How has the great migration affected the racial composition of the people in the Balkans?

Suliot wrote:One of the recorded historys largest migrations that ever took place between the years of 300 C.E and 700 C.E.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

Hordes of northern races pushed throughout Europe. And the Balkans was one the hardest hit of them all.
Whole nations got displaced, and ended up far away from their original settlements. People like the Thracians dissapeared, countless languages got wiped out of the face of the earth.
Illyrians got pushed down into todays Albania. The Greek cities got sacked numerous times by goths and vikings. And the whole of Western Rome shattered after a Germanic tribe had sacked Rome (the city).

The great migrations started a black hole in European history that would last for a thousand years, this is the period we call "the dark ages".

The question is, how has such an event affected the racial composition of the people living in the Balkans, and Albania in particular.

Suliot wrote:The great Migration is quite well documented actually seen as a whole. The main source up untill 450 C.E is Rome and after that it was Constantiople who where accounting for the peoples being pushed away from and in to the Balkans. And as for linguistics, the migrating people totally replaced some existing languages, the slavic migrations is a good example of this. The events in the migration period were often described as apocalyptic, and it fed the christian prophecys to such a point that people started to use christiandom as a state religion.

Historically it has had quite an affect on us. Rome would probably still exist if it wasnt for the great migrations. But what about the racial factor? Did people get a more fair complexion or did they get a darker complexion by the hordes of migrating northeners?

As of my understanding, most of the migrants were peasants. The cities got sacked and the elite of the migrants took control, whilst the commoners took the lands of the farmers that they had pushed away.

ZEUS10 wrote:I can neither confirm nor deny the migration. But since you mentioned the slavic migration, there are absolutely no mentions of major events in regards of them, at least on the byzantine chronicles. Nobody knows what struggle did occur, what place did they invade, what was their language, who oppossed them, and so on. We know something about Huns, about the Avars, about the Gepids, about Germanics, about Bulgars, Magyars, Pechegenes etc but when it comes to the slavs all sources are mute:

ZEUS10 wrote:I am fully sure on something, that the slavic language is a church language, and all churches languages are the corruption of some natural language. I have looked for natural languages in the Europe' History, but beside Albanian, I couldn't find any.

I find it quite amazing that such an event as the great migrations can be so uncertain to you. Where lies the uncertainty? How do you explain the transformation of the people of the Balkans into a majority slav population? You do agree that we have quite a few slavs in our neghbourhood i hope?Wouldnt the greek language be a more suitable chruch language for the orthodox in northern Balkans? The new testament was written in greek and it seems quite amazing for a slavic language being used by the orthodox in northern Balkans, when the greeks set the foundation for the orthodox church language and when they are much closer geographically to the greeks.

ZEUS10 wrote:

I find it quite amazing that such an event as the great migrations can be so uncertain to you. Where lies the uncertainty? How do you explain the transformation of the people of the Balkans into a majority slav population? You do agree that we have quite a few slavs in our neghbourhood i hope?Wouldnt the greek language be a more suitable chruch language for the orthodox in northern Balkans? The new testament was written in greek and it seems quite amazing for a slavic language being used by the orthodox in northern Balkans, when the greeks set the foundation for the orthodox church language and when they are much closer geographically to the greeks.

When the orthodox Methodius & Cyril invented the alphabet, they created it for church purpose only. But since it has been augmented by ligatures and consonants from the older Glagolitic alphabet it radically affected the writting, and automatically the speech when it was adopted from the so-called "slavic nations".
Serbian propaganda diabolically uses the 'slavic invasion' of the 6-th century theory, to justify their existence, but I assure you: never existed a population of serbian-slavic speakers before 11-14-th century, in Balcan. It was for sure an aristocracy and Church elite who were speaking in slavic, but not a serbian- slavic population.
I beleive the slavism started at Bulgaria and then gradualy was spreaded all over the Balkan. There is no race of slavs, but there is a population of slavic-speakers. You know very well that the Bulgars were not slavs at all in the very begining, but since their leaders became Church attenders, they became slavs and with the time the originally asia-tatar population of Bulgars, followed their aristocracy in this transformation.
That happened with the so-called Serbs too, first few leaders became slavs and then were followed by few local people. When Russia became superpower in the 19-th century, the population of slavs was dramatically increased through: assimilation, ethnic cleansing and all other dirty methods to alter a population, especially after slavic states creation. I dont know the details, but I know the scenario. Slavs are not a natyral race linguistically, their language never existed before the birth of Methodius and Cyril.

