Slavic nations
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3330
Printed Date: 07-Jun-2024 at 21:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Slavic nations
Posted By: white dragon
Subject: Slavic nations
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 10:15
|
i have wondered. what are all the dominately slavic nations. i know alot of eastern european countries are predominatley slavic, but what are all the slavic nations?
i apoligize if this is in the wrong forum ------------- Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man. -Francis Cardinal Spellman |
Replies:
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 12:17
|
Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia &
Montenegro, Fyrom, Albania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belarus & Russia (I
don't think I forgot anyone). Hungary, Romania and Moldova aren't Slavic IMO. Neither the Baltics are. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 12:20
|
And Bosnia & Hercegovina ! ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 14:23
|
Ummm, were not slavs. Nobody is too sure. but we are definately not slavs. ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 18:23
|
Aye Albanians are not Slavic people. Bulgarians are slavicised Turks. I dont know if they can be called a nation but there are Sorbs in Germany, descendats of the medieval Slavs who were living there and were conquered by Germans. |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 18:38
|
Hungary is not slavic?... i know they decendands of Magyars but they have probably interbred with slavs havent they??
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 18:51
| well, actually the notion "slav" is linguistic. Try to compare the western slavs, the eastern slavs and the southern slavs from balkans. They even look different and have different customs, traditions and religions. The only thing they all share is is more or less similar language. |
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 19:14
|
Genetics have also shown that many of the "slav" nations of today in
the
adriatic area of the balkans arent even of slavic descent. Some were as
low as %15 of slavik origin. However I am always cautious when
looking at DNA studies. Many of these studies though seem to be
overwhelming. ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 20:09
|
Well, one member of AE posted this genetic map in the past. Altough im not really sure how to interpretate it. The way i was doing it the first time i saw it after short studies appeared to be completely wrong. This map was long debated on AE forums but i dont remember if there were any constructive results. But for sure the map shows some genetic differences.
|
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 22:38
|
Yes, as well as some trends. For instance: 1. The highest concentration of hp 1 is in Ireland with huge majorities in rest of western Europe. The further east you go the less concentration there is of it. By the time you get to Germany it becomes a minority. 2. The highest concentration of hp 3 is in the northern Indian subcontinent with majorities going into central Asia and into eastern Europe but with considerable outliers in Scandinavia and Britain. 3. The highest concentration of hp 2 is in eastern Scandinavia, which as you go south into the Continent dissipates throughout Europe with "island" majorities in the Ukraine and the western Balkans. We find a sizable proportion of this haplotype among Anatolian and trans-Caucasian peoples but again find large proportions among peoples of the northern India subcontinent. 4. The highest concentration of hp 16 is in the easternmost Scandinavia with majority concentrations in the Baltics and northeastern Europe. 5. The highest concentration of hp 9 is the Middle East with sizable concentrations in northern Africa and into the northern Indian subcontinent. Sizable European frequencies are in Greece and Italy with much dissipation further north. 6. The highest concentration of hp 21 is in northern Africa with sizable concentrations in the middle east and Greece, with dissipations throughout most of Europe and the rest of western Asia. |
Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 09:24
Bulgaria was created as an union between 7 slav tribes and Bulgars! Citation: "...Today we are almost sure that Bulgars are not Turks or Mongols, they belong to the Iranian tribes and their motherland is Balhara - northern Afghanistan..." Professor Bojidar Dimitrov, director of National Historical Museum of Bulgaria ------------- Everybody listen only this which understands. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 10:44
Com'on, all Bulgars, Avars, Ongars were originally Turkic tribes from western steppes, today's Kazakhstan. But today, Bulgarians can be considered as Slavic. ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 11:30
| Actually on this genetic map Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks look quite similar. But in fact bulgarians look even more similar to yugoslavians. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 11:46
|
Bulgarians dont look that similar to us in this map. They look quite similar to Slavs. ------------- |
Posted By: Kuu-ukko
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 13:04
| Which is backed up/explains the change of a former (Turkic/Iranic?) language to Slavic. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 14:02
I wouldnt generalise that much. From all the slavs they look similar only to Yugoslavians. Please notice that even Slovenians who are close to them are different. And notice that most of slavic nations on the map got a lot of HG 3 while Bulgarians and Yugoslavians not. Pity that the authors of this map didnt check Croats and Albanians. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 14:30
|
in fact Charlemagne conquered and subjugated those western Slav tribes, Germans just "inherited" these dominions. ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 14:35
If i remember well in the end of 10th century and in begining of 11 century both Germans and Poles were fighting against some independent slavic tribes on the territory of this what was known as eastern Germany. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 14:46
|
yes, apparently eastern Franks/Germans lost control over most Slavic tribes before Otto I. and most tribes were not completely under German sovereignity until the late 12th/ early13th century or so...there were also regular uprisings of one or more tribes at some points. ------------- |
Posted By: Thracian
Date Posted: 13-May-2005 at 00:56
Even if they were not from Balhara they were for sure completely different from those others listed. The proof of this is that they probably always fought them when ever in contact. |
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 13-May-2005 at 09:58
|
Can some explain to me what hg means? ------------- |
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 21-May-2005 at 13:01
|
Here is what I found: mtDNA and Slavic Ethnogenesis Also: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia and Macedonia = 75% Dinaric ( preslavic Illyrians) , 10% West Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 10% Noric ( depegmented Dinaric ) and 5% Neo-Danubian (most common in the north and Pannonia, Baltic Slav ) = 85% Dinarik / 10% Med. / 5% L+N compare this to: Czech Republic and Slovakia = 40% Alpine ( UP ) and 15% Noric (most common in Bohemia), 25% Dinaric (most common in Moravia), 20% Neo-Danubian (most common in Slovakia) = 40% UP / 40% Dinarik / 20% L+N and http://www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/Races.html - http://www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/Races.html It also shows Bulgars with quite some Thrakian genes in them. Anatolian Turks also show dissimilarity to actual Turks as western Anatolian turcs have quite some Greek genes in them while eastern ones seem to have more kurdish, arabic mixture in them. Which is why it probably shows Greeks, Bulgars and Turks with quite some similar genes.
