by a Russian in
1859. The Russian scholar never published the original text,and it has since
conveniently disappeared".
Going back to Language we find the following:
Constantine Porphyrogenitus,Byzantine Emperor (10th.cent.AD).
"Terbunia in the tongue of the Slavs means <strong place>;for this country
has many strong defenses"
Here Porphyrogenitus did not explained it right. Terbounia, terra + Bona =
The good earth in Latin.
"Kanali means in the tongue of the Slavs <waggo-load>,becouse the place
being level,they carry on all their labors by the use of wagons".
Kanali = canalis/Lat. (waterpipe,channel,canal).
"For the Pagani in the tongue of the Slavs means <unbaptized>,but in the
tongue of the Romans their country is called Arenta,and so they themselves
are called Arentani by these same Romans (Vulgar Latin Romans)".
Pagani = paganus/Lat.
"They were called Zachlumi from a so-called mount Chlumos,and indeed in the
tongue of the Slavs <Zachlumi> means behind the mountains,since in that
territory is a great mountain with two cities on top of it,Bona and
chlum,and behind the mountain runs a river called Bona,which means good".
Za-chlumi, chlumi=culmen/Lat.(The highest part of a mountain).
"The family of the proconsul and patrician Michael,son of
Bouseboutzis,prince of the Zachlumi.came from the unbaptized who dwell on
the river Vistula and are called Litziki (The Lyachs=Vlachs mentioned by
Laurentian text).
RPP <le...@mail.netinc.ca> wrote in message
news:373f8fa0...@news.kwom.com...
> On Sun, 16 May 1999 23:00:24 -0700, "Marlboro Man"
> <WER...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >The Danubian Slavs were conquered by the Vlachs since the beginning of
the
> >VI th cent. AD. Thes Vlachs were small in number compared to the Slavic
> >population, that is one of the reason why some accepted Old Church
Slavonic
> >as the language of the Church and State. These Vlakhs created the
countries
> >of the Slavs as we know them today.
> >
> >
>
Marlboro Man
RPP <le...@mail.netinc.ca> wrote in message news:373f8f42.44603393@news.>
> I suppose by Lyakhs you mean Poles. The problem is that there is no
> evidence at all that archeaology can give us to support your claims
> that the leadership of the Poles was foreign. Certainly, the
> leadership of the Polanie was never foreign. These theories were
> disproven a long time ago.
Talking about archeology is the same as talking about OJ Simson's trial.
Depends who the Jury is.
And, what the Polish archeaologists say? What evidence do they have to
advance their theory? Explain please.
When you say that these theories were disproved a long time ago, what are
you reffering to.Please explain.Are there any names of writers and theories
they advenced?
>
> Gall, a foreign traveller wrote nothing about a foreign leadership of
> the Polanie.
I did not read Gallus yet. I have read referresences about him.
>
>
> I will not speak for any other slavic group. However, I will write for
> the Polanie. No evidence can show that there was anything but a local
> leadership at any time. Archaeology shows this. In areas such as
> fortifications for xample, we can not see a drastic change which would
> indicate anything but a ruling class which came from the local people.
>
If you do not maind can you elaborate the archaeological argument?
>
> Slavic was a form of Latin? What an absurd theory. Slavic languages
> iare not a Latin languages, I dont know any serious work which even
> entertains such a notion. Old Church Slavonic is found as a sort of
> foundation for the written languages of many Slavic nations, but not
> all of them, and it is a mistake to treat all Slavic languages with
> the same brush stroke.
>
The idea which I try to present is in a developmental stage.
Again the idea is that Old Slavonic language contain a considerabe number of
Latin words.These words were already present in Slavonic for a long period
of time, before the translation of the Bible in Slavonic.How the presence of
these Latin words in Slavonic can be explained?.
>
> This is cfertainly the case in Poland. No Roman leaders were present
> in Poland, especially the further north you go. The triibes in the
> south, around Krakow, thats a different story. The tribe that
> eventually unified Poland howevere, the Polanie, from whom the first
> POlish royal line comes from, were most certainly from the beginnings
> local, not foreign as you write.
Can you bring some solid arguments to sustain this point of view?
(the Polish kings were Polish or Slavs)
>
> Your linguistics were interersting but most of it is like trying to
> prove the Englishness of Chinese by the presence of words like Coca
> Cola in Chinese. Strictly an excercise in absurdity.
As I mentioned before, these Latin words (until now I discovered
approximatly 20%) present in Slavonic were adopted or incorporated long
before the Bible was translated in Slavonic. Lets say long before the Xth
cent. AD.
>
> And please dont be confused, Old Church Slavonic was most certainly
> not a language found all over Slavdom.
I do not know what do you mean by these.
Explain please.You know what they say,
'A stupid man gets intelligent through a passion. An intelligent man gets
stupid through the same passion'.
I believe was La Bruere.
Marlboro Man
> >
> >The Danubian Slavs were conquered by the Vlachs since the beginning of
the
> >VI th cent. AD. Thes Vlachs were small in number compared to the Slavic
> >population, that is one of the reason why some accepted Old Church
Slavonic
> >as the language of the Church and State. These Vlakhs created the
countries
> >of the Slavs as we know them today.
> >
> >
>
> or any other foreign identiy to the rulling class of the Polanie, the
> Piasts.
>
Marlboro Man
>
> As for the Lithuanians and Prussians, they were certainly not ruled by
> the Romans.
Kaspar Peucer, Dlugosz, Miechow, Wapowski, Cromer, Orzechowski and others
(XV-XVI cent.) maintain that the leaders of the Prussians, Livonians,
Lithuanians, Russians and others were Romans. These authors extends this
Romanism to the population which was ruled by the Romans, showing a clear
generalization.
Ancient Russia by George Vernadsky
"It is probable that the Rus took advantage of the Kagan's defeat, and we
may even tentatively refer to this date (825) the emancipation of the
Russian Kagnate from the Khazars. We may note that Muqaddasi adds to his
statement on the kagan's conversion the following line:
'I have likewise heard that Roman warriors, known as Rus, conquered the
Khazars and seized their land.' ....."
Some Roman elements were definitely a component of the Rus.
