Mod for BC 2.4 - Broader Roman Recruitment (BRR)

[m_1512]

P.S. I really do hope Vanguard13 was only having a go at being facetious and presenting a ridiculous idea...because if not, I'm not sure if I should worry about his sanity, or just pity him.

Mr. Quinn, you are completely free to criticize posts or sub-mods. However, you may not insult other members, in this case Vanguard13.

Please refrain from personal remarks in future.

- BC Moderation Team.

[TaronQuinn]

Vanguard13, I apologize for my insults to your character; it was uncalled for and unnecessary. It reflected an immaturity on my part that was undeserved on your part; I sincerely apologize if I offended you in any way, and hope that we can continue this discussion in a professional tone.

I stand by my critiques of your theorizing. To put it simply, suggesting that past eras of human history have been misrepresented and drawn out into exaggerated periods of time ignores not only historical scholarship on innumerable pieces of evidence, not only from historical studies, but also from scientific understandings of the past, including but not limited to astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, and genetics.

I will not argue with you about how you wish to interpret history and the events of the past; feel free to do so in a Marxist framework, a capitalist mindset, a monarchist agenda, etc. etc. ad inifinitum. But to state, in multiple posts, that disparate events have been misconstrued as widely separated events, is a misrepresentation of fact as we understand the term.

I quote:
Post #111

If you want to see how the Three Roman Empires didn't happen - google books Anatoly Fomenko, History: Fiction or Science, Book/Volume 2, page 2. to see the artificial parallelism of two roman empires. This eliminates about 600 years from history.

In addition the 10th-12th centuries took place in about 100 years.

Post #112

the Trojan Wars 1200 BC, Pelleponesian Wars 400 BC , and the Crusades 1100's/1200's AD were the same wars.

That is not merely a statement about such wars being interpreted along similar lines, or presented with similar overtones (speaking of which...none of them are similar in anyway.) But you outright state that they are all the identical event transmogrified by geographic and temporal telescoping into distinct events. They are not. They are all separate events with clearly traced (independent) documentation and archaeological investigation by hundreds, if not thousands of various scholars and researchers.
And as for the Roman Empires, elements of thematic resonance or repetition of certain ideals by contemporary chroniclers does not mean that ancient sources are describing the same events repeatedly; it means that they are trying to emulate past chroniclers in their descriptions of their own times. The "artificial parallelism" is exactly that, "artificial" and created by a narrow reading of sources and trying to correlate multiple events into singular timelines.

Post#114

That is 300 years of phantom time between about 600-900 AD for which there is a troublesome scarcity of archaeological evidence for said period of time.

There is a troubling scarcity of certain types of archaeological evidence from 600Ad-900AD...in Europe. The rest of the world, (China, India, Middle East, heck, even southeastern Europe in the form of the Byzantine Empire) provide numerous artifacts of mechanical construction, literature, cultural expression, technological development, urban life, and political discourse.

And the entirety of Post #115 is worthy of singling out:

Regarding Otto I - It is understood that the ancestors of the German Nation are Vandals and Goths, who traveled west into Germany from the east - Cimmerania Scythia, Sammartania. These are Volga Bulgarian (Kwarezm-Iranian) and Turkish people.

Scythians and Turks et al are also referred to as Cossacks, Hussars and Ottomans (at various times and by various peoples).

So it is not unimaginable that Otto I is an Otto-man, The Main Osman, Osman-Main or Ozzman

Ottomain= Otto The Great. Otto The Strong

The above represents a profound misunderstanding not only of historical sources, but a basic ignorance about geography, linguistics, ethnography, and a willful effort to correlate two unrelated names as being identical across centuries and regions with well documented histories.

1. Vandals, Goths came from the northern parts of eastern Europe, and not the southern steppes, furthermore, they are unrelated to the Scythians, who are unrelated to, and existed concurrently with, the Sarmatians.
2. Cossacks are not Ottomans, the former is an East Slavic conglomeration of peoples who had fled to the steppes to escape Russian feudal oppression, the latter is a dynasty of Turkish rulers deriving from the steppes of central Asia but achieving its greatest success in Anatolia and the Balkans...and Hussars refer to a type of cavalry, (not an ethnic identity of any kind), deriving most likely from Latin 'cursari': raider or bandit.

Simply speaking, there is no way a 10th century German Emperor is the same man as the 13th century Turkish bey. As with other aspects of your description so far, you associate similarity with common ancestry, rather than with analogous development or converging evolution.

Now, if you want to criticize the "periodization" of history, as you mention in Post #114 when you discuss Hilferding, then I agree with you that we should not make history fit into neat stages or eras. People did not live one day in the Late Middle Ages and wake-up the next to proclaim, "Hallelujah, the Renaissance has arrived!" But whereas I feel a conscious effort should be made to understand the ebb and flow of history as a sequence of infinitely unfolding moments in time experienced across myriad landscapes and cultures, you seem intent on compressing them into a increasingly narrow timeline of limited scope and significance.

My question then becomes: Why? Are you a young-Earth creationist upset by the seeming incongruity between Bishop Ussher's calculation of 4004 BC as the first day of creation and the actual existence of human history and development for tens of thousands of years? Or, as I referred to in my previous (admittedly snarky) post, are you a conspiracy theorist who sees a nefarious stratagem in place aimed to artificially increase our perceived sense of history and place? Then the question becomes, who would bother with such an absurdly convoluted and wide-ranging conspiracy?

Respectfully,

TaronQuinn

[Vanguard13]

Taron,

Apology accepted and respected.

As you can probably imagine, this forum is insufficient for the exploration of this subject. The very lack of ties that bind us is sufficient reason alone not to find tremendous agreement. I seek ultimately only to inspire others to take up a study of their own. The over 1500 hours of research that I have placed into this makes this not only difficult to condense into a single argument today or tomorrow or the day after, but also psychologically precludes me or anyone from ignoring that sweat and tears in favor of a perfect strangers well reasoned-if-wrongly-premised assumptions about the methodology.

Out of respect for your apology and out of respect for critical engagement period, however, I will approach some of the questions you raise. If you have merely stated what you believe in place of contrary evidence that would lead myself or someone else to think, I will probably state as much also. These should not be read as snarky, though they may be at times brief.

So while I'm not one to go tit for tat, I am going to approach some of the contentions you raise in as succinct a way possible. I understand that this, from the outset, will not be sufficient to sway you either way. What I have done, others can do, but must be undertaken by themselves in order to take sufficient ownership of the ideas. This undertaking involves no forays into the occult, or into esoterica. There are no real profound changes to ones present view of social or political issues demanded by a change in view of historical chronology. It may only tell us something about the depth and stubbornness of folly in history. It involves using just about the same critical and logical reasoning abilities you have developed so far in life, I assume.

This means I'm going to quote some, though not all, of your statements. If I don't, it is because you were making a tangential point that you too would recognize as such, or I myself failed to understand the significance of. I will not sentence parse or intend to change the meaning or affect of your original ideas as I understand them, taken en toto. Like yourself, I am just a mortal human being replete with all of the frailties therein.

"But to state, in multiple posts, that disparate events have been misconstrued as widely separated events, is a misrepresentation of fact as we understand the term."

This is appropriate for a conclusion, should you provide a reason to support it. This, however is apparently your premise. I understand what the term 'facts' mean, and I have never, nor will I, misrepresent them willfully or negligibly. I have not submitted my premises, my three years of research, to a Total War forum. Only in a loose and rough way, insofar as they may effect a later version of Broader Roman Recruitment for BC 3.0, are a few sentences - a few sentences mind you - introduced which help the potential player better understand the world they are about to be playing in.



Many of these ideas are my own ideas, others of Mozorov, Newton, Fomenko, and others have influenced my own. I don't expect anyone to embrace them today, or ever. Statements made regarding a smattering of my *findings* are not the research methodology or the premises themselves.

