Are ancient Greeks and Byzantine Greeks the same people?

>

Hardly surprising considering that modern "Greeks" are just T*rks larping as Greeks.

Just like Napoleon.

western coastal turks are mongrelised greeks the rest of turkey is basically brasil tier mix of anything that ever crept in the middle east

Good post

It's the other way around.

Any images to compare?
I've been both in Greece and Istanbul quite a few times and they really don't look as much alike as you think. At first sight yes, but skin tone and curly hair isn't the only defining factor and if you see past that you'll find it easy to distinguish the two

Ancient greeks died off. Some time in the 8th and 9th century the byzantines started reclaiming what is today modern Greece, and because the locals (slavs) would just rebel the moment the army was out of town, they moved people from Anatolia (good romans) to live there and colonized it.
Modern day greeks are descendant from those people.
Meanwhile, the slavs were chased north, where they joined with the bulgars to deliver defeats to the romans, and west, to form what would later be Serbia and Croatia, chasing the germanics out of there.

ancient greece up to 330 AD
byznatine empire from 330 to 1457
ottoman empire till 1821
modern greece after that
All this took place in the same geographical region approximately
People coming and going
The language evolved from ancient to modern
The ottoman empire became modern Turkey.

Are saxons and modern day english the same people?

There is rather a lot of Slavic nationalism-inspired pseudo-history in your post user.

Rome conquerd the greeks, but in culture the greeks conquerd the romans.

Really? Where do you see it?
Also, which part of my post do you disagree with?

1. Nomadic people (germanics, slavs, avars, bulgars) moved into the Balkans.
2. They didn't integrate, constant rebellions, notably the goths, push Byzantium out of the area.
3. After a time the romans move in to retake the areas, but fail to assimilate the people living there.
4. Instead they move faithful cultural romans from Anatolia to modern day Greece, especially under Nikephoros I.
5. The slavs who were displaced moved north, and the bulgar army enriched with them manages to kill off a roman invasion force, which included a lot of aristocracy, causing disaster for the empire.

Out of these points, where do you think I am wrong and why?

>1. Nomadic people (germanics, slavs, avars, bulgars) moved into the Balkans.

This is mostly true, though Germanics were actually pushed OUT of the Balkans by the others. Danubian tribes that had been fixtures in the region for centuries were assimilated or fled west. Not many of them moved as far as south as you seem to be suggesting from your post. Parts of Greece proper were taken over by Slavs, but it wasn't total.

>2. They didn't integrate, constant rebellions, notably the goths, push Byzantium out of the area.

Upon conversion many of them did integrate. And Goths? The Gothic rebellion was two-three centuries before the time we're talking about, and was marginal in its demographic impact on the Balkans. They didn't settle down long term there.

Also they didn't "push Byzantium out of the area". Only in marginal, rural zones were the Byzantine authorities not able to exert their influence for long stretches at a time.

>3. After a time the romans move in to retake the areas, but fail to assimilate the people living there.

You're wrong. By your logic the mountains of the Peloponnese would have remained culturally Slavic until today.

>4. Instead they move faithful cultural romans from Anatolia to modern day Greece, especially under Nikephoros I.

While this is sort of correct, you are mistaking Nikephoros' thematic reforms of the area and boosting its strength after decades of constant raiding with completely repopulating an area in which all of the local Greeks had somehow been genocided. Prestigious cultural-ethnic groups do not vanish overnight like that, Greeks did not vanish from the Balkans and have to be "reseeded". This is not vidya.

>5. The slavs who were displaced moved north...

They were not "displaced". Maybe small numbers of them fled north, but most would have stayed on the land they had seized centuries earlier. With conversion from their ancestral religions most would have slowly assimilated into the local Greek population.

The people living in Anatolia were still ethnic Greeks. Unless you don't consider Herodotus Greek.

So you disagree with 3 and 5, and nitpick the others. Of course my single paragraph explanations don't encompass everything, I don't plan on writing a book every time someone on Veeky Forums calls me wrong.