Turkey=35% Dinaricized Mediterraneans ( Greek colonists), 20% Mediterraneans ( Aegean coast, greek colonists), 25% Irano-Afghans ( eastern Turkey, Kurds ), 20% Turanids ( original semi-oriental Turkics, inhabits continental parts of central Anatolia one of them being region around Konya ) = 35% D.M. / 25% I.A. / 20% Med. / 20% T. and Bulgaria = 60% East Mediterranean ( mainly hellenistic Thracians ), 15% Alpine ( UP, Celtic impact? ) , 15% Dinaric , 5% Turanid ( NW Bulgaria, remains of semioriental Turkic Bulgars ), 5% Nordish ( Germanic invasion impact ) = 60% Med. / 15% Dinarik / 15% UP / 5% T / 5% N
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-May-2005 at 12:41
|
This is gonna be long.. A. Slavs ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-May-2005 at 12:42
|
The question still remains to be answered whether the expression Slavs indicated originally all Slavonic tribes or only one or a few of them. The reference to them in Ptolemy shows that the word then meant only a single tribe. Ptolemy called the Slavs as a whole the Venedai and says they are "the greatest nation" (megiston ethnos). The Byzantines of the sixth century thought only of the southern Slavs and incidentally also of the Russians, who lived on the boundaries of the Eastern Empire. With them the expression Slavs meant only the southern Slavs; they called the Russians Antae, and distinguished sharply between the two groups of tribes. In one place (Get., 34, 35) Jordanis divides all Slavs into three groups: Veneti, Slavs, and Antae; this would correspond to the present division of western, southern, and eastern Slavs. However, this mention appears to be an arbitrary combination. In another passage he designated the eastern Slavs by the name Veneti. Probably he had found the expression Veneti in old writers and had learned personally the names Slavs and Antae; in this way arose his triple division. All the seventh-century authorities call all Slavonic tribes, both southern Slavs and western Slavs, that belonged to the kingdom of Prince Samo, simply Slavs; Samo is called the "ruler of the Slavs", but his peoples are called "the Slavs named Vindi" (Sclavi cognomento Winadi). In the eighth and ninth centuries the Czechs and Slavs of the Elbe were generally called Slavs, but also at times Wens, by the German and Roman chroniclers. In the same way all authorities of the era of the Apostles to the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, give the name Slav without any distinction both to the southern Slavs, to which branch both missionaries belonged, and to the western Slavs, among whom they laboured. As regards the eastern Slavs or Russians, leaving out the mention of Ptolemy already referred to, Jordanis says that at the beginning of the era of the migrations the Goths had carried on war with the "nation of Slavs"; this nation must have lived in what is now Southern Russia. The earliest Russian chronicle, erroneously ascribed to the monk Nestor, always calls the Slavs as a whole "Slavs". When it begins to narrate the history of Russia it speaks indeed of the Russians to whom it never applies the designation Slav, but it also often tells of the Slavs of Northern Russia, the Slavs of Novgorod. Those tribes that were already thoroughly incorporated in the Russian kingdom are simply called Russian tribes, while the Slavs in Northern Russia, who maintained a certain independence, were designated by the general expression Slavs. Consequently, the opinion advocated by Miklosic, namely, that the name Slav was originally applied only to one Slavonic tribe, is unfounded, though it has been supported by other scholars like Krek, Potkanski, Czermak, and Pasternek. From at least the sixth century the expression Slav was, therefore, the general designation of all Slavonic tribes. Wherever a Slavonic tribe rose to greater political importance and founded an independent kingdom of its own, the name of the tribe came to the front and pushed aside the general designation Slav. Where, however, the Slavs attained no political power but fell under the sway of foreign rulers they remained known by the general description Slav. Among the successful tribes who brought an entire district under their sway and gave it their name were the Russians, Poles, Czechs, Croats, and the Turanian tribe of the Bulgars. The old general name has been retained to the present time by the Slovenes of Southern Austria on the Adriatic coast, the Slovaks of Northern Hungary, the province Slavonia between Croatia and Hungary and its inhabitants the Slavonians, and the Slovinci of Prussia on the North Sea. Up to recent times the name was customary among the inhabitants of the most celebrated Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa). Until late in the Middle Ages it was retained by the Slavs of Novgorod in Northern Russia and by the Slavs in Macedonia and Albania. These peoples, however, have also retained their specific national and tribal names. B. Wends A much older designation in the historical authorities than Slav is the name Wend. It is under this designation that the Slavs first appear in history. The first certain references to the present Slavs date from the first and second centuries. They were made by the Roman writers Pliny and Tacitus and the Alexandrian already mentioned Ptolemy. Pliny (d. A.D. 79) says (Nat. hist., IV, 97) that among the peoples living on the other side of the Vistula