AHC: a Slavic Greece

In 579, according to certain historical documents, Slavic tribes began to pour in from the north into the territory of what is now modern day Greece. Allegedly, the Eastern Roman Empire came quite close to losing the peninsula entirely, though it would eventually be held and reclaimed. The Greek heartland has always been focused on the Aegean, and traces of Slavic culture in Greece proper are quite rare.

This challenge is to come up with a scenario wherein the Greek peninsula becomes majority Slavic, either culturally, linguistically, or ethnically and is able to remain such.
 
I have an idea, although I'm not really 'specialised' in Greek history (not that I'm specialised in something else otherwise :D)

In 860, the Rus'–Byzantine War breaks out. Very quickly, the Rus' move towards Constantinople. The army advances gradually and reaches the big city. In October, Constantinople is captured after a siege of short duration. The people of the huge city were caught unprepared. This was, however, not what satisfies the Slavs. From Constantinople, renamed Византий or Bizantiy, they marched towards the mountains of northern Greece. Unexpectedly, the Macedonians living there offered them a proposal. They namely asked to become a semi-autonomous region of the Rus' empire, provided that the Rus' would not devastate the area and would leave it untouched. This plan was indeed adopted on 28 October.
At Aikaterini, an enormous battle between the Rus' army and the pushed back Byzantine Empire took place on 1 February 861. What the rulers of the empire and the commanders of the Byzantine army did not know, was that the Rus' were supported by significant numbers of Macedonians, Thracians and Thessalians. These peoples were somehow suppressed by the Greeks who ruled over them, and they were striving for greater autonomy.
The battle turned out to be undecisive, with great numbers of casualties. On 8 April, negotiations started and a plan for peace was adopted shortly thereafter. This plan included that Greece, Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace, and the many islands which Greece owned, including Crete, would all become vassal states of Rus' with semi-autonomous status. The states could remain their own form of government, but had to give a to be defined percentage of tax to the Rus' government. In this way, the Byzantine cultured was gradually washed away and replaced by the Slavic culture. The same, by the way, happened with some of the areas of the Byzantine Empire outside Greece, by some also achieved full independence, such as the Republic of Rome and the Kingdom of Sicily.
 
There were slavic tribes as far south as peloponese in OTL but they were hellenised. There was quite numerous slavic population in northern greece, macedonia (the greek one) etc. but population transfers and hellenisation lowered their numbers (and renamed countless of toponyms)

Slavic_tribes_in_the_Balkans.JPG
 
They torched Athens in 582 so it is not that hard to do. I am of to watch champions league so more thorough response will be tomorrow.
 
There were slavic tribes as far south as peloponese in OTL but they were hellenised. There was quite numerous slavic population in northern greece, macedonia (the greek one) etc. but population transfers and hellenisation lowered their numbers (and renamed countless of toponyms)

By what means could such assimilation be averted, or efforts at it made unsuccessful? I'm aware that these Slavic tribes, in many cases, lasted well into the 10th or 11th centuries before becoming very much Hellenicized and integrated into the fabric of Eastern Roman society. Is it possible for these invaders to become entrenched in the Greek peninsula and to become its dominant culture and ethnic group? What effects would a lasting Slavic population (and a potential state in that area) have on Byzantine-Slavic relations further down the line, particularly as it concerns Rus' or the incipient Bulgarian Empire?
 
You need to keep the Empire busy elsewhere, or alternatively have the Greek Slavs absorbed into another state, possibly Bulgaria. Maybe a more successful run of conquests in the East, followed by having to deal with the arrival of the Turks, means the Empire's satisfied with Thrace, Thessalonica, Attica and the islands for European territory.
 
Would it be possible to achieve that by having the war with the Sassanids during the Heraclian dynasty go a lot worse than it did in OTL, twined with an Arab emergence similar to what happened historically?
 
this one is actually quite easy. Just somehow make byzantine empire to lose this territory. In OTL, they activelly resettled here greeks from sicily and asia minor to helenize it
 
this one is actually quite easy. Just somehow make byzantine empire to lose this territory. In OTL, they activelly resettled here greeks from sicily and asia minor to helenize it

The problem is that they lost it OTL and retook it. You need some way to prevent the retaking.
 
some tribes survived quite indipendendtly on peloponesis till ottoman invasion, but by then, they were just some tiny islands in greek sea
 
No comments on my idea?

Having the Rus of all people capture Constantinople is VERY unlikely indeed. The ones who have the best shot are probably the Ummayads. Otherwise, prior to the age of gunpowder, the chances of an outside invader taking over the imperial capital by storm are approaching ASB: the fourth Crusade arguably only managed to do so by intervening at the right time in a pre-existing civil war.
 
Having the Rus of all people capture Constantinople is VERY unlikely indeed. The ones who have the best shot are probably the Ummayads. Otherwise, prior to the age of gunpowder, the chances of an outside invader taking over the imperial capital by storm are approaching ASB: the fourth Crusade arguably only managed to do so by intervening at the right time in a pre-existing civil war.

Arguably, I say they had a terrible Emperor, one of the worst that refused to give battle.
 
In 579, according to certain historical documents, Slavic tribes began to pour in from the north into the territory of what is now modern day Greece. Allegedly, the Eastern Roman Empire came quite close to losing the peninsula entirely, though it would eventually be held and reclaimed. The Greek heartland has always been focused on the Aegean, and traces of Slavic culture in Greece proper are quite rare.