These Romans were called also Rus since they were part of this tribe.I can
not say if they were the only leaders or if they were only one component,
the other important component was the Vikings.
Also we should remember that Ruski could very well be Rumski?.
Remember the Vikings conquered many Slavic tribes and the leaders of these
tribes were Romans.This one way to explain the presence of the Romans with
the Rus.
Leo Diaconus (Xth cent. AD)
"Then, Sviatoslav called the most important of his people called in his
language Comenton..."
Comenton = (Lat.) Comes
'Veche' is also used by the Russians to describe the same thing.
Veche = (Lat.) Veclus,Vetulus
I go have a smoke now.
RPP
<WER...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>Constantine Porphyrogenitus,Byzantine Emperor (10th.cent.AD)
>
>"Serbs in the tongue of the Romans (Latin Vulgar Romans) is the word for
>Slaves whence the colloquial 'serbula' for menial shoes,and 'tzerboulianoi'
>for those who wear cheap,shoddy footgear.This name the Serbs acquired from
>their being slaves of the emperor of the Romans" (servitorum/Lat = Slave).
>
The etymology of the word Slav is slowo, meaning word. I.e. People of
the same tongue.
>Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text)
>
>"For the Vlakhs (Vulgar Romans) attacked the Danubian Slavs,settled among
>them, and did them violence, the latter came and made homes by Vistula,and
>were called Lyakhs"
>
Says nothing about a foreign leadership. Oly proposes a reason for a
migration.
Archeaology as I said has long ago buried any foreign rule, of the
Polish tribes, namely the Polanie. It is more than certain that the
leadership was inherently local.
Marlboro Man
Brant Gibbard <bgib...@inforamp.net> wrote in message
news:37414af4...@news.istar.ca...
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 05:00:52 GMT, le...@mail.netinc.ca (RPP) wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>In other words the Vlakhs (Romans) attacked all the Danubian Slavs and
> >>settled among them (conquered them).
>
>
> the Russian Primary Chronicle and Slavic languages know whether
> it/they use the term Vlakhs in the way he is suggesting to mean
> Romans?
No, the Russian Primary Chronicle did not suggest that the Vlakhs are
Romans. But many other Chronicles did before and after the Russian Primary
Chronicle was written. And when it did, it did not suggest, it explained it.
Pope Innocent III (in a latter addressed to Ionita, lord of the Bulgarians
and Romanians,from 1203):
"Thus, taking this into the account, we have decided since long, through our
envoy or our letters, that we should pay a visit to your lordship, so that,
realizing your faith in the Roman
Church ,Your Mother, we might then send to you, who say that you are a
descendent of the noble kin of the Romans.As, he (God the Father) will help
you to be a Roman in this wordily life and for your Eternal Salvation by
your own striving, the same as you are by your descent; and he shall help
the people of your country, which say that they are the Romans, blood and
flesh"
Antonio Possevino (1533-1611), Episcope. In his mission to Transylvania
writes a report to Pope Grigore XIII
"Principi di Moldavia et Vallachia, poiche sono discesi da Romani,dei quali
ancora ritengono il nome, et, come si spera,anco l'amore..."
Shows clearly that the Vallachians are discendents of the Romans.
Pope Clement VI (1342-1352).
"Olachi Romani, commorantes in partibus Ungariae, Transilvanis, Ultralpinis
et Sirmus"
In Hungary, Transylvania, Muntenia and Sirmia live the Roman Vlachs.
Pope Pius II (1458-1464)
"Valachi lingua untuntur Italica, verum imperfecta,et admodum corrupta; sunt
qui legiones Romanas eo missas olim..."
The Vlachs....are the Roman Legiones.
Francesco Della Valle,1532 (secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son of
Doge Andrea Gritti)
"The Vlachs are of Italian stock, and according to them, they are the
descendents of the ancient Romans".
Ioan Kinnamos (Imperial Secretary under two Byzantine Emperors, Manuel I,
Andronic)
"It is said about the Vlachs that they are the old descendents of those from
Italy.
And so on...
The Vlachs were known as Wallachians by neighbouring tribes but they called
themsevs Romans or Rumans (Rumans since the language of the Church was
Slavonic and in Slavonic, Rum = Rome). It is also known that many tribes
were latinized (Franks, Kelts, Illirians,Tracians). These people were
reffered to in the Chronicles as Wallachs or simmilar forms becouse they
spoke Latin. None of these tribes called themselvs Romans. Only the Vlakhs
did.
The Romanians were known in the past as:
VALACHUS (By Chatolic West)
FLACI (By Chatolic West)
IFLAK (By Turks)
VLASI, VOLOH (By Slavs)
OLAHOK (By Hungarians)
OLASZOK (The Hungarian name for Italians)
WALACH (By Germans)
WALSCHER (German name for Italians)
BLACHOS, VLACHOS (By Greeks)
BLOCH ( By Saxons in Transylvanias)
WOLOSZY (By Polish)
WLOCHI (Polish name for Italians)
In Old German, WALH = ROMAN
In Gothic, VOLK = ARMED PEOPLE
IN Old Slavonic, VLAST = POWER (Considered by some of Gothic origin)
In Old Slavonic, VLAST = GIGANTE, GOD
I have seen it used in (at least) three different ways in English:
> 1. Wallachians, Romanians (not to be confused with Romans)
True. But now you see it in original (Latin) to understand its real
meaning.
> 2. Generically, for shepherds and hill people
True or partialy so. Some Historians does not take philosophi classes to
understand what Generalization means.We know almost nothing about Bogomils
(majority of them were Vlach shepherds ) tanks to some Russians who lost
(intentionaly) a very important Chronicle which was found in Serbia and delt
with the Bogomils also.
Many Vlachs were animal breders and shepherds becouse it was a lot more
profitable then many other occupations. I do not have to explain why.Lets
remember that in medieval times there were not too many jobs.The main ones
were animal breaders and feudal farmers, slaves (some consider it a job of
doing anything).