besides the Sarmatians and others are also the Wends (Venedi). Tacitus (G., 46) says the same. He describes the Wends somewhat more in detail but cannot make up his mind whether he ought to include them among the Germans or the Sarmatians; still they seem to him to be more closely connected with the first named than with the latter. Ptolemy (d.about 178) in his Geographike (III, 57) calls the Venedi the greatest nation living on the Wendic Gulf. However, he says later (III, 5,  that they live on the Vistula; he also speaks of the Venedic mountains (III, 5, 6). In the centuries immediately succeeding the Wends are mentioned very rarely. The migrations that had now begun had brought other peoples into the foreground until the Venedi again appear in the sixth century under the name of Slavs. The name Wend, however, was never completely forgotten. The German chroniclers used both names constantly without distinction, the former almost oftener than the latter. Even now the Sorbs of Lusatic are called by the Germans Wends, while the Slovenes are frequently called Winds and their language is called Windish. Those who maintain the theory that the original home of the Slavs was in the countries along the Danube have tried to refute the opinion that these references relate to the ancestors of the present Slavs, but their arguments are inconclusive. Besides these definite notices there are several others that are neither clear nor certain. The Wends or Slavs have had connected with them as old tribal confederates of the present Slavs the Budinoi mentioned by Herodotus, and also the Island of Banoma mentioned by Pliny (IV, 94), further the venetae, the original inhabitants of the present Province of Venice, as well as the Homeric Venetoi, Caesar's Veneti in Gaul and Anglia, etc. In all probability, the Adriatic Veneti were an Illyrian tribe related to the present Albanians, but nothing is known of them. With more reason can the old story that the Greeks obtained amber from the River Eridanos in the country of the Enetoi be applied to the Wends or Slavs; from which it may be concluded that the Slavs were already living on the shores of the Baltic in the fourth century before Christ. Most probably the name Wend was of foreign origin and the race was known by this name only among the foreign tribes, while they called themselves Slavs. It is possible that the Slavs were originally named Wends by the early Gauls, because the root Wend, or Wind, is found especially in the districts once occupied by the Gauls. The word was apparently a designation that was first applied to various Gallic or Celtic tribes, and then given by the Celts to the Wendic tribes living north of them. The explanation of the meaning of the word is also to be sought from this point of view. The endeavour was made at one time to derive the word from the Teutonic dialects, as Danish wand, Old Norwegian vatn, Lation unda, meaning water. Thus Wends would signify watermen, people living about the water, people living by the sea, as proposed by Jordan, Adelung, and others. A derivation from the German wended (to turn) has also been suggested, thus the Wends are the people wandering about; or from the Gothic vinja, related to the German weiden, pasture, hence Wends, those who pasture, the shepherds; finally the word has been traced to the old root ven, belonging together. Wends would, therefore mean the allied. Pogodin traced the name from the Celtic, taking it from the early Celtic root vindos, white, by which expression the dark Celts designated the light Slavs. Naturally an explanation of the term was also sought in the Old Slavonic language; thus, Kollar derived it from the Old Slavonic word Un, Sassinek from Slo-van, Perwolf from the Old Slavonic root ved, still retained in the Old Slavonic comparative vestij meaning large and brought it into connection with the Russian Anti and Vjatici; Hilferding even derived it from the old East Indian designation of the Aryans Vanila, and Safarik connected the word with the East Indians, a confusion that is also to be found in the early writers. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-May-2005 at 12:44
|
II. ORIGINAL HOME AND MIGRATIONS There are two theories in regard to the original home of the Slavs, and these theories are in sharp opposition to each other. One considers the region of the Danube as the original home of the Slavs, whence they spread northeast over the Carpathians as far as the Volga River, Lake Ilmen, and the Caspian Sea. The other theory regards the districts between the Vistula and the Dnieper as their original home, whence they spread southwest over the Carpathians to the Balkans and into the Alps, and towards the west across the Oder and the Elbe. The ancient Kiev chronicle, erroneously ascribed to the monk Nestor, is the earliest authority quoted for the theory that the original home of the Slavs is to be sought in the region of the Danube. Here in detail is related for the first time how the Slavs spread from the lower Danube to all the countries occupied later by them. The Noricans and Illyrians are declared to be Slavs, and Andronikos and the Apostle Paul are called Apostles to the Slavs because they laboured in Illyria and Pannocia. This view was maintained by the later chroniclers and historical writers of all Slavonic peoples, as the Pole Kadlubek, "Chronika pol." (1206), Boguchwal (d. 1253), Dlugos, Matej Miechowa, Decius, and