Talk:History of the Balkans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
History of the Balkans was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on March 20, 2005.
For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations. |
 |
History of the Balkans was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive for the week spanning from Sunday, 15 April 2007.
For more details, see the Article Creation and Improvement Drive history. |
[edit] Geological History
Shouldn't this history include a geological history of the balkans? How the region was formed, the mountins etc. The balkans is a landmass, it would seem logical. User:GeZe
Maybe that would be too long. There could be a seperate article called Geological history of the balkans that links to this one...Bremen 22:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Language map - inaccuracies
There are several inaccuracies in the map by User:Bogdangiusca:
- 1) The Getae are regarded as a Thracian tribe, not as a Dacian one. See for example the report of the UNESCO about the Getae Tomb of Sveshtari - [1].
- Getae is the name of Dacians South and East of the Carpathians. Strabo said that the Dacians and Getae spoke the same language.
- Also, Geto-Dacians were a Thracian tribe and were related to the Thracian tribes of Thrace. But they were not exactly the same people. Just think the way Danes are a Germanic people and are related to the Germans. Bogdan | Talk 21:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The difference between Dacians and Thracians is also a bit artificial and they quite often are regarded as two branches of the same people.
But if there is anyway a differentiation between Dacians and Thracians, the border between them should go along the Danube.
- It depends. A differentiation can be made easily with the help of the toponyms. Dacian towns have endings in "-dava", while Thracian towns in "-para". Please look at this map of Duridanov. Bogdan | Talk 21:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- 2) The area of the ancient Macedonians is suspiciously reminiscent of the geographical region of Macedonia, the Macedonians, however, inhabited only a section of it, pretty much corresponding to nowadays northwestern Macedonia (Greece).
- Well, it's not very precise to change like this... I'll try to find some map of Ancient Macedonia before I made a change there. Bogdan | Talk 21:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am urging User:Bogdangiusca who has created the map, to make the necessary corrections. VMORO 20:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)~
VMORO is right about the northern frontiers of ancient Macedon: it did not extend that far north: that was an independent kingdom, Paeonia, inhabited by Paeonians who were neither Illyrian nor Thracian nor Macedonian, though the map does not indicate this. Paeonia became part of the Roman province of Macedonia only later. A lot of FYROM was in fact once part of Paeonia, not the kingdom of Macedon. In fact, the geographical center of the present Republic of Macedonia was Paeonian territory, with the Paeonian capital Bylazora located dead in the center of the modern Republic. Decius 01:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Macedonian sphere in the map extends way too far north, past even Paeonia into Dardania, populated by Thraco-Illyrians. The new map should accurately depict the Macedonian sphere as being further south and west (as far south as Thessaly, as far west as bordering on Illyria). Decius 01:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Though equating ancient Macedon with present Greek Macedonia is not correct either, as ancient Macedonia for most of its history (especially in 1000 bc) did not extend that far east into southern Thrace, where Thracians were predominant. Decius 01:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also, Moesian probably should be represented separately, as transitional between Dacian and Thracian, as many scholars suggest (i.e. "Thraco-Daco-Moesian"), though no one really knows the differences between them. The Getae though are synonymous with Daci in Strabo and other sources, so they are to be included with Dacian: the Getae were Dacians.Decius 01:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another thing I don't like is that the color for Phrygian territory in Anatolia is too close to the color for Thracian territory in and around Bithynia and Thynia. At a casual glance, it looks as if there are no Thracians in Anatolia, just Phrygians. Decius 01:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Most likely the Scythians had not migrated into the areas north of the Black Sea so early as 1000bc. They probably arrived later. I would not show Scythians on such a map from 1000 bc. If you read Herodotus, you can see that from the way they are discussed, it seems that they were newcomers in the area, arriving in the area a few centuries before Herodotus (800bc--600bc maybe). Decius 02:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ancient Illyrian sphere is exaggerated: after Venetic comes a transitional area populated by Liburnians, Iapodians, and the Delmatae. The real (South) Illyrian territory in 1000 bc (and into Ad times, really) did not extend much farther north of modern Albania along the Adriatic coast; the limit was about the southern strip of Croatian coast(this is also directly stated by an ancient text attributed to Skylax). Liburnian names are more Venetic than Illyrian, while Delmatae names are mixed Venetic-Illyrian: it doesn't look as if they spoke the same language as Illyrians (though probably related). Decius 02:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Religion in the Balkans
