Could the Balkan Slavs be Hellenized?

Basically as the tin says, while the Germanic tribes that invaded the Western Roman Empire were Latinized and began to speak Romance languages (aside from the Anglo-Saxons), the Slavs that penetrated the Balkans by and large were not assimilated by the Hellenic-speaking Eastern Roman Empire.

Could the Southern Slavs have been assimilated into speaking a Greek speaking or Greek derived language?
 
Basically as the tin says, while the Germanic tribes that invaded the Western Roman Empire were Latinized and began to speak Romance languages (aside from the Anglo-Saxons), the Slavs that penetrated the Balkans by and large were not assimilated by the Hellenic-speaking Eastern Roman Empire.

Could the Southern Slavs have been assimilated into speaking a Greek speaking or Greek derived language?

I think they absolutely could, even with a very late POD. Greek was the prestige language of the area, they identified as "Roman" into the 1800s, and the Orthodox population was grouped with the Greeks under the millet system. Kenneth Harl describes how the Serb state came before a Serbian national identity. Have a Greek Empire still control them or have the Ottomans be more aggressive against minority Christians and they could definitely fold into a broader Greek nation.
 
Probably many were Hellenized OTL, as Slavs also settled in Greece. Hellenization would however most likely be limited to areas that were Greek-speaking before the Slavic migrations (unless the church or modern time nation builders actively encourages the spread of the Greek language). I believe I saw a language map of the late Roman Empire where it was suggested that there still were other native languages spoken on Balkan between the Greek and Latin areas. Also, recall that OTL Croatia is Catholic, though not Romance-speaking (although pockets of Romance-speakers existed until quite recently).
 
Well, I believe that there was a German linguist in the 1920s who believed that the entire population of modern Greece are just well-hellenized Slavs.
 
Well, I believe that there was a German linguist in the 1920s who believed that the entire population of modern Greece are just well-hellenized Slavs.

That´s probably taking it a bit far, although obviously the Greeks have mixed with various groups migrating into the area, not the least Slavs.
 

jocay

Banned
Yes it is possible, because much of modern Greece had at one point been inhabited by Slavic tribes which took centuries of subjugation, population transfers from Asia Minor and Southern Italy and of course assimilation to undo. It might require the Byzantines to keep Anatolia (no Manzikert) and give them a base to draw soldiers and settlers out of. Plus it's also a place to deport unruly Slavs to.
 
A good first step would be to have the empire hold onto its borders as they existed under Basil II for somewhat longer.

89C67350-B88C-4484-B515-0141F270E3BA.png

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#/media/File:Map_Byzantine_Empire_1025-en.svg
 
That´s probably taking it a bit far, although obviously the Greeks have mixed with various groups migrating into the area, not the least Slavs.
The Greeks always consisted of different tribes migrating from the North and being Hellenized like the Dorians.
 
Of course, without any strong opponent like the Bulgars the Greeks could reconsolidate the Danube frontier before the various Slavic tribes coalesce into more unified ethnic groups with their own institutions supporting them.
 
i would say best bet is for the Byzantines to hold onto the Balkans over time they will start to become hellenized. though when i say hellenized i imply in the sense that their cultures become like Greek not Greek(though i am sure you guys also meant that as well) if not then they also need Anatolia for the population displacement. i am imagining a broader broader byzantine culture were they all consider themselves of byzantine culture but not Greek but related. which could help in a more united Balkans, i can actually find that as an awsome story where the ottomans never are able to cross the straits and all of the balkans is pretty much the empire and the ottomans decide to build a new city opposite to Constantinople
 
I'd say it's possible, but difficult. As several have pointed out, much of what is now Greece was taken over by Slavic tribes in the 600s but was then re-Hellenized by the Byzantines when they retook the area in the early 800s. This was done partly by settling Greeks in the area, often from the descendants of Greek refugees that had fled to other areas. Southern Italy got a big Greek boost in the 600s from Greek refugees fleeing the Slavic invasions. It helped that some portions of Greece, like Attica, Corinth, and Thessaloniki, never fell. There was also active Hellenization efforts by the institution of Orthodox bishoprics and Byzantine themes.

Some key components why I think it succeeded and why Greece is now, well, Greek. The Slavic interlude was fairly short, with the Slavs there very underdeveloped politically. Said Slavs were constantly exposed to Greek culture and influence via the various Greek enclaves that survived during the period. So they were already 'primed' when the Byzantines reconquered the area. Then the process was allowed to continue uninterrupted for a long time with little interference. There were some Slavic revolts but those got put down pretty quickly, while Krum's & Simeon's attacks were focused on the Macedonia and Thrace area, not the Peloponnese. By the time there were serious inroads by a foreign power, first Tsar Samuel and later the Normans, the process was mostly complete, although there were Slavic enclaves such as those around Mount Taygetos that endured until the Ottoman period.

