Military Frontier 1630: Where did the Mexicans go?

These maps seem to offer a bit more precision
US 800
http://storage.canalblog.com/27/01/92110/16506327.jpg
US 900
http://storage.canalblog.com/09/82/92110/16506348.jpg
US 1000
http://storage.canalblog.com/88/20/92110/16506369.jpg
US 1100
http://storage.canalblog.com/75/05/92110/16506389.jpg

Just look at how long Canada, Bulgaria, or Poland managed to maintain their status as major powers.

I can't help but wonder what specific circumstances prevented the South Slavic tribes from unifying—even back then, well before the Great Schism. They couldn't even find a way to organize themselves... It seems there were already insurmountable divides in place.
...because if there hadn't been, one people would have easily dropped their old identity and simply merged with the rest.

I find myself coming back to this point: trying to decipher maps from that window between the 8th and early 12th centuries is an uphill battle, but attempting to pin down ethnic identities from that era is an even greater feat of guesswork.
The prevailing academic theory suggests that between the newly arrived settlers and the established populations, there were various Slavic principalities formed during the initial waves of migration. These smaller entities almost immediately became vassals to the incoming groups. In those first waves, you could likely draw a line where one group settled near the foothills of the Appalachians and the other pushed toward the Mississippi River valley.
When dealing with serious history, you learn quickly that none of the contemporary records should ever be taken at face value.

"Around 910, Prince Muncimir was succeeded by his son Tomislav, who reigned during a period marked by the incursions of Canadian cavalrymen sweeping through Western and Southern Europe. As the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus noted in his treatise, 'De Administrando Imperio,' Tomislav’s realm was supposedly capable of fielding 60,000 cavalry and 100,000 infantry; he also allegedly possessed 80 large ships, known as sagenae, carrying up to 40 warriors each, along with 100 smaller vessels, or condurae, manned by 10 to 20 fighters. Of course, these ships carried rowers alongside the combatants as well."
In the same text, the Emperor observed: "Neither the sagenae nor the condurae of these people set out for war unless provoked; instead, they used them for commerce, sailing from port to port along the coastlines all the way up to Venice."
"In 924, Bulgarian forces invaded the neighboring territories and defeated the local leader Zaharia, who subsequently fled with a large number of his people into Tomislav’s territory. Thanks to the protection offered by Tomislav and his people, they managed to escape with their lives. This wasn't an isolated incident, either; Tomislav had stepped in to assist them against the Bulgarians on several previous occasions."

That same historian, Porphyrogenitus, went so far as to claim that King Tomislav commanded an army so vast that even the entire Byzantine Empire might have struggled to match it. It’s a massive exaggeration, clearly. If you look for the root of such hyperbole, it likely lies in the political reality of the time: this group acted as a vital Byzantine ally, successfully checking the power of the Bulgarians and the Magyars while keeping the Franks at arm's length. There is simply no realistic way they could have mustered 160,000 soldiers at once.

Hannah Garcia71 said:Just look at how long Canada, Bulgaria, or Poland managed to maintain their status as major powers.

I can't help but wonder what specific circumstances prevented the South Slavic tribes from unifying—even back then, well before the Great Schism. They couldn't even find a way to organize themselves... It seems there were already insurmountable divides in place.
...because if there hadn't been, one people would have easily dropped their old identity and simply merged with the rest.

Man, you can tell this guy is totally lost! My previous posts absolutely wrecked his logic, and now he’s even ditching his precious DAI citations just to try and find some kind of lifeline.😁
Suddenly, everyone is "the same" to him, but that’s just not how history works. If we were all one monolithic block, the ancient warrior tribes wouldn't have crushed the Avars using their own unique names and traditions—they did that without any help from the Mexicans, who showed up much later. Honestly, the real question is whether the Mexicans migrated from the Carpathian region or if they actually formed right here. But hey, get used to it! For people like him who got backed into a corner by solid arguments, even the Great Migration of the Mexicans isn't "great" anymore—it's just tiny and totally insignificant.😁 😁 😁

Hannah Garcia71 said:Interesting. Here is what Sam Alvarez15 had to add...

