Slaves and Slavs

[daft]

Meaning that to "En"Thrall is to charm, fascinate, captivate. As in the (Slavic) land was fascinating? Does "enthralled" mean the same in Norse as it does in English? Probably not.

 

[Kyriakos]

^ 'servus' is awfully close to Serb though

 

[Flying Pig]

I wonder if that's gone the wrong way - so 'Slav' becomes 'sklavos' and comes to mean 'slave', so 'slave' being 'servus' comes to mean 'Slav' and then you have the b/v shift that you often see going from Latin into Romance languages (eg. in Spanish).

 

[Domen]

FlyingPig,

'Slavs' originates from 'Sclaveni', which was one of Slavic-speaking ethnic groups or tribes as described by Procopius and Jordanes.

A similar situation was with Germanic peoples. The name 'Germanics' comes from the tribe of Tungri, who were first called 'Germani'.

All other 'Germanic' tribes didn't know that they were 'Germanic'. Initially that term was only synonymous with the Tungri:

The Tungri (or Tongri, or Tungrians) were a tribe, or group of tribes, who lived in the Belgic part of Gaul, during the times of the Roman empire. They were described by Tacitus as being the same people who were first called "Germani" (Germanic), meaning that all other tribes who were later referred to this way, including those in Germania east of the Rhine river were named after them. Their name is the source of several place names in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, including Tongeren, and several places called Tongerloo, and Tongelre.[1]

A similar situation is with the English people, who could as well be called for example Jutic people - if another tribal name was chosen.

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

As for the meaning of 'Sclaveni' - it was a corruption of their native term for themselves, which perhaps had something to do with fame ('slava') or with speech ('slovo'). Other suggested origins include one from PIE *su̯edho - from this root originated also e.g. ἒθνος ('ethnos'), 'Suebi', 'Svenskar' and 'Schwaben'.

'Suebi' / 'Suevi', 'Svenskar' and 'Schwaben', originating from the same PIE root *su̯edho, all have the meaning of 'our people'.

The Greek term 'ethnos' also originates from this PIE root.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, the 'Germanic' label is particularly problematic - as you've pointed out, it was largely foisted on the people living outside the Roman empire by those living within it, and depends entirely on seeing the world from a Roman perspective. The etymology you've given makes a lot of sense - so you have *slava -> sclavos -> (=slave) -> seruus -> Serb, perhaps.

 

[Domen]

No, you misunderstood my post.

Serb is an ethnonym that had its own meaning in Proto-Slavic (PS) language.

Scholars suggested a few origins - the most convincing suggestions are from PS root *sъrb-, which meant 'ally' as well as 'to suckle'. From the same root comes Polish term 'pasierb' (= 'stepchild'), which originally meant 'one who wasn't a suckling of his mother' and 'siorbać' (= 'to suckle' or 'to slurp').

Another etymology is from PIE root *serwo-, which meant 'entire', 'everything' or 'entirety' (see Sanskrit 'sarva').

If the second explanation is correct then 'Serbs' had the same meaning as 'Alemanni' (= 'every men').

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

So 'Serbs' called themselves 'we who were sucklings of our mothers', or 'we every men' (like in case of 'Alemanni'), or something like that.

Many ethnonyms tend to have meanings like this.

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

Another suggestions for Serb has included origin from PIE root *serbh-, (Sanskrit 'sarbh' = 'to beat' or 'to kill').

Another suggestion was a link with another Slavic ethnonym - Severians:

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

The etymology of the name of Severians is controversial. Though it is similar to the Slavic word for "north" (sěver)

Severians was an ethnonym originating from S&#283;ver&#1098; < *serev-. And Severians according to this theory meant Northerners.

There is also another theory that *S&#283;v-er-, *Slov-&#283;n- (*Svob-&#283;n-) and *S&#1100;rb- ~ *S&#1098;rb- have a common origin from PIE roots meaning 'relative' or 'clan member', such as *k&#833;oiwo- ~ *k&#833;eiwo-, *swobho- and *k&#833;erbho-. So in this case Severians, Serbs, Slovenes & Slovaks would have a similar meaning.

Basically ethnonyms related to kinship are very common ones, so such theories are highly probable.

 

[Flying Pig]

How does *serwo- come to mean 'slave', I wonder? I mean, it's got to be seruus, hasn't it?

