"Medieval Balkan Slavs were pretty much like Serbs or Romanians" v2

[Kaspias]

.

Turkish language is measurement for nothing. I have info that my older ancestors spoke Turkish.

Because they had to speak it to sustain "governor" status of Western Balkans. You don't have to speak it now, and you don't speak.

It is a myth created by 1930 Turkey that Turkish speaking inhabitants of Balkans and Anatolia are of Turkic origin.

Just because we have your Q Y-DNA which is Turkic same can not be said for 90% of your Turkish friends.

I can speak only for Balkan Turks as I have no detailed information on Anatolian Turks. My recent collection on y and mt-dna of Balkan Turks indicated 15% to 25% of Y-DNA can be considered Turkic; and 25% to 35% of mt-DNA can be considered Turkic. This was what I expected considering Balkan Turks in average models like 75% Native and 25% Central Asian. Haplogroups are in the same parallel as well.

Anyway, noone denied the so called native heritage here and that's why they are called Balkan Turks.

Ottoman Turks surely called their language “lisan-ı Türki” or “Türkçe” i.e. the Turkish language, but after all, Americans call their language “English” and not “American”.

Poets writing in Turkish, living in Ottoman lands would call themselves şuara-yı Rûm, that is, Roman poets, or the poets of Rome.

Anatolia and the Balkans were always Diyar-ı Rum i.e. the lands of the Romans or the Roman lands or simply Rum, i.e. Rome.

That's what I was trying to explain to that Pole guy that Ottomans are not Central Asian people but a people who mixed with Turks in between 10th and 13th century where

Nomadic Seljuks are also called themselves Rum. Were they Greeks as well?

Using the name Rum such occassionally is a kind of respect towards Greeks. Besides personally supporting this behaviour I add again noone denies the native heritage. It is you who try to deny Turkic heritage. But yes, Ottomans were a mix of Turks and natives where they conquered. That's a correct statement.

their Central Asian impact, even if mixed with South Slavs should be 1-3% and Ottomans DID MIX with us.

Ottomans mixed with you and the child ended up as being Turk and lived in Anatolia or Istanbul. Moreover, this was not a mass movement happened between communities but only in regards of inidividuals. Today's Bosniaks who live in Bosnia has no Turkic heritage.

[-Scar-]

how did i miss this.

this changes things a lot. the area roughly corresponding to modern Macedonia was spared by the initial Slavic invasions of the 7th century. The first Slavs settled there in the 9th century from surrounding areas.

The Slavic invasion is not very well documented outside of some regions. So they could have settled there too during the 7th century.

[Dušan]

Yes

[andrzej]

Today, he drops another hint at what's to come. He says that medieval samples from the country of North Macedonia look like Balkan Slavs and there was a huge genetic shift from the Iron Age/Hellenistic period that he attributes to the Slavic migration. He once again mentions that the Slavs that came to North Macedonia didn't look like Poles or Ukrainians, but genetically resembled Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians, etc.

Yes, because many were tribes from Ukraine and did in fact resemble a lot of Ukrainians (so they shouldn't really be included in that). Many Slavic tribes in Ukraine clearly absorbed/assimilated predominately Mediterranean (i.e. Iranic) people. If you actually look at Ukrainians do you think many of them are that different from Balkan Slavs? Clearly not.

Slavs were already quite diverse to begin with before migrations west or south either way.