who were the (original) Slavs?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Archaeology & Anthropology
Forum Discription: Topics on archaeology and anthropology
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4489
Printed Date: 28-May-2024 at 23:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: who were the (original) Slavs?
Posted By: minchickie
Subject: who were the (original) Slavs?
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 07:58
|
This is one that seems to confuse me alot. Although I have read numerous information on the Slavic peoples and their history, it still seems that I'm uncertain when it comes to knowing where exactly did the first Slavs originate from? ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 09:36
|
must have been turks. ------------- |
Posted By: minchickie
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 10:12
 haha very funny-------------
|
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 11:48
|
Slavs mostly live in the same region where ancient Scythians and Sarmatians lived. ------------- 
|
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 12:00
|
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3330&PN=3 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3330& ;PN=3 Read one of the last posts in this topic, it explains it really well.
------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 12:30
|
They got defined in the Baltic Bronze culture, along with Baltics.
Later they developed the Lausitz culture, separated from that of the
Baltic peoples. I'm not very sure about the Iron age, but guess they
suffered the Germanic expansion as much as Celts (though maybe later).
But, at difference of these, they weren't annihilated (fully
assimilated). Eventually, when Goths and all those Eastern Germanic
tribes migrated westward, they could retake their lands. So guess their origin is basically in Poland and nearby regions. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 12:55
|
I always thought the Slav's were the ancient Greeks of Plato and Alexander's time. After they got kicked out of ancient Greece they headed east, became nomadic barbarians for a few centuries and returned to Europe as the Slav's. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 13:01
How did you ever get to that idea?
------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 12:20
Hey, looking for something else, I've found one link that seems to explain Slavic origins quite well: http://www.slavicsword.cjb.net/ - http://www.slavicsword.cjb.net/  A map from that site. |
Posted By: Harry Potter
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 20:56
|
interesting map, look good at Greece ------------- Macedonian swear in 1903 wars: With the blood we shed all over Macedonian fields and forests, we serve freedom, as the Macedonian army of Alexander of Macedon did, with our slogan ‘Freedom or Death!” |
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 06:46
Harry Potter, you as so attracted to fiction, as your name also clearly indicates. Of course there were slavs who came into the Hellenic territory and even settled and intermixed with the locals. Don't forget, that peaceful interaction was never opposed by the Greeks. If you had a peaceful reason to be around (trade, marriages, emissaries, travellers, immigrants), nobody persecuted you. Therefore, your scoptic comment was actually quite misplaced. ------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 12:56
|
Slavs didnt enter into the heart of Albania then.... It wouldnt happen until the Bulgarian Empire...According to this ridiculous map. All these people who dont share similar genetics with the Slavs are slavic... ------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 13:56
|
I don't think the map can be taken too seriously in its inclussion of
all peoples and lands east of the red line (which is accurate)
Obviously Lithuanians, Finns, Albanians and Greeks weren't Slavs and
those areas shoul have been left uncolored or colored with less intense
brown, meaning sparse penetration. Obviously whoever draw that map was
kind of pan-Slavist... still the essential concepts reflected in it are
valid. |
Posted By: Thracian
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2005 at 23:06
|
the Slavs have simply been in the east/ central european areas since the beging just like the germanaic peoples in west/ cent. europe |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 14:29
| A version of that same map is found in Harper Collins Atlas of World History, edited by Geoffrey Barraclough. Definitely not Pan-Slavist. I think it just reflects the idea that Slavs had made a massive impact in their migrations becoming the principal linguistic population in eastern Europe. One notes that the eastern half of ancient Germania had become Slavic. Byzantine and other independent sources admit to massive Slavic settlement in the Peloponnese itself, but eventually those Slavs became Hellenized. The idea that their original abodes were about the Pripet Marshes have been given much attention and there seems to be a consensus on that point. |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 21:27
|
I already said that the essential concept and the wester border are
accurate but the map (probably with some intentionality) doesn't make
difference between areas fully slavized, partly slavized and somehow
influenced by the Slavic culture. It's too ambiguous east of the red
line. I can take your explanation for Greece but what about Finn and
Baltic areas? For instance, what about the region named "Lithuanians"
that has no red arrow pointing to it and still is fully colored in
ochre?