In reference to the 3 in 1 approach, you state.

"That is not merely a statement about such wars being interpreted along similar lines, or presented with similar overtones (speaking of which...none of them are similar in anyway.) But you outright state that they are all the identical event transmogrified by geographic and temporal telescoping into distinct events. They are not. They are all separate events with clearly traced (independent) documentation and archaeological investigation by hundreds, if not thousands of various scholars and researchers."

I am familiar the consensus view. Quite so in fact. With out, I could not have found the numerous problems inherent in it. I understand your opinion, but it is not supported by historical methodology.

So I would love to see this independent documentation by thousands of researchers. What I have found in reading from literally thousands of researchers myself, using the JStor academic search primer through the California State University system, are literally tons of tomes formed in the process of early modern, modern and post-modern Liberal Education's process of bibliogenesis which are entirely DEpendent on each other.

And bibliogenesis aside, 'Major' findings prior to the 9th century AD are ultimately still DEpendent upon a circular process of reasoning. Eg: King O was from date X because coin type B depicting him was found next to weapon type C. Elsewhere, weapon type C exists 4 times in sediment layer 6 in locis x, y, z. We assume predictable (i didn't say uniform) rate of sedimentary erosion calculation (still an erroneous assumption). NTL, Sediment layer 6 corresponds to date X because Coin type B is also prevalent there at times. When coin type A (said to be 'older') WAS found in layer 6, it is marked off as a collection of - at the time - 'old coins'! Thus the King on coin type A precedes the king on coin type B chronologically because a 15th century court historian says so. Weapon type C MUSt be from date X because a tapestry depicting them was found. This tapestry is from date X because it was found in sediment layer 6. This is an adequate caricature of the process of 'dating' in consensus chronology.

They take Scaligerian chronology as the starting point, and then make 'tweaks' to it. It was Scaliger who took the Greek and Roman histories, and placed them in relationship to the Persian, Jewish, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian histories. This was an arbitrary feat of tremendous proportions. The latter histories were hitherto considered 'biblical', and the Greek and Roman histories were hitherto considered 'Secular'. Sir Isaac Newton was one of the first to point this out. Newton opposed the work of Scaliger. Scaliger forms the basis of modern, consensus history.

We already both have said, and agree, that chronologers made 'history' with significant changes to actual events in order to conform to narratives..

You say that Three different histories were written, forward, into One similar narrative based upon the model of the First, with all Three actually happening. I simply propose that One history, then moving backwards, projected into Three similar narratives based upon the model of the most recent, with the most recent One actually happening. I propose that before the 9th century AD, we just don't know what happened.

Carbon dating is nearly useless within about 2000 years. Weak arguments about utility are raised outside of 1000 years. Anyone familiar with the 'Shroud of Turin' debate is already read into the academically admitted shortcomings of radio carbon dating. Carbon dating is often referred to, but as you know is not used for allegedly ancient monoliths made of stone. In said ruins of ALL kinds, you will find remarkably preserved engravings, with sudden breaks exposing broken columns with very rough edges inside. Far more likely destroyed by recent century's warfare - catapult, cannon - than by wind or rain erosion (smooth).

Without getting into contentions with the Libby value as such; Carbon dating labs produce lots of information which is useless due to the heterogeneous nature of the sources. Archaeologists thus provide 'helping notes' indicating which dates they believe the artifact containing or made of carbon based matter is from. The best the lab can generally do is *not* disconfirm those notes. A failure to disconfirm that hypothetical date, among heterogeneous samples, is taking to be akin to a confirmation of said date. The 'carbon' result is compared to the ridiculously circular process caricatured above.

They then arrive at a "PFA" value (pulled from ass value) of date X. Sad, but true. 5 years later, and $35,000 in the hole, and this is the state of "history" as I have found it to be. That was 10 years ago and I'm much more satisfied with some variant of a 'new chronology' paradigm.

Indeed, the only INdependent documents start at around the alleged 9th century AD. I am not saying that people didn't do things before the alleged 9th century, or that standing armies and cultures were summoned from the ether last thursday. I am merely honestly representing the data record as it actually exists in its insufficient present form.

We can naturally surmise that before alleged 800 AD people did such and such, and likely there were wars, crossing seas, and then-famous people. The problem is that the destruction of historical artifacts is one of the first thing an invading regime does to a vanquished one. Sad, again, but all too true.

Scaliger and others, rightfully so, understood this reality - that before we have actual-fact-data we KNOW people were doing things. So since we know THAT they were doing things, why not make ourselves look smarter (more on actual reasons later) and sort of, you know, make it seem like we know WHAT they were doing and who they were. This is really important in resolving things like land claims - either between families or between 'nations'.

There is no independent reason, for example, to believe that ruins in Iran are from the 5th century BC and not the 6th century AD. All reasons which do exist are DEpendent on other assumptions which, if wrong (and they are wrong) throw the entire schematic akimbo.

Regarding the 'Dark Ages' problem, you wrote:

"There is a troubling scarcity of certain types of archaeological evidence from 600Ad-900AD...in Europe. The rest of the world, (China, India, Middle East, heck, even southeastern Europe in the form of the Byzantine Empire) provide numerous artifacts of mechanical construction, literature, cultural expression, technological development, urban life, and political discourse."

Okay, first off, we are talking now about European history and the particular German historians involved. They are saying there is a troubling scarcity of archaeological evidence in Europe. That is the 'dark ages'. Secondly, outside of Europe - that is the big problem - no, there isn't. There is NOT any evidence of evolution of artifacts of technological and/or cultural development from 600 AD - 900 AD - not INdependently there isn't. Can you actually name one? You have asserted that there are. Naming one would be helpful at this time.

It is in fact IN europe that we are presented with Dark Age to Medieval armor changes. Such changes occurred no where else in the world. The flat-topped German helm and Spangenhelm are clearly a vulgarized barbarian version -Oester-Realm- of the various Trojan and Corinthian helmets. We are asked to believe that there are only minute differences spanning over a 1,500 years - at a rate of 2 miles per year, technological spreading, from east to west?

There is ONE singular exception to this. And this exception buttresses my further points forward, below. The Emergence of Ancient Pontic writing, for the first time. It is said to come from Thessalonika and is called Az-buki 'AB' or Hieronymian/Jerominian.

Hye means 'Ai' People; Armenian. The 'Ai' people, or something of this sort. People of 'Ai'. In old Armenian-Farsi, it is the letter 'Az', as in Azerbijan - the 'other' Armen-Iran. It is also the Ai type eyes - Azure, for Blue eyes. Yere is the central Iberian capital of the Aramenic realm, called Yerevan. Ere also means Aryan or Armenian, like Iran or Eren (of Ere). The prior form were simpler Aramanic runes which existed without vowels.

The Armanic runes were taken by Armenian-Rus (Russian) and Armenian Pe'Rus (Persian) north-westward into what was later called "Ere-opa' or Europa (goddess of grain etymology = thoroughly fallacious). The adoption of north pontic armenoid people, using Aramanic Runes into present day Germany, forms the basis of 'Germanic Runes'. These are referred to as Aramenic Runes. More on this as it relates to another statement of yours below. Aramenic runes, and similar artifacts, like the hotly debated "Silver Ingot of Bar-Rakib" are examples of Germanic Runes.

Azbuki is also called Cyrillic. The 9th century North-Transpontic variant is called Glagolitic "Hya-Gothitic" = Ai/Armen-Gothic.

Thus I propose, vowels are introduced by St. Jeremy and also taken up by St. Cyrus and St. Methodicus in the alleged 10th century. Vulgate latin text 'shown' is always from the 10th and 11th century, with vowels, despite ludicrous and artifactless claims that it existed in the 4th century. There is so much murky and dirty water around consensual historians, surrounding this particular issue. There is no clear consensus 'what' the hell is going on with this stuff.