Does anyone have a plan to outline this subject? There have been many great religions in the region; from what we now know as Greek Mythology, to Catholicism, to the Orthodox one after the schism, to Islamic influence under the Ottomans, to modernity and more secularism. Should these be included in their own section or the sections about each civilization? Links possibly useful
gren 23:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Huge Article
This article is going to be gigantic, from the looks of it. I'm not sure if it is suitable for one article. It's going to have to be very truncated. Decius 03:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well there are already several articles that cover material related to the balkans...the ottoman empire article is a good example. This article doesn't have to get that big...a good summary is what it really is.Bremen 06:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We'll see. Mostly what I'm doing for now is editing what other people write, and trying to organize the framework and chronology. There are individual articles for most of the sub-sections, though I don't know if there are such articles as Prehistory of the Balkans et cetera. I see that there is The Balkans in classical antiquity that needs to be expanded also, though that article needs to be renamed, as it is in fact devoted to the Balkans in the Roman period. I've given it a more accurate title for now (Classical antiquity can also mean the time of Pericles, and back then there were still the Balkan independent kingdoms of Thrace, Dacia, etc.). Decius 06:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I should maybe discuss this on the Talk page for that article, but here it'll get more attention: The article Colonies in antiquity should not exist as it is right now: new format should be a separate article for each section: Phoenician colonies in antiquity, Greek colonies in antiquity, Roman colonies in antiquity. Each one is a big subject and should have its own article to be dealt with properly. I'll have to learn how to "cut and paste". The rest of the article (the introduction) should just be a disambiguation page directing to the specific articles. Decius 07:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Map of Habsburg Empire
Please check the accuracy of the map.
I don't know much of Habsburg Empire, however I know that the political entity Slovenia emerged only after the first World War. Before that, there were Carynthia, Styria and Carniola, ruled by the Habsburgs, and the Littoral Region was called Goriška Region.
Also the city of Ljubljana is missing. It should be included as it is the capital of Slovenia. --Eleassar777 12:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Removed the map as no-one responded to my arguments. --Eleassar777 22:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Resistance?
The period of history denoted by the 'resistance' section is a fairly important part of the whole article (arguably a lot more important for understanding the modern situation than the ancient history) but at the moment it is just a list of significant battles. I added an introductory paragraph but i think someone needs to weld the battles into a narrative (which may not be easy). I could give it a try tomorrow if noone objects.. Isthatyou 02:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Greek in the Eastern Roman Empire
Ok, i thought it was worth mentioning that Greek was predominant in the Eastern empire, providing an interesting difference with the Western Latin empire but Decius disagreed with it ('it depends at which point in time you are considering---when the Eastern Empire was larger, the Latin element was larger than the Greek'). So can we decide on language that can be agreed on?
I think it is worth mentioning as an interesting fact because many people arent aware that there were Greek speaking Romans (at least the Byzantines always regarded themselves as such).
note: I am English, not a Greek nationalist or anything. ... Isthatyou 03:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No problem mentioning the large Greek element, but a broad statement that Greek was always the predominant language in the Eastern Roman Empire is not the way to represent it. When the Eastern Empire comprised Dacia Nova/Moesia, Scythia Minor, Illyria, Dalmatia (and even parts of Italy and Spain under Justinian) the predominant language was not certainly Greek. Decius 03:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See also: Jirecek Line, showing Greek and Latin spheres in the Empire (until the 4th century ad; later some Latin/Romance-speaking Vlachs moved south and introduced more Latin south of the line). Until the reign of a late Emperor, Latin was the official language (though not the predominant) even south of that line. Decius 03:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also added into the figure are non-Greek languages of the Asia Minor provinces, and other populations in other provinces. Decius 03:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is surely accurate that in its later (greatly reduced-territory) phase the predominant language of the Empire was Greek, but that must be presented in context. In my opinion, discussion of language 'demographics' is not absolutely neccessary in this summary, but should certainly be discussed in detail here: Byzantine Empire. Decius 05:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It was the official and most people spoke it but it wasnt the mother tongue of a big part of the Eastern R.E. denizens
It would probably be best to say that Greek was the intellectual language of the region. Officially administration was in Latin, on the level of the commoner there were a large variety of languages spoken, but the upper classes were largely Greek or Helenized, and spoke Greek as a common language between each other. Jztinfinity 02:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Commercial Link authomaticaly inserted ?