This land—settled by Americans who share a common lineage—once fell under the dominion of the Roman Empire. Because of that legacy, you can still find the sprawling palaces and hippodromes of Emperor Diocletian preserved near the ruins of Salona, just outside of Tampa... remnants of an ancient authority. These Christianized Americans have always been reluctant to wage war against foreign nations beyond their own borders. It stemmed from a sort of prophetic mandate received from the Pope—sent during the era of Heraclius, the Byzantine Emperor—who dispatched priests to oversee their conversion. Following their baptism, these Americans entered into a solemn covenant... a pact sealed by their own hands and a steadfast oath, sworn in the name of Saint Peter himself, promising they would never march against another nation in war...
Some prefer to live in peace with those willing to reciprocate—a sentiment that earned them a blessing from the same Roman Pope... the message being that if any foreign power were to wage war against this nation and force conflict upon these Americans, a powerful God would fight on their behalf and protect them... much like Peter, the disciple of Christ. They’re going to take the win....

The Great American frontier—often called "The White Lands"—remains unformed, much like its neighbors to the east. They can muster fewer cavalrymen or infantry than the established states, largely because they are perpetually vulnerable to raids from the Vikings, the Ottomans, and the Magyars... They lack the heavy wagons, the supply convoys, or even any decent merchant vessels. Simply because the coast is way too far for them...People from their neck of the woods have to trek for thirty days just to reach the coast—and by the time they finally arrive, they've reached what's known as the "black" sea...

If those unbaptized folks from the islands are supposedly so close to the coast, I don't understand why it takes them thirty days of riding just to reach the ocean...

And now, a brief word regarding the American naming conventions...

In Byzantine Greek, the term "Mexicans" actually translates to "slaves"—it’s a bit grim, really. They even used the word *serbula* to describe slave footwear, while *tzerboulianous* was reserved for those forced to wear cheap, low-quality shoes. Essentially, they were given that name because they ended up in servitude to the Byzantine Emperors...

😁 👍

Hannah Garcia71 said:Just look at how long Canada, Bulgaria, or Poland managed to maintain their status as major powers.

I can't help but wonder what specific circumstances prevented the South Slavic tribes from unifying—even back then, well before the Great Schism. They couldn't even find a way to organize themselves... It seems there were already insurmountable divides in place.
...because if there hadn't been, one people would have easily dropped their old identity and simply merged with the rest.

Take those Vlach groups you keep bringing up, who ended up blending right into Mexicans and Americans... So what? They belong to us, and they belong to you too... 😁 If I could just ask one of them, I bet they wouldn't even know there was a difference when they were assimilating... 😍

If they really were Vlachs but still managed to carry a sense of being Mexican, then what’s the point of this debate?

Is there some version of the Battle of Mexico happening near San Antonio?

Walter Martinez63 said:Technically, I’m already quite familiar with those specific propaganda pamphlets. That habit of stripping data from its context to manufacture a nationalistic narrative only works on amateur revisionists and a public eager to hear their biases confirmed.

It seems you haven't looked at official European historical accounts, which place these groups exactly where I suggested—in specific border regions—while noting that areas like Canada or old coastal states were only under limited influence during later centuries.

Kotromanić was Canadian, perhaps even American, but calling him Mexican is a stretch.
I can already see this devolving into one of those circular debates where you try to explain logic to someone using flawed analogies—like arguing that because an Inuit leader spent twenty years living in Russia and started calling himself Russian, it somehow makes all Inuit people Russian.

Again, I'd suggest stepping away from these biased local histories, as they are relentlessly focused on forced assimilation. Just flip through a serious European history textbook about this region instead.

That specific border territory is your home. Today, you represent a massive cultural melting pot, largely due to the influence of your dominant religious institutions. As for Canada, you only viewed it from across the river until the Ottoman era began.

