Talk:Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer

message: The theory of Jakob Fallmerayer is not based on scientific facts. On the other hand, there have been no researches to prove the opposite. There must be a gene study, that will compare the gene type of modern greeks with the one of ancient greeks and see if there is any link between them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:Whatever, the funny thing is that Austria had always been on the border of the Slavic-German world, just like northeastern Germany (ex-western Poland), i.e. regions with significant Slavophone population to the present day. Fallmerayer himself may have easily been a Germanized Slav, like half of Austria was. Anyway what the article doesn't mention is the German interest on keeping a strong Ottoman state in order to limit Russo-British sphere of influence in the region. If it weren't for that, Fallmerayer would have probably never published those works. He may have believed in it, but he wouldn't have advocated it with such passion. Miskin 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps -- but at the same time Fallmerayer was far more Slavophile than Turkophile. Furthermore there was no "Germany" at the time; Fallmerayer lived in Bavaria, a state which had of course very close ties to the new Greek state. And then one must add that he was at times a vocal opponent of the Wittelsbachs, and a participant in the 1848 movements -- which is already mentioned in the article. My hunch is that much of his work is best understood as a reaction against the romantic Hellenism of the Wittelsbachs, and in that sense not really allied with the political interests of any particular 19th century state. But I agree that a bit more historical context would be useful; there is a fair amount of recent secondary literature on Fallmerayer in German, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. --Javits2000 10:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I meant the region of today's north-eastern Germany. He was by no means a Turkophile, he was more of a Russophobe. The speculation of his being politically motivated is a popular one. I believe politics was nonetheless a factor, without denying that he believed in what he wrote. Miskin 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but it must be said that Fallmerayer had hardly any ties to Prussia (=NE Germany); he was Austrian-born and his career was carried out in  Bavaria. So I would suggest that that particular political connection might be difficult to establish, without denying that political factors played a role in shaping his thought (for example, the very fact that a Bavarian scholar in his age took an interest in Greece has to be seen in the context of the ties between the two states). There is, as I mentioned, some recent literature on Fallmerayer, including a biography (T. Leeb, Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer: Publizist und Politiker zwischen Revolution und Reaktion [Munich, 1996]) that might provide some analysis of the political/historical roots of his thought, but as it's hardly bedtime reading it could well be a while yet before I get around to it. --Javits2000 09:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why devote so much space to such a marginal figure?  His ideas influenced a tiny minority.  Also, why isn't the word 'racism' mentioned in the article?  He clearly drew on racist germanic notions of 'racial purity' that unfortunately persist to this day.
:Of historical interest. Claims that F. was 'racist' would require a citation. --Javits2000 11:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is waaaay to long

message: the bio article is very much clearer  DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. The book has some notability on its own, but is part of Fallmerayer's wider work. And the treatment provided in the article right now is definitely not in any way neither a comprehensive nor a neutral, nor even a readable treatment of the subject. "The ethnographic Falmeryer substantiates the theory that, for the most part, the population of that Greek kingdom had no ancient ethnic origin since the beginning of the nineteenth century" is indicative of the entire article: unreferenced, badly written, and entirely lacking context or even the indication that Fallmerayer's theories of a complete population replacement have been mostly dismissed today... "During Ottoman Greece, the whole area was called Livadia, the Russian royal residence of Livadia Palace. " is another gem of stupendous (and wilful) ignorance: the Livadia palace was named after the town of Livadeia, not vice versa, and more importantly, what has this to do with Fallmerayer's work? This is simply thrown in by the author to substantiate his point which (as far as one can tell, given the mangled English and jumbled syntax) is that many placenames in Greece in the 19th century were not the ancient ones (hardly surprising after 2000 years of intervening history) and that therefore modern Greeks are in reality Bulgarians? The notion that modern Greeks are pure and direct descendant of Pericles is of course to be laughed at, but the author clearly has an entirely different fringe POV that he serves. Constantine   ✍  13:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have redirected the article to the relevant section here, which deals with this topic. It definitely needs more work, esp. on the impact on, and rebuttal in, modern Greek historiography, but the present treatment here is definitely far more accurate and neutral. Constantine   ✍  12:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[:On the origin of today's Greeks]] into [[:Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer]]