others. Among the Czechs, this theory was supported by Kozmaz (d. 1125), Dalimir (d.1324), Johann Marignola (1355-1362), Pribik Pulkava (1374), and V. Hajek (1541). The Russians also developed their theories from the statements of their first chronicler, while the Greek Laonikos Harkondilos of the fifteenth century did not commit himself to this view. The southern Slavs have held this theory from the earliest period up to the present time with the evident intention to base on it their claims to the Church Slavonic in the Liturgy. At an early period, in the letter of Pope John X (914-29) to the Croatian Ban Tomislav and the Sachlumian ruler Mihael, there is a reference to the prevalent tradition that St. Jerome invented the Slavonic alphabet. This tradition maintained itself through the succeeding centuries, finding supporters even outside these countries, and was current at Rome itself. Consequently if we were to follow strictly the written historical authorities, of which a number are very trustworthy, we would be obliged to support the theory that the original home of the Slavs is in the countries along the Danube and on the Adriatic coast. However, the contrary is the case; the original home of the Slavs and the region from which their migrations began is to be sought in the basin of the Dnieper and in the region extending to the Carpathians and the Vistula. It is easy to explain the origin of the above-mentioned widely believed opinion. At the beginning of the Old Slavonic literature in the ancient Kingdom of the Bulgars the Byzantine chronicles of Hamartolos and Malala, which were besides of very little value, were translated into Slavonic. These chronicles give an account of the migrations of the nations from the region of Senaar after the Deluge. According to this account the Europeans are the descendants of Japhet, who journeyed from Senaar by way of Asia Minor to the Balkans; there they divided into various nations and spread in various directions. Consequently the Slavonic reader of these chronicles would believe that the starting point of the migrations of the Slavs also was the Balkans and the region of the lower Danube. Because the historical authorities place the ancient tribe of the Illyrians in this region, it was necessary to make this tribe also Slavonic. In the later battles of the Slavs for the maintenance of their language in the Liturgy, this opinion was very convenient, as appeal could be made for the Slavonic claims to the authority of St. Jerome and even of St. Paul. Opinions which are widely current yet do not correspond to facts are often adopted in historical writings. Among the Slavonic historians philogists supporting this theory are: Kopitar, August Schltzer, Safarik, N. Arcybasef, Fr. Racki, Bielowski, M.Drinov, L.Stur, Ivan P. Filevic, Dm. Samaokvasov, M.Leopardov, N.Zakoski, and J.Pic. We have here an interesting proof that a tradition deeply rooted and extending over many centuries and found in nearly all of the early native historical authorities does not agree with historical fact. At present most scholars are of the opinion that the original home of the Slavs in Southeastern Europe must be sought between the Vistula and the Dneiper. The reasons for this belief are: the testimony of the oldest accounts of the Slavs, given as already mentioned by Pliny, Tacitus, and Ptolemy; further the close relationship between the Slavs and the Lettish tribes, pointing to the fact that originally the Slavs lived close to the Letts and Lithuanians; then various indications proving that the Slavs must have been originally neighbours of the Finnish and Turanian tribes. Historical investigation has shown that the Thraco- Illyrian tribes are not the forefathers of the Slavs, but form an independent family group between the Greeks and the Latins. There is no certain proof in the Balkan territory and in the region along the Danube of the presence of the Slavs there before the first century. On the other hand in the region of the Dneiper excavations and archeological finds show traces only of the Slavs. In addition the direction of the general march in the migrations of the nations was always from the northeast towards the south- west, but never in the opposite direction. Those who maintain the theory that the Slavs came from the region of the Danube sought to strengthen their views by the names of various places to be found in these districts that indicate Slavonic origin. The etymology of these names, however, is not entirely certain; there are other names that appear only int he later authorities of the first centuries after Christ. Some again prove nothing, as they could have arisen without the occupation of these districts by the Slavs. It can therefore be said almost positively that the original home of the Slavs was in the territory along the Dneiper, and farther to the northwest as far as the Vistual. From these regions, they spread to the west and southwest. This much only can be conceded to the other view, that the migration probably took place much earlier than is generally supposed. Probably, it took place slowly and be degrees. One tribe would push another ahead of it like a wave, and they all spread out in the wide territory from the North Sea to the Adriatic and Aegean Seas. Here and there some disorder was caused in the Slavonic migration by the incursions of Asiatic peoples, as Scythians, Sarmatians, Avars, Bulgars, and