------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 21:41
No, it's not that simple. Cultures and peoples are more dynamic than that - and at the beginnig we were all somewhere in Africa, btw. While the Slavic case may cause more doubts, maybe, the German case is well studied and it is very clear that they are original from Scandinavia and Lower Germany (where the natives, had recieved proto-German culture possibly around 2400 BCE) and that they started their expansion southwards, slowly after 800 BCE and more quickly just before the start of our conventional age, subduing in the proccess many Celtic tribes. On Slavs, I do think that the theory reflected in the map is probably accurate on source and dates of expansion, at least as far as my knowledge reaches. Slavs seem to derivate from the Lausitz culture that was more or less in what is now Poland in the Bronze Age. They may have been there since maybe as soon as 3000 BCE (but 2400 is a safer date). -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Achilles
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 18:43
|
The slavs were originally from Ukraine area. An d yes they pretty much
migrated to all the areas shown in the map. although it is a very poor
map. they might not have mixed with the native peoples there but they
did migrate there for however short an amount of time. except albania.
i am not sure aif they to Albania or not. probobly around the edges but
not into the main area.
------------- Der Erste hat den Tod, Der Zweite hat die Not, Der Dritte erst hat Brot. Fur immer frei und ungeteilt -always free and undivided- |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 23:54
|
For "Lithuanians", and the rest of the eastern Baltic coast, perhaps an oversight? Perhaps an overgeneralization? Linguistically, Baltic and Slavic comprise a family of its own within IE, and perhaps the author wasn't aware how much the rest of the eastern Baltic wasn't even IE. As for "Finnish Peoples", this may represent the initial Slavic penetration of their region by such proto-Russian tribes as the Polochane, Sloviane, and the Krivichi. The westernmost Baltic coast was the abode of the Pomorane. |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 00:22
Interesting map, they actually name Macedonia, now this map is really inaccurate.. ------------- http://theforgotten.org/intro.html |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2005 at 02:13
| Why is it inaccurate regarding Macedonia? |
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2005 at 03:57
|
I don't find the map inaccurate. I find it rather peculiar. All other regions are noted with plain, italic capitals, whereas Macedonia and Thrace are in block bold capitals. Why is there special interest shown for these regions? I wonder... ------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2005 at 06:31
|
The communists have done their trick. Greater Macedonia and a Greter
Thrace were always their dream thanks to dear old mamma Russia. What I find equally interesting beside the block bold capitals in the names mentioned is that the ONLY city mentioned is that of Thessaloniki. Looks alot like some of the propaganda maps I've seen promoted by the FYROMians right after they issued the bank notes with the "White Tower" of Thessaloniki on them. ------------- To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent. |
Posted By: philiptheuniter
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 00:36
Is that a joke? |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 01:40
I think that has a logic explanation: all names in italics are names of peoples like Finns, Lithuanians or Bulgarians, while Macedonia and Thrace are names of geographical regions. Why did the author only name those regions and not others? That's another story. But for the sake of the topic I would try not to be so much nitty-picky. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 02:24
| I think the reason for the scarcity of place-names is the size of the printed map itself. It only measures 2 1/2" x 2 5/8" (6.3 x 6.7 cm) on paper. With such a small space to work with, the publisher himself needed to make the print big enough for most to see with little difficulty, without overlapping other map labels. |
Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 03:39
Sharrukin saves the day!
|
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 03:53
|
I disagree. The author has a clear preference to these regions for some
reason. I am sure that, regarding the development of slavic
communities, there are more important regions than Macedonia and
Thrace. Those should have been mentioned rather than the ones above.
------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 23:00
|
If you were looking at this map compared to other maps in the entire atlas, you would probably not even notice the labeling, to draw such conclusions. The atlas is concerned with the entire scope of world history, and it does an awesome job of doing that, with beautiful colored and detailed maps. That particular map is so minor, compared to other maps in the atlas, some of which take two facing pages, that it's virtually ignorable!!! It's really one of a handful of maps of the smallest scale in the entire atlas. With that perspective, no one who casually uses this atlas, can draw such conclusions. There is no conspiracy here. The author chose to label regions using Slavic tribal names instead of place-names. So what? When it comes to Macedonia and Thrace, there really were not any major Slavic tribal group. The historic sources simply called those Slavic groups in those two regions, Sclavini, "Slavs". Yes, we read of such groups as the Melingi and the Ezerites, but they were so minor compared to the major tribal groups further north, that, on a map of this small scale their mention would have been very disproportionate to the regions they actually inhabited. |