Slaves and Slavs

It still can't be as bad as the origins of Bulgars. I remember someone saying on national TV that the Great Wall was erected specifically to ward off Bulgars.

Depends which great wall, because there were several of them.

The one which stands today was built by the Ming dynasty in the 1400s, to ward off the Mongols:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Map_of_the_Great_Wall_of_China.jpg

The first Chinese great wall was built in the 3rd century BC, to ward off the Xiongnu.

But already before that there existed some "less great walls", built by the Warring States.

The wall Tolni refers to was probably built to ward off one very specific Bulgarian tribe, the Macedonians. Come on, hatemail!

Mize said:

one very specific Bulgarian tribe, the Macedonians.

Click to expand...

^ There were around seven Slavic tribes in Macedonia:

- the Rhynchines
- the Sagudates
- the Draguvites
- the Berziti
- the Smolians
- the Strumians
- the Ezero



In other words:




===============================

In territories which are now parts of Montenegro and Herzegovina, there was also a multitude of Slavic tribes:

- the Narentines (their country was called Pagania)
- the Zachlumiani
- the Travunians
- the Konavljani
- the Dukljans

North-east of the Serbs there were the Abodriti and the Moravians, both with similar names to West Slavic Obodrites/Moravians:

Ah, you! Stop spoiling my jokes and nationalist-bait!

Nice one though, I actually did laugh out loud when I saw the spoiler... Brynner's just so funny...

Kyriakos said:

At least Belisarius was sane and skilled in what he did. A sort of Davos to Justinian/Stannis. The Red Woman obviously was Theodora.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Belisarius of Germanic roots?

How did it go with the Avars? From what I've read at first the Avars were enemies that came from the East to conquer Slav lands, however, later on they turned into Slavian allies?

Krum kicked their ass in the early 800s as Charlemagne was also attacking them. So, no, not really.

Belisarius was from a family of Thracian roots:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians

Speculations about his Germanic roots were popular among 19th century Pan-Germanist nationalists and were based on the name of his home village, Germane. They are about as scientific as similar speculations about his Slavic roots based on close similarity of Thracian name Belisar to Slavic name Velizar. Linguists usually say that the Daco-Thracian language family was most closely related to the Balto-Slavic language family, which may explain similarities.

daft said:

So what drove Slavs to invade Byzantine lands? How were they able to defeat the fine Byzantine armies?, capture their cities?

Click to expand...

This excerpt from Procopius of Caesarea describes how Slavs captured the city of Topirus:

"(...) The Slavs took it in the following manner. Most of them hid themselves in hilly country opposite the walls, and a few of them, going up before the eastern gates, annoyed the Romans on the parapets. The soldiers who were on guard there, thinking that they (the Slavs) were no more numerous than those whom they saw, all immediately taking up their weapons, went out against them. The barbarians retreated, giving the appearance to their pursuers that they retreated out of fear. Those in ambush came out now, behind the pursuers, no longer allowing them entry into the city. Those who appeared to be fleeing now turned about and placed the Romans in a position of double attack. Having slain all of them, the barbarians attacked the wall. The inhabitants of the city, deprived of the soldiers, were at a great loss and defended themselves against the attackers with those that remained. First, heating oil and pitch, they poured it on the besiegers and, all of them hurling stones against them, came close to repulsing the danger. But then the barbarians, having driven them back from the parapets by a multitude of arrows and having placed ladders against the wall, took the city by storm. They slew all 15,000 men, plundered all the wealth, and enslaved all the women and children. (...)"

============================

A fight of Slavic pirates against Italians (from "Historia Langobardorum"):

"(...) Then on the death of Arichis, who had held the dukedom fifty years, Aio, his son, was made leader of the Samnites, and still Radoald and Grimoald obeyed him in all things as their elder brother and lord. When this Aio had already governed the dukedom of Beneventum a year and five months, the Slavs came with a great number of ships and set up their camp not far from the city of Sipontum (Siponto). They made hidden pit-falls around their camp and when Aio came upon them in the absence of Raduald and Grimoald and attempted to conquer them, his horse fell into one of these pit-falls, the Slavs rushed upon him and he was killed with a number of others. (...)"