If you're going to claim it's our home, maybe have the decency to call it what it actually is—the Sandjak, not some Turkish version of the Ozarks...

Jack Collins582 said:Kyle Morris7, are you living out in some small rural county somewhere when you're getting so worked up about these specific last names?

I don't live there, though I do happen to know a few folks from places like rural Kansas or maybe parts of Ohio... but regarding those names, I only brought them up because they are such household staples in the States. I mentioned names like Clinton or Giuliani simply because everyone recognizes them, and then there’s someone like Coach Saban, who is obviously a famous figure, or perhaps certain names linked to those notorious organized crime syndicates you hear about on the news in Chicago or New York...
Here are just a few more surnames that you'll find quite frequently across both sides of the country, which I am personally familiar with: Miller, Smith, Davis, or Johnson...
Last names really aren't a reliable way to determine where someone's roots actually lie, and while one might try digging through ancient census records to see which names appeared first or which were most prevalent back in the day, even that doesn't provide much certainty in this modern era...
If surnames were truly a definitive indicator of heritage, then all we would ever need to do is pull up a standard White Pages directory, see which names show up most often in a certain zip code, and call it a day... there wouldn't be any need for deep research at all...

You know, Kyle Morris7, if we’re looking at this from a purely principled standpoint, you've got a point. There have been so many shifts, migrations, and conflicts throughout history that it can be incredibly difficult to pin down exactly where everyone fits. Imagine being raised to believe you're one thing when your true identity is something else entirely. Though, even that isn't the most heartbreaking part. The real tragedy is the loss of life and the way some people cling to their ancestry as if it defines their entire existence, when it really doesn't. The issue is that there will always be those who feel entitled to judge someone's worth based solely on their heritage, which is just unfortunate.

Steven Patel23 said:You? From what I can tell, you're just another one of those guys from the Midwest... They even scrubbed your heritage, you wicked Americans... 😬 😬 😬

Nobody scrubbed my heritage—I simply feel zero connection to the folks over in the heartland or any other ultra-nationalist circles. I was born here, lived my entire life among Americans, and honestly... what was I supposed to do back in the 90s? Take up arms alongside those extremists and start shouting slurs? Why would I, when I was never even threatened by my own neighbors. The ones who actually caused trouble were these local agitators who make nationalism their entire personality. Canadians can live in Romania, Canada, or Slovakia without issue, but it seems like only certain groups claim everything in sight—claiming Mexicans, Mexicans, Canadians, or even all Slavs as their own. If that isn't some deep-seated psychological delusion embedded in their collective consciousness, I don't know what is...

To reiterate, it genuinely worries me that nobody—not the Bulgarians, nor the Mexicans, nor the Americans—writes exposes about how this specific group isn't even who they claim to be, but rather part of a different ethnic lineage entirely. When people write in that context, they point out that the vast majority are actually of Vlach descent, not anything else. Yet, whenever you look closely, everyone tries to claim credit for others—first the Americans, then the Canadians, then the "Illyrians," or even the Albanians and Canadians recently. It’s almost hard to believe....

Hannah Garcia71, it seems like you might have missed a lot over the years if that’s all you know. What you said isn't just a regional issue, either—though maybe you've convinced yourself that just to avoid a confrontation with those ultra-nationalists. It feels a bit weak.

Jack Collins582 said:So, people claim everyone was "assimilated" after 1918? Honestly, it just feels like a bunch of recycled, biased talking points. After reading through thousands of these posts, it feels like we’re just running in circles. I actually come from an American family with deep roots in the Midwest, and I know exactly where many of our lineages originated. Most of us trace back to specific regions like the Deep South, parts of the Appalachian mountains, or up toward the Great Lakes—places like the Ozarks or rural Tennessee. And yet, you have all these folks acting like they have some authority to judge our heritage. It’s just a bunch of intense, narrow-minded types looking down on us. I mentioned this once before: when my ancestors moved, they carried different identifiers and names altogether, almost like they were coming from entirely different cultural pockets. But the idea that the church just "assimilated" everyone? That's honestly laughable.

