Montenegrin author: Montenegrins are "not Slavs"

[MrNemanja]

Last year in Montenegro i visited some local tavern. The music in the tavern was Serbian, tavern full with Albanians, waitress was Bosnian. I had a feeling like i was in Serbia the whole time, even a one guy born Montenegrin told me 'This is Serbia'. Try to imagine that scene. I guess there are some taverns with Albanian music full of Serbs and Montenegrins inside haha

[Gold-Shekel]

Montenegrins have a lot in common with Albanians, all that "Slav" stuff came with the Church.

[Crn Volk]

Montenegrins have a lot in common with Albanians, all that "Slav" stuff came with the Church.

And their language? Did that come from the church too?

[Decius]

Montenegrins have a lot in common with Albanians, all that "Slav" stuff came with the Church.

Well they are genetically closer to serbs then albos

[Bosniensis]

Neither Serbs are Slavs, but mixed.

When Slavs came to Balkans in 6th century, they lived with Romans (as their overlords) for Romans could not protect their people due to wars with Persians.

3/4 Serbs are Non-Slavs (paternally) and that is for the reason cause Majority of Latin Speakers of Serbia and Bosnia 1850 A.D (250.000 people) spoke Latin, and were predominantly I2-CTS10228.

So No, South Slavs are predominantly Romans (or they were considered as so.. in between 3rd-6th century) then became a part of Slavic Civilization through Assimilation.

The most correct answer is: MIXED Slavo-Vlachs or Slavo-Romans.

[Lek]

Montenegrins have high percentage of E-V13 which is paleo-Balkanic (aka Vlach) marker.
Cosovic claims that I2a1b is also Vlach, but that is wrong. I2a1b came to the Balkans with Slavs.
Montenegrins have only 7% R1a, even Albanians and Greeks have more.

R1a does not even reach 3% in North Albanians.

[Lek]

Neither Serbs are Slavs, but mixed.

When Slavs came to Balkans in 6th century, they lived with Romans (as their overlords) for Romans could not protect their people due to wars with Persians.

3/4 Serbs are Non-Slavs (paternally) and that is for the reason cause Majority of Latin Speakers of Serbia and Bosnia 1850 A.D (250.000 people) spoke Latin, and were predominantly I2-CTS10228.

So No, South Slavs are predominantly Romans (or they were considered as so.. in between 3rd-6th century) then became a part of Slavic Civilization through Assimilation.

The most correct answer is: MIXED Slavo-Vlachs or Slavo-Romans.

I2-CTS10228 is Slavic.

[Bosniensis]

I2-CTS10228 is Slavic.

Hundreds of thousands of Latin speakers on Western Balkans disagree.

Serbia and Bosnia had 250.000 Latin speakers in 1850 A.D and those are leftovers (they used to be majority few hundred years ago) -> confirmed I2a1 CTS 10228

Also Majority of Romanians are I2a1 CTS 10228

Serbs are Slavophone Latins (Not Germanic but Illyrians, Thracians Latin speakers), their Dinarid phenotype confirm that.

So... you can't have 250.000 speakers in 1850 who spoke Latin (for fun)... also they were Orthodoxes and Byzantines so... NO they are not modern Germanic Latins (like Franks, Lombards etc..)

[Lek]

Hundreds of thousands of Latin speakers on Western Balkans disagree.

Serbia and Bosnia had 250.000 Latin speakers in 1850 A.D and those are leftovers (they used to be majority few hundred years ago) -> confirmed I2a1 CTS 10228

Also Majority of Romanians are I2a1 CTS 10228

Serbs are Slavophone Latins (Not Germanic but Illyrians, Thracians Latin speakers), their Dinarid phenotype confirm that.

So... you can't have 250.000 speakers in 1850 who spoke Latin (for fun)... also they were Orthodoxes and Byzantines so... NO they are not modern Germanic Latins (like Franks, Lombards etc..)

You can disagree all you want. It has already been proven, you can also just look at its downstream or common ancestor it shares and it was never found in any of the ancient Balkan remains.


Lets take those stats that you added up and lets say if the West Balkans was as I-CTS10228 rich in ancient times as you say then surely many of the skulls found there should of belonged to this marker but not a single one did, they did however find J2b2-L283 and R1b L23 in Bosnia and Dalmatia.

Your stats is also nonsense. There was obviously a mass settlement of Slavs and a founder effect increased the I-CTS10228 frequency.

[Bosniensis]

You can disagree all you want. It has already been proven, you can also just look at its downstream or common ancestor it shares and it was never found in any of the ancient Balkan remains.


Lets take those stats that you added up and lets say if the West Balkans was as I-CTS10228 rich in ancient times as you say then surely many of the skulls found there should of belonged to this marker but not a single one did, they did however find J2b2-L283 and R1b L23 in Bosnia and Dalmatia.

Your stats is also nonsense. There was obviously a mass settlement of Slavs and a founder effect increased the I-CTS10228 frequency.

I've told you.

Slavs assimilated all Roman Citizens from 5th century to 20th century.

We have a documents that state: "Slavs gave local autonomy to Romans in many places all accross that Balkan peninsula"

Those people became SLAVOPHONE, cause Slavic language was Official and therefore enforced. (Egyptians for example became Arabized, even if everyone knows they are NOT Arabs)

Latin speakers declined so little that Serbia had only 150.000 (Ottoman documents) Latin speakers in 1850 A.D.

However, Slavs remained minority among Slavophone Natives and they mixed with each other for 1500 years.

Dinaric phenotype we have today is inherited from Romans, technically if we were speaking Latin today... we would be both culturally and by blood = Romans.