I've writing "table chess" and automaticaly the link was addded? Does anybody know how this is possible? User:CristianChirita
[edit] Gothic words in proto-Slavic
Just wanted to clarify that according to linguists the Gothic words entered early common Slavic (proto-Slavic) before the Slavs migrated south of the Carpathians and south of the Danube. So the words don't date from the time when Gothic tribes settled south of Danube (because I think the Goths settled south of the Danube about a century before the Slavs even crossed the Danube, and by the time the Slavs arrived, I think the Goths had already moved on into Italy or something; the topic of Gothic influence in the Balkans was raised, and I wanted to clear this up). Decius 09:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Not Black Hand =
Gavrilo Princip wasn't a member of Black Hand. He was member of Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia). Main goal of Black Hand was assasination of King Alexander in 1903. User:Belgrader do you have any evidence for this?Phil alias Harry 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Breaking Chronological order
The new proposed section Attested Milestones of the Balkanic states is breaking chronological order by having a reference to Classical Antiquity under the Dark Ages section. Chronological order is what is keeping this article together, and it avoids chaos and redundancy. If the section is going to remain it must restrict itself to the Dark Ages. This section could in fact be done as a different new article. Decius 12:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Chronological order in Dark Ages: first Goths and Germanic tribes come on Balkan scene, then Hunnish, Avar, et cetera. The coming of the Huns is what led the Visigoths, for example, to enter Roman territory with the permission of the Emperor Valens. Goths up front, Huns come at their heels. Decius 12:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking that Dark Ages are keept Dark. It is very intersting because every Balkanic state have an own version about migration and assimilation. User:CristianChirita
I have a suggestion on how to organize the Dark ages---it can be summarized by the century, rather than by the ethnic group: 4th century, 5th century, 6th century, 7th century, and so on, summarizing the major events of those centuries: and the Goths, Huns, and so on will thus be discussed within the context of the unfolding Balkan history---there are already articles that discuss the groups themselves, so why be redundant when it can be done differently. Decius 04:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The best solution for Dark Ages can be a table: Maybe something like: Rows the Tribes Columns: Year of the migration , from what area, area covered, observations. User:CristianChirita
That sounds like a good idea. A table in addition to a prose summary. Decius 04:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Begining of the article
Quote: "The history of the Balkans is dominated by wars, rebellions, invasions, the fluidity of ethnic groups, the inability of different groups to cooperate as well as interference by and clashes between great empires."
As a Bulgarian person I don't think thats fair. Well actually it is fair but it applies to ALL of nations and regions. I think the FIRST sentence was direct and open assault on the allready low image of the region. With no arguments these two sentences are radical and unreasonable; even if they had arguments, such points of view are not something to be encouraged in supposedly neutral encyclopedia.
- dimitar.ouzounoff@gmail.com
[edit] The Map
I know that i am getting old, but it took my eyes quite a while to make out Europe in the map. The "white ocean" initially looked like cloud cover over an unknown land mass. We could really use a nicer and clearer map. My 2 cents. func(talk) 00:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] cleanup tag
I'm removing cleanup tag, 400 edits later (at least), it's a whole different article. -- ∞Wirelain 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think we need the tag back, the article is still a mess — it has inappropriate or simply bad wikilinks (In 106 AD, Western Catholicism), bad transliteration (Sadovez, Chan Krum), needs some structural changes and a whole lot of cleanup. Not to mention the Macedonian question and (National awakening in) Bulgaria sections, which are a complete mess. As a whole, the article simply doesn't look good. Todor→Bozhinov 13:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Merge of National awakening of the ethnic Macedonians
It is proposed to merge in National awakening of the ethnic Macedonians and this will also address the POV issue. TerriersFan 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Completely oppose. There is no particular POV issue with that article, and furthermore, most of the other ethnicities have their own National awakening pages, why not the Macedonians? - Francis Tyers · 20:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