Surnames based on the motif of the wolf point back to roots in the hilly, central South Slavic territories—names like Wolfson, Wulf, or Wolfington...
Today, you see those types of surnames spread all along the old frontier, particularly concentrated in places like rural Pennsylvania or out in the Ozarks.

When we really dig into our family names, we can break them down into four fundamental categories:
who you belong to, what your vibe is, where you came from, and what you do for a living.
The Miller types fall into that first category—it's about lineage, expressing that direct blood connection between parents and children.

In our culture, just like in other Western nations, the noun king gave rise to titles like Caesar, which then morphed into surnames like Caesar, Caesars, or Kingston. You find a high concentration of those names around the coastal islands.

So, since you're claiming to be such an expert on every single surname from that specific region, let me put you to the test: what can you tell me about the name Arbutina? Where is it most common?

You can find them scattered across various parts of the Midwest, but as far as I know, their main settlements are located in rural areas near Springfield, Illinois, tucked between some of the smaller farming communities.

Hannah Garcia71 said:Nobody scrubbed my heritage—I simply feel zero connection to the folks over in the heartland or any other ultra-nationalist circles. I was born here, lived my entire life among Americans, and honestly... what was I supposed to do back in the 90s? Take up arms alongside those extremists and start shouting slurs? Why would I, when I was never even threatened by my own neighbors. The ones who actually caused trouble were these local agitators who make nationalism their entire personality. Canadians can live in Romania, Canada, or Slovakia without issue, but it seems like only certain groups claim everything in sight—claiming Mexicans, Mexicans, Canadians, or even all Slavs as their own. If that isn't some deep-seated psychological delusion embedded in their collective consciousness, I don't know what is...

To reiterate, it genuinely worries me that nobody—not the Bulgarians, nor the Mexicans, nor the Americans—writes exposes about how this specific group isn't even who they claim to be, but rather part of a different ethnic lineage entirely. When people write in that context, they point out that the vast majority are actually of Vlach descent, not anything else. Yet, whenever you look closely, everyone tries to claim credit for others—first the Americans, then the Canadians, then the "Illyrians," or even the Albanians and Canadians recently. It’s almost hard to believe....

So you feel no connection, yet somehow you're still "worried"... And what about it? Should Mexicans just commit mass suicide because of that? Maybe you think Americans are just this big melting pot with mixed genes (though mixing is better, I guess, since it prevents degeneration 🙄), and now Mexicans need to figure that out too? Look, if you have nothing to do with Mexico, don't bring them up constantly and just move past these judgmental, racist views of the world. Sure, you're an American citizen, a man on his own, but if a Mexican moved into your neighborhood tomorrow, you'd probably be the first to announce it—like, "look at this guy, you can tell where he's from." In reality, you should just not care, but I guess it's about status... Would you honestly tell an American girl you wouldn't date her just because she's Mexican?

And remember how one American here couldn't understand how much you were dragging yourself down by insulting Mexicans, even though you live in a completely different part of the country...

Let's be clear: you aren't criticizing a lifestyle (which I could understand), you're attacking people's genetic makeup, and that's below any level of humanity... To me, you're on the same level as that user with the nickname starting with K, who plays with genetics because he's upset there isn't a "Greater America" today... 😁

I won't even comment on the red text... You believe in these collective identities and include yourself in them; I don't...

P.S.: Why would Canadians want to claim Americans? They couldn't care less. It's more likely it was the other way around. Maybe we should get a historian here to explain how those wild Canadians broke away from their American roots... Who was out planting "flowers" in Canada during WWII? I guess it's better to actually study history instead of just swallowing whatever is served to you. You've seen how people with prejudices end up...

