Byzantine records of that era also provides good evidence of conquest
In no way did the Byzantines state that the Slavs came peacefully.

"Byzantine" records speak of small bands of Slavs, of whom we can't even be sure were what we would call Slavs (and in some cases they were definitely not Slavs). However, those Slavs that came were in too small numbers. And to that, those people that lived in the lands the Slavs did came were related to them linguistically. It would be like a band of robbers from France invading Spain.

Yes we know the names. In Greece we know two of them.

The Melingoi or Milingoi (Greek: Μηλιγγοί) were a Slavic tribe that settled in the Peloponnese in southern Greece during the Middle Ages. Proto-Slavic tribes (Sclaveni) settled throughout the Balkans following the collapse of the Byzantine Empire's defense of the Danube frontier in the early decades of the 7th century, with some groups reaching as far south as the Peloponnese.[1] Of these, two groups are known by name from later sources, the Melingoi and the Ezeritai, both settled on the western slopes of Mount Taygetos. The origin and etymology of the Melingoi name is unknown.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melingoi

The more I read into it, the more it seems that the Slavs can be compared to Franks. The people of Gaul, at the time called Gallo-Romans, were conquered by Franks, and from that time became called Franks and latter French, though they kept their language and culture. Same can be said about the Bulgars too. But also the Slavs. The autochthonous peoples of Central and South-Eastern Europe were conquered by Slavs, and Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian people, like Serbs, Croats, Sarmatians, Scythians, Alans, etc. and kept their language and culture but accepted a new name. Unlike the Franks or the Bulgars, the name Slavs spread gradually, as in the beginning it was a tribal name or a name of a tribal confederacy and was on equal grounds to names of other tribes or confederations like the Serbs, Croats, Antes, Alans, Mesagetes, etc. In time it became a supertribal name and remained so until today.

Actually the Franks are a germanic race. A comparison of slavs with germanic would be better in my opinion.

Where is it implied in my post that I do not know that? "Do not take me for some conjuror of cheap tricks!"

The rest makes no sense.

I didn't say you didn't know that. I'm just stating that instead of using a specific German tribe to compare with the slavs it would of been better to use the germanic tribes as a whole.

Not all Germanic tribes left for Western Europe. In fact most didn't. For the comparison with Slavs you can only use those which migrated, like the Franks, Goths, Vandals, Burgundians or Lombards. Most of the tribes stayed where they were.

Another thing. Those tribes that migrated, like Slavs, were warrior tribes. They were mostly warriors with their chieftains and administration. There were few women and children there, or farmers and other labourers, except craftsmen. These tribes were simply the higher layers of the society and this allowed them to move faster. The same applied for Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Serbs, Croatians, Alans, Sarmatians and Scythians in general. It was much like the Mongols in the 13th century.

I see what you mean about the migrations. Another interesting part about the Franks is that they adopted a latin language ( French ), eventhough they are considered a germanic branch of ppl. Kind of opposite of what the Slavs accomplished.

In any case the Slav element in Europe is an intersting one I always liked to read about. The battle of Grunwald ( Poles - Germans ) is one example off the top of my head.

No, I'm stating the opposite of this. I'm saying that Slavs were a Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan people that adopted the language of the natives of the lands they settled in. Just like the Franks did. And I'm also saying that Slavs were just a small faction of tribes. Their name spread, but only centuries later.

The Slavs did not adopt the native populations language. The natives adopted the Slavs language. In order for that to happen they must of been a force to reckon with.
Byzanitine records probably give the best account of them. Il try to get some Byzantine info for you to read up on if you like.

Anomaly,

What do you think about this wiki link ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peo ... and_debate

4 theories on the origins of " Slavs "

Homeland debate
The location of the Slavic homeland was a subject to considerable debate. Serious candidates were cultures on the territories of modern Belarus, Poland, European Russia and Ukraine. The proposed frameworks are:

1)Lusatian culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs were present in north-eastern Central Europe since at least the late 2nd millennium BCE, and were the bearers of the Lusatian culture and later still the Przeworsk culture (2nd century BCE to 4th century CE) and the later still Chernyakhov culture (2nd-5th centuries CE).

2)Milograd culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs (or Balto-Slavs) were the bearers of the Milograd culture (700 BCE to the 100 CE) of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus.

3)Chernoles culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs were the bearers of the Chernoles culture (750–200 BCE) of northern Ukraine.

4)Tributary of Danube: postulated by Oleg Trubachyov[13];sustained in present by Florin Curta>[14]

I have read all Byzantine records. And yes, the Slavs adopted the language of the natives. The Slavs were a small force of warriors and raiders.

I have said all I wanted to say.