From: PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Response:Macedonia-->Turkic Tribes
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:43:59 GMT
Organization: Penn State University


         ******************************************************
         *  This answer was written from Andronikos Romanos.  *
         ******************************************************

                  The introductory part in my discussion
                 about the name "Macedonia"  bothered the
                 observant Kutluk who responded instantly
                 to my paragraph:

Andron:Is Macedonia a Greek word? It is definitely not a slavic or(Yugo)
       slavic one, for these waves came in the Balkans relatively recent.
       Not of course as late as the Turks from Central Asia,but far after
       the collapse of the Western Roman Empire...sometime in the mid-By-
       zantine Era...

       (and leaving aside these two nations I continued checking ancient
           tribes and the constructing components of this Greek term,
               and I hope I made the origin perfectly clear.Kutluk
                    agrees that Macedonia cannot be a Turkish
                         word but he feels in his punch-
                                 line that:..)

Kutluk:Yes I don't think Macedonia is a Turkish word either,but the *kno-
       wn*  history of Turks in Balkans go much beyond  (a thousand years
       beyond the Ottomans, although not in the same proportion,  back to
       the  Western Roman empire  and I would not like this historic fact
       to be ignored by day to day  political probaganda.  I just did not
       like your quick and irrelevant  attack on Turks in the first para-
       graph of the article.                           Regards    Kutluk

Andro: I must be dreaming! Definitely dreaming. It is unbelievable: Where
       did I possibly attack Turkey in me cited paragraph: Did I say that
       even a single Turk killed, tricked, hit anyone?  Did I even hinted
       that a  Turk lost his driver's license or,  say,  told a bad joke?
       What Attack?.....Dear Kutluk let me respond right away and say:  I
       meant no attack. Yes,it was a quick reference for I took it for...
       granted that this two peoples couldn't have used the name  Macedo-
       nia, so I skipped to other more controversial FOR MY TOPIC, eras:
       some 2,000 years ahead. But I think that your main argument should
       follow so that readers can make their judgment.  (By the way, with
       the exception of the first rather... "harsh" line,  I believe that
       the text is nicely written and despite my comments,points, corre-
       ctions  at the end,I am glad we have this person and his arguments
       here.

Kutluk:You don't know about the history of the Balkans then.For my part,I
    1  will say that, contrary to what you think, there had been many wa-
       ves of migration of Turks before that "late" Ottoman presence, and
       these go well back to the age of Roman Empire.
    2  First the Huns.There are ideas that they can be a non-Turkic peop-
       le, but looking back to the centuries old  Hun empires in Central
       and Northern Asia,  there is little doubt that Attila was Turkic.
       The Roman accounts on Huns  also have a  strong parallel with the
       chinese ones.  That is the time of Western Roman Empire.  They did
       stay in Balkans as well as Central Europe.Following that countless
    3  Turkic tribes have  settled there. Most notable being the Bolgars,
       who gave the name to present Bulgaria, around sixth-seventh centu-
       ries. They were  assimilated by the Slavs later on, but their East
       European cousins  with the same  Bolgar title preserved themselves
    4  until recent times.  Then we have to consider Kipchaks, Pecheneks,
       Kumans, and many other  Turkic settlers who came as near as Byzan-
       tium.Before the Seldjuks appeared in Anatolian frontline Gok-Oghuz
       Turks have already settled in Balkans and converted to Christiani-
       ty from shamanism. (see the present Gagauz in Moladavia)
         When Alparslan met the  Byzantine in Manzkiert,  all front line
       forces of the Emperor Romanos Diogenes were of these Balkan Turks,
       whose chief occupation was professional fighting. (Later there ha-
       ve been  "defections"  from Seldjuk Turks to  Byzantium during the
    5  IlKhan  invasion of Anatolia.)  And of course the  Tartars in 13th
       century on were another Turkish presence in  Balkans as further as
       Bulgaria. These Turks have all used the Eurasian-Eastern European-
       Balkan route of  migration between  4th century and  14th century.
       (then Ottoman Turks by Anatolia)  Pre-Ottoman  Turkish  migrations
       have mostly been  assimilated by their conversion to  Christianity
       from Shamanism.Some did not lose their Turkic dialects,such as the
    6  Gagauz in Romanian/Moldavian border, and some other Oghuz speaking
       tribes  which have been  assimilated by the  Greek  state, somehow
       without much effort thanks to their Orthodox religion that they a-
       dopted a thousand years ago.(The reason individual Turkic Christi-
       ans were not worked on to  convert to Islam is, as you know, Otto-
       mans were not interested in  one-by-one  conversion or  missionary
       activities but  mass conversions  of a whole  population in a top-
       down way, e.g. Bosnians, who were  the member of a istinct church,
       or Albanians,or Pomaks- "the mountain Bulgarians" -or [the majori-
    7  ty of] Cretans)