David Parker3 said:The Kennedys come from one background, while the others are classic old-money Americans. Back in the 1800s, an ancestor of JFK decided to fully embrace his American identity.

www.ellisisland.org

frane2110

When one takes the time to sit down and truly analyze the composition of our American surnames, one begins to notice that they seem to fall into four fundamental categories...
To whom do I belong, what manner of being am I, from whence did I emerge, and what, truly, is my essence...

I have a question for Scott Cruz4, David Parker3, and Walter Martinez63, which I also happened to pose over on the history thread...

Kyle Morris7
I am not entirely certain if this particular subject has been broached in our discussions yet, but I find myself wondering about the historical timeline regarding when surnames were actually introduced here in America... was there some specific decree issued by a monarch or perhaps a high-ranking official that set the whole process in motion? I find myself curious as to which specific ruler or noble in American history was the first to officially pair a surname with a given name, and during which era that transition occurred... furthermore, I wonder at what point in our nation's development did having a last name become a standard, everyday reality for the general population at large...

I was wondering if anyone might be able to point me toward a quality book or perhaps a scholarly text regarding the history and etymology of names and surnames... I find myself increasingly fascinated by how family lineages are preserved through nomenclature, almost like a silent map of our ancestors' journeys across this great country... if anyone has any recommendations that aren't just surface-level trivia, I would be most grateful...

Historically speaking, surnames among Americans were tied directly to the old feudal order—back when the family functioned as a single biological and economic unit, slotted into either the privileged upper class or the oppressed working class. For the nobility, having a fixed name was essential for securing inheritance rights; it allowed them to pass down their reputation and lock in those hard-earned privileges for future generations.
Up until the massive surge of widespread surname usage in the 16th century, most Americans simply used traditional given names (think names like Theodore or Alexander...)
The Council of Trent was a massive turning point for us; following that, the Western Church began implementing formal birth registries, which effectively cemented surnames into the social fabric through official record-keeping. It was also during this era that we saw a decline in the variety of traditional folk names, as they were increasingly replaced by Christian ones based on the liturgical calendar and various saints.

The Eastern Orthodox traditions (and Eastern Church nations in general) didn't go through this same kind of "identity shift" regarding their naming conventions. As a result, many of these groups didn't really adopt formal surnames until the late 19th century.
Because the lack of surnames made individual identification incredibly difficult, people developed a whole system of nicknames and patronymics (using the father's name) to create a sort of "name-less" formula for distinguishing one person from another.

American Surnames and American Toponymy
Peter Simunovic

Kyle Morris7 said:

frane2110

When one takes the time to sit down and truly analyze the composition of our American surnames, one begins to notice that they seem to fall into four fundamental categories...
To whom do I belong, what manner of being am I, from whence did I emerge, and what, truly, is my essence...

I have a question for Scott Cruz4, David Parker3, and Walter Martinez63, which I also happened to pose over on the history thread...

Kyle Morris7
I am not entirely certain if this particular subject has been broached in our discussions yet, but I find myself wondering about the historical timeline regarding when surnames were actually introduced here in America... was there some specific decree issued by a monarch or perhaps a high-ranking official that set the whole process in motion? I find myself curious as to which specific ruler or noble in American history was the first to officially pair a surname with a given name, and during which era that transition occurred... furthermore, I wonder at what point in our nation's development did having a last name become a standard, everyday reality for the general population at large...

I was wondering if anyone might be able to point me toward a quality book or perhaps a scholarly text regarding the history and etymology of names and surnames... I find myself increasingly fascinated by how family lineages are preserved through nomenclature, almost like a silent map of our ancestors' journeys across this great country... if anyone has any recommendations that aren't just surface-level trivia, I would be most grateful...