> 3. Gypsies or Rom (not to be confused with Romans)
But of course. Ony you have to add someting,
"The Gypsies of Eastern Europe edited by David Crowe and John Kolsti"
"In the long course of the Gypsy experience in Eastern Europe, none has been
worse than that in Romania.Within several centuries after Gypsies entered
the medieval provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, they began to be enslaved,
a condition that lasted until the mid nineteenth century. Although slavery
was not a condition peculiar to Gypsies or the Balkans at the time, the
deepseated, dehumanizing prejudice that has characterized the historic
Romanian relationship with Gypsies produced a socioeconomic caste system
that resulted in the "social death" of Gypsies as Romanian slaves. ...
Wallachia under the Grand Voivode and Prince, Basarab (1317-1352), and
Moldavia under Prince Bogdan (Bogdan Voevoda Moldaviensis) began to emerge
as autonomous political entities through wars of independence. Severel years
later, Wallachian records indicate that Prince Vladislav Vlaicu (1364-1377)
gave forty Gypsy families and land to the new Monastery at Vodita. Over the
next century, Gypsy slavery became institutionalized in the Romanian
Provinces, and abundant historical records document the Gypsys' plight. The
most significant factor affecting the enslavement of Gypsies at this time
was warfare. In the aftermath of his campaigns against the Ottoman Empire in
nothern Bulgaria in 1461- 1462, the Wallachian ruler, Vlad IV Tepes (the
Impaler), brought back 11,000- 12,000 "Gypsies (or Gypsylike People)" to his
capital where he tortured and killed some for his entertainment. Vlad IV's
contemporary in Moldavia, Stephen the Great (1457-1504), brought 17,000
Gypsies back from his campaigns in Wallachia in 1471 to use as slave labor.
His move, however, simply strengthened a practice supported by law, which,
for example, stated that any Moldavian that got a Gypsy pregnant and wanted
to marry her would lose his status and have to become a slave. Later, "any
Moldavian who married a Gip sy himselfj oined the ranks of the 'robi. ' " In
time Gypsy slaves were categorized according to who owned them and the type
of work that they did. Referred to as sclavi, scindromi, or robie they were
known as either tigani de casati (house slaves) or tigani de ogor (field
slaves). Domestic Gypsy slaves owned by the crown or the state were then
divided according to whether they were owned by noblemen (sclavi domnesti),
the Court (sclavi curte), or rural land owners (sclavi gospod). ... Another
category of Gypsy domestic slaves were the laisei, which included the
lautari or laoutari (musicians or "fiddlers"), who did most of the slilled,
nonagricultural work on the estate. Contemporary Balkan Gypsy clans take
their names from those given to them during this period, such as the kirpaci
("basketmakers"), the kovaci (Magyar, blacksmith) or sastrari, the zlatafi
("goldwashers"), the curari ("sieve-makers"), and the chivute
("whitewashers"). The Romanian Orthodox church also had Gypsy slaves, the
sclavi monastivesti, who were divided into the vatrasi (household slaves)
and the more artistic laisei. Becouse of the Gypsy slave's value as a
laborer and a craftsman, laws were passed both to restrict their movement
and to prevent runways slaves and illegal Gypsy slave trading. In 1560, for
examle, the Voivode of Wallachia protested the kidnapping and resale of
Gypsies to the Sultan. ...,By the late 1930s Romania, like many of its East
European neighbors, had drifted into the fascist camp. The new constitution
of 193 8 paid little attention to minority rights, while the Minority Statue
of $ August 193 8 was viewed as little more than a "piece of propagandd' mea
nt primarily for "Gernian ... consumption." Within a year after the outbreak
of the Second World War, Romania saw some of the territory that it had
acquired between 1918 and 1920 returned to the USSR, Bulgaria, and Hungary.
King Carol tried to stife public outcries over these losses by more
stringent policis against groups like the Gypsies and the jews. His
successor, Ion Antonescu, intensified such efforts in his new "Nationalist
Legionary State". Officially, Gypsies, like Jews,were considered no better
than "Mice,rats,crows..." and,according to Antonescu, should be eliminated".
>
> I have never seen it used in English in a sense that could be
> interpreted as meaning Romans. (Unless perhaps he means speakers of a
You never seen it in English for abvious resons. I let your intellect gaide
you through this one.
> Romance language? If he does mean the latter, then that is not a
> proper use of the word "Roman" in English, although it may perhaps be
> in other languages.)
It is in Latin and Greek.
Marlboro Man
Brant Gibbard <bgib...@inforamp.net> wrote in message
news:37414af4...@news.istar.ca...
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 05:00:52 GMT, le...@mail.netinc.ca (RPP) wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>settled among them (conquered them).
>
>
> the Russian Primary Chronicle and Slavic languages know whether
> it/they use the term Vlakhs in the way he is suggesting to mean
> Romans?
No, the Russian Primary Chronicle did not suggest that the Vlakhs are
Romans. But many other Chronicles did before and after the Russian Primary
Chronicle was written. And when it did, it did not suggest, it explained it.
Pope Innocent III (in a latter addressed to Ionita, lord of the Bulgarians
and Romanians,from 1203):
"Thus, taking this into the account, we have decided since long, through our
envoy or our letters, that we should pay a visit to your lordship, so that,
realizing your faith in the Roman
Church ,Your Mother, we might then send to you, who say that you are a
descendent of the noble kin of the Romans.As, he (God the Father) will help
you to be a Roman in this wordily life and for your Eternal Salvation by
your own striving, the same as you are by your descent; and he shall help
the people of your country, which say that they are the Romans, blood and
flesh"
Antonio Possevino (1533-1611), Episcope. In his mission to Transylvania
writes a report to Pope Grigore XIII
"Principi di Moldavia et Vallachia, poiche sono discesi da Romani,dei quali
ancora ritengono il nome, et, come si spera,anco l'amore..."
Shows clearly that the Vallachians are discendents of the Romans.
Pope Clement VI (1342-1352).
"Olachi Romani, commorantes in partibus Ungariae, Transilvanis, Ultralpinis
et Sirmus"
In Hungary, Transylvania, Muntenia and Sirmia live the Roman Vlachs.
Pope Pius II (1458-1464)
"Valachi lingua untuntur Italica, verum imperfecta,et admodum corrupta; sunt
qui legiones Romanas eo missas olim..."
The Vlachs....are the Roman Legiones.