Suliot wrote:And your statement of the Byzans not mentioning the slavic migrations is quite amazing also.

This book is full of mentionings of the Serbula (serbs) and the Kravats (Croats) invading the balkans.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MORCOP.html

This book is also one of the best standing sources of the affects of the great migrations on the Balkans. So if you want to confirm the events sorrounding the great migrations you should read that book.

It also mentions a slavic tribe of serbian origin called the Kanalites that entered the Balkans before the great migrations even started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanalites

Being a slav means nothing today, but in the middle ages it most certainly existed a population that identified themselves as slav.
Viking raiders used to butcher and enslave these people, they did it in such an extenct that the vikings replaced their word for slave (wich was originally träl) into the word slav. And from these slav slaves comes the english word for slave.

ZEUS10 wrote:

Being a slav means nothing today, but in the middle ages it most certainly existed a population that identified themselves as slav.
Viking raiders used to butcher and enslave these people, they did it in such an extenct that the vikings replaced their word for slave (wich was originally träl) into the word slav. And from these slav slaves comes the english word for slave.

And again, I am the wrong person to tell tales.

ZEUS10 wrote:Here it is a quote from his book:

Of the coming of the Russians in monoxyla

from Russia to Constantinople

The monoxyla which come down from outer Russia to Constantinople are from Novgorod, where Sviatoslav, son of Igor, prince of Russia, had his seat, and others from the city of Smolensk and from Teliutza and Chernigov and from Vyshegrad. All these come down the river Dnieper, and are collected together at the city of Kiev, also called Sambatas. Their Slav tributaries, the so-called Krivichians and the Lenzanenes and the rest of the Slavonic regions, cut the monoxyla on their mountains in time of winter, and when they have prepared them, as spring approaches, and the ice melts, they bring them on to the neighbouring lakes. And since these lakesdebouch into the river Dnieper, they enter thence on to this same river, and come down to Kiev, and draw the shipsalong to be finished and sell them to the Russians. The Russians buy these bottoms only, furnishing them with oars and rowlocks and other tackle from their old monoxyla, which they dismantle; and so they fit them out. And in the month of June they move off down the river Dnieper and come to Vitichev, which is a tributary city of the Russians, and there they gather during two or three days; and when all the monoxyla are collected together, then they set out, and come down the said Dnieper river. And first they come to the first barrage, called Essoupi, which means in Russian and Slavonic 'Do not sleep!'; the barrage itself is as narrow as the width of the Polo-ground; in the middle of it are rooted high rocks, which stand out like islands. Against these, then, comes the water and wells up and dashes down over the other side, with a mighty and terrific din. Therefore the Russians do not venture to pass between them, but put in to the bank hard by, disembarking the men on to dry land leaving the rest of the goods on board the monoxyla; they then strip and, feeling with their feet to avoid striking on a rock.... This they do, some at the prow, some amidships, while others again, in the stern, punt with poles; and with all this careful procedure they pass this first barrage, edging round under the river-bank. When they have passed this barrage, they re-embark the others from the dry land and sail away, and come down to the second barrage, called in Russian Oulvorsi, and in Slavonic Ostrovouniprach, which means 'the Island of the Barrage'. This one is like the first, awkward and not to be passed through. Once again they disembark the men and convey the monoxyla past, as on the first occasion. Similarly they pass the third barrage also, called Gelandri, which means in Slavonic 'Noise of the Barrage', and then the fourth barrage, the big one, called in Russian Aeifor, and in Slavonic Neasit, because the pelicans nest in the stones of the barrage. At this barrage all put into land prow foremost, and those who are deputed to keep the watch with them get out, and off they go, these men, and keep vigilant watch for the Pechenegs. The remainder, taking up the goods which they have on board the monoxyla, conduct the slaves in their chains past by land, six miles, until they are through the barrage. Then, partly dragging their monoxyla, partly portaging them on their shoulders, they convey them to the far side of the barrage; and then, putting them on the river and loading up their baggage, they embark themselves, and again sail off in them. When they