Lets look at the ones you disagree with.

>3. After a time the romans move in to retake the areas, but fail to assimilate the people living there.
>You're wrong. By your logic the mountains of the Peloponnese would have remained culturally Slavic until today.
This is too far south, the slavs didn't go there. Also there was no colonization efforts in that area as far as I am aware.

>5. The slavs who were displaced moved north...
>They were not "displaced". Maybe small numbers of them fled north, but most would have stayed on the land they had seized centuries earlier. With conversion from their ancestral religions most would have slowly assimilated into the local Greek population.
Enough of them fled north to turn the war around, The bulgars lost the first battles, lost their capital city, and their whole treasury, suffering casualties as these happened. Later, with the slavs who were forced out of their towns, the injured bulgar army met the roman one and this time it won.
So enough men were forced out as to turn the tide of a war. And you can imagine with them enough women, children and elderly, because later the bulgar king settled them in his lands that he took from the romans.

I won't argue about ethnicity/race or any such, you can call them greeks if you want. I don't think they were the same people as those from the southern Balkans, and the roman emperors agreed with me, thus the forced movement of people.

>nitpick the others

If you're 60% wrong on a point, you're wrong. It isn't nitpicking. This is a history board.

>This is too far south, the slavs didn't go there

Wrong. Slavs settled there.

>Also there was no colonization efforts in that area as far as I am aware.

That's actually the primary location of Nikephorus' colonisation efforts, Hellas and the Peloponnesus, as opposed to Macedonia and the northern regions.

>Enough of them fled north to turn the war around...

It only takes a few hundred people to turn the tide of a battle. The tens of thousands of small Slavic family group that had settled in the Greek countryside had no reason to move north. The ones that did presumably did so because they felt starved of opportunities with the resurgence of Roman control.

Greek settlements were far more wide spread than that

lol

>Be map
>What is migration

this

t. turk

They're both Greek

not really, even their foods are the same

kek

Istanbul is full of millions of immigrants from eastern areas of Turkey. It is a terrible place to use as an example of anything like that. It's like saying that London reflects what the average population of the UK looks like. If you go down the coast to Cannakale, Izmir and Bodrum they look exactly like Greeks and are culturally indistinguishable in many ways.

I think the Byzantines came a little later.

Enjoy the nice sunshine, brother :^)

Fun fact: During Justinian's "lets bankrupt the empire by trying to reclaim the western provinces" reign, the official language of Byzantine government and military was still Latin.

They wouldn't make the switch to Greek for another century.

these are greek people

this is greek food

these are greeks traditional costume

these are greek musucians

these are greek folk dancers

They all look like Turks to me.

This.

exactly

...

t. Mehmet

I don't get the point.

The yellow part of the map is where turks live.

...

Turks in general =/= Turks that specifically look like Greeks
I'm pretty sure most Turks, or at least ethno-genetically "pure" Turks look like people from the steppes or something

>genetically pure X

Fuck off and go learn genetics.

notice the difference

Io sono Greco.

I put the quotations marks for a reason. You understand what I meant. Turks come from a different place than Greeks. I'm sure not all Turks look like Greeks.

not all turks looks like greek
all greeks looks like turk

That's because all of the evolved Turks are actually Greek.

the great part about this image is that all turks will look at it and laugh, thinking the monkeys are referring to some other ethnic group in turkey

fbpb

...

t. Onur

That map really understates the spread of Greek (all of Anatolia, farther north in Albania/Bulgaria/Macedonia). That said if you're talking about some genetic continuity then I would say only marginally. Much of Greece proper was lost to Slavs for several centuries- to the point the Peloponnese interior and had to be rehellenized during the 8th-9th centuries.

yes

>The Devsirme
the devshirme system did not convert a lot of people, early devshirmes were banned from marriage
coastal turks descend from converted greeks from 12-13th century

>istanbul
istanbul is a mixture of anatolians. also 4 million kurds, over 1 million gypsies and 2 million arab refugees live there