============================

The main part of early Slavic armies (before they captured Roman weapons) were men armed with a shield and a few throwing spears each. Archers also played an important role and they often used poisonous arrows. Weapons commonly used by Slavs at close quarters were thrusting spears and, of course, axes. Rich individuals could afford long knives or swords. Most of them fought on foot, but horsemen also existed - they used lances, javelins, axes, swords, perhaps bows too. Due to the fact that many of them had missile weapons (javelins, bows, and even slings), Slavs usually preferred to fight in loose order.

Shields were commonly used, but metal armour was probably very rare - at least until they captured Roman armouries.

They could be using leather armour, though. According to Procopius some of them went to battle naked from the waist up.

The main part of early Slavic armies were men armed with a shield and a few throwing spears each. Archers also played an important role and they often used poisonous arrows. Weapons commonly used by Slavs at close quarters were thrusting spears and, of course, axes. Rich individuals could afford long knives or swords. Most of them fought on foot, but horsemen also existed - they used lances, javelins, axes, swords, perhaps bows too. Due to the fact that many of them had missile weapons (javelins, bows, and even slings), Slavs usually preferred to fight in loose order.

Shields were commonly used, but metal armour was probably very rare - at least until they captured Roman armouries.

They could be using leather armour, though. According to Procopius some of them went to battle naked from the waist up.

Click to expand...

Early Slavic foot warriors:



Not sure if some of them really wore wolf skins, but according to Caesarius of Nazianzus, they imitated wolf howling in battle. Later on, one of West Slavic groups was known as "Wolfs" ("Wilzen"). Wolfs and werewolfs also played an important role in Pagan Slavic religion and in their folklore (mythology).

Vampires and werewolfs are creatures originating from Pagan Slavic beliefs.

Similar Slavic mythological creatures to both vampires and werewolfs were utopce (drawned men resurrected from the dead after drawning).

Wolf skin wearing warriors were apparently common among Slav tribes. Such warriors attacked one of the crusades headed towards Constantinople, Veleti, one of the major Vendic(Western) Slav tribes' name means basically "wolves". Warriors' heads were shaven (depending on tribal customs, I guess), only nobility and priests were allowed to wear their hair long. Also, a short handled battle axe was a common weapon.
Veneadi, the Proto-Slavs are shown on Wikipedia maps to have lived in the lands of current Poland and former East Germany(and further East) as early as around 400BC.

daft said:

the Proto-Slavs are shown on Wikipedia maps to have lived in the lands of current Poland and former East Germany(and further East) as early as around 400BC.

Click to expand...

The prevalent theory is that Slavs moved westward to Poland and East Germany only after 500 AD.

However, the main genetic Y-DNA marker of Northern Slavic (West and East Slavic) populations is R1a haplogroup.

And ancient DNA evidence shows that people with R1a marker (so main genetic ancestors of Northern Slavs) inhabited these areas already during the Copper, Bronze and Early Iron Ages. By contrast Western European populations (Italo-Celtic and most of Germanics) are characterized by another Y-DNA haplogroup - R1b.

These are locations of ancient DNA samples of R1a and R1b haplogroups found so far, from period 8000 - 2000 years ago:



The two oldest samples - 7500 ybp (from Southern Deer Island, Lake Onega, Karelia) and 6000 ybp (found near the city of Velizh) were hunter-gatherers.

Samples of R1a from Poland and East Germany were found in the context of Copper-Bronze Age Corded Ware cultures (4600 ybp, 4400 ybp and 4000 ybp), as well as the Lusatian Culture (3100 ybp). Samples of R1b from Germany were found in the context of Copper-Bronze Age Bell Beaker cultures (4500 ybp and 4300 ybp):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

Only the burial site belonging to Urnfield cultural horizon located near Dorste (3000 ybp) happened to contain both R1a (x2) and R1b (x1):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture

The most important of all settlements of the Lusatian Culture found so far, was Biskupin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biskupin


Link to video.

Domen said:

These are locations of ancient DNA samples of R1a and R1b haplogroups found so far, from period 8000 - 2000 years ago:

Click to expand...