Francesco Della Valle,1532 (secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son of
Doge Andrea Gritti)
"The Vlachs are of Italian stock, and according to them, they are the
descendants of the ancient Romans".
Ioan Kinnamos (Imperial Secretary under two Byzantine Emperors, Manuel I,
Andronic)
"It is said about the Vlachs that they are the old descendants of those from
Italy.
And so on...
The Vlachs were known as Wallachians by neighboring tribes but they called
themselves Romans or Rumans (Rumans since the language of the Church was
Slavonic and in Slavonic, Rum = Rome). It is also known that many tribes
were latinized (Franks, Kelts, Illirians,Tracians). These people were
refereed to in the Chronicles as Wallachs or similar forms because they
spoke Latin. None of these tribes called themselves Romans. Only the Vlakhs
did.
The Romanians were known in the past as:
VALACHUS (By Chatolic West)
FLACI (By Chatolic West)
IFLAK (By Turks)
VLASI, VOLOH (By Slavs)
OLAHOK (By Hungarians)
OLASZOK (The Hungarian name for Italians)
WALACH (By Germans)
WALSCHER (German name for Italians)
BLACHOS, VLACHOS (By Greeks)
BLOCH ( By Saxons in Transylvanias)
WOLOSZY (By Polish)
WLOCHI (Polish name for Italians)
In Old German, WALH = ROMAN
In Gothic, VOLK = ARMED PEOPLE
IN Old Slavonic, VLAST = POWER (Considered by some of Gothic origin)
In Old Slavonic, VLAST = GIGANTE, GOD
I have seen it used in (at least) three different ways in English:
> 1. Wallachians, Romanians (not to be confused with Romans)
True. But now you see it in original (Latin) to understand its real
meaning.
> 2. Generically, for shepherds and hill people
True or partially so. Some Historians does not take philosophy classes to
understand what Generalization means.We know almost nothing about Bogomils
(majority of them were Vlach shepherds ) tanks to some Russians who lost
(intentionally) a very important Chronicle which was found in Serbia and
dealt with the Bogomils also.
Many Vlachs were animal breeders and shepherds because it was a lot more
profitable then many other occupations. I do not have to explain why.Lets
remember that in medieval times there were not too many jobs.The main ones
were animal breeders and feudal farmers, slaves (some consider it a job of
doing anything).
> 3. Gypsies or Rom (not to be confused with Romans)
But of course. Only you have to add something,
"The Gypsies of Eastern Europe edited by David Crowe and John Kolsti"
"In the long course of the Gypsy experience in Eastern Europe, none has been
worse than that in Romania.Within several centuries after Gypsies entered
the medieval provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, they began to be enslaved,
a condition that lasted until the mid nineteenth century. Although slavery
was not a condition peculiar to Gypsies or the Balkans at the time, the
deep-seated, dehumanizing prejudice that has characterized the historic
meant primarily for "Gernian ... consumption." Within a year after the
Marlboro Man
Marlboro Man
RPP <le...@mail.netinc.ca> wrote in message
>
> The etymology of the word Slav is slowo, meaning word. I.e. People of
> the same tongue.
And..., 'Serbs, Servs' comes from 'Servitorum' (Lat.).
> >Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text)
> >
> >"For the Vlakhs (Vulgar Romans) attacked the Danubian Slavs,settled among
> >them, and did them violence, the latter came and made homes by
Vistula,and
> >were called Lyakhs"
> >
>
> Says nothing about a foreign leadership. Oly proposes a reason for a
> migration.
I guess it shows clearly that all Danubian Slavs were subdued by the Vlachs
and implicitly they had to have Vlach rulers. The Russian Chronicle shows a
chronological order of those who subdued the Slavs
(Vlachs,Avars,Ugrians,Bulgars,Magyars,Rus) The first are the Vlachs so, we
can suggest that the time was the end of VIth cent. AD.
When a tribe takes over another tribe or tribes usually the looser pays
tribute to the winner or even worst share the fate of the Gypsies or Tatars.
They could not leave only because they did not like thec scenery. If the
Lyacks left north was because some Vlach rulers decided so. And, here the
Polish Chronicles help when it mention the fact that their leaders are
related to the Romans.
Nobody put in this equation Caesar or Pompei. We note only the idea, that
the Polish rulers were Romans.
>
>
> Archeaology as I said has long ago buried any foreign rule, of the
> Polish tribes, namely the Polanie. It is more than certain that the
> leadership was inherently local.
I can not say much about the archaeology in Poland because I am not familiar
with.
RPP
<WER...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>RPP <le...@mail.netinc.ca> wrote in message news:373f8f42.44603393@news.>
>> I suppose by Lyakhs you mean Poles. The problem is that there is no
>> evidence at all that archeaology can give us to support your claims
>> that the leadership of the Poles was foreign. Certainly, the
>> leadership of the Polanie was never foreign. These theories were
>> disproven a long time ago.
>
>Talking about archeology is the same as talking about OJ Simson's trial.
>Depends who the Jury is.
>And, what the Polish archeaologists say? What evidence do they have to
>advance their theory? Explain please.
The evidence is that there is no evidence for any sort of foreign
rule. For example in the area of fortifications at old forts, there is
a xlear, continuous evolution, never any sort of sudden abrupt change
which would indicate the influence of a foregn ruling class. The
scholarly evidence is there for you to read if you want to accept it.
>When you say that these theories were disproved a long time ago, what are
>you reffering to.Please explain.Are there any names of writers and theories
>they advenced?
>
Theories of a foreign rulling class, by invasion. For example German
scholars tried to advance theories of a Germanic origin of Mieszko
because they thought the Slavs incapable of national organization. The
arheaology shows a much different story.
>>
>> Gall, a foreign traveller wrote nothing about a foreign leadership of
>> the Polanie.
>
>I did not read Gallus yet. I have read referresences about him.
>>
>>
>> I will not speak for any other slavic group. However, I will write for
>> the Polanie. No evidence can show that there was anything but a local
>> leadership at any time. Archaeology shows this. In areas such as
>> fortifications for xample, we can not see a drastic change which would
>> indicate anything but a ruling class which came from the local people.
>>
>If you do not maind can you elaborate the archaeological argument?