Magyars, as well as by the German migration from northwest to southeast. These incursions separated kindred tribes from one another or introduced foreign elements among them. Taken altogether, however, the natural arrangement was not much disturbed, kindred tribes journeyed together and settled near one another in the new land, so that even to-day the entire Slavonic race presents a regular succession of tribes. As early as the first century of our era individual Slavonic tribes must have crossed the boundaries of the original home and have settled at times among strangers at a considerable distance from the native country. At times again these outposts would be driven back and obliged to retire to the main body, but at the first opportunity they would advance again. Central Europe must have been largely populated by Slavs, as early as the era of the Hunnish ruler Attila, or of the migrations of the German tribes of the Goths, Lombards, Gepidae, Heruli, Rugians etc. These last-mentioned peoples and tribes formed warlike castes and military organizations which became conspicuous in history by their battles and therefore have left more traces in the old historical writings. The Slavs, however, formed the lower strata of the population of Central Europe; all the migrations of the other tribes passed over them, and when the times grew more peaceful the Slavs reappeared on the surface. It is only in this way that the appearance of the Slavs in great numbers in these countries directly after the close of the migrations can be explained without there being any record in history of when and whence they came without their original home being depopulated. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-May-2005 at 12:46
|
III. CLASSIFICATION OF THE SLAVONIC PEOPLES The question as to the classification and number of the Slavonic peoples is a complicated one. Scientific investigation does not support the common belief, and in addition scholars do not agree in their opinions on this question. In 1822 the father of Slavonic philology, Joseph Dobrovsky, recognized nine Slavonic peoples and languages: Russian, Illyrian or Serb, Croat, Slovene, Korotanish, Slovak, Bohemians, Lusatian Sorb and Polish. In his "Slavonic Ethnology" (1842) Pavel Safarik enumerated six languages with thirteen dialects: Russian, Bolgarish, Illyrian, Lechish, Bohemians, Lusatian. The great Russian scholar J. Sreznejevskij held that there were eight Slavonic languages: Great Russians, Serbo-Croat, Korotanish, Polish, Lusatian, Bohemian, Slovak. In 1865 A. Schleicher enumerated eight Slavonic languages: Polish, Lusatians, Bohemian, Great Russian, Little Russian, Serb, Bulgarian, and Slovene. Franc Miklosic counted nine: Slovene, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croat, Great Russian, Little Russian, Bohemian, Polish, Upper Lusatian, Lower Lusatian. In 1907 Dm. Florinskij enumerated nine: Russian, Bulgarians, Serbo-Croat, Slovene, Bohemian-Moravian, Slovak, Lusatian, Polish and Kasube. In 1898 V. Jagic held that there were eight: Polish, Lusatian, Bohemian, Great Russian, Little Russian, Slovene, Serbo-Croat, Bulgarian. Thus it is seen that the greatest representatives of Slavonic linguistics are not in accord upon the question of the number of Slavonic languages. The case is the same from the purely philological point of view. Practically the matter is even more complicated because of other factors, which often play an important part, have to be considered, as religion, politics etc. At the present time some eleven to fourteen languages, not including the extinct ones, can be enumerated which lay claim to be reckoned as distinct tongues. The cause of the uncertainty is that it is impossible to state definitively of several branches of the Slavonic family whether they form an independent nation, or only the dialect and subdivision of another Slavonic nation, and further because often it is impossible to draw the line between one Slavonic people and another. The Great Russians, Poles, Bohemians and Bulgarians are universally admitted to be distinctive Slavonic peoples with distinctive languages. The Little Russians and the White Russians are trying to develop into separate nationalities, indeed the former have now to be recognized as a distinct people, at least this is true of the Ruthenians in Austria-Hungary. The Moravians must be included in the Bohemian nation, because they hold this themselves and no philological, political, or ethnographical reason opposes. The Slovaks of Moravia also consider that they are of Bohemian nationality. About sixty years ago the Slovaks of Hungary began to develop as a separate nation with a separate literary language and must now be regarded as a distinct people. The Lusatian Sorbs also are generally looked upon as a separate people with a distinct language. A division of this little nationality into Upper and Lower Lusatians has been made on account of linguistic, religious, and political differences; this distinction is also evident in the literary language, consequently some scholars regard the Lusatians as two different peoples. The remains of the languages of the former Slavonic inhabitants of Pomerania, the Sloventzi, or Kasube are generally regarded at present as dialects of Polish, though some distinguished Polish scholars maintain the independence of the Kasube language. The conditions in the south are even more complicated. Without