Using Hellas as a case study, I'd said a successful Hellenization of the remaining South Slavs (Bulgarians and Serbs in this case) would require a not-as-complete Byzantine collapse in the Balkans and an earlier recovery. Perhaps while Slavic tribes manage to break through and overrun the interior, the Byzantines retain control of more of the Danube river towns and 'Bulgarian' coastal cities such as Mesembria and Varna. This would probably require either the Bulgars falling flat or not getting going so much. That way Byzantine efforts to retake 'Bulgaria' don't face nearly as much opposition. Also fractured Slavic chiefdoms would be easier to assimilate than a large Bulgar Khanate or Bulgarian Tsardom.

One option might be to have the Umayyads decline earlier and longer, with more infighting and fracturing in the Caliphate, lessening the pressure on the Byzantines. And then have no Abbasid era revival. If the Dar-al-Islam fractures after only a century or two, things become much easier for the Byzantines. Give Constantine V free reign to focus on the Bulgars and maybe a few more years on the throne, particularly if it's against weaker TTL Bulgars, he could definitely break them.

If the Byzantines manage to retake Bulgaria before it becomes Bulgaria in the 700s or 800s, re-Hellenizing it is much easier than it would be after the OTL centuries-long slugging match that only ended with the poking out of eyeballs on a unprecedented scale.

And once the Bulgars are out of the way, Serbia is a much easier nut to crack. IOTL the Byzantines really couldn't do much pushing into Serbia without having a Bulgar/Bulgarian army come down and whack them.
 
I'd say it's possible, but difficult. As several have pointed out, much of what is now Greece was taken over by Slavic tribes in the 600s but was then re-Hellenized by the Byzantines when they retook the area in the early 800s. This was done partly by settling Greeks in the area, often from the descendants of Greek refugees that had fled to other areas. Southern Italy got a big Greek boost in the 600s from Greek refugees fleeing the Slavic invasions. It helped that some portions of Greece, like Attica, Corinth, and Thessaloniki, never fell. There was also active Hellenization efforts by the institution of Orthodox bishoprics and Byzantine themes.

Some key components why I think it succeeded and why Greece is now, well, Greek. The Slavic interlude was fairly short, with the Slavs there very underdeveloped politically. Said Slavs were constantly exposed to Greek culture and influence via the various Greek enclaves that survived during the period. So they were already 'primed' when the Byzantines reconquered the area. Then the process was allowed to continue uninterrupted for a long time with little interference. There were some Slavic revolts but those got put down pretty quickly, while Krum's & Simeon's attacks were focused on the Macedonia and Thrace area, not the Peloponnese. By the time there were serious inroads by a foreign power, first Tsar Samuel and later the Normans, the process was mostly complete, although there were Slavic enclaves such as those around Mount Taygetos that endured until the Ottoman period.

Using Hellas as a case study, I'd said a successful Hellenization of the remaining South Slavs (Bulgarians and Serbs in this case) would require a not-as-complete Byzantine collapse in the Balkans and an earlier recovery. Perhaps while Slavic tribes manage to break through and overrun the interior, the Byzantines retain control of more of the Danube river towns and 'Bulgarian' coastal cities such as Mesembria and Varna. This would probably require either the Bulgars falling flat or not getting going so much. That way Byzantine efforts to retake 'Bulgaria' don't face nearly as much opposition. Also fractured Slavic chiefdoms would be easier to assimilate than a large Bulgar Khanate or Bulgarian Tsardom.

One option might be to have the Umayyads decline earlier and longer, with more infighting and fracturing in the Caliphate, lessening the pressure on the Byzantines. And then have no Abbasid era revival. If the Dar-al-Islam fractures after only a century or two, things become much easier for the Byzantines. Give Constantine V free reign to focus on the Bulgars and maybe a few more years on the throne, particularly if it's against weaker TTL Bulgars, he could definitely break them.

If the Byzantines manage to retake Bulgaria before it becomes Bulgaria in the 700s or 800s, re-Hellenizing it is much easier than it would be after the OTL centuries-long slugging match that only ended with the poking out of eyeballs on a unprecedented scale.

And once the Bulgars are out of the way, Serbia is a much easier nut to crack. IOTL the Byzantines really couldn't do much pushing into Serbia without having a Bulgar/Bulgarian army come down and whack them.

What about the Croatians?
 
Top