Andro:There is no need to appear nasty! Who knows? We will find out if I,
      or you,or both,or none probably knows about the Balkans... So, ple-
      ase keep these "estimations" for yourself, at least, until you have
      the chance to read my response. I guess it is my tern now:

    1. Perhaps I should have used the ancient term  "Aimos" instead of the
      modern "Balkans".The latter includes all countries south of the ri-
      ver Istros (Danube) as  Aimos does,plus Rumania.Not many people use
      this geographical term though and I should probably had to make the
      specification in order to avoid confusing you  (instead of thinking
      that it might be  a trivial thing to do). Since it was mainly Aimos
      that was under the Hellenistic control or influence, Aimos that be-
      came Roman and Byzantine... and this was the peninsula I was refer-
      ring in my text about Macedonia... The vulnerable to invasions from
      the north Dacia (Romania) was always considered a temporary gain to
      these empires...  and usually had a different fate than the rest of
      the Balkans. Apologies!

    2. What about the Huns?  Wait-wait a minute  Kutluk... Let me stop you
      here. Primarily, we do not know much about the early Turks.
      --> It is sometimes said,  for example,  that the Turks are part of
          the Ural-Altaic language group but I don't know if the philolo-
          gist ever proved the genetic connection between the Uralic ton-
          gues(Finish,Estonian,Hungarian...) and Altaic(Turkic,Mongolian,
          Manchu-Tutlu,and Korean<?>).  I read that NOT EVEN even the re-
          lationships AMONG THE Altaic languages is clear.Therefore there
          may be a lot of doubt..YOU start ASSUMING what you have to pro-
          ve and I don't think you can do that.  I wish, I could help you
          there, but I think I am much more familiar with the linguistics
          Indoeuropeans (as you probably observed in "Macedonia"). Anyway,
          it seems to me that we could categorize the Turks as being once,
          part of A GROUP OF Altaic peoples...also nomads:the Mongols,the
          Manchus,the Bulgars,probably the Huns,etc...I also think we can
          safely place them somewhere between:  Mongolia, lake Baikal and
          Gobi desert around the 2,000's  for we have some information on
          this from the Chinese. Having said the above, let's me continue
          with some additional points:
      --> Yes,it is correct that the Huns (Hiong-Nu in Chinese -which has
          a very similar sound),showed up in Europe during the 5th ce AD.
          but I think we should be careful with generalizations.It is not
          certain that the Huns were ever part of the group of peoples in
          question. I am not saying that I will not take your word for it
          but despite the links of the Huns with the rest,  there is some
          additonal ambiguity about them historically.
      --> Were does this leave us?  Even if the Huns belonged to the same
          group they were never Turks.The very advanced Chinese distinct-
          ed them from your people who were the Tu-Kiu (Turks)  and still
          lived on the fringes of the Chinese Empire.
      --> It would be a mistake to trust the general term  "Tourkoi" that
          the  Greek-Byzantines  used for all these  "haven't met before"
          new-comers some years later...(I may have the chance to explain
          where they met the Turks). The point is that the Oxford dictio-
          nary of Byzantium  makes  THIS CLEAR  and continues  suggesting
          that the Huns must be related to the  Saviri, Gotrigurs, Utigus
          but never to the Hungarians,Bulgarians,Ottomans and Avars  (for
          this last race all we have is assertions). But there is more:
      --> The Huns along with the Alamans,Goths,and minor Germanic tribes
          didn't pass to Imperial territories south of the Danube.The ri-
          ver had special fortifications and was also protected by a navy
          that era. The Byzantines probably paid the chiefs of this horde
          that then headed to Gaul. We know that they invaded Central Eu-
          rope  but were defeated by the  West Roman empire's legions  of
          general Aetius in the 450 s' AD and  only remnants  reached the
          Balkans in their retreat.
      --> The Huns hardly ever stayed in that region though.They were de-
          feated after several raids they attempted sometime around 467,I
          think. I remember that some became "foideratoi" of Constantino-
          ple (paid soldiers) and were transported to Asia Minor. A fleet
          took them from Pyrgos and Aghialos (in north Thrace) and trans-
          ported them to other areas to settle...  They didn't even  pass
          through Macedonia.And twenty years was at most the period these
          remnants ever raided places below the Danube.

   3. I would find your description of the  Bulgars  far more accurate if
      you had mentioned that not only there were not Turks,  but actually
      the proto-Bulgarians(despite their related language/explanation for
      it<?>) were slaves to the Turks;and only after they rioted success-
      fully against their rulers in 632 they headed from Azof to Dobrudja
      (delta of the Danube)  under Asparugh (681 AD)  and merged with the
      Slavs & Vlachs to Bulgarians using:the administration system of the
      first, the language of the second and the alfabet of the Greeks...
      The Bulgars were not Turks.  There were as Turks, as Celts are  the
      Iranians!  -to illustrate my point with an analogy from the Indoeu-
      ropean family. These proto-Bulgarians were  probably  the only part
      you could probably criticize in my first paragraph  suggesting that
      the Bulgarians are not Slavs. Never-the-less and since I was consi-
      dering the languages to explain the term "Macedonia",it is not that
      big an error for linguistically the Bulgarian belongs to the Slavo-
      nic family of the South-Slavic Indioeuropean Languages.