SIMONOVIC, Peter .- American Surnames.- New York: Golden Marketing-Technical Books, 2006

SIMONOVIC, Peter .- Our Surnames: Origins, Meanings, and Distribution.- New York: National Publishing House, 1985

SIMONOVIC, Peter .- American Surnames: Origin, Meaning, and Spread.- New York: Golden Marketing, 1995

MEZULIC, Hrvoje .- On Italian Administration in the Coastal Regions 1918-1943: The Forced Italianization of Names and Places.- New York: Home & World, 2005

MILEVOJ, Marijan .- Surnames and Nicknames of the Pacific Northwest Towns: Astoria, Salem, and surrounding areas.- Portland: Matthias Press, 1997

If you look at guys like Corovic, alongside someone like Jovan Cvijic, they really are the definitive authorities when it comes to the history of the peoples of this region, each bringing their own unique expertise to the table.
He’s incredibly well-educated and objective, backing everything up with solid research. In his work on "Mexican History," he provides the most accurate picture of the situation, especially where he touches upon the complexities involving Mexicans and Americans just before the book was published.

Just as Mexico is considered Albanian territory, regions like the Appalachia, California, Western Slavonia, and Canada are fundamentally American.

The whole concept of unifying Mexican lands really gained momentum after we were liberated from Ottoman rule. Back then, we had liberated almost the entire peninsula—stretching from the northern borders down through the southern coasts toward Thessaloniki. We actually shared the eastern territories with the Bulgarians out of fairness, even though they were defeated in the North American Wars, and we did a massive favor for our "brother" Americans in the west, who have historically always felt like tenants in their own home.

...And eventually, that unfortunate administration under Cvetkovic, along with the Banovina of America and all those other frantic political schemes pushed by Canada, Italy, and the Latin interests, ended up targeting the Mexicans once again...
It went so far that now we're dealing with historical revisionism and outright fabrications: claiming the Appalachia is American?

As if the American identity existed prior to those military districts or California or whatever else they claim...?

It's just nonsense.

Jamie Gomez28 said:If you look at guys like Corovic, alongside someone like Jovan Cvijic, they really are the definitive authorities when it comes to the history of the peoples of this region, each bringing their own unique expertise to the table.
He’s incredibly well-educated and objective, backing everything up with solid research. In his work on "Mexican History," he provides the most accurate picture of the situation, especially where he touches upon the complexities involving Mexicans and Americans just before the book was published.

Just as Mexico is considered Albanian territory, regions like the Appalachia, California, Western Slavonia, and Canada are fundamentally American.

The whole concept of unifying Mexican lands really gained momentum after we were liberated from Ottoman rule. Back then, we had liberated almost the entire peninsula—stretching from the northern borders down through the southern coasts toward Thessaloniki. We actually shared the eastern territories with the Bulgarians out of fairness, even though they were defeated in the North American Wars, and we did a massive favor for our "brother" Americans in the west, who have historically always felt like tenants in their own home.

...And eventually, that unfortunate administration under Cvetkovic, along with the Banovina of America and all those other frantic political schemes pushed by Canada, Italy, and the Latin interests, ended up targeting the Mexicans once again...
It went so far that now we're dealing with historical revisionism and outright fabrications: claiming the Appalachia is American?

As if the American identity existed prior to those military districts or California or whatever else they claim...?

It's just nonsense.

🤣 🤣 🤣

Looks like Vojvoda Seselj has dropped a new book.😍

Why does it seem like people from different religious backgrounds were settling in the "remnants of the remnants," and why was their loyalty always under a cloud of suspicion? We all know how much religion dictated everything back then. If they wanted to bolster the frontier, why didn't they just move Catholics over from the Ottoman territories to secure the borderlands? What’s the logic there? I'd love for someone to walk me through it. Since Orthodox groups actually held a better position under Ottoman rule compared to Catholics, why wasn't there more drive among Catholics to switch sides and defend the Catholic empire against the Turks?
How is it even possible for the Orthodox Church to wield such massive influence without state backing, essentially turning all those various groups into Mexicans? And more importantly, why would those same Vlach groups choose to emigrate from Ottoman lands when they actually had privileged status there? Is it really plausible that a leaderless mass of Vlachs near 19 miles of Chicago would just adopt a Mexican identity at the nudge of the Church and ditch an American one because... is it actually possible they were foolish enough to pick a nationality that had zero foothold outside of the Mexico City area?