Macedonian Truth Forum   

Go Back   Macedonian Truth Forum > Macedonian Truth Forum > Exposing Lies and Propaganda

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-03-2009, 12:03 AM   #1
Napoleon
Junior Member
 
Napoleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 98
Napoleon is on a distinguished road
Default Sarakatsani...more modern 'Greeks' with Turkish origins

Seems the Sarakatsani are related to the Yörüks, a similar Turkish speaking Muslim tribe of nomads. See the link below;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C3%B6r%C3%BCk
Napoleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2009, 12:30 AM   #2
TrueMacedonian
Senior Member
 
TrueMacedonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,809
TrueMacedonian will become famous soon enough
Default

From the link you posted Napolean;

Quote:
Yörüks and Sarakatsani
Their nomadic way of life and the fact that they spread through the Balkans led Arnold van Gennep to try and establish a connection between the Yörüks and the Sarakatsani (or Karakachans) of Greece. However, the Sarakatsani when for the first time mentioned under this name were Orthodox Christians and speaking a Greek dialect. While there are no actual linguistic or religious links to the Yörük, there are nevertheless connections and similarities as to the transhumant, nomadic way of life.[7] Gennep considers that both of these pastoral ethnic groups may ultimately share a common Turkic ancestry.[7]
I don't think it would be that hard to swallow considering that they are scattered around Halkidiki and various areas where Turkish settlements lay near by.
__________________
Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!
TrueMacedonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 11:46 PM   #3
Carlin
Senior Member
 
Carlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,812
Carlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud of
Default

Sarakatsani are most likely Hellenized Vlachs; this process started only in the 19th century (it's less likely that they are of Turkish/Yoruk origin). This should not come as a surprise since even the Peloponnesian/Moraitian Tzakonians and Maniotes are also of Vlach descent.

Gustav Weigand regarded the Sarakatsani as a population of Vlach origin. When you also have even a Greek site speculating on this possibility and connection... Well, you can then draw your own conclusions.

Please ignore the mental gymnastics that follow and focus on the facts provided, such as how Jirecek found a "specific" population to be Latin-speaking, etc. Statements such as "Greek-speaking Greeks" are very effective in dealing with cognitive dissonance issues. In reality, the Greek-speakers of the coastal areas of Aetolia-Acarnania, Epirus and many other regions were Vlachs and Albanians.

http://www.sarakatsanos.net/index.ph...=17&Itemid=140

Many authors have speculated on the origins of the Sarakatsani.

In Monograph on Koutsovlachs (Μονογραφια περι Κουτσοβλαχων, 1865, reprinted in 1905), a Greek Epirot named Aravantinos discussed how the Arvanitovlachs were called Sarakatsani due to their Greek roots ("Τοιουτους Αρβανιτοβλαχους φερεωικους ποιμενοβιους ολιγιστους απαντωμεν εν Θεσσαλια και Μακεδονια, Σαρακατσανους καλουμενους καταχρηστικους διοτι οι Σαρακατσανοι ορμονται εξελληνων και αυτοχρημα Ελληνες εισι").

In Aravantinos' Chronography (Χρονογραφια), he elaborates more on the Sarakatsani and discusses about the "existence" of the Sarakatsani along with other actual existing groups like the Pestanianoi and the Vlachs. He also states that the Arvanitovlachs were called Garagounides or Korakounides thus increasing the supposed differences between Arvanitovlachs and Sarakatsani ("Σαρακατσιανοι η Σακαρετσανοι εχοντες την καταγωγη εκ Σαρακετσιου ... Οι Σαρακατσανοι, οι Πεστανιανοι, και οι Βλαχοι οι εκ του Συρρακου εκπατρισθεντες, οιτινες και ολιγοτερων των αλλων σκηνιτων βαρβαριζουσι. Διαφοροι δε των τριων εισιν οι Αρβανιτοβλαχοι λεγομενοι Γκαραγκουνιδες η Κορακουνιδες").