doubt the Bulgarians are a separate nationality, but it is difficult to draw the line between the Bulgarians and the Serbian peoples, especially in Macedonia. Philologically the Croats and Serbs must be regarded as one nation; politically, however, and ethnographically they are distinct peoples. The population of Southern Dalmatia, the Moslem population of Bosnia, and probably also the inhabitants of some parts of Southern Hungary, and of Croatia cannot be assigned to a definite group. Again, the nationality and extent of the Slovenes living in the eastern Alps and on the Adriatic coast cannot be settled without further investigation. From a philological point of view the following fundamental principles must be taken for guidance. The Slavonic world in its entire extent presents philologically a homogeneous whole without sharply defined transitions or gradations. When the Slavs settled in the localities at present occupied by them they were a mass of tribes of closely allied tongues that changed slightly from tribe to tribe. Later historical development, the appearance of Slavonic kingdoms, the growth of literary languages, and various civilizing influences from without have aided in bringing about the result that sharper distinctions have been drawn in certain places, and that distinct nationalities have developed in different localities. Where these factors did not appear in sufficient number the boundaries are not settled even now, or have been drawn only of late. The Slavonic peoples can be separated into the following groups on the basis of philological differences: The eastern or Russian group; in the south this group approaches the Bulgarian; in the northwest the White Russian dialects show an affinity to Polish. The eastern group is subdivided into Great Russian, that is, the prevailing Russian nationality, then Little Russian, and White Russian. The northwestern group. This is subdivided into the Lechish languages and into Slovak, Bohemians, and Sorb tongues. The first sub-division includes the Poles, Kasubes, and Slovintzi, also the extinct languages of the Slavs who formerly extended across the Oder and the Elbe throughout the present Northern Germany. The second division includes the Bohemians, Slovaks, and the Lusatian Sorbs. The Slavs in the Balkans and in the southern districts of the Austro-Hungarians Monarchy are divided philologically into Bulgarians; Stokauans, who include all Serbs, the Slavonic Moslems of Bosnia, and also a large part of the population of Croatia; the Cakauans, who live partly in Dalmatia, Istria, and on the coast of Croatia; the Kajkauans, to whom must be assigned three Croatian countries and all Slovene districts. According to the common opinion that is based upon a combination of philological, political and religious reasons the Slavs are divided into the following nations: Russian, Polish, Bohemian-Slovak, Slovenes, Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians. IV. PRESENT CONDITION A. Russians The Russians live in Russia and the northeastern part of Austria-Hungary. They form a compact body only in the southwestern part of the Russian Empire, as in the north and east they are largely mixed with Finnish and Tatar populations. In Austria the Little Russians inhabit Eastern Galicia and the northern part of Bukowina; in Hungary they lice in the eastern part on the slopes of the Carpathians. Scattered colonies of Little Russians or Ruthenians are also to be found in Slavonia and Bosnia among the southern Slavs, in Bulgaria, and in the Dobrudja. In Asia Western Siberia is Russian, Central Siberia has numerous Russians colonies, while Eastern Siberia is chiefly occupied by native tribes. There are Russians, however, living in the region of the Amur River, and on the Pacific as well as on the Island of Saghalien. Turkestan and the Kirghiz steppes have native populations with Russian colonies in the cities. There are large numbers of Russian emigrants, mostly members of sects, in Canada and elsewhere in America. Brazil, Argentina, and the United States have many Little Russian immigrants. There are small Russian colonies in Asia Minor and lately the emigration has also extended to Africa. According to the Russian census of 1897 there were in the Russian Empire 83,933,567 Russians, that is, 67 percent of the entire population of the empire. Allowing for natural increase, at the present (1911) time there are about 89 millions. In 1900 there were in Austria 3,375,576 Ruthenians, in Hungary 429,447. Consequently in 1900 the total number of Russians could be reckoned at about 93 million persons. This does not include the Russian colonists in other countries; moreover, the numbers given by the official statistics of Austria-Hungary may be far below reality. Classified by religion the Russian Slavs are divided as follows: in Russian Orthodox, 95.48 percent; Old Believers 2.59 per cent; Catholics 1.78 per cent; Protestants .05 percent; Jews .08 per cent; Moslems .01 per cent; in Austria-Hungary Byzantine Catholics, 90.6 percent, the Eastern Orthodox, 8 percent. In the Russian Empire, excluding Finland and Poland, 77.01 percent are illiterates; in Poland, 69.5 percent; Finland and the Baltic provinces with the large German cities show a higher rate of literacy. The Russians are divided into Great Russians, Little Russians or inhabitants of the Ukraine, and White Russians. In 1900 the relative numbers of these three