There are no vowels, period, before about the mid 9th or 10th century. Mid 9th century attempts at vowels were premised upon the use of dots and apostrophes above consonants and spaced consonants. This is also found in Hebrew, Arabic, and Farsi, with vestigal usages in other formerly 'Oriental' countries like Spain and Germany with the umlaut (may have been the first 'U' distinction from 'V' as in 'Boy' instead of 'V' as in Uruguay' in the 850's)

St Jerome is from the alleged 10th century, not the alleged 4th century.

But to overlay THAT Actual time period of the alleged Greco-Armenoid 10th century into western Frankish History's alleged 10th century without any other INdependent context is, well, simply not good methodology.

Summary - first samples of oldest writing without vowels from 800 AD. Vowels come by 900. All middle forms date to 1000-1200. Language is the key! So ditto for culture, religion, art, music, politics, etc.

And there is NO change in Greco-Byzantine 'Roman' art between 300 AD and 1100 AD. Just look at Icons and church art. Also note that Serbians and Bulgarians and 'Thracians' all basically resemble Iranians and 'south' Ai aka 'south slav' people. Just google images to give you some visual aid to your forthcoming research project.

The above represents a profound misunderstanding not only of historical sources, but a basic ignorance about geography, linguistics, ethnography, and a willful effort to correlate two unrelated names as being identical across centuries and regions with well documented histories.

1. Vandals, Goths came from the northern parts of eastern Europe, and not the southern steppes, furthermore, they are unrelated to the Scythians, who are unrelated to, and existed concurrently with, the Sarmatians.
2. Cossacks are not Ottomans, the former is an East Slavic conglomeration of peoples who had fled to the steppes to escape Russian feudal oppression, the latter is a dynasty of Turkish rulers deriving from the steppes of central Asia but achieving its greatest success in Anatolia and the Balkans...and Hussars refer to a type of cavalry, (not an ethnic identity of any kind), deriving most likely from Latin 'cursari': raider or bandit.

Simply speaking, there is no way a 10th century German Emperor is the same man as the 13th century Turkish bey. As with other aspects of your description so far, you associate similarity with common ancestry, rather than with analogous development or converging evolution.

I understand the historical sources. The only willful effort you are making, is to regurgitate the already known consensus view. You must understand, don't you, that I understand the consensus view and have already had my razor's go at it for the better part of three years? Analogous development and converging evolution cannot explain the numerous data points I am dealing with. Analogous development is the less likely of any two options once the possibility of interchange exists. For example, analogous evolution might explain the appearance of the Fox and the Wolf ... or the appearance of the bow and arrow in the New World independently from the Old World ... but when people are neighbors. And not when these neighbors had a king with a similar name. And not when these two neighbors with kings with similar names both came from the same place originally, farther east. It is the multiple data points you fail to account for.

Onward then...

The Northern Parts of eastern Europe were under a Glacial like ice-pack until a century before the Medieval Warming period. I'm not now going to get into the numerous problems which arise from the 'little ice age' hypothesis, which is in my view submitted to almost merely to explain the possibility of 'non-eskimo' like human culture in Northern Europe prior to about 700-800 AD.

re: 1. There is little doubt that the Vandals and Goths WERE in the Northern parts of Eastern Europe - Pom-Erania/Pol-ai-landia - starting around 950 AD. But in turn they came from 'somewhere'. See above discussion of their written language - Runes - as demonstrated by the above referenced 800 Ad era "Silver Ingot of Bar-Rakib" artifact which is in Germanic i.e Aramanic Runes. This is how and why their late 9th century and 10th century writing was 'Gothic' - Hya-Gothic or GlaGothitic.

We also forgot the Franks. The Franks are also from the transpontic expanse. All these people pushed westward, as the north and west thawed, as Atlantic currents changed and warmed, pushing warm air into Ere-opa for the first time in thousands of years (at least). Franks, Vandals, Goths - all arrived en masse, and are of the same people, at about 900-1000 AD.

What we call the Carolignian Empire, Otto I's period, and the 11th century Holy Roman Empire, was one and the same thing. The Holy Roman Empire of the Nyemsi-Rhumadon (German Nemesis Romans) was founded before the Roman settlements on the Italian Peninsula were founded. The 'brown-eyed/haired' Iranians through the Mediterranean, by way of Crete and the Balkans developed Ai-talia or Italia - Ai people's haven, dew, or lamb. Possibly due to the Alps feeding into the peninsula as 'dew', 'haven' because of the protected nature of the peninsula, 'lamb' - the shape of the land mass like a lamb leg. The 'blue-eyed' caucasoidal Iranian-Armenians ARE the Glagothic - Gothics. They did conquer Poland first before taking Germany. That's why the German nobility had Pomeranian names. Look closely at German noble names. Enunciate them with an eastern flare. You will arrive at some pretty amazing things like 'Ester-haji'

The lay investiture crisis was an inbuilt issue that was present from the start. These collide with the histories of Brennus and Attila the Hun in Italy. It was all the same thing.

In addition to the above mentioned possible origins of 'Italia' - I arrive at the most startling and troublesome. That Italy itself is named after Ittalia the Hun. Brennus the Vennetti, or Venetti the Brennus.

In both cases, transalpine 'Gauls' (read Scythians) first took Venice. Then from Venice sacked Rome. In the first story Brennus sacks Rome, and receives a cash payment to not sack the inner-city on the hill. In the second story, Attila reaches the gates of Rome, and instead of sacking 'Rome', receives a cash payment to not sack the city. Its the same thing. I'm sure Attila sacked the 'outter settlements' of Rome, and simply did not sack the 'inner-city'. The cash payment was for the same 'mercy'.

The Venetti and then Attila are the real conquerors and uniters of Italy. Italy may in fact be named after the both the later 'Venice' and the former 'Ittila'. It is funny how the Renaissance citizens of Italian Rome identified with the vanquished while at the same time claiming the Nation.

But it seems it was always the Germanic over the Peninsular.

And another fact - the 'byzantines' Romans called ALL slavs 'Scythians'. This has to do with the weapon of choice of the Hussars aka Cossacks aka Ottomans.

You are right that there is a connection between military orders and names of things. But names of people's, names of kings, names of places, and names of certain military orders have been by now all mixed up. You are very wrong about the origin of peoples names vs. military orders. You have it all mixed up! I don't know how many languages you are speaking, but it works like this.

a.) Hussars aka 'Cossacks' (think 'Chossars' in far-western Aramenic, i.e Nyemskye (Alemanz/Germanic) and Nordic linguas are Huscarls. This be the name of a military order. House Charles. Charles means commoner. The House is the family or order, referring to feudal relations. Weapon of choice being the Scythe. With time this Scythe may have been stylized or diminished into the hand-axe in the far west.

You are right that Cursari and Corsair share a root, meaning raider. But the Latinic comes after, rather than before. Latin itself is not an original language but an Ido or Esperanto for the far west, so that all elites could be literate and communicate. Observing what were called Hussars and Huscarls, Latins called them 'raiders'. They were, after all, quite adept horsemen for commoners. And raiders are comprised of commoners, historically, as you know.

b.) Army/Armiya - originally just the pure east pontic Armenians. In the world outside of Armenia (modern day Armenia, Kurdistan, north Syria, Lebanon, Egypt (Hye-ko-sos), people encountered them as Soldiers - So Army it became

c.) Slavs - originally synomous with Cimmerian, Dacians, Sammartanian (Samaritan). Slavs in particular in essentially 'Slave' - but not in laborer sense. They are like Mamluks, Ghulams, and Janissary. 'Slave' as in Government Issue like GI Joe.

d.) Serbian - originally Serboi - Iranian for 'Servant', but not laborer - same as 'Slav'. It is a particular military order.

e.) Bulgar or Bel Gar - Mix of 5 Clans (including Cimmerian/Crimean and Serboi, Magyars, Huns, Armiya)

These are all essentially military designations. So you were onto something with Hussars.

f.) Ottomans - corruption or adaptation of Osmans. Aramanic 'SS' (same as nazi SS) is in various calligraphic texts, identical to FF, TT, ZZ, SS, TH, and all combinations thereof.
Hence Offa Rex is textually identical to Otta Rex. Rex means King like in Reggia, Reggio, or Regency.

