Eastern Europe in the Dark Ages

[Pokurcz]

You realy are a nationalist...

To be a nationalist is not something good, it constrains your freedom of thought.

My advice for you is to make an effort to become a patriot in stead.


I gather that anything resembling the word "Turkish" or "Turk" makes the nationalist soul of yours go in to a tantrum because of Bulgarias time under Ottoman power. But as you can clearly see in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages
There is no need at all for a people with Turkic origins to have anything to do with Modern day Turkey or the Ottoman empire.

There is no reason to be upset.

 

[Kyriakos]

Personally i think that we should go past the remains of old conflicts, even if a part of the balcan countries populations will for some more generations still be involved with such nationalisms. Moreover im sure that the specific situations in each country can present pseudo-logical reasons for remaining nationalistic, as in Bulgaria and the turkish political party (i admit that i only know of it what fing0lfin wrote) or in Greece with the thracian muslims, however in reality no person would react badly to acceptance, and everyone asks for acceptance.
As i have said before, this city has nowdays a lot of immigrants, many of which are bulgarian, and i am very happy with it. A society which remains ethnically pure is doomed to always recycle the same old ideas, and lag far behind more progressive societies.

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
Well, to speak about Far Away Moravia (Great Moravia is AFAIK bad translation )

Missionaries to Slavs were not first to bring christianity to Slavs- we have account of conversions of nobility from 8th century. Thus by the time Cyril and Method arrived the latin (Frankish) clergy was partialy already established- which led to great hostility between the clergies (though slavic rite survived in Bohemia till 14th century in one area)

And the "zemjanka" is more closely associated with "pre-historic" times. While it may suprise you to hear about cities made of timber, four hundred years ago even London was such a city. And rest be assured the noble palaces and churches were made of stone.

Also Moravia was state which copied heavily from Carolingian empire for its civil authority it seems (though we have mostly indirect sources in form o the sucessor states). With traveling ruler and system of chateleins.

And little bit for the end in 972 an arab traveller visited Bohemia and writes about people using "frocks" as medium of value- possibly stemming from older traditions. A certain form of economy in transition from barter to monetary system.

 

[Winner]

Bright day
Well, to speak about Far Away Moravia (Great Moravia is AFAIK bad translation )

Missionaries to Slavs were not first to bring christianity to Slavs- we have account of conversions of nobility from 8th century. Thus by the time Cyril and Method arrived the latin (Frankish) clergy was partialy already established- which led to great hostility between the clergies (though slavic rite survived in Bohemia till 14th century in one area)

And the "zemjanka" is more closely associated with "pre-historic" times. While it may suprise you to hear about cities made of timber, four hundred years ago even London was such a city. And rest be assured the noble palaces and churches were made of stone.

Also Moravia was state which copied heavily from Carolingian empire for its civil authority it seems (though we have mostly indirect sources in form o the sucessor states). With traveling ruler and system of chateleins.

And little bit for the end in 972 an arab traveller visited Bohemia and writes about people using "frocks" as medium of value- possibly stemming from older traditions. A certain form of economy in transition from barter to monetary system.

Shame that we don't have much information about that times. I hope the archeologic excavations will tell us something more in the future.

 

[Vrylakas]

Missionaries to Slavs were not first to bring christianity to Slavs- we have account of conversions of nobility from 8th century. Thus by the time Cyril and Method arrived the latin (Frankish) clergy was partialy already established- which led to great hostility between the clergies (though slavic rite survived in Bohemia till 14th century in one area)

Indeed, there is some evidence the Moravian church had already translated the Bible into Slavic before Cyril/Constantine and Methodius arrived.

Also Moravia was state which copied heavily from Carolingian empire for its civil authority it seems (though we have mostly indirect sources in form o the sucessor states). With traveling ruler and system of chateleins.

A common theme in most Eastern European states from the 9th-13th centuries was the struggle to maintain as much independence from while still enjoying a protective relationship with both the Franks in the west and Byzantium in the east/south. Moravia/Bohemia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Bosnia; all switched back and forth several times between Roman and Constantinople Christianity before practicality settled them in one or the other camp.

And little bit for the end in 972 an arab traveller visited Bohemia and writes about people using "frocks" as medium of value- possibly stemming from older traditions. A certain form of economy in transition from barter to monetary system.

Ibrahim ibn Iakub, the Toledo Jew who converted to Islam and served the powerful caliphate of Cordoba. He is said to have travelled to Moravia and possibly even southern Poland after meeting with Otto I at Augsburg. He provides us with, among his observations about Moravia, the first historical mention of Poland.

Dziekujemy.

 

[Wilhelm Kaleva]

The 13th Warrior?

 

[Plotinus]

Indeed, there is some evidence the Moravian church had already translated the Bible into Slavic before Cyril/Constantine and Methodius arrived.