>
>
I have given a short synopisis above. I hope it helps.
>>
>> Slavic was a form of Latin? What an absurd theory. Slavic languages
>> iare not a Latin languages, I dont know any serious work which even
>> entertains such a notion. Old Church Slavonic is found as a sort of
>> foundation for the written languages of many Slavic nations, but not
>> all of them, and it is a mistake to treat all Slavic languages with
>> the same brush stroke.
>>
>
>The idea which I try to present is in a developmental stage.
>Again the idea is that Old Slavonic language contain a considerabe number of
>Latin words.These words were already present in Slavonic for a long period
>of time, before the translation of the Bible in Slavonic.How the presence of
>these Latin words in Slavonic can be explained?.
Easily. All languages have influence on others. For xample, there are
many latin words, German words, curently more an more English words in
Polish for example. The presence of Latin in Old Slavonic, a language
developed for the purposes of Christianity is hardly surprising.
>
>
>>
>> This is cfertainly the case in Poland. No Roman leaders were present
>> in Poland, especially the further north you go. The triibes in the
>> south, around Krakow, thats a different story. The tribe that
>> eventually unified Poland howevere, the Polanie, from whom the first
>> POlish royal line comes from, were most certainly from the beginnings
>> local, not foreign as you write.
>
>Can you bring some solid arguments to sustain this point of view?
>(the Polish kings were Polish or Slavs)
Can you bring evidence that they were not? I can cite Thietmar who as
a Saxon german nationalist would have ample reason to write so, yet he
recognizes he Polishness of the Polish kings, Gallus, Wincenty
Kadlubek for starters all who wrote chronicles. As I said, there is no
serious scholarly line of thinking anymore who would doubt this.
>
>>
>> Your linguistics were interersting but most of it is like trying to
>> prove the Englishness of Chinese by the presence of words like Coca
>> Cola in Chinese. Strictly an excercise in absurdity.
>
>As I mentioned before, these Latin words (until now I discovered
>approximatly 20%) present in Slavonic were adopted or incorporated long
>before the Bible was translated in Slavonic. Lets say long before the Xth
>cent. AD.
>
>>
>> And please dont be confused, Old Church Slavonic was most certainly
>> not a language found all over Slavdom.
>
>I do not know what do you mean by these.
>Explain please.You know what they say,
>'A stupid man gets intelligent through a passion. An intelligent man gets
>stupid through the same passion'.
>I believe was La Bruere.
I mean what I say. Old Church Slavonic, if this is what you mean, was
not a languge seen everywhere in Slavdom. For example, in Poland.
>
>
>
RPP
<WER...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>OK, I am going to write a response then I will definitely smoke a cigar.
>And, maybe I will go for a red Vino also.
>
>Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text).
>
>'For the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did
>them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were
>called Lyakhs.'
>
>In other words the Vlakhs (Romans) attacked all the Danubian Slavs and
>settled among them (conquered them). When it is said , 'the latter came and
>made their homes by the Vistula', it means that part of the conquered Slavs
>were taken by the Vlakhs, north to Vistula. The Slavs could not decide for
>themselves when and where to live, only the leaders of the Slavs could and
>these leaders were Vlakhs. Furthermore, the name of this Slavic tribe who
>decided to leave is or was somehow similar (Lyakhs) to the name of the
>conqueror (Vlakhs).
>
Please. Lets maybe give all of the story if we are going to play this
game. In interest of historical honesty. The view of the Danube lands
as the cradle of ALL EUROPEAN NATIONS, was a very poplar view in
Europe of the middle ages. The offspring of Jafet (I dont kow the
English name, one of the sons of Noah) were supposed to come from here
to Europe. This is not historical fact, but a legend popular at the
time, one that touched the traditions of the Bible. Just like the
presence of Julius Ceasar's name in the Kronika Wielkopolska, this is
a legend, not a historical fact.
Quotes from the Chronicls of Greater Poland
"In the oldest books they write, that Panonia is the mother and cradle
of all the Slavic nations"
"From these Panonians came three brothers, sons of Pan the ruler of
the Panonians, whose names were LEch, Czech and Rus. And these three
took the kingdoms of the Lechs (Poles), Czechs, and Rus"
"And When Lech with his offspring travelled through the forests, he
came upon a beautiful place, there he set his tents. And wanting to
buil there his settlement, he proclaimed "we will build a nest
(gniazdo)". This is why today the name of the city is Gniezno, that is
building a nest"
"It is worth noting that Slavs and Germans came suposedly from two
brothers, John and Kus, descendents of Jafet (son of Noah), according
to what Izydor (of Seville) in his first book of "Etymology", and
Martin in the Roman Cronicle"
Ofcourse this Chronicle goes on to tie latter rulers to Julius Ceasar,
so the dates for the lives of Lech, Czech or Rus would be well before
the life of Christ.
This chronicle makes no reference to Lech, Czech or Rus being
anything but a Slav.
The point here is this. These are chronicles. Most chronicles used a
lot of creaive license. The stories of Julius ceasar or Panonia being
the cradle of European nations who are the descedents of one of Noah's
sons can not be taken seriously, but must be taken with a grain of
salt. Archeaology is the place to look. And I have already written
some about that. You are free to read real academic texts if you want.
Pawel Jasienica or Norman Davies are a place to start. Read some other
cjronicles, Gall, Wincenty Kadlubek, or Thietmar.
>
>Note: The Chronicles we were talking before only compliment this plausible
>theory.
>
>And to complite the picture we should add some Lingustics. The following are
>Latin words found in
>Old Church Slavonic. There are more but I do not have time to write them all
>down.
Any scholar would find your logic faulty. Clearly you do not recognize
the purposes of Old Churc slavonic if you are surprised by the high
presence of Latin in a language meant fo religious use.
>
Im going to have a Cuban cigar and some Scotch also.
Brant Gibbard
>>
>>In other words the Vlakhs (Romans) attacked all the Danubian Slavs and
>>settled among them (conquered them).
Does anyone who knows more than I do (which is almost nothing) about
the Russian Primary Chronicle and Slavic languages know whether
it/they use the term Vlakhs in the way he is suggesting to mean
Romans?