About the apparent incongruity of an 8th century Mercian, a 10th Century German, and a 13th century Anatolian all named 'Othza Magna'. The 11th and 12 century together only spanned about 90 years. When thinking about Osman - don't rely on 17th century paintings from Scottland of him drawn in the style of 15th century Ottomans. This is would be akin to a future 22nd century AD Japanese painting of US President George Washington dressed like George Bush. These mental images really poison the well. The alleged 7th-9th centuries were actually about 50 years in the first half of the 10th century.

Prior to the 15th century, history suffers serious elastical distortions WITHIN each century. It is not just 'whole blocks of the past' we must cut out. It is not that simple. The time is expanding and contracting, molded to fit various narratives.

Rather than settling a score, picking a single narrative, they were placed chronologically. In one narrative, western tradition are admittedly the east conquering the west (Greeks-Anatolians conquering westward into Italy, Spain, etc.). Then in the next narrative, the western tradition is in the west, defending against an eastern invasion (Anatolians now called Turks, not considered foundational to the west). Rather than sort this out for what it really is - a mixed heritage that no 'one' can identify with purely - they have created an artificial sense of chronology, where in fact the issue is ideological and not geographic or chronological.

Now we must look at the largely unreliable history of 13th century Anatolia before the mythical invasion of Chinese people called 'Hans' or Khans. This is a whole other nut to crack, but the main idea here is that there was NO mongol invasion period. It is simply the rise of Islam. It is true that the true Eastern Roman Empire - what in the phantom antiquity are called the Parthians, Baktrians, and so on - spanned east as far as cis-Himilayan India - where the Gypsies where picked up and liberated from the untouchable caste, Kazakstan, to alleged Kwarzemshah lands. Then all armies were gathered and pushed west. Hence Kazars in the Crimean, Gypsies being called Roma (empire people) in Rome (Balkans), Bel Gar into modern Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia, and so on.

There is no consensus view of the Mongol invasion. Much of the idea already stands in discredit. Hans and Khans (same thing) were Khanates and were already pre-existing titles and concepts before the 'Hans' aka Chinese and Mongols invaded.

Look at maps of the realm of Attila the Hun. Then look at the peak of the Mongol Empire. Then try to reconcile that with maps of the Parthians, the Baktrians, Pontics, and Seleucids.

Again, all of what I have said above are only primers. Ideas and glimpses into the mass of supporting data that is out there. I am presenting a few findings, and not the methodology. Where I show the corruption and adaptation of words - that is not the methodology. These are ways of understanding the flexible nature of words and concepts so as to better prepare yourself for the actual work, which has not been here yet presented.

There is really so much more to this. For example, the REASON that history was distorted so much, chronologically speaking. I have alluded to one reason above - false ideological conceptions about what Ottomanism is, and the Armenian and Turkish-Greek roots of European Civilization. It is really just unpalatable to the Western Europeans.

The other has to do with the purpose and role of history. It is not for comparing notes. It is for determining claims to lands, both between individuals, and by extension whole communities, and finally, whole nations and states. It is also for shaping national narratives, for making brothers and relatives seem like ancient enemies, to turn One people into Three, or Three people into One.

Wherever power is sought, the truth is distorted to meet the needs of power. There are few who can speak truth to power. Normally they are black listed and ostracized.

Just as post-modern capitalism distorts the value of money and of stock prices - through inflationary gambles, and the ever present ponzi scheme of various commodity bubbles - we are in a capitalist generated hologram of stock and monetary value which is mostly fictional. We are experiencing a legal fiction where judges and regulators have refused to force holders of debts to mark their assets actually as debts, and to mark to market their actual liabilities. This is done to support the rule of bankers, because that is the nature of the present economic order - rule by bankers. This has a gross distorting effect on our perception of the present situation. Likewise ....

Under feudalism, before capitalism, what was distorted were the duration and length of familial dynasties and land owning families alike. In order to buttress a claim to a piece of land, each wealthy family would hire a court historian to create extra grandfathers who had lived on that land long ago. These were submitted to judges, who were paid handsomely to consider these historical revisions, and they would be approved. This was a terrifically terrifying practice all throughout the European, Balkan, and Anatolian system of feudal land grants and hereditary inheritances. This was done to support the rule of landlords, barons, dukes, and kings big and small.

Finally, let me say a little about the game: In the game scenario, the player will experience three historical epochs happening simultaneously, as they - as we agree - are presented by consensus historians as very similar chronologies. I am not sure yet if in the game, the starting date will be 20 AD, or about 1050 AD. They mean practically the same thing to me. Nevertheless, several themes will be apparent:

The historical role of Italy in the formation of the Roman Empire is diminished, the historical role of the Balkans and Anatolia in the Roman Empire is enhanced.

Everyone is a Slav, Turk, or Iranian/Armenian.

Slavs are Armen-Rus. Slavs are a certain kind of soldier, representing a particular legal-property relation. a 'G.I' akin to a Ghulam or Jannissary

Serbs are Serboi - Iranian/Armenians. Settled in modern Bulgaria and KoSorvia after conquest of Pom-Erania (Poland)

Turks are from Balkans and Greece, Iranians are there too

Iranian/Armenians are from Anatolia and eastward

Judaism develops in response to Christianity.

The Saduccees are the Saracens.

The Pharisees are the Farsis or Persians.

The Seleucids are the Seljuks.

Pontus Pilot is in Pontus.

Cavalry Hill is in Thrace near Constantinople

The Hagia Sophia is the twice destroyed Temple Mount and Arc of the Covenant

Komenoi are Kuman

Kuman have same origin or are synomous with Serbs/Croats and Bulgars/Volga Bulgars

Kumans are Trans-Pontic Armenoids

The Crusades are launched against 'Jews', and not Muslims.

Islam doesn't come into play until about 200 or 300 AD or 1400 AD respectively. Islam is presented as Eastern Gnosticism or Sufi Gnoslemism or rather, Christian Sufism.

The Ottomans are presented as a legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire. Mohammed II is Crowned Emperor of the Romans. He is from the same line as CCC -

The Quranic Muhammed is the Murad II and possibly Mehmet II who takes Constantinople in 1453.

Mohamed II is the descendant of Ionye 'Kum'noinus'/Komnenos and takes Crown legitimately

"After the Fall of Constantinople, Mehmed claimed the title of "Caesar" of Rome (Kayser-i Rûm), although this claim was not recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople, or Christian Europe. Mehmed's claim rested with the concept that Constantinople was the seat of the Roman Empire, after the transfer of its capital to Constantinople in 330 AD and the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Mehmed also had a blood lineage to the Byzantine Imperial family; his predecessor, Sultan Orhan I had married a Byzantine princess, and Mehmed may have claimed descent from John Tzelepes Komnenos"


Mohamedians are Macedonians and Haemimondians taken together with the Thracians = Turks

Thracians are Turks. Racially Iranian/Armenian/transpontic peoples

'X CCC X' and M2 are both Armenian (Iberian Turkic-Iranian) CCC is born in the 'reth' (semitic roughly for town) of Nis/Niz Serbia or Nic[aea]/omedia (2 in w.Anatolia)

War for Capitalism and Usury are presented as the primary 'Evils' which the 'X Emperor CCC X' (Constantine Christ Cesar) which the Romans are trying to stamp out.