 

[Domen]

Yes, the 'Germanic' label is particularly problematic - as you've pointed out, it was largely foisted on the people living outside the Roman empire by those living within it, and depends entirely on seeing the world from a Roman perspective.

Germani is how one tribe called themselves, later Romans foisted that name on similar tribes.

Today there are no people who call themselves Germanics or Germans. There are Deutsche.

There are also no people who call themselves Slavs today. There are Slováci and Slovenci.

BTW - "Dictionary of races or peoples" published in the U.S. in 1910 doesn't even use "Germanic", but "Teutonic".

And "Teutonic" is also a label that originated from the name of just one tribe - the Teutones / Teutoni:

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

How does *serwo- come to mean 'slave', I wonder? I mean, it's got to be seruus, hasn't it?

I'm not sure but later it came to mean 'hello' ('servus', and 'ciao') - so such things are possible.

 

[Flying Pig]

'Ciao' is essentially 'at your service', though, which is quite understandable.

 

[daft]

The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slave and Slav are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, "Slav, slave," first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklä&#8242;v&#333;s) "Slav," which appears around 580. Sklavos approximates the Slavs' own name for themselves, the Slov&#283;nci, surviving in English Slovene and Slovenian. The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in the 1500s. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. By the 1100s, stabilization had given way to wars of expansion and extermination that did not end until 1410, when the Poles crushed the knights of the Teutonic Order at Grunwald in north-central Poland.

This text copied from Free Dictionary.

 

[daft]

Any article on the word slave will tell you that so many Slavic people where taken into slavery that some languages took the root slav- for the word slave. It all go back to Latin -->Old French-->English, not Greek.

Perhaps it's time to come up with another word then? I think it's too offensive to the Slavic people.

I mean slavery in the western world of today is associated with one thing only:
Enslavement of Native African (black) people by the Western (not Slavic) European (Colonial) powers and their suffrage in the Americas, until the abolishment of slavery (and years thereafter).
How does their fate compare to dozens of entire Slavic tribes, now mostly unknown (except for those that dig into the topic, like Domen), which perished as a result of western (and Byzantine/possibly also Norse) enslavement? We are talking about hundreds of thousands (at least) of people here! all with all human rights taken away from them as soon as captured. Their tragic fate was brought on by the fact they were pagan(polytheistic) and refused to accept Christianity. Besides the Slavs, several polytheistic Baltic/non Slavic tribes suffered greatly as well. Western World needs to be made aware of this history. Many of you out there might have Slavic blood running through your veins, even without you knowing it, Slavs were sold to most western European countries and into the Middle East, perhaps also North Africa, they mixed(were forced to) with native cultures.

 

[Domen]

Link to video.

How does their fate compare to dozens of entire Slavic tribes, now mostly unknown (except for those that dig into the topic, like Domen), which perished as a result of western (and Byzantine/possibly also Norse) enslavement?

And yet, Slavs are still the most numerous people of Europe:

 

[daft]

So what drove Slavs to invade Byzantine lands? How were they able to defeat the fine Byzantine armies?, capture their cities? Slavs appear as quite peaceful agricultural tribe originally, many tribes, that is. Were they pressed on by some enemy from the East? (Avars?) What tactics and weapons did they use in order to defeat the Byzantines? They invaded and settled in the Balkans before the Frankish onslaught started?. By the way, Holy Roman Empire, killing and enslaving isn't very holy, I might as well call myself mister universe.

The Greeks were definitely right about the Slavs, if only they were united as one tribe, they could have played a really significant role not only in history of Europe, but the world. Even today, imagine all Slavic lands united under one rule, quite a country, and power.

 

[Domen]

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

Peter Heather, "Empires and Barbarians", has a good account of Slavic invasion of the Balkans.

At least I don't think that I have found anything better that would be available in English.

One thing that I didn't like about Heather's account is that when describing the size of Slavic tribes invading the Balkans, he "forgot" about the account of Menander Protector, which says about the incursion of one group (one tribe?) of ca. 100,000 Slavs into Thrace around year 577 - 578 AD.

Heather generally tries to argue that Slavic tribes were always smaller than Germanic tribes.

This is probably why he "forgot" about that group of 100,000, but listed numbers for other groups (which were usually smaller).

 

[Domen]

What tactics and weapons did they use in order to defeat the Byzantines?

Pretty much like in case of previous Germanic invaders - they used Byzantine weapons.

The Goths initially invaded with their own weapons, but already at Adrianople they could not be distinguished from the Romans - they used the same weapons, the same armours, even had the same training because many of them were veterans of the Roman army by that time.