The Sarakatsani may have been bilingual in both Greek and Latin. Evidence of this can be found in texts written by authors such as Katakouzinos II, Procopius, and Kasomoulis. These authors state that before the advent of the Ottomans in southeastern Europe, Greek-speaking Greeks only lived in the coastal cities of Epirus and Aetoloakarnania, and that the remaining people who resided in the mountains were Arvanitovlachs. Other testimonies from Cousinery, Pouqeville, Heuzey, Tertsetis, Frantzis, and Deligiannis confirm that the population in Epirus, Aetoloakarnania and western Macedonia were bi-lingual.

The people known today as the Sarakatsani were referred to as Roumeliotes by authors such as Georges Kavadias even though the Sarakatsani did not use that name themselves. Based on an account by Fotakos, the people currently known today as the Sarakatsani referred to themselves as Moraites when they migrated to Thessaly after the Greek Revolution. A Czech author by the name of Jirecek found the Moraitian tribe as a Latin-speaking populace that eventually became Greek-speaking (Gesty Pobulgarsky, Praze 1888 p. 220 and Das Furstentum Bulgariens 1891 p. 119). So perhaps the Sarakatsani spoke a mixed Greek-Latin language and became Greek monolinguals after the Greek Revolution.

Carlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 05:20 AM   #4
Onur
Senior Member
 
Onur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Izmir, Turkiye
Posts: 2,389
Onur is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlin View Post
Sarakatsani are most likely Hellenized Vlachs; this process started only in the 19th century (it's less likely that they are of Turkish/Yoruk origin). This should not come as a surprise since even the Peloponnesian/Moraitian Tzakonians and Maniotes are also of Vlach descent.
There was two group of nomadic peoples in Balkans throughout all middle ages; Vlachs and Yoruks.

Vlachs are older than Turkish Yoruks who came to Balkans after 14th century but also there was some Cuman Turkic nomads wandering in Balkans after 11th century.

The so-called Sarakatsani being hellenes is a laughable claim at best because there was no such a concept as "nomad Greeks" in history. The official Greek explanation for that phenomenon is supposedly the Sarakatsani couldn't live under Ottoman regime and they have chosen nomadic life to protect their hellenism and orthodoxy (!!!), so they are supposedly the most super duper hellenes
Onur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 09:01 AM   #5
Carlin
Senior Member
 
Carlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,812
Carlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud of
Default

The term "Vlachs" was always/still is a bit misleading as the Vlachs didn't use this 'appellation' for themselves. In the middle ages authors used it liberally to mean different/various things: nomads, mountain dwellers, Latin-speakers, etc.

Poles call Italians "Vlachs"/Wlochy:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%82ochy

PS: Meglen Vlachs might have a partial Turkic/Pecheneg ancestry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megleno-Romanians

Historians Ovid Densusianu and Konstantin Jirecek considered that Megleno-Romanians descended from a mixture of Romanians with Pecenegs, settled in Moglen by the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos in 1091.
Carlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 11:57 AM   #6
Onur
Senior Member
 
Onur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Izmir, Turkiye
Posts: 2,389
Onur is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlin View Post
The term "Vlachs" was always/still is a bit misleading as the Vlachs didn't use this 'appellation' for themselves. In the middle ages authors used it liberally to mean different/various things: nomads, mountain dwellers, Latin-speakers, etc.

Poles call Italians "Vlachs"/Wlochy:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%82ochy
Already the genetics of present day Romanians and other Balkan Vlachs doesn't have any relation with their Latin language.

The official Romanian argument is that they are the descendants of pre-crusader, Latin people of Roman era but in fact, they have no relation with other Latin speakers like Spanish, Italians or French. Most likely the Romanians/Vlachs are Latinized Balkan people after the Avar era, during the Charlemagne`s Frankish empire, despotate of Moravia because we know that Charlemagne was hardcore servant of Pope, forcefully baptizing everyone and trying to assimilate all the people under the supervision of Vatican.