This challenge is to come up with a scenario wherein the Greek peninsula becomes majority Slavic, either culturally, linguistically, or ethnically and is able to remain such.
Have Bulgarians merge with Byzantium and Bulgarians repopulate Greece, I am not sure how it would happen.
 
I think the majority of Greece identifying itself as Slavic is difficult, but doable. Not all of it though. Crete and most of the islands are going to remain Greek. The hardest thing is that Greek culture was more advanced, so could assimilate the proto-Slavic groups quite easily.
 
Having the Rus of all people capture Constantinople is VERY unlikely indeed. The ones who have the best shot are probably the Ummayads. Otherwise, prior to the age of gunpowder, the chances of an outside invader taking over the imperial capital by storm are approaching ASB: the fourth Crusade arguably only managed to do so by intervening at the right time in a pre-existing civil war.

Well, it happened OTL, to be honest. The rest is my imagination, but Constantinople was actually indeed captured in 860, or at least wikipedia states so.
 
... Wikipedia is very wrong. ;)

But I do have other sources too! :D:p

1.
If we consider the fact of the Russian attack on Constantinople in 860 as an isolated phenomenon detached from contemporary events in other parts of Europe, it seems at first sight a very simple, even insignificant, story: the Russians attacked Constantinople and its environs, pillaged and devastated the latter, were routed, and returned home. But such an approach would be absolutely unhistorical. The attack of 860 is indissolubly connected with the general course of European events in the ninth century, and cannot be detached from the main European movement of that period.

Source: The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860, Alexander A. Vasiliev

________________________

2.
The Russian people, under Varangian domination, rapidly increased in power, and reduced many of their neighbours to submission. Oskold and Dir, the princes of Kiof, rendered themselves masters of the whole course of the Dnieper, and it would seem that either commercial jealousy or the rapacity of ambition produced some collision with the Byzantine settlements on the northern shores of the Black Sea; but from what particular circumstances the Russians were led to make their daring attack on Constantinople is not known. The Emperor Michael had taken the command of an army to act against the Saracens, and Oryphas, admiral of the fleet, acted as governor of the capital during his absence. Before the Emperor had commenced his military operations, a fleet of tw ohundred Russian vessels of small size, taking advantage of a favourable wind, suddenly passed through the Bosphorus, and anchored at the mouth of the Black River in the Propontis, about eighteen miles from Constantinople. This Russian expedition had already plundered the shores of the Black Sea, and from its station within the Bosphorus it ravaged the country about Constantinople, and plundered the Prince's Islands, pillaging the monasteries, and slaying the monks as well as the other inhabitants. The emperor, informed by Oryphas of the attack on his capital, hastened to its defence. Though a daring and cruel enemy,the Russians were by no means formidable to the strength and discipline of the Byzantine forces. It required no great exertions on the part of the imperial officers to equip a force sufficient to attack and put to flight these invaders; but the barbarous cruelty of the soldiers and sailors, and the wild daring of their Varangian leaders, made a profound impression on the people of Constantinople, suddenly rendered spectators of the miseries of war, in their most hideous form, in a moment of perfect security. We need not, therefore, be surprised to find that the sudden destruction of these dreaded enemies by the drunken emperor, of whom the citizens of the capital entertained probably even more contempt than hemerited as a soldier, was ascribed to the miraculous interposition of the Virgin of the Blachern, rather than to the superior military tactics and overwhelming numbers of the imperial forces. How far this expedition of the Russians must be connected with the enterprising spirit of that vigorous band of warriors and pirates from Scandinavia, who, under the name of Danes, Normans, and Varangians, became the sovereigns of Normandy, Naples, Sicily, England, and Russia, is still a subjec to flearned discussion.
About the same time a fleet, manned by the Saracens of Crete, plundered the Cyclades, and ravaged the coast of Asia Minor, carrying off great booty and a number of slaves. It would seem that the absence of the Emperor Michael from Constantinople at the time of the Russian attack was connected with this movement of the Saracens.

Source: History Of The Byzantine Empire From Dccxvi To Mlvii (1906), George Finlay

________________________

Both sources, in both cases written by good, professional, respected historians, do not directly state that the Rus' were able to conquer Constantinople and annex it, though the first one as well as the second one makes clear that the people of the Byzantine capital were caught surprised and that it was a horrible, bloddy war with a lot of devastation, ravage and destruction.
Thus, this indicates that if the Rus' had sent more men and had made the war a serious conquest war of territory, rather than just a devastaging attack to show off power, they might have gained control over the Byzantine Empire and the areas around the Black Sea.:rolleyes:
(This is at least what I make of it, but I might well be totally wrong in my interpretation.:eek:)
 
It suggests that they were able to raid the area not protected by the Walls. It does not suggest anything close to the danger of capturing Mikelgard.
 
You need to keep the Empire busy elsewhere, or alternatively have the Greek Slavs absorbed into another state, possibly Bulgaria. Maybe a more successful run of conquests in the East, followed by having to deal with the arrival of the Turks, means the Empire's satisfied with Thrace, Thessalonica, Attica and the islands for European territory.

this one is actually quite easy. Just somehow make byzantine empire to lose this territory. In OTL, they activelly resettled here greeks from sicily and asia minor to helenize it

So. How do we get Bulgaria to take and hold this territory?

I think the majority of Greece identifying itself as Slavic is difficult, but doable. Not all of it though. Crete and most of the islands are going to remain Greek. The hardest thing is that Greek culture was more advanced, so could assimilate the proto-Slavic groups quite easily.
But note that that didnt happen in bulgaria. The people absorbed greek culture and religion, but not language.

If bulgaria held lands as far as greece, whywould that change?
 
Top