What's the evidence for that? I was under the impression that there wasn't any written form of the language before Cyril and Methodius.

 

[Vrylakas]

Remember that in the fringe areas of Central-Eastern Europe in the 9th century, there was an intense competition between the "West" (i.e., Frankish, Rome) and the "East" (Byzantium). From the moment the Moravian empire, and then its successor the Bohemian kingdom, had been founded, they were barraged with priests, envoys and people we would today call "secret agents" from both Rome/Aachen and Constantinople.

From the West, there were two competing powers - the Franks, and the archbishop of Rome (e.g., the Pope), and while the Franks hoisted Bavarian priests (who spoke Latin) onto Bohemia, Rome tried a more nuanced approach that included holding masses in Slavic and attempting to translate the Bible into Slavic (using the Latin alphabet, of course). Remember Wulfilla's translation of the Bible into Gothic, for instance. Unfortunately the Franks had the upper hand in Bohemia until the mid-9th century, at which point the Bohemians booted them out and (driven by political, rather than ecumenical desires) Prague invited the Byzantine missionaries, Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius. The attraction for Bohemia was having a powerful but farway ally, while the Cyril-Methodius version of the Slavic liturgy was far more encompassing, and used across the Balkans for centuries afterwards (including in Croatia and even non-Slavic Romania).

 

[Gladi]

The 13th Warrior?

Yes, that is the one.

 

[Pokurcz]

No there was a second Arab who went to Scandinavia, don't remember his name and my books are 300 kilometers away.

 

[Pokurcz]

I have visited my books...

I know there was a Ibn Fadhlan who described Viking burial rites at the lower Volga in the beginning of the tenth century AD, but I am not sure if that was the same guy who described their tablemanners. ("Sveriges Historia" A. Henrikson)

I am sure there was an Arab witnessing Viking tablerituals of the kind portrayed in "the 13.th warrior" for I distinctly remember it being mentioned during history class in school.
The top ranking individual cleaned his hands and face in a bowl of water, passing the bowl to the second in command and so on through the heirarkie to the least important person attending, without changing the water...

 

[Squonk]

I think it was beginning of IX century... 811 to be exact - it was the year Bulgars converted to islam, and Ibn Fadlan was sent there in this matter as well.

 

[Ultraworld]

Have a look at Pope Nicholas I's letter to the Bulgarians, AD 866. It's a response to a letter from the Bulgarians, asking a pile of questions about their new faith (they had recently converted to Christianity, although they were wavering between the western and the eastern versions, largely because of uncertainty over whether they were going to ally with the Holy Roman Empire or with Byzantium). The letter is very interesting in what it reveals about the Bulgarians' concerns, which themselves are very revealing about Bulgarian society at the time. They ask, for example, if it's OK to continue wearing trousers after conversion! (It turns out they can.)

The Pope's answers are pretty interesting in themselves too, revealing a fair-minded concern to balance fidelity to Christian traditions with a recognition that a different culture's own traditions should be preserved where possible. Several times, the Pope tells them to follow their own traditions and laws, but where they conflict with the Gospel, there can be no compromise. He is also clear on the distinction between things they must do and things he would like them to do. All in all, a pretty fair-minded and decent letter.

The link is - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.html

Great to to get pointed to such things form human history. Thanks.

 

[Ultraworld]

As one mentioned before: Eastern Europe suffered almost permanently from invasions form the euro asian steppe (huns, avars, mongols, etc) as well as form vikings who are claimed to the founding fathers of russia

 

[TheLastOne36]

A quick search on the internet will reveal a myriad of facts about eastern europes political history during the period of late antiquity and the early middle ages. But so far I've been unable to find anything about the life and culture of the region.
Specifically, I'm interested in the Slavic states and the Balkans, minus the Byzantines. More specifically the first centralized Slavic kingdom, Great Moravia. What kind of society was it (most slavs up until this point were living in agricultural tribes or clans)? What kind of architecture did they use? How did they dress? What written language did they use before the adoption of Cyrillic? What was the religous situation, mostly pagan, mostly christian? How did they wage warfare?
So if anyone knows a good site, book, or other references, or can provide any information themselves, I'd be most obliged if you'd let me know.

This is where the term "Eastern European" becomes difficult because Central European countries like Poland, Moravia, Austria-Hungary etc were cosidered a part of the West at that point, and countries like Ottomans, Serbs, Romanians, Russians etc. were considered Eastern.

So the Central Europeans archetectuer was verry much like German, Society was much like in Western Europe, Central Europeans used Roman Alphabet and very catholic as opposed to orthadoxy, etc. and Central Europeans lived almost exactly like Western Europeans. No use in discussing that.

Therefore what your interested in is countries like Romania, serbia, Ottomans, russians etc.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Did not notice that this thread was ancient...