divisions were approximately: Great Russians, 59,000,000; White Russians, 6,2000,000; Little Russians, 23,700,000. In addition there are 3,8000,000 Little Russians in Austria-Hungary, and 5000,000 in America. The Russian official statistics are naturally entirely too unfavourable to the White Russians and the Little Russians; private computations of the Little Russian scholars give much higher results. Hrusevskij found that the Little Russians taken altogether numbered 34,000,000; Karskij calculated that the White Russians numbered 8,000,000. A thousand years of historical development, different influences of civilization, different religious confessions, and probably also the original philological differentiation have caused the Little Russians to develop as a separate nation, and to-day this fact must be taken as a fixed factor. Among the White Russians the differentiation has not developed to so advances a stage, but the tendency exists. In classifying the Little Russians three different types can be again distinguished: the Ukrainian, the Podolian-Galician, and the Podlachian. Ethnographically interesting as the Little Russian or Ruthenian tribes in the Carpathians, the Lemci, Boici, and Huzuli (Gouzouli). The White Russians are divided into two groups; ethnographically the eastern group is related to the Great Russians; the western to the Poles. B. Poles The Poles represent the northwestern branch of the Slavonic race. From the very earliest times they have lived in their ancestral regions between the Carpathians, the Oder, and the North Sea. A thousand years ago Boleslaw the Brave united all the Slavonic tribes living in these territories into a Polish kingdom. This kingdom which reached its highest prosperity at the close of the Middle Ages, then gradually declined and, at the close of the eighteenth century, was divided by the surrounding powers -- Russia, Prussia, and Austria. In Austria the Poles form the population of Western Galicia and are in a large minority throughout Eastern Galicia; in Eastern Galicia the population of the cities particularly is preponderantly Polish, as is also a large part of the population of a section of Austrian Silesia, the district of Teschin. The Poles are largely represented in the County of Zips in Hungary and less largely in other Hungarian counties which border on Western Galicia. There is a small Polish population in Bukowina. In Prussia the Poles live in Upper Silesia, from a large majority of the inhabitants of the Province of Posen, and also inhabit the districts of Dantzic and Marienwerder in West Prussia, and the southern parts of East Prussia. In Russia the Poles from 71.95 percent of the population in the nine provinces formed from the Polish kingdom. In addition they live in the neighbouring district of the Province of Grodno and form a relatively large minority in Lithuania and in the provinces of White and Little Russia, where they are mainly owners of large estates and residents of cities. According to the census of 1900 the Poles in Russia numbered about 8,400,000; in Austria, 4,259,150, in Germany, including the Kasubes and Mazurians, 3,450,200; in the rest of Europe about 55,000; and in America about 1,500,00; consequently altogether, 17,664,350. Czerkawski reckoned the total number of Poles to be 21,111,374; Straszewicz held that they numbered from 18 to 19,000,000. As regards religion the Poles of Russia are almost entirely Catholic; in Austria 83.4 per cent are Catholics, 14.7 percent are Jews, and 1.8 per cent are Protestants; in Germany they are also almost entirely Catholics, only the Mazurians in East Prussia and a small portion of the Kasubes are Protestant. Ethnographically the Polish nation is divided into three groups: the Great Poles live in Posen, Silesia, and Prussia; the Little Poles on the upper Vistula as far as the San River and in the region of the Tatra mountains; the Masovians east of the Vistula and along the Narva and the Bug. The Kasubes could be called a fourth group. All these groups can be subdivided again into a large number of branches, but the distinctions are not so striking as in Russia and historical tradition keeps all these peoples firmly united. The Kasubes live on the left bank of the Vistula from Dantzic to the boundary of Pomerania and to the sea. According to government statistics in 1900 there were in Germany 100,213 Kasubes. The very exact statistics of the scholar Ramult gives 174,831 Kasubes for the territory where they live in large bodies, and 200,000 for a total including those scattered through Germany, to which should be added a further 130,000 in America. According to the latest investigation the Kasubes are what remains of the Slavs of Pomerania who are, otherwise, long extinct. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-May-2005 at 12:48
|