And modern dominant haplogroups by country for comparison - R1b is pink here (while R1a is red like before):

I added something in another thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13844927#post13844927

I'm still tripping over the idea that "slave" and "Slav" are supposed to be related in the first place

Click to expand...

This similarity is either a coincidence, or "slaves" originated from Slavs in times when Slavs were Pagan.

Please note that by the end of the 6th century, Pope Gregory the Great introduced the principles of the "Societas Christiana" - one of those principles was: baptized people must be excluded from slavery. Slavs at that time were still Pagan, and Pagan lands became the natural place to go get some slaves after you no longer could enslave fellow Christians. Also Muslims could be enslaved. But at that time Muslims were militarily stronger than Western Europe, and those were Muslim slave hunters who raided South-Western Europe, the Frankish Empire and the Byzantine Empire - not the other way around.

Another theory is that "slaves" originated from Slavs not because they were enslaved, but because of what they did with their own slaves:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13829438#post13829438

"Strategikon", written by Emperor Maurice (539-602), contains this highly thought-provoking passage:

"(...) Slavs, unlike all other peoples, do not keep prisoners of war in perpetual slavery, but they demarcate for them a limited period of time, after which they give them a choice: they can either return home if they purchase their freedom, or stay among them as free people and friends. (...)"

Click to expand...

This is probable IMHO. Because this is what made Slavs unique (according to "Strategikon"), while becoming slaves was not specific to Slavs. At that time slavery was widespread and slaves originated from all ethnic and linguistic groups, not just Slavs (even if Slavs were overrepresented).

I'd be surprised if USians didn't overwhelmingly associate "slave" with either Africans or young females.

Click to expand...

But this word is much older than the USA!

The origin of this word probably dates back to the Frankish Empire - Charlemagne's campaigns against Slavs.

According to some linguists (like for example Max Vasmer) the word originated even earlier - before 594 AD.

But Max Vasmer was racist against Slavs, though it doesn't necessarily discredit his theory on time of origin.

As for Charlemagne - he not only fought against Pagan Slavs, but also against Pagan Saxons.

He rather enslaved more Saxons than Slavs, actually. At least sources mention how many Saxons he enslaved.

================

The term "Slavs" originated from a Greco-Latin corruption of "Sloveni", which was how at least some of Proto-Slavic-speakers called themselves.

BTW according to Jordanes and Procopius, people who spoke that language which we call Proto-Slavic, had at least three different names.

One of branches of speakers of that language was known as the Antes. So "Slavic" - "Antic" and "Slavs" - "Ants" can be used interchangeably.

Jordanes wrote about Slavic-speaking nations in the 500s AD:

"(...) Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Carpathians as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus [marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube] to the Dniester, and northward as far as the Vistula. (...) The Antes (...) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus [Black Sea coast near Odessa], spread from the Dniester to the Dnieper, rivers that are many days' journey apart. (...)"

Click to expand...

Procopius wrote about Slavic-speaking nations in the 500s AD:

"(...) For these nations, the Sclaveni and the Antes, are not ruled by one man, but they have lived from of old under a democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people. It is also true that in all other matters, practically speaking, these two barbarian peoples have had from ancient times the same institutions and customs. For they believe that one god, the maker of lightning, is alone lord of all things, and they sacrifice to him cattle and all other victims. (...) When they enter battle, the majority of them go against their enemy on foot carrying shields and javelins in their hands, but they never wear corselets. Indeed, some of them do not wear even a shirt or a cloak, but gathering their trews up as far as to their private parts they enter into battle with their opponents. And both the two peoples have also the same language [Late Common Slavic], an utterly barbarous tongue. Nay further, they do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are all slightly ruddy in color. And they live a hard life, giving no heed to bodily comforts, just as the Massagetae do. (...) In fact, the Sclaveni and the Antes actually had a single name in the remote past; for they were both called Spori in olden times, because, I suppose, living apart one man from another, they inhabit their country in a sporadic fashion. And in consequence of this very fact they hold a great amount of land; for they alone inhabit the greatest part of the northern bank of the Danube. So much then may be said regarding these peoples. (...)"

Click to expand...

================
================

And coming back to that "genetic talk" about Y-DNA haplogroup R1a - I made a genealogical visualization:

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png



Daco-Thracian is a hypothetical language family that was probably closely related to Balto-Slavic language family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classification_of_Thracian&redirect=no#Daco-Thracian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_language

Any known Slavic Gladiators?
Heard that captured Slav warriors often fought as gladiators in Roman arenas.

That's Thracians you're thinking of.

"The last known gladiatorial fight in Rome was on 1 January 404 AD."

And the Romans didn't have contact with the Slavs that early on, AFAIK.

Domen said:

"The last known gladiatorial fight in Rome was on 1 January 404 AD."

And the Romans didn't have contact with the Slavs that early on, AFAIK.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be a hundred percent about that last part of your statement.

Domen said:

This excerpt from Procopius of Caesarea describes how Slavs captured the city of Topirus:

"(...) The Slavs took it in the following manner. Most of them hid themselves in hilly country opposite the walls, and a few of them, going up before the eastern gates, annoyed the Romans on the parapets. The soldiers who were on guard there, thinking that they (the Slavs) were no more numerous than those whom they saw, all immediately taking up their weapons, went out against them. The barbarians retreated, giving the appearance to their pursuers that they retreated out of fear. Those in ambush came out now, behind the pursuers, no longer allowing them entry into the city. Those who appeared to be fleeing now turned about and placed the Romans in a position of double attack. Having slain all of them, the barbarians attacked the wall. The inhabitants of the city, deprived of the soldiers, were at a great loss and defended themselves against the attackers with those that remained. First, heating oil and pitch, they poured it on the besiegers and, all of them hurling stones against them, came close to repulsing the danger. But then the barbarians, having driven them back from the parapets by a multitude of arrows and having placed ladders against the wall, took the city by storm. They slew all 15,000 men, plundered all the wealth, and enslaved all the women and children. (...)"

============================

A fight of Slavic pirates against Italians (from "Historia Langobardorum"):

"(...) Then on the death of Arichis, who had held the dukedom fifty years, Aio, his son, was made leader of the Samnites, and still Radoald and Grimoald obeyed him in all things as their elder brother and lord. When this Aio had already governed the dukedom of Beneventum a year and five months, the Slavs came with a great number of ships and set up their camp not far from the city of Sipontum (Siponto). They made hidden pit-falls around their camp and when Aio came upon them in the absence of Raduald and Grimoald and attempted to conquer them, his horse fell into one of these pit-falls, the Slavs rushed upon him and he was killed with a number of others. (...)"

============================

The main part of early Slavic armies (before they captured Roman weapons) were men armed with a shield and a few throwing spears each. Archers also played an important role and they often used poisonous arrows. Weapons commonly used by Slavs at close quarters were thrusting spears and, of course, axes. Rich individuals could afford long knives or swords. Most of them fought on foot, but horsemen also existed - they used lances, javelins, axes, swords, perhaps bows too. Due to the fact that many of them had missile weapons (javelins, bows, and even slings), Slavs usually preferred to fight in loose order.

Shields were commonly used, but metal armour was probably very rare - at least until they captured Roman armouries.

They could be using leather armour, though. According to Procopius some of them went to battle naked from the waist up.

Click to expand...

Just want to point outregarding the quoted text in BOLD)

1. They (Slavian warriors) took the city by trick as well as strength, inventive.
2. They slew all males in the city save for the children and women, whom they took with them. No doubt these captive children were raised in Slavic ways and culture and became free and part of their new tribe, and the women, either married or used for pleasure, but still were allowed to live, and most likely become normal Slavic citizens after their "Slave" period was over. Now, compare that treatment to the one the Glorious Greeks "Achaeans" treated the conquered Trojans after they captured the city? Or should I remind you? Greeks raped and then killed Trojan women and threw the children to their death from the walls! (some still consider the Trojan war a myth though)
A little lesson for everyone, those called barbarians were sometimes more humane than warriors of "great civilizations".
Mongols were terribly cruel as well, if a city decided to defend itself instead of surrendering to them, after capture they would usually kill ALL inhabitants, they did that in Khwarezmia and the Rus' several times.
Am I way off?