 

[Mirc]

This is where the term "Eastern European" becomes difficult because Central European countries like Poland, Moravia, Austria-Hungary etc were cosidered a part of the West at that point, and countries like Ottomans, Serbs, Romanians, Russians etc. were considered Eastern.

So the Central Europeans archetectuer was verry much like German, Society was much like in Western Europe, Central Europeans used Roman Alphabet and very catholic as opposed to orthadoxy, etc. and Central Europeans lived almost exactly like Western Europeans. No use in discussing that.

Therefore what your interested in is countries like Romania, serbia, Ottomans, russians etc.

Umm, not really, the Serbs did not exist for most of the time in the middle ages, neither before nor after the Ottomans entered Europe, the Ottomans didn't enter Europe before the Dark Ages were gone, and the "Russians" were not one group, just as well as the Turks were not one group at first either. Plus on top of that, while Byzantium was considered Eastern because, well, it was the successor state of the Roman Empire (and it's fairly obvious it was east from the western one and thus natural to call it eastern), most of the Ottoman empire was not exactly considered European at all.

Romania didn't exist either until the 19th century...

And the Ottomans were obviously not Orthodox, which you seem to be implying (Ottomans -> Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe -> Orthodox).

And the Balkan peninsula was not considered part of Europe for most of the middle ages either. The southeastern end of Europe was considered by the far-western Europeans to be somewhere in eastern Transylvania, so neither Serbia (which didn't exist for a good part of the middle ages), nor the Ottoman Empire, nor Russia, nor the Danubian principalities (Wallachia & Moldova) were not considered part of Europe.

Thus saying that Austria-Hungary was considered central when it contained territory that was considered border of Europe is simply ridiculous.



Sorry. But I couldn't really find one accurate point in your post!

 

[TheLastOne36]

Umm, not really, the Serbs did not exist for most of the time in the middle ages, neither before nor after the Ottomans entered Europe, the Ottomans didn't enter Europe before the Dark Ages were gone, and the "Russians" were not one group, just as well as the Turks were not one group at first either. Plus on top of that, while Byzantium was considered Eastern because, well, it was the successor state of the Roman Empire (and it's fairly obvious it was east from the western one and thus natural to call it eastern), most of the Ottoman empire was not exactly considered European at all.

Romania didn't exist either until the 19th century...

And the Ottomans were obviously not Orthodox, which you seem to be implying (Ottomans -> Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe -> Orthodox).

And the Balkan peninsula was not considered part of Europe for most of the middle ages either. The southeastern end of Europe was considered by the far-western Europeans to be somewhere in eastern Transylvania, so neither Serbia (which didn't exist for a good part of the middle ages), nor the Ottoman Empire, nor Russia, nor the Danubian principalities (Wallachia & Moldova) were not considered part of Europe.

Thus saying that Austria-Hungary was considered central when it contained territory that was considered border of Europe is simply ridiculous.



Sorry. But I couldn't really find one accurate point in your post!

ok let's tackle this down,

I wasn't talking about the middle ages, but as in history pre WWI in general. I know the OP is talking more about the Kingdom of Moravia and Byzantuim and stuff, but that's not the point.

Therefore, the Serbs did exist, as did the russians, ottomans, Romania did have the kingdoms of Walachia, Transylvania and Moldova, and were at ounce reunited under Michael the Great before the 19th century.

By Orthadox i obviously didn't counted the ottoman Empire.

I am not talking about the Middle Ages at all, and if you are i don't understand why you were talking about Austria-Hungary.

 

[Mirc]

ok let's tackle this down,

I wasn't talking about the middle ages, but as in history pre WWI in general. I know the OP is talking more about the Kingdom of Moravia and Byzantuim and stuff, but that's not the point.

Therefore, the Serbs did exist, as did the russians, ottomans, Romania did have the kingdoms of Walachia, Transylvania and Moldova, and were at ounce reunited under Michael the Great before the 19th century.

By Orthadox i obviously didn't counted the ottoman Empire.

I am not talking about the Middle Ages at all, and if you are i don't understand why you were talking about Austria-Hungary.

If you are not talking about the dark ages, or at least the whole middle ages, then you are thoroughly OT, don't you think? I honestly did not understand what your post meant in the context of this thread. Of course if you talk about a different timeframe everything is different.

Oh, and I mentioned Austria-Hungary as an answer to its mentioning it in your post. Obviously not as your typical Eastern European Middle Age.... Tsardom.

 

[REDY]

Hmm thanks reviving thread I have started reading. Now I wonder where is Vrylakas? That user seems to know same about Samos Empire and Great Moravia as Czech-Slovak students who have to...Its pity that we havent met.
I want point out importance of foreign influences so there was searching how be more independent. Great Moravia was under Frankic influence so they wanted help of Ortodox Byzantine Greeks, Bulgarians were under Byzantine influence so they sent envoys to Rome. Frankic, Byzantine or both cultures were main influences for all slavic cultures in dark ages.