Anatolia and Greater Armenia including Iran play the most significant role.

Christianity will start in Armenia.

Bulgars, Serbs, Byzantines (Romans), Armenians, and Georgians are presented as 'merely' Themes or Dioces or administrative divisions of Romans led by a mix of hereditary and merited Dux (Governors).

'Jews' are a class, not a religion. Refers to Bankers, Ornamented Metal Workers, and Merchants (these are interrelated - eg. Goldsteins had to borrow from Banks to front the Precious metal cost, at interest, until Merchants could successfully sell. This three-stop industry was centralized by the Usurious bankers aka Jews)

4th Catholic Crusade is really the 1st Jewish Crusade, financed and compelled by Venetian jews seeking revenge on the Komenoi blood line of Christ. This was also the battle over Helen.

Crusades 1-3 Led by Komenoi Christ blood line.

Constantinople is Troy, capitial of Thrace (Thrakes/Thurkye) and Mace-i-haemimondonia and the Imperial Capital

Many Saints were also Kings

Armenian and German are strongly related languages. Armenians are also rightly called Yeremans, or Eremans

Germans is Jermans or Yermans.

Turkish is Syncretic and I surmise originally it could have been a halfway between German and Greek on the one hand, and Armenian and Farsi on the other. This before the Khazak and far eastern influence, and centures of Ottoman Imperial mixing, especially in centuries 16-19.

[wudang_clown]

Slavs are Armen-Rus. Slavs are a certain kind of soldier, representing a particular legal-property relation. a 'G.I' akin to a Ghulam or Jannissary

Armenian and German are strongly related languages. Armenians are also rightly called Yeremans, or Eremans

Germans is Jermans or Yermans.

Are you serious?

[brapollo]

I can't imagine many California universities are teaching this version of history.

[Vanguard13]

Are you serious?

Well my friend, I'm not *dead* serious. I suppose we could arm wrestle for it, if you like.

I'm quite flexible in my approach, and not married to any particular theory should I be confronted with convincing theories to the contrary. It isn't like I'm pointing to a blue sky and calling it red. We are, after all, talking about hypothesis' and theories.

But those are three distinct ideas I've bounced there, which you ask about. I know you are honestly asking, so I will take time from my morning and try to ask more specifically what you mean, and provide some additional secondary source material.

1.) Are you inquiring about my opinion about the word 'Slav' being connected to 'Slave'? Given what we know about eastern hydraulic societies, is it absurd to suggest it is meant in a military sense - akin to Ghulams or Yannisari?

Here is an interesting discussion of that subject.

http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com...n_etymolo.html

2.) Are you asking about the seriousness of an opinion that '[G]erman' and '(Ye)[A]reman' have the same meaning and root word?

It means they are both 'Yere' or 'Ai' named people, of the Ai kin family. Hermano, for instance in Spanish means brother.

The word 'Germaine' in english means 'Related' - usually in discussing the connection between topics.

I'd say that Armanen/Armenen is Germaine to a conversation about Germans

3.) Do you mean to ask for elaboration on the ancient lingual-historical connection between Armenian and German through the Armanen runes?

I put forward that Glagogolitic was brought into Germany by the same people who peopled Germany at the end the start of the Medieval Warming Period? That this was a form of trans-pontic writing first, and that trans-pontic people are largely Armenoid i.e 'Caucasian'?

This is a favorite website of mine. Here is a sampling of a conversation. A student mentions here that the first European skull was found in Georgia. The question is asked, who are the proto-typical caucasoids?

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4808038/1/

Here is a very cool description of Rus people by Ahmad ibn Fadlan. Among other interesting and confirming observations he makes, he notes that the Russian men were all sleeved with Tattoos. cool eh?

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4789581/1/

[Vanguard13]

I can't imagine many California universities are teaching this version of history.

One mouth and 200 ears style teaching isn't really what's done on a lot of masters and doctoral level work. Rather you receive permission and guidelines of how to approach your thesis work.

Everyone by this point has already proved their ability to regurgitate the consensus narratives of various professors on the campus. That got you through your BA degree. This was difficult because the professors often disagree. The notion of 'consensus' itself is a highly politically charged reality. There are tons of academic peer review journals on the broad subject of 'history' alone. The Editors are jealously protecting their own party line.

Ideas can only be challenged once the men who came up with the old ideas, finally dies. Usually these challenges are started by his own students, who only start adding tweaks. This tweaks begin to add up. This is the process of bibliogenesis.

A lot of these early critiques are phrased in the seemingly innocuous 'if by whiskey' approach statements.

You work in small groups, and there isn't a lot of lecturing. I suppose you can be individually 'lectured' about one's methodological approach, or straying from the approved study.

But the intellects and curiosity of the students is only really guided by an approved thesis.

One doesn't really get to approach broad and sweeping narratives on the masters or doctoral level.

A whole Doctoral thesis would be, as you may know, simply looking at the Armanen Runic base letters used in Glagolitic. The whole thesis might only look at 5-8 of the letters, in the whole alphabet. That would be your whole work.

Only for the truly obsessed. Otherwise, a little mind numbing. Definitely not for the casual gamer or even tech savvy modder, unless it is a parallel interest.

[Vanguard13]

Are you serious?

I understand the question now! Yes, in the MOD, BRR - 'Slav' will be a unit name type - just like Ghulam or Jannissary.

There will be Slav Footmen, Spearmen, and Archers.

[brapollo]

One mouth and 200 ears style teaching isn't really what's done on a lot of masters and doctoral level work. Rather you receive permission and guidelines of how to approach your thesis work.

Everyone by this point has already proved their ability to regurgitate the consensus narratives of various professors on the campus. That got you through your BA degree. This was difficult because the professors often disagree. The notion of 'consensus' itself is a highly politically charged reality. There are tons of academic peer review journals on the broad subject of 'history' alone. The Editors are jealously protecting their own party line.

Ideas can only be challenged once the men who came up with the old ideas, finally dies. Usually these challenges are started by his own students, who only start adding tweaks. This tweaks begin to add up. This is the process of bibliogenesis.

A lot of these early critiques are phrased in the seemingly innocuous 'if by whiskey' approach statements.

You work in small groups, and there isn't a lot of lecturing. I suppose you can be individually 'lectured' about one's methodological approach, or straying from the approved study.

But the intellects and curiosity of the students is only really guided by an approved thesis.

One doesn't really get to approach broad and sweeping narratives on the masters or doctoral level.

A whole Doctoral thesis would be, as you may know, simply looking at the Armanen Runic base letters used in Glagolitic. The whole thesis might only look at 5-8 of the letters, in the whole alphabet. That would be your whole work.

Only for the truly obsessed. Otherwise, a little mind numbing. Definitely not for the casual gamer or even tech savvy modder, unless it is a parallel interest.

I am well aware how graduate study works. That's what amuses me about your "sweeping narrative."

[Vanguard13]

I am well aware how graduate study works. That's what amuses me about your "sweeping narrative."

The sweeping narrative is indeed there for your amusement. Take any bits or pieces or use what interests you, if at all, and leave behind what doesn't.

If anyone at all shares from me any little part or bit, or is inspired to spin something off on their own, I have served my purpose here.

I have no dog in the history race.

A master's degree in history was just a funny thing that happened on the way to law school. Law school never happened, so I married a lawyer instead.

My street background is in gang-banging and various old communist groupings in Los Angeles. This spun off into a study in mass psychology, small group dynamics, hierarchical structures and, naturally Sovietology.

Academically I focused primarily on the so-called Antiquity.

I'm just a petty union thug, shaking down members for their dues, and negotiating collective bargaining agreements in Los Angeles. I'm just another gun for hire.