C. Lusatian Sorbs The Lusatian Sorbs are the residue of the Slavs of the Elbe who once spread across the Oder and Elbe, inhabiting the whole of the present Germany. During centuries of combat with the Germans their numbers gradually decreased. They are divided into three main groups: the Obotrites who inhabited the present Mecklenburg, Lneburg, and Holstein whence they extended into the Old Mark; the Lutici or Veltae, who lived between the Oder and Elbe, the Baltic and the Varna; the Sorbs, who lived on the middle course of the Elbe between the Rivers Havel and Bober. The Lutici died out on the Island of Rgen at the beginning of the fifteenth century. In the middle of the sixteenth century there were still large numbers of Slavs in Lneburg and in the northern part of the Old Mark, while their numbers were less in Mecklenburg and in Brandenburg. However, even in Lneburg the last Slavs disappeared between 1750-60. Only the Lusatian Sorbs who lived nearer the borders of Bohemia have been able to maintain themselves in declining numbers until the present time. The reason probably is that for some time their territory belonged to Bohemia. At present the Lusatian Sorbs numbers about 150,000 persons on the upper course of the Spree. They are divided into two groups, which differ so decidedly from each other in speech and customs that some regard them as two peoples; they also have two separate literatures. They are rapidly becoming Germanized, especially in Lower Lusatia. The Lusatian Sorbs are Catholics with exception of 15,000 in Upper Lusatia. D. Bohemians and Slovaks The Bohemians and Slovaks also belong to the northwestern branch of the Slavonic peoples. They entered the region now constituting Bohemia from the north and then spread farther into what is now Moravia and Northern Hungary, and into the present Lower Austria as far as the Danube. The settlements of the Slovaks in Hungary must have extended far towards the south, perhaps as far as Lake Platten, where they came into contact with the Slovenes who belonged to the southern Slavonic group. Probably, however, they did not formerly extend as far towards the east as now, and the Slovaks in the eastern portion of Slovakia are really Ruthenians who were Slovakanized in the late Middle Ages. Directly after their settlement in these countries the Bohemians fell apart into a great number of tribes. One tribe, which settled in the central part of the present Bohemia, bore the name of Czechs. It gradually brought all the other tribes under its control and gave them its name, so that since then the entire people have been called Czechs. Along with this name, however, the name Bohemians has also been retained; it comes from the old Celtic people, the Boii, who once lived in these regions. Soon, however, German colonies sprang up among the Bohemians or Czechs. The colonists settled along the Danube on the southern border of Bohemia and also farther on in the Pannonian plain. However, these settlements disappeared during the storm of the Magyar incursion. The Bohemians did not suffer from it as they did from the later immigrations of German colonists who brought into the country by the Bohemian rulers of the native Premsylidian dynasty. These colonists lived through the mountains which encircle Bohemia and large numbers of them settled also in the interior of the country. From the thirteenth century the languages of Bohemia and Moravia became distinct tongues. The Bohemians have emigrated to various countries outside of Bohemia-Moravia. In America there are about 800,000 Bohemians; there are large Bohemian colonies in Russian in the province of Volhynia, also in the Crimea, in Poland, and in what is called New Russia, altogether numbering 50,385. In Bulgaria there are Bohemian colonies in Wojewodovo and near Plevna; there is also a Bohemian colony in New Zealand. Nearly 400,000 Bohemians live at Vienna, and there are large numbers of Bohemians in the cities of Linz, Pesth, Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, Triest; there are smaller, well-organized Bohemian colonies in nearly all Austrian cities, besides large Bohemian colonies in Hungary and Slavonia. In the last-mentioned country there are 31,581 Bohemians. These settlements are modern. The Slovaks occupy the southeastern part of Moravia and the northeastern part of Hungary from the Carpathians almost to the Danube. But there are scattered settlements of Slovaks far into the Hungarian plain and even in Southern Hungary, besides colonies of Slovaks in Slavonia. On account of the barreness of the soil of their native land many Slovaks emigrate to America. According to the Austrian census of 1900 there were 5,955,297 Bohemians in Austria. The numbers may be decidedly higher. In Germany there were 115,000 Bohemians, ; in Hungary 2,019,641 Slovaks and 50,000 Bohemians; in America there are at least 800,000 Bohemians; in Russia 55,000; in the rest of Europe 20,000. Consequently taking all Bohemians and Slovaks together there are probably over 9,000,000. If, as is justifiable, the figures for America, Vienna, Moravia, Silesia, and Hungary are considered entirely too low, a maximum of about 10,000,000 may be accepted. As to religion 96.5 percent of the Bohemians are Catholics, and 2.4 percent are Protestants; 70.2 per cent of t the Slovaks are Catholics, 5.3 percent are Byzantine Catholics, and 23 percent are Protestants. E. Slovenes The Slovenes belong, together with the Croats, Serbs, and Bulgarians, to the southern group of Slavs. The Slovenes have the position farther to the west in the Alps and on the Adriatic. They first appeared in this region after the departure of the Lombards for Italy and the first date in their history in 595, when they fought an unsuccessful battle with the Bavarian Duke Tassilo on the field of Roblach. They occupied at first a much larger territory than at present. They extended along the Drave as far as the Tyrol, reaching the valleys of the Rivers Riem and Eisack; they also occupied the larger part of what is now