I have seen it used in (at least) three different ways in English:
1. Wallachians, Romanians (not to be confused with Romans)
2. Generically, for shepherds and hill people
3. Gypsies or Rom (not to be confused with Romans)
I have never seen it used in English in a sense that could be
interpreted as meaning Romans. (Unless perhaps he means speakers of a
Romance language? If he does mean the latter, then that is not a
proper use of the word "Roman" in English, although it may perhaps be
in other languages.)
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
Toronto, Ont.
RPP
<WER...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>I guess it shows clearly that all Danubian Slavs were subdued by the Vlachs
>and implicitly they had to have Vlach rulers. The Russian Chronicle shows a
>chronological order of those who subdued the Slavs
>(Vlachs,Avars,Ugrians,Bulgars,Magyars,Rus) The first are the Vlachs so, we
>can suggest that the time was the end of VIth cent. AD.
>
>When a tribe takes over another tribe or tribes usually the looser pays
>tribute to the winner or even worst share the fate of the Gypsies or Tatars.
>They could not leave only because they did not like thec scenery. If the
>Lyacks left north was because some Vlach rulers decided so. And, here the
>Polish Chronicles help when it mention the fact that their leaders are
>related to the Romans.
The Polish Chronicles say no such thing, they only say that Lech,
Czech and Rus, the 3 slav brothers came from Panonia. Nemrod it is
said, was a tyrant. So from these Panonians, the 3 brothers, sons of
Pan, rulers of the Panonias left Panonia.
The problem is that the chronicles cant be taken as literal istory.
They are more based on legend than any thing. The ide od Panonia as
cradle of all Europea civilization was popular at the time, and many
chronicles claim that the European nations are descendents of Noah.
The only real litmus test is archeaoloigy, and it rejects your
notions.
>Nobody put in this equation Caesar or Pompei. We note only the idea, that
>the Polish rulers were Romans.
>
The chronicles do! You cant take what suits you and reject what does
not. The chronicles must be seen as a whole, and as a whole they are
clearly works of legend, not in any way works of historical record
keeping.
Brant Gibbard
<WER...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Shows clearly that the Vallachians are discendents of the Romans.
>
No, their language is descended from Latin, but no more so than
French, Italian, Spanish or Portuguese. Their ancestors in the genetic
sense would have been, like everybody else's, a varied mixture of all
kinds of different people, some of whom would have been Romans, in the
wider sense of citizens of the Roman Empire, but hardly any of whom
would have been Romans in the older sense used under the Republic or
early Empire, of people from the Latium area around Rome.
Also, where the Vlachs/Wallachians came from originally is open to
considerable debate (particularly between Romanians and Hungarians,
with a lot of nationalistic heat damaging the objectivity of both
parties owing to arguments over Transylvania, and who was there
"first"). One school, fervently maintained by the Romanians
themselves, asserts that they are descendants of the Dacians, north of
the Danube. While this is not impossible, most non-Romanian scholars
are more inclined to argue that they came from the area to the south
of the Danube in, if I remember correctly, about the 13th-14th
centuries.
>WALSCHER (German name for Italians)
>In Old German, WALH = ROMAN
One of the German specialists on the list can probably clarify this,
but as far as I know the Germanic words of this type do not refer to
Italians or Romans specifically, but are general terms for foreigners
or strangers. For example, this is the origin of the terms Welsh and
Wales in western Britain.
>In Gothic, VOLK = ARMED PEOPLE
>IN Old Slavonic, VLAST = POWER (Considered by some of Gothic origin)
>In Old Slavonic, VLAST = GIGANTE, GOD
Again, check with a language specialist, but I doubt that any of the
above three words have anything whatsoever to do with Wälsch (or Vlach
for that matter). You seem to be seizing on superficial similarities
and then claiming that this means these words are the same. They are
not.
>> Romance language? If he does mean the latter, then that is not a
>> proper use of the word "Roman" in English, although it may perhaps be
>> in other languages.)
>
>It is in Latin and Greek.
>
I doubt that very much in Latin, and it is most emphatically NOT true
in medieval Greek. The Byzantines called themselves Romaioi, and used
the term to refer only to Greek-speaking members of the Orthodox
church. They had their own prejudices, and regarded Latin and the
languages derived from it as barbarous and debased.
Marlboro Man
>
> No, their language is descended from Latin, but no more so than
> French, Italian, Spanish or Portuguese.
Quite true.
Their ancestors in the genetic
> sense would have been, like everybody else's, a varied mixture of all
> kinds of different people, some of whom would have been Romans, in the
> wider sense of citizens of the Roman Empire, but hardly any of whom
> would have been Romans in the older sense used under the Republic or
> early Empire, of people from the Latium area around Rome.
I totally agree. But are the French of today the Franks of yesterday?
are the Greeks the Ancient Greeks of yesterday?, are the Germans the
Germanic tribes of yesterday?. No they are not. Based on this, can you tell
the Greeks,Germans and French not to include in their history any claim of
descendance from these tribes who gave the name to these countries?. No you
cannot.
> Also, where the Vlachs/Wallachians came from originally is open to
> considerable debate (particularly between Romanians and Hungarians,
> with a lot of nationalistic heat damaging the objectivity of both
> parties owing to arguments over Transylvania, and who was there
> "first"). One school, fervently maintained by the Romanians
> themselves, asserts that they are descendants of the Dacians, north of
> the Danube. While this is not impossible, most non-Romanian scholars
> are more inclined to argue that they came from the area to the south
> of the Danube in, if I remember correctly, about the 13th-14th
> centuries.
I believe that the Wallacians were South and North of Danube, East and West.
>
> >WALSCHER (German name for Italians)
> >In Old German, WALH = ROMAN
>
> One of the German specialists on the list can probably clarify this,
> but as far as I know the Germanic words of this type do not refer to
> Italians or Romans specifically, but are general terms for foreigners
> or strangers. For example, this is the origin of the terms Welsh and
> Wales in western Britain.
According to Adolf Armbruster and others, Walh = Roman and Romanized Galls.
He explained that at the origin of 'vlah' stays the name of a Keltic tribe
(volcae) mentioned even by Chaesar. From here the term was transferred to
the Germans, in old Germanic the term 'walh' has the equivalent of Roman and
Romanized Galls.