In Belgrade, Serbia I do home construction and import exotic and luxury cars. My woman handles the legal work as an attorney. Her colleagues are working to free Mladic.

My actual forte is International and Strategic studies. My aim is to work closely with the new and reforming Serbian government, now that EU loving Tadic is out, and the Russian loving Nikolic is in.

I do strategic and defense related analysis.

I'm a Christian-Muslim. Outside of that personal moral and familial commitment, I have no dog in politics.

But my initial expertise in Sovietology and Marxism, alongside my proclivity to the use immediate means to resolve conflicts, has led me on my path.

All I really care about is finishing my 650 square meter mini mansion, and begging my wife to go for a 650cc boob job.

So I am a simple man really, with simple needs and wants.

I uphold my 5 pillars and confess my mistakes
So I walk it. So it goes. Life goes on.

Good day to you

[wudang_clown]

1.) Are you inquiring about my opinion about the word 'Slav' being connected to 'Slave'? Given what we know about eastern hydraulic societies, is it absurd to suggest it is meant in a military sense - akin to Ghulams or Yannisari?

Here is an interesting discussion of that subject.

http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com...n_etymolo.html

Yes, I'm aware of that very popular, but in my opinion very weak interpretation of etymology.

Isn't it weird that from all peoples that were being enslaved by different powers in different times, only Slavic people are all of the sudden made up as a "nation of slaves"? Did "Keltoi" mean "slaves"? Did "Allemani" mean "slaves"? Did "Picti" mean slaves? Did "Thraci" mean "slaves"? No. Shall we now count how many people from different ethnic groups were taken captives or sold as slaves? No. Only Slavs/Słowianie mean "slaves". Do any other peoples on this planet use an autonym which is derogatory? I know nothing about such peoples.

Why the etnonym, then?

In short, and that's only one of more interesting, and at least for me most convincing hypothesis (surprisingly, Wikipedia is very informative on this issue):

*su̯edho (own man, related man) = su̯edhnos = ἒθνος = Svoběne = Sloběne = Suēbi (= *su̯ebho = related one). That's the same root; in Polish swój [człowiek] (own [man]), siebie (oneself).

Another hypothesis, related to the previous:

*svoboda/*sloboda = svobъ (← *su̯o-bho ← *su̯os "own [man]"); *svoba → *sloba = one who belongs to own tribe, who dwells in his own land, who is at home, among his own people, enjoying freedom.

Now, that sklavenoi and sclavus at some point of history got the meaning of "slave" - it is perfectly acceptable, but it might have been just a derogatory term, an ethnic slur, just like Hun-Germans or, in Polish (ironically, given reconstruction of the root presented above) Szwaby(Suebi)-Germans. It is most likely a conversion, given that allegedly there is no such term as sclavus in classic Latin, and in medieval Latin slavus meant "a serf", and sclavus indeed meant "slave", but it doesn't have Latin or Greek etymology.

So, it is very ironic that people, who probably used an autonym meaning "one who belongs to own tribe, who dwells in his own land, who is at home, among his own people, enjoying freedom", were started to be related to institutionalised lack of freedom. And now we can read loads of crap how Słowianie are in fact related to Greek-Latin sklavenoi-sclavus, while it is exactly the opposite.

As for ghulams - ghulam designates a young boy, a servant, a slave servant, a bodyguard, a slave bodyguard. Mamluk relates to slavery stronger, but it's not like all "military slaves" were actual slaves and not all of them were Slavs. In fact, there were many different ethnic groups, Turks, Circassians, Indians, Greeks, Armenians etc., etc within mamluk corps. Probably the most numerous group were Turks, and most of those soldiers might happen to be just bought as slaves, then trained and then freed. They were bonded with their masters anyway, so where could they go, really? Back to their homes? After years of military training and indoctrination? Should they resign of their potentially successful military careers?

I think there is too much insistence on their alleged status of slaves, but in fact they were warriors of slave background, not actual slaves.

So how come, all of the sudden, that Slavs are more suited to be ghulams/mamluks of the past? Do all slaves in history have to be Slavs now? Because of term "slave" is derived from "Slav"?

2.) Are you asking about the seriousness of an opinion that '[G]erman' and '(Ye)[A]reman' have the same meaning and root word?

It means they are both 'Yere' or 'Ai' named people, of the Ai kin family. Hermano, for instance in Spanish means brother.

The word 'Germaine' in english means 'Related' - usually in discussing the connection between topics.

I'd say that Armanen/Armenen is Germaine to a conversation about Germans

I'm honestly surprised you haven't added Aryans here. Germans=Armenians=Aryans. We can even add Allemani here! This looks much better and has already a great tradition.

Except that it doesn't work this way. Deutschen =/= Hayer. You've basically chosen one numerically predominant ethnonym and compared it to another (both Latinised, by the way), while there are other ethnonyms for the same ethnic group, and they doesn't fit your theory that well, so let's not talk about it or pretend they doesn't exist...?

Does Niemcy reassembles "(Ye)[A]reman"? Although it sounds a bit like Yangtze, so maybe they're from China? Nah, that's licentia poetica of mine.

3.) Do you mean to ask for elaboration on the ancient lingual-historical connection between Armenian and German through the Armanen runes?

Not exactly. I'd really like to see a reliable linguistic comparison of the languages that would allow to draw such bold conclusions.

Comparison of some runes proves nothing, actually. Just two days ago I read very interesting paper about an early medieval artifact found in my home town. The artifact is a carved stone, and the carving represents a figure, which is thought to be some kind of deity. The interesting part is that author of the paper decided that it reminds him of some Celtic representations of deities, therefore the carving has rather Celtic roots. Well, I decided that it reassembles Kypchak gravestone carvings more than some Celtic art, and the fact is that the artifact can be linked with those two other cultures simply because how many ways there are to represent a figure of a man by carving him in a stone?

[Vanguard13]

Yes, I'm aware of that very popular, but in my opinion very weak interpretation of etymology.

Isn't it weird that from all peoples that were being enslaved by different powers in different times, only Slavic people are all of the sudden made up as a "nation of slaves"? Did "Keltoi" mean "slaves"? Did "Allemani" mean "slaves"? Did "Picti" mean slaves? Did "Thraci" mean "slaves"? No. Shall we now count how many people from different ethnic groups were taken captives or sold as slaves? No. Only Slavs/Słowianie mean "slaves". Do any other peoples on this planet use an autonym which is derogatory? I know nothing about such peoples.

So, it is very ironic that people, who probably used an autonym meaning "one who belongs to own tribe, who dwells in his own land, who is at home, among his own people, enjoying freedom", were started to be related to institutionalised lack of freedom. And now we can read loads of crap how Słowianie are in fact related to Greek-Latin sklavenoi-sclavus, while it is exactly the opposite.

As for ghulams - ghulam designates a young boy, a servant, a slave servant, a bodyguard, a slave bodyguard. Mamluk relates to slavery stronger, but it's not like all "military slaves" were actual slaves and not all of them were Slavs. In fact, there were many different ethnic groups, Turks, Circassians, Indians, Greeks, Armenians etc., etc within mamluk corps. Probably the most numerous group were Turks, and most of those soldiers might happen to be just bought as slaves, then trained and then freed. They were bonded with their masters anyway, so where could they go, really? Back to their homes? After years of military training and indoctrination? Should they resign of their potentially successful military careers?

I think there is too much insistence on their alleged status of slaves, but in fact they were warriors of slave background, not actual slaves.

So how come, all of the sudden, that Slavs are more suited to be ghulams/mamluks of the past? Do all slaves in history have to be Slavs now? Because of term "slave" is derived from "Slav"?

I'm honestly surprised you haven't added Aryans here. Germans=Armenians=Aryans. We can even add Allemani here! This looks much better and has already a great tradition.