   4. The Pecheneges were probably one of the most unsuccessful examples.
      --> ...but first of all their origin is disputed. You can not bap-
          tize any one who came westwards: Turk.  This is what the Byzan-
          tines did using the name "Tourko"  but it was a generalization.
          Actually,they used this term for all unknown (to them) Asiatic-
          peoples that came from the far-distant East.The representatives
          of Justin II had discovered-contacted a kingdom of Turks in 568
          during the Persian war when they were looking for allies  (that
          could by proven useful if they bothered the Great King,and thus
          relieving the persian pressure along their eastern frontiers of
          Armenia-Syria). That is how the Byzantins learned the new name.
      --> The Petcheneges never called themselves Turks. Actually,I think
          that the only time that we found inscriptions of people calling
          themselves Turks was in those distant territories expanding be-
          tween Persia and China during the 8th century.
      --> The Petcheneges for most of the time stayed north of the front-
          ier. I don't think we find settlers of them at the Balkans.  I
          will agree that they attempted once to pass the  Danube in 1045
          but the Bulgarians who lived there expelled them.  Yes, a horde
          passed the border again in 1046/7 but was defeated by the young
          commander of Danube:Romanos Diogenes (whom you also mentioned).
          It was the time the Seltzouks also moved from the east...  King
          Romanos IV and his officials got to know both these people very
          well and never referred to the Petcheneges as Turks...
      --> The Pecheneges attempted one/two more raids in 1087  along with
          the Kumans and Uzes.  They were crashed by Emperor Alexios Kom-
          nenos and his son kalo-Ioannis and... never heard about them...
          Only the Kumans remained north of Danube (again) until the 12th
          century and  attempted on more intrusion in the 12th ce towards
          Constantinople. If this is what you refer at in your text:
             "Then we have to consider Kipchaks,Pecheneks,Kumans,and many
              other Turkic settlers who came as near as Byzantium. Before
              the Seldjuks appeared in Anatolian frontline GokOghuz Turks
              have already settled in Balkans and  converted to Christia-
              nity from shamanism.(see the present Gagauz in Moladavia)."
          I have some comments:The invasion of Kumans towards Constantin-
          nople comes too late in history and thus even if they were Tur-
          kic (is it same as Turk? There were several comments on this in
          the network), this does not contradict to an iota my  "disputed
          phrase" in the text about Macedonia.As for the Gagauz:I did not
          check it.  It was NOT EVEN IMPORTANT after the specification of
          Aimos I made (let alone that Moldavia is not Balkans)..and any-
          way, these people definetely didn't reach Macedonia to have any
          effect on the name.

  5. The Tartars of the 13th century!  I fail to see how they disprove my
     saying that the Turks came late in the history of region.The 13th ce
     is pretty late for the  Greek standards in that region of the world.
     Actually,  the Osmanlis were not far themselves... But going back to
     the Tartars: This seminomadic group from east Asia,(not west or cen-
     tral) that used a mongol -and not a turkish idiom- you dare bring up
     like that! I was under the "impression" that the Tartars were alrea-
     dy crashed by the Mongols (the year 1202)  and simply the Mongols of
     Gengis Khan made use of their fearful name. This example may be just
     worse than the Pecheneges. I guess we are just humans: you must mis-
     typed the number of the century. No need to fuss about it.

  6. There is not much to argue about the appearance of the Turks in this
     historic scene of Asia Minor with the Seltzouks starting their raids
     in the Anatolika Themata (Anatolia for you), Mantzikert and the rest
     waves of other Turks & Turkomans following.  Your dates & descripti-
     ons are accurate.

  7. Allow me not to comment on this -irrelevant to our subject- topic. I
     have a different idea about the Ottoman conversions.We may tackle it
     some other time that we will have time. It might be useful to excha-
     nge ideas since it may be the case that  -no matter how eager we are
     to learn-  we may be ill informed. Such a discussion me be benefici-
     al, if we refrain from accusations and fanatism  concerning mistakes
     & unfairness of people in the past..It should be an open minded con-
     versation with the  objective  to make us and our friends learn from
     the past and in no occasion to add more poison into human  relation-
     ships today.

 8.  I have several objections here  but I will refrain from involving it
     in our current issue... You may had the same intention yourself (and
     thus placed it in parenthesis as well).

I will stop here Kutluk. I think  my explanations fully prove my position
and my reasoning, so please reconsider your harsh characterization. Thank
you for your observations & the chance you gave me. I appreciate the fact
that you came forth with arguments  and not shouts or aphorisms as others
do. I will see you around.
                                                      Andronikos Romanos