>
> >In Gothic, VOLK = ARMED PEOPLE
> >IN Old Slavonic, VLAST = POWER (Considered by some of Gothic origin)
> >In Old Slavonic, VLAST = GIGANTE, GOD
>
> Again, check with a language specialist, but I doubt that any of the
> above three words have anything whatsoever to do with Wälsch (or Vlach
> for that matter). You seem to be seizing on superficial similarities
> and then claiming that this means these words are the same. They are not.
Again, read Adolf Armbruster and others. Do some research and you will find
them.
>
> >> Romance language? If he does mean the latter, then that is not a
> >> proper use of the word "Roman" in English, although it may perhaps be
> >> in other languages.)
> >
> >It is in Latin and Greek.
> >
>
> I doubt that very much in Latin, and it is most emphatically NOT true
> in medieval Greek.
Latin and Greek manuscripts shows that Vlachs = Roman. Not only speakers of
a Latin language.Read carefully the other posts of mine.
Pope Clement VI (1342-1352),
"Olachi Romani, commorantes in partibus Ungariae, Ultralpinis et Sirmus"
In Hungary, Transylvania, Muntenia and Sirmus live the ROMAN VLACHS.
"Tam nobilibus quam popularibus Olachis Romanis"
Pope Pius II (1458-1464),
"Valachi lingua utuntur Italica, verum imperfecta, et admodum corrupta; sunt
qui legiones Romanas"
Antonio Possevino (1533-1611),
"Principi di Moldavia et Vallachia, piche sono discesi da Romani, dei quali
ancora ritengono il nome et come si spera, anco l'amore"
Iacob Heraclid, prince of Moldovia,
"Con voi valenti homeni et gente bellicosa dali valorosi Romani, quali hano
fatto trmer il mondo..."
In other wards you said ' I have never seen it (Wallachians) used in English
in a sense that could be interpreted as meaning Romans'.
There are contemporary historians who mention the fact that the Romanians
considered themselves descendants of the Romans.But majority of them accept
Daco Roman descent. And for the majority of them 'Wallach' = speakers of a
Latin language.
The Byzantines called themselves Romaioi, and used
> the term to refer only to Greek-speaking members of the Orthodox
> church. They had their own prejudices, and regarded Latin and the
> languages derived from it as barbarous and debased.
The Byzantine called themselves, ???????
The Byzantines respected three languages, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. The
written languages of the Bible. They did not considered Latin to be a
Barbaric language.
Marlboro Man
> >
> Im going to have a Cuban cigar and some Scotch also.
Where did you get the Cuban cigar from?. I am desperate to get one.
I got to take a brake. I will respond another day.
Be careful with the Scotch.
RPP
<WER...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>RPP <le...@mail.netinc.ca> wrote in message
>news:3740f403...@news.kwom.com...
>> >
>> Im going to have a Cuban cigar and some Scotch also.
>
>Where did you get the Cuban cigar from?. I am desperate to get one.
>I got to take a brake. I will respond another day.
>
Thats my little secret:)
>Be careful with the Scotch.
>
>
I ended up having some brandy instead, couldnt find any scotch, and
the vodka I have doesnt go well with cigars.
MC
> >> >
> >> Im going to have a Cuban cigar and some Scotch also.
> >
> >Where did you get the Cuban cigar from?. I am desperate to get one.
> >I got to take a brake. I will respond another day.
> >
>
> Thats my little secret:)
>
> >Be careful with the Scotch.
> >
> >
> I ended up having some brandy instead, couldnt find any scotch, and
> the vodka I have doesnt go well with cigars.
Have some zobrowka instead..
CG Luxford
>
> Where did you get the Cuban cigar from?. I am desperate to get one.
I'm not a smoker myself, so I could be wrong here, but doesn't one
normally buy cigars from a tobbaconist?
I suppose if it *has* to be Cuban, you could always get someone
who lives anywhere other than the USA to send you one.
Chris,
Bill
> >
> I ended up having some brandy instead, couldnt find any scotch, and
> the vodka I have doesnt go well with cigars.
>
I agree. My fifth wife did not like the smell of my non Cuban Cigars. But
she compensated this inconvenience by a heavy doze of Vodka.
Any way, since I am still in a pause mode I was wandering, if you are not
terrible busy with the Cuban cigars and that elixir known to the general
public as Scotch, could you be so kind to translate for me only the
passages which are referring to the first Polish Kings, where they came
from, etc., details, places, names from different chronicles known and
accessible to you?
Thanks and talk to you latter.
I go have a non Cuban cigar.
Marlboro Man
> I ended up having some brandy instead, couldnt find any scotch, and
> the vodka I have doesnt go well with cigars.
>
I apologize. Some kids have access to my computer so they always change the
name. I sent the previous post under the name 'Bill '.
Marlboro Man
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.95q.99052...@eis.bris.ac.uk...
> I suppose if it *has* to be Cuban, you could always get someone
> who lives anywhere other than the USA to send you one.
>
> Chris,
>
are better.
RPP
wrote:
>
>RPP <le...@mail.netinc.ca> wrote in message
>news:374390c1...@news.kwom.com...
>> >
>> I ended up having some brandy instead, couldnt find any scotch, and
>> the vodka I have doesnt go well with cigars.
>>
>
>I agree. My fifth wife did not like the smell of my non Cuban Cigars. But
>she compensated this inconvenience by a heavy doze of Vodka.
>Any way, since I am still in a pause mode I was wandering, if you are not
>terrible busy with the Cuban cigars and that elixir known to the general
>public as Scotch, could you be so kind to translate for me only the
>passages which are referring to the first Polish Kings, where they came
>from, etc., details, places, names from different chronicles known and
>accessible to you?
>
You mean the pre-Mieszko I rulers??? I could do it if you give me some
time, just specify a bit more closely how far you want me to go. Do
you mean the legendary rulers from the chronicles or "historical"
rulers like Mieszko I, Boleslaw I, Mieszko II etc.
Marlboro Man
>
> You mean the pre-Mieszko I rulers??? I could do it if you give me some
> time, just specify a bit more closely how far you want me to go. Do
> you mean the legendary rulers from the chronicles or "historical"
> rulers like Mieszko I, Boleslaw I, Mieszko II etc.