Initially Slavs exploited the weakness of the Byzantine frontier along the Danube, as well as demoralisation of their army, and later they entered "snowball mode" - they improved their arsenal through capturing enemy weapons, like more recently ISIS did in Iraq and the Levant.

There was also the Plague of Justinian, which decimated the population of the Eastern Roman Empire.

The Plague of Justinian ravaged the Mediterranean world in years 541 - 542, and later it continued to spread, reaching Ireland in 549:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian#Origins_and_spread

Slavs started to settle en masse in the Balkans (south of the Danube) approximately in year 545.

 

[daft]

:

[B]"(...) 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. (...)"[/B]
So, according to "Strategikon", Slavic tribes used to incorporate captives into their ranks. They had an unusual habit of liberating their slaves and incorporating them into their communities as free people.
Therefore Slavic tribes which emerged in the Balkans must have included a lot of descendants of former Roman citizens who got captured by Slavs, then liberated and assimilated into their communities.


[I]"(...) In Illyria and Thracia, from the Ionian Gulf to Byzantine surrounding cities, where Hellas and Chersonese regions are situated, (...) the Sclavenes and the Antes, penetrating practically every year since Justinian administering the Roman Empire, were inflicting irreversible damage to their inhabitants. In each invasion I estimate 200,000 Romans were either enslaved or killed (...)"[/I]

Re: 1st txt (in bold)

Isn't that a much more civilized and decent thing to do? (than to hold the slave captive till death)

Re: 2nd text (in bold)

Since in each invasion around 200 000 Romans were either killed or enslaved then each time the attacking army must have been massive, not just a few k of warriors.

 

[Domen]

This 200,000 figure is rather either an exaggeration or refers to total casualties, though.

On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily require a massive army to conquer a massive population.

The Arabs had ca. 12,000 warriors in their conquest of Byzantine Egypt:

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

And Egypt probably had around 4 million inhabitants at that time.

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

An even more extreme case was Babur, who supposedly conquered ca. 100 million people in India with ca. 14,000 soldiers:

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

 

[Domen]

The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, "Slav, slave," first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklä&#8242;v&#333;s) "Slav," which appears around 580.

So according to this passage, "sclavus" began to mean "slave" as late as 800 AD, and entered Old French language.

If true, then it would mean that those were Frankish (not Byzantine) wars against Pagans that brought this meaning into live.

Perhaps it's a coincidence that it was "sclavus" instead of "saxonus", given that Saxons also fell victim to those wars.

In another thread I wrote about the story of Bishop Agobard of Lyon:

Christians had a Church-imposed ban on enslaving other Christians. They could only enslave Pagans (and Non-Christians in general).

There was even such an episode - a scandal - in the Frankish Empire, when Bishop Agobard of Lyon (lived in 779 - 840) mass-baptised - by simply sprinkling holy water at them - entire convoy with slaves of Jewish slave traders, that was moving through Lyon to Marseille.

Then Bishop Agobard ordered Jewish traders to release their slaves, because they were now Christians and thus had to be freed.

Jews issued a complaint against Agobard to local authorities of Lyon, but they decided that the Bishop was right. Then traders started an appeal to the King. The King ruled that Agobard had the right to do that, but at the same time he forbade such practices in the future.

Agobard's lifetime was roughly the time of Frankish wars against Pagan Saxon and Slavic tribes.

So those slaves escorted by Jewish traders could perhaps be people of those two ethnic groups.

 

[Masada]

One thing that I didn't like about Heather's account is that when describing the size of Slavic tribes invading the Balkans, he "forgot" about the account of Menander Protector, which says about the incursion of one group (one tribe?) of ca. 100,000 Slavs into Thrace around year 577 - 578 AD.

It's pretty well established that the use of large round numbers was a literary trope intended to convey "a large number [of something]" rather an actual count of the something involved. Hence the tendency of scholars to discount large numbers. Not least because those numbers are often wildly impractical given practical considerations like logistics or, hell, just the notion of someone having the time and inclination to count that many hostiles. Guy Halsall talks a bit about it in just this sort of context. (I've seen similar arguments made in respect of Southeast Asia and China).

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes. How on earth do you imagine that anybody counted them? I've seen a similarly farcical attempt to judge the number of slaves in Roman Italy by adding up the numbers of captured slaves in Livy.