come to the fifth barrage, called in Russian Varouforos, and in Slavonic Voulniprach, because it forms a large lake, they again convey their monoxyla through at the edges of the river, as at the first and second barrages, and arrive at the sixth barrage, called in Russian Leanti, and in Slavonic Veroutzi, that is 'the Boiling of the Water', and this too they pass similarly. And thence they sail away to the seventh barrage, called in Russian Stroukoun, and in Slavonic Naprezi, which means 'Little Barrage'. This they pass at the so-called ford of Vrar, where the Chersonites cross over from Russia and the Pechenegs to Cherson; which ford is as wide as the Hippodrome, and, measured upstream from the bottom as far as the rocks break surface, a bow-shot in length. It is at this point, therefore, that the Pechenegs come down and attack the Russians. After traversing this place, they reach the island called St. Gregory, on which island they perform their sacrifices because a gigantic oak-tree stands there; and they sacrifice live cocks. Arrows, too, they peg in round about, and others bread and meat, or something of whatever each may have, as is their custom. They also throw lots regarding the cocks, whether to slaughter them, or to eat them as well, or to leave them alive. From this island onwards the Russians do not fear the Pecheneg until they reach the river Selinas. So then they start off thence and sail for four days, until they reach the lake which forms the mouth of the river, on which is the island of St. Aitherios. Arrived at this island, they rest themselves there for two or three days. And they re-equip their monoxyla with such tackle as is needed, sails and masts and rudders, which they bring with them. Since this lake is the mouth of this river, as has been said, and carries on down to the sea, and the island of St. Aitherios lies on the sea, they come thence to the Dniester river, and having got safely there they rest again. But when the weather is propitious, they put to sea and come to the river called Aspros, and after resting there too in like manner, they again set out and come to the Selinas, to the so-called branch of the Danube river. And until they are past the river Selinas, the Pechenegs keep pace with them. And if it happens that the sea casts a monoxylon on shore, they all put in to land, in order to present a united opposition to the Pechenegs. But after the Selinas they fear nobody, but, entering the territory of Bulgaria, they come to the mouth of the Danube. From the Danube they proceed to the Konopas, and from the Konopas to Constantia, and from Constantia to the river of Varna, and from Varna they come to the river Ditzina, all of which are Bulgarian territory. From the Ditzina they reach the district of Mesembria, and there at last their voyage, fraught with such travail and terror, such difficulty and danger, is at an end. The severe manner of life of these same Russians in winter-time is as follows. When the month of November begins, their chiefs together with all the Russians at once leave Kiev and go off on the poliudia, which means 'rounds', that is, to the Slavonic regions of the Vervians and Drugovichians and Krivichians and Severians and the rest of the Slavs who are tributaries of the Russians. There they are maintained throughout the winter, but then once more, starting from the month of April, when the ice of the Duleper river melts, they come back to Kiev. They then pick up their monoxyla, as has been said above, and fit them out, and come down to Romania....

Suliot wrote:
What is your education and where did you go to school if i might ask? As an presumed academic you should at least check the etymolgy of the word slave before you call it a fairytale.

Could you please highlight the parts wich i need to read, i havent got all day you know.

Suliot wrote:You seem like a quite an obstinant revisionist. Well my freind, let me be the first to tell you that everything in histoy can not revised.

Now if you check my profile you will see my professions. And what has my knowledge of the albanian language to do with this discussion?

Suliot wrote:You seem like a quite an obstinant revisionist.

AuLoNa wrote:Guys we are here to learn, not start fighting with one another.
Just ask questions and try to learn from one another, or agree to disagree.

Thank you.

ZEUS10 wrote:

Suliot wrote:You seem like a quite an obstinant revisionist.

By the way, revisionism in history, is a tool of social justice. The only nations who do not want to revise the offered history, are the ones who profited during the history on the others expense , are the ones who have a false history, and the Serbs are one of them.
And of course, I am obstinant, like most of the Albanians are, our obstinacy ensured our existence.

Suliot wrote:
Hey man, great. But some things cant be revised. No matter who you are. Denying the great migrations is nothing you should do in public.