Quote:
PS: Meglen Vlachs might have a partial Turkic/Pecheneg ancestry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megleno-Romanians

Historians Ovid Densusianu and Konstantin Jirecek considered that Megleno-Romanians descended from a mixture of Romanians with Pecenegs, settled in Moglen by the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos in 1091.
This might be true. I mentioned about Cumans because they were the last Turkic group who settled in Balkans before the Ottoman era but ofc there was other Turkic groups before Cumans, like Pechenegs and Avars. These groups ruled in Balkans for centuries between 6th to 13th century, founded several states like 2nd Bulgarian kingdom, first ever Romanian state in 14th century and their trace is present everywhere from today`s Hungary to Turkey. These people shouldn't have been vaporized all of a sudden.

It`s quite likely that Vlachs were originally Bulgar, Pecheneg, Hungarian and later Cuman nomads who got assimilated with Latin tongue. It wouldn't be surprise that after Yoruks came to Balkans from Anatolia, they intermarried with them because their lifestyle was same, breeding flocks and wandering around Balkans for greener pastures.

But i am sure about one thing; nomadic Vlachs cant be the descendants of ancient Greeks. If that would be the case, then present day Romanians should have been the descendants of ancient Hellenes.

Last edited by Onur; 05-05-2012 at 12:04 PM.
Onur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 12:38 PM   #7
Soldier of Macedon
Senior Member
 
Soldier of Macedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Macedonian Outpost
Posts: 13,518
Soldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond reputeSoldier of Macedon has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onur
It`s quite likely that Vlachs were originally Bulgar, Pecheneg, Hungarian and later Cuman nomads who got assimilated with Latin tongue.
The Bulgars, Pechenegs and Hungarians no doubt influenced the development of Romanians, but the Latin element was there first.
Quote:
It wouldn't be surprise that after Yoruks came to Balkans from Anatolia, they intermarried with them because their lifestyle was same, breeding flocks and wandering around Balkans for greener pastures.
Yoruks didn't arrive in the Balkans until around the 14th century. But your suggestion about the nomadic habits of wandering Vlach tribes being influenced by Turkic and/or steppes people sounds possible, only it would have taken place prior to the 11th century.
__________________
In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.
Soldier of Macedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 01:48 PM   #8
Onur
Senior Member
 
Onur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Izmir, Turkiye
Posts: 2,389
Onur is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
The Bulgars, Pechenegs and Hungarians no doubt influenced the development of Romanians, but the Latin element was there first.
This might be the case but i highly doubt about Latin speaking people quits the Roman era peasant settlement life and becomes nomads, starts wondering in Balkans for greener pastures. This just doesn't sound logic to me just as ancient Greeks supposedly quits their settled life style and becomes nomads.

Just read about the post-Avar Charlemagne era. He was the one who forcefully baptized Saxons and various other Germanic peoples under the supervision of Pope. He was famous with converting people to christianity and massacre the ones who refuse;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

I have no proof but i strongly believe that this is the time when these nomads started to adopt Latin tongue. Charlemagne was also the one who created Moravian kingdom under Pope`s sovereignty with the recently christianized slavic people (by Charlemagne again), who previously lived under the Avar reign.

Last edited by Onur; 05-05-2012 at 01:56 PM.
Onur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 02:12 PM   #9
Carlin
Senior Member
 
Carlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,812
Carlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onur View Post
Already the genetics of present day Romanians and other Balkan Vlachs doesn't have any relation with their Latin language.

The official Romanian argument is that they are the descendants of pre-crusader, Latin people of Roman era but in fact, they have no relation with other Latin speakers like Spanish, Italians or French. Most likely the Romanians/Vlachs are Latinized Balkan people after the Avar era, during the Charlemagne`s Frankish empire, despotate of Moravia because we know that Charlemagne was hardcore servant of Pope, forcefully baptizing everyone and trying to assimilate all the people under the supervision of Vatican.
I think this is incorrect. Virtually all authorities agree that Romanians/Vlachs are Latinized Balkan peoples PRIOR to the Avar era. There is proof aplenty to support this hypothesis, and that they did mix with the Roman minority.

There are significant testimonies from antiquity which show widespread settlement of Roman soldiers, citizens, and colonists all over the Balkans (Macedonia, Dacia, Moesia, Achaea, etc.). Over the centuries the Roman minority assimilated the Balkan majority (Thracians, Dacians, Macedonians, etc.) as Latin was the official language of the state.