Except that it doesn't work this way. Deutschen =/= Hayer. You've basically chosen one numerically predominant ethnonym and compared it to another (both Latinised, by the way), while there are other ethnonyms for the same ethnic group, and they doesn't fit your theory that well, so let's not talk about it or pretend they doesn't exist...?

Does Niemcy reassembles "(Ye)[A]reman"? Although it sounds a bit like Yangtze, so maybe they're from China? Nah, that's licentia poetica of mine.
Not exactly. I'd really like to see a reliable linguistic comparison of the languages that would allow to draw such bold conclusions.

Comparison of some runes proves nothing, actually. Just two days ago I read very interesting paper about an early medieval artifact found in my home town. The artifact is a carved stone, and the carving represents a figure, which is thought to be some kind of deity. The interesting part is that author of the paper decided that it reminds him of some Celtic representations of deities, therefore the carving has rather Celtic roots. Well, I decided that it reassembles Kypchak gravestone carvings more than some Celtic art, and the fact is that the artifact can be linked with those two other cultures simply because how many ways there are to represent a figure of a man by carving him in a stone?

I think it should be obvious from my several posts on this matter that Slav meaning 'Slave' is not derogatory if it is true. If it is true, it is simply true. I have little concern for how that makes anyone feel, quite frankly. If someone in the room thinks 2+2=5, I'm not going to offer that maybe it sometimes = 4.5, for the sake of not being offensive.

So I'll continue to call a Spade a Spade - even if he's just in black face - and a Slav a Slav. I think the Jannissary and Ghulam traditions are quite proud ones. And to say that I've done 'nothing' to establish a connection but find a predominant ethnonym, is akin to saying that I've done nothing to win the race except cross the finish line first!

It would seem that you have this idea that a slave is somehow disrespected or abused. I know, intellectually, if pressed on the subject, you'd agree to any number of instances where slavery in itself is not problematic.

Just as our concepts regarding success, class, wealth, gender have evolved over time - why 'Slave' in the past is in itself so bad, I can't reconcile.

I don't have this idea of stupid entrapped Slavs without the dignity of a warrior status.

And I'm not sure we agree on what exactly a Jannissary or Ghulam was. I would not agree that they were simply sold into slavery, and then sold from slavery into the military, where they were honored. I believe the slavery component never ended, though the honor increased. I think if they lived through some battles and established themselves with honor and valor, they would be able to qualify for manumission. This would happen somewhere between ages 30-40, or around the rank of Officer (perhaps even a Seargent by age 28?)

Christian areas that were also often Muslim, like the Steppes and the Balkans, would have had to be flexible.

To put this in simple terms - we know that leasing and renting are different legally. There are jurisdictions zoned not for renting, but just for leasing, and vice versa. The devil is in the details here, but at the end of the day you are paying monthly (or similar) for something which ultimately you don't own. A lease may entitle the tenant to more security and rights than a simple month to month rent.

Likewise, there are a number of different concepts surrounding Slavery. Serfdom and Indentured Servitude at times offered worse conditions than Slavery (regarding laborers) in fact because they WERE free and they weren't total investments. You could burn through them faster, and didn't have to take care of them as you would a machine that you owned.

Finally, I honestly fail to see how what you have provided regarding 'Slav' meaning freeman is more convincing than Slav meaning Slave. The series of linguistic progressions is precisely the type I have also presented for that word and other words. The fact that other people were not named 'Slavs' but were Slavs would also not seem to discount the idea - if it alone were true - that THIS group of people WERE named after being Slaves. Whatever personal offense you may take to it, that would not seem to be a factor in reality. I understand that you option meaning 'freeman' makes a person who is Slavic feel better.

My wife is a Slav, and still ef's my brains out knowing what Slav means. Its not derogatory. My reading of the term is that it was an honorable things to be - that offered struggle, glory, and eventual manumission.

She is also a Serb. Serb as in Servant. So that actually contradicts the idea that only Slavs (if meaning Slaves) were named after their Servitude.

And like Slavs, being a Serboi was also valiant. Again, it is meant as Military Service, in both cases - Slav or Serb.

So do you think my wife feels triply enslaved? By being both a Slav and a Serb and my Wife?

No she believes both of these mean Warrior. In the context of hydraulic societies (sometimes called Hydraulic Despotism) these were 'honorific' roles in society.

Slaves can also be paid in wages, and can also have tremendous leisure time. Social relations and legal terms are complex things, and they often don't reflect as we understand them today.

Military Conscription, a standing army, is what I am talking about here. Not a people worthy of being mere laborers. Slavs who weren't 'GI's', would have been referred to by what they otherwise were - Rus etc.

Also Greco-Roman maps may not be what they seem. They can be 'resource maps' as in - "this is where we get the Slavs from, this is where we get the Serboi from, this is where we get the Bel-Gars from, this is where we get Iranian Fruits from (Pomerania).

Like, if I just straight up said the word 'Pomerania' to a Serb, they would be like 'Iranian Fruit?'. And we know that Serbs made a big stop in Pomerania on the way down to the Danube River basin in the heart of the balkans. In other words, its partly their language too as South Slavs.

And finally, it could very well be that the words Servant and Slave eventually CAME from Slavs and Serbs - whose roles were observed - and not the other way around

Still, thank you because I very much am engaged by your points of view. I consider them mostly reasoned (less your emotionally based rejection of the Slave- Slav hypothesis which is hardly an uncommon one and is supported by lots of scholarly work you are probably already aware of).

I'm seeing this in the context of Feudal relations within Hydraulic societies where access to waterways and diverting rivers was more important than relying on rainfall (for crops). Hydraulic societies are naturally more centralized, and the first standing armies - as opposed to Western Europe - were raised up in Hydraulic Societies.

I think that Rus are Rus, and means nothing about their relation to the mode of production as Slav might. If the name stuck, then, though, it stuck.

Now, you've taken some issue with my uses of words - connecting words that are quite obviously connectable like German and Hermano and Aremen. You don't think this is convincing, but offer like some contortion of Suebe =Suaba = Suede = Sclava (?!? huh?)- and you find this more convincing?

I'm just as inclined to think that Slav comes from Sclav (pronounced Shlav in some parts) which means 'Bones' as in 'Clav', which is often what bronze age Rus et al made their Scythes from. Hence: Scythians = Slavs

Surely its less 'demeaning' to a Slav than the Slave hypothesis. But again, that rests on how you understand Slavocratic and Feudal relations, especially in the "Eastern" (Central) Roman legal framework.

Maybe I'm still hung up on Witfoggels 'Oriental Despotism' and the Asiatic Mode of Production - hydraulic societies, etc. After Syria was overrun, for instance this caused government tax revenue to plummet to 25% of the previous take; at least according to according to Michael Hendy (Byzantine Monetary studies, p. 620) and that whole line of research, which I'm sure you're well aware of.

This caused the troops to retreat from Syria, the government could not afford to pay them directly and the only alternative was 'Slavery for Land' - forced Conscription with Manumission - "four acres and a mule" as we would have said in the US some time ago.

George Ostrogorsky thinks (History of the Byzantine State, p. 123) this resulted in a whole class of free peasants as military small-holders. These families had their own land and were liable for military service. They paid taxes directly to the state. Personally I have mapped out the economics on this one for one paper written 10 years ago (I'll see if I have it somewhere), and I can't agree with Ostrogorsky.

I think they would have had to have been on "Campaign mode" , and not had the 'time' to be both abroad acting as garrison or on the march, and a 'free small holder' at home - like the western european levy system (also made possible by heavy rainfall in western europe, and less reliance/requirement on/of large state investment for resource acquisition)

Now many Byzantine historians dispute when these social changes occured, the question of military themata. I think Ostrogorsky and Hendy here shed some insights, but it would seem that 'Slavery for later Manumission' would have been the only 'military to land' agreement that would have worked. After all, I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today! Especially if I planned to march you into a bloody battle on Monday!

But yes! Wouldn't it be something if the Romans and Greeks took a word that clearly meant 'Freemen' to mean 'Slavemen'?. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me - I've read Orwell's 1984 after all, and I don't mean in Jr. High. It's all too possible.

Or maybe they were slaves to their freedom. Ever heard of that concept? I see it all the time in the USA which is why I spend as little time there as possible

The issue of the Germans, Deutsche, Allemans, and Armenians - that will have to wait for another day. But I will say - why you think Deutsch =/= Hyer is going to bite you in the tiutsch!

[TaronQuinn]

Hahaha, you're really just digging the hole deeper. Believe what you like, and conjure up all the pseudo-evidence you like to support it; it makes no difference to me. I have stated my piece on this forum, and have no need to waste my breath trying to convince you of the merits of actual historical investigation. Any and all evidence I bring up will simply be dismissed by you as altered, biased, mishandled, or some other dismissal.

If you want to take this as a surrender, fine by me. I surrender to your vastly superior research and intellect.

I see no need to spend my effort on this topic; the soundness of your arguments, for good or ill, are quite apparent to all those who read your words.

TQ

[AnthoniusII]

My friend Vanguard13 i have some objections to your posts.
Lets clarify some things.
There were not EVER Thracians as separated tribe since the hellenistic era or the early roman conquest.
So ancient Thracians were more or less intigenus tribe of balkan-proto pelasgian tribal leaque.and not Iranians.
As NikeBG posted with a Slavic description of 6th century Slavs (Skavini and Antes) were described as "redish" skined with red or blond hair.
Have you ever see a blond Iranian?
For Bulgarians things are more complicated thanks to much more tribal mixes that they had in the plains before settle in north balkans.

Romans (byzantines is a false term) used hellenistic or ancient greek names for tribal leaques and not spesific tribes that their names were known accuratly.
Steppe style tribes were known as:
Scythae
Tauroscythae
Turks
Every slavic origin tribe or state named as slavs.
Every mercenary from scandinavia was Rus.
All mercenaries from England were Angli
All germans were Alamani (despite the fact that Alamani were only one german tribe).
All westrern warriors were "Latins" (not Romans) or Franks.
All Arabs were "saraceni".
Generic terms were usefull to Roman Generals to help them make their own stradegies according to their opponets.
Each "nation" used different style of tactics and there fore Generals should be aware to know that.

You are right about Slavs name that could mean slaves or searvants (its a theory) but Romans NEVER called slavs scithians (scythae).
Scythae faught on horses and used bows, slavs used mostly javelins and bows with poisoned arrows and prefaired deep forests to deploy their ambushes.
"Taktika of Leon VI the Wise"
Now things are more complicated where the Roman citizenship is involved.
Macedonian Dynasty's founder was half Armenian (Macedonia back then was the modern greek-turkish Thrace).
But Armenians had the Roman citizenship just like Greeks,Arabs,Isaurians,Cappadokians etc.
The problem is that BC focuses in a period that Armenian ethnicism created a new Armenian state.
So in game's terms:
If Armenians continued to fight as Romans (some of them) their apearence would not be different than th erest of the Romans.
You wish more complicated issues?
Antioch should provide Roman troops if will be under Roman rule thanks to :
Vast Greek population
Vast Orthodox Arabic population that still had also the Roman citizenship.
Armenian mercenaries should be available to ALL factions though as Armenians were known that faught to the one that payed more despite if that "one" would be christian or muslim or what ever...
If you realy want to create an extensive Roman recruitment area then my sugestions will be:
All asia minor including Antioch but not Georgia should allow Roman troops to be recruited...not further.
In Greek lands and islands (crete,rhodes,cyprus) also Roman troops could be recruited.
If Bulgarians wont presented as Rebels atleast then Bulgarian local troops should exist as mercenaries south of dunab.
To the rest..
When we must try to learn history of a state or a tribe lets "hear" or read what they had to say about them.
Western historians do not accept the Roman citizenship of "byzantines" for political reasons.
But "byzantines" called them selves Romans.

[Tureuki]

Dude, I suggest you to reset yourself, because you're really confused.

[AnthoniusII]

Dude, I suggest you to reset yourself, because you're really confused.

Is that for me?
If yes confused in wich point?

[Tureuki]

No I mean Vanguard13 of course.

[AnthoniusII]

No I mean Vanguard13 of course.

Never the less...let's avoid expresions like "reset".
We all start from somewhere and in the process we learn from its other.

[Vanguard13]

Hahaha, you're really just digging the hole deeper. Believe what you like, and conjure up all the pseudo-evidence you like to support it; it makes no difference to me. I have stated my piece on this forum, and have no need to waste my breath trying to convince you of the merits of actual historical investigation. Any and all evidence I bring up will simply be dismissed by you as altered, biased, mishandled, or some other dismissal.

If you want to take this as a surrender, fine by me. I surrender to your vastly superior research and intellect.

I see no need to spend my effort on this topic; the soundness of your arguments, for good or ill, are quite apparent to all those who read your words.

TQ

Fellow TWer Taron,

Believe it or not, I had typed a response first, before the other day - and spent some hours on it. When I had hit 'Submit', TWC had timed me out. It was all lost.

In that one, I spent considerable more time explaining that what you and I were presenting weren't arguments. We weren't really offering proofs either. We were both sharing what our findings were.

I also had dug into the fact that forums like these, among near total strangers, without the emotional and professional ties that bind, would find little reason to play 'the believing game'. I had gone into critical thinking and what I felt was the need to play the 'believing game' before getting into step 2 - the scalpel of the disbelieving game.

I never sought out to convince anyone, of this I am sure I did get through in my rather hurried though longish, and unedited post above.

What I am talking about primarily is a mod for a great game that we all love - Broken Crescent! I am still preparing those elements that I can quickly cut and paste into 3.0's release. Other parts, including some scripting, will have to wait until the release itself.

I am also still learning map editing.

It was also explained - and this I was able to explain in an earlier post (yes its up there) that I am working on TWO versions of BRR for 3.0.

Version 1. is based in the consensual chronology which places us today in 2012. The difference here was that there were more Balkans factions represented in various ways, with a slightly expanded map (about 400 miles east and west). The other difference was with recruitment - hence Broader Roman Recruitment. The idea being that the Orthodox factions, while at times acting in a condition similar to civil war within Roman themes and dioces, had access to an overlapping marshall tradition. Romans could recruit Tadruezili from the Hagia Sophia and Cairo, for example, and Armenian Knights et al were available to Romans in Armenia Minor and in Jerusalem (if under Roman control). I also unlocked the Russian units of the Kypchaks' units for Orthodox factions holding regions in the Steppes and Ukraine.

I do not accept your desire not to continue to talk about this as any sign of your defeat or any lack of intellectual rigour on your part. These are voluntary forums. You got out of our dialogue whatever you could or wanted to get out of it. I was happy to talk about the subject.

I felt your second approach was quite earnest, and I placed considerable effort - twice (one failed to Submit) - to explore the themes and serious questions that you raised. Thank you for that.

Quite the contrary, your very passion for the subject of medieval and ancient history alone makes you unique among men, a person whose knowledge of the subject clearly towers above the vast majority of humanity, who only finds commensurable degrees in specialty forms.

I am somewhat intimately familiar with consensus chronology - tending to rebrand myself as more of being a Generalist, where indeed my academic Specialism was in Antiquity. I began to notice too many anomalies, and so it began.

Cheers to you and all of your ventures

[Vanguard13]

Dude, I suggest you to reset yourself, because you're really confused.

I've noticed that you never actually say much anything of substance.

You're simply more economical with your use of worthless words than I am!

(see, that's self effacing humour)