Legendary rulers. Pre-Mieszko I , Kronika Wielkpolska, Chronicle of Greater
Poland, Anonymous (Gallus), Gesta Ducum.
Thanks
Marlboro Man
> you mean the legendary rulers from the chronicles or "historical"
> rulers like Mieszko I, Boleslaw I, Mieszko II etc.
RPP, I would like to know if you made any progress with those Chronicles.
lipanr...@gmail.com
> <WER...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Shows clearly that the Vallachians are discendents of the Romans.
> >
>
> kinds of different people, some of whom would have been Romans, in the
> wider sense of citizens of the Roman Empire, but hardly any of whom
> would have been Romans in the older sense used under the Republic or
> early Empire, of people from the Latium area around Rome.
>
> considerable debate (particularly between Romanians and Hungarians,
> with a lot of nationalistic heat damaging the objectivity of both
> parties owing to arguments over Transylvania, and who was there
> "first"). One school, fervently maintained by the Romanians
> themselves, asserts that they are descendants of the Dacians, north of
> the Danube. While this is not impossible, most non-Romanian scholars
> are more inclined to argue that they came from the area to the south
> of the Danube in, if I remember correctly, about the 13th-14th
> centuries.
It was the Mongol invasion that terrified the whole of Europe. Batu Khan, Subutei and other Mongol leaders destroyed the Rus at Kalka River (1223), Poland (and German allies) at Legnica (1241) and Hungary at Sajo River (1241), reaching as far as Silesia and Adriatic Sea in Croatia. Germany and Austria was at their mercy. Only the death of the Great Khan Ogodai and the return of Batu Khan at Karakorum for the election of the new Great Khan saved the rest of Europe. French, Germans, Italians were all frightened by the Mongols, considering them the Knights of the Apocalypse. There where held masses in churches throughout Europe to thank God!
The Mongols came back and invaded again and again all the 13th century: Bulgarian-Wallachian Empire (1241, 1242, 1271, 1274, 1280, 1285), Poland (1259, 1286-1287), Lithuania (1259, 1275, 1277), Byzantine Empire (1265, 1324, 1337), Hungary (1280s), Serbia (1293).
Popes tried to unite all Europe into Holy Crusades against the Mongols!
The Cumans, nomad tribes who controlled the territories East of Hungary, fled from the Mongols after Kalka River (1223) and even requested asylum in Hungary after 1238!
The Golden Horde, established by Batu from the Danube to Siberia, was a constant threat of Christian states in the region, only after 1380s, with the Russian victory at Kulikovo (1380) and Timur Lenk's camptaings against Toktamish (1390-1395), the Tartar power begin to decline.
How can Wallachians (Vlachs) crossed the Danube in the Mongol dominated territory, closer to the source of 'terror'? Vlachs were living in the Balkans, to the South of the Danube as the Bulgarian-Wallachian Empire is (living) testimony. They were also already North of the Danume! In 1241, the Mongol army crossed the Carpathian mountains of the Kara Ulagh ("Black Vlachs") defeating the Vlachs and one of their leader named Mišlav. Consequently they killed up to half of the population and burned down most of their settlements. Moreover, the great destruction Mongol brought to Hungary and Bulgaria weakened their power and their struggle for the territory of latter principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. Starting with the 1240s the Vlach Principalities in Romanian Plain begin to unite. In the 1280s-1290s it was a Southern movement of Vlach people from Hungary/Transylvania (Faragaras region, specifically) led by Radu Negru ('Black Radu', remember the Black Vlachs resisting Mongols in 1241!) to the scarcely populated plains to the Danube who established the Principality of Wallachia. Already under Radu's son, Basarab I (ruling 1310-1352), Wallachia forged alliances with Serbia and Bulgaria and rebelled against Hungary, gaining independence in 1330.
Russian chronicles mention in the Moldavian territory the lands of the Bordniks, Bolohovens (Volohovens), Berlandics in the 11th-13th centuries.
Later in the 1340s-1350s fighting against the Mongols permitted another movement of some Vlach people from Hungary/Transylvania (Maramures region, specifically) to the East, creating the principality of Moldavia in 1353.
In fact it was a Southern-Eastern movement from Transylvania to the less populated lands South and East from the Carpathian Mountains. There is no contemporary testimony of a migration of the Wallachians from the Balkans to the North of the Danube! Vlachs-Wallachians inhabited both banks of the Danube long before the 13th-14th centuries.
So who on Earth wanted to go to the Mongols and settle in their way? What Orthodox Christians would leave Orthodox countries like Serbia and Bulgaria and move into Catholic Hungary, where they had limited rights because of their religion? In fact Hungary settled Catholic Germans from Swabia and Saxonia in Transylvania to secure control of this region.
Vlachs-Wallachians were descent of the Latin speaking people of the Roman Empire, split in two by the Slavs in the 7th century and forced to settle in the mountains: Southern Vlachs in Dalmatia, Macedonia, Bulgaria; Northern Vlachs mainly in Transylvania (a natural fortress in the way of the nomadic people: mountains covered with forest - Transylvania='Land beyonf of the forest', where their herds and horses couldn't advance).
Here are some good argument relating this 'mistery':
http://www.friesian.com/decdenc2.htm
robert...@gmail.com
Surreyman
> Best thing to day is that it varies through the ages, and is probably at its largest right now. Even the Turks are trying to become a part... dear me! And the Ukranians (quite a few of them anyway). Ancient tradition would have it that 'Europe' was defined by Holy Roman Emperors and Christianity (though not Eastern Orthodox), but now it has more to do with cash, politics and who can get whatever they can out of it. To it stops at Germany, Austria, the USSR and anywhere Islamic... apart from the odd pocket in the Balkana. No Commies or ex-commies (apart from Yugoslavia, Albania, E Germany and Czechoslovakia of course).
The EU has become ridiculous and virtually unmanageable for purely political reasons. The Russians always complained that the satellite states milked off them, and now the EU has them instead.
robert...@gmail.com
Never a good idea to over-extend any empire, as history has showed time and time again....