Romans did have an official policy of assimilation and as a result Romanized/Latinized virtually the entire Mediterranean. (The same process took place in Spain/Portugal, France and even certain parts of Italy [notably Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily: peopled mostly by "barbarians" before the Roman conquest] and these populations are no more/no less "Latin" in origin. Let's not forget the Etruscans..)

Charlemagne on the other hand was a Frank/German and had a policy, if anything, of spreading and converting people to Roman Catholicism.

Here's an interesting excerpt from Edward Gibbon's HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE:

But the most important condition of peace was understood rather than expressed in the treaty. Aurelian withdrew the Roman forces from Dacia, and tacitly relinquished that great province to the Goths and Vandals. 22 His manly judgment convinced him of the solid advantages, and taught him to despise the seeming disgrace, of thus contracting the frontiers of the monarchy. The Dacian subjects, removed from those distant possessions which they were unable to cultivate or defend, added strength and populousness to the southern side of the Danube.

A fertile territory, which the repetition of barbarous inroads had changed into a desert, was yielded to their industry, and a new province of Dacia still preserved the memory of Trajan's conquests. The old country of that name detained, however, a considerable number of its inhabitants, who dreaded exile more than a Gothic master. 23 These degenerate Romans continued to serve the empire, whose allegiance they had renounced, by introducing among their conquerors the first notions of agriculture, the useful arts, and the conveniences of civilized life. An intercourse of commerce and language was gradually established between the opposite banks of the Danube; and after Dacia became an independent state, it often proved the firmest barrier of the empire against the invasions of the savages of the North. A sense of interest attached these more settled barbarians to the alliance of Rome, and a permanent interest very frequently ripens into sincere and useful friendship. This various colony, which filled the ancient province, and was insensibly blended into one great people, still acknowledged the superior renown and authority of the Gothic tribe, and claimed the fancied honor of a Scandinavian origin. At the same time, the lucky though accidental resemblance of the name of Getae, 231 infused among the credulous Goths a vain persuasion, that in a remote age, their own ancestors, already seated in the Dacian provinces, had received the instructions of Zamolxis, and checked the victorious arms of Sesostris and Darius. 24

[The Walachians still preserve many traces of the Latin language and have boasted, in every age, of their Roman descent. They are surrounded by, but not mixed with, the barbarians. See a Memoir of M. d'Anville on ancient Dacia, in the Academy of Inscriptions, tom. xxx.]


http://www.gutenberg.org/files/731/731-h/731-h.htm
Carlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2016, 12:14 PM   #10
Carlin
Senior Member
 
Carlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,812
Carlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud of
Default

RE: Sarakatsani (or Karakachani) ...

- "Sarac" means poor in Romanian (saracacios = in bad condition/shabby). Even some modern Greek authors stated that they most likely descend from hellenized Vlachs (Exarhos 1994).
https://translate.google.ca/?hl=en&t.../en/Saracacios

- Apparently, during the 18th century a large number of Ottoman subjects spoke Vlach at home, but its use gradually diminished. Linguist Gustaf Weigand who studied the Vlachs extensively mentions that "a large number of the ‘pure Greeks’ of Thebes, Serres, and Thessaloniki’ are pure Vlachs. There were Vlach speakers from the south of Karditsa to the west, Agrafa mountains and Eurytania province who lost their language in the 19th and 20th centuries.
http://www.farsarotul.org/nl26_1.htm

- Das fürstenthum Bulgarien: Seine bodengestaltung, natur, bevölkerung, By Konstantin Jireček, 1891 ... PAGE 118:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=zbx...garien&f=false

Quote: "Man scheidet sie in zwei Stamme, die rumanisch sprechenden Kucovlasi und die gracisirten Karakachani..."

Summary: Two tribes of Vlachs, per Jirecek --> the Romanian speaking Kutsovlachs, and the Hellenized ('gracisirten') Karakachani.

Last edited by Carlin; 03-21-2016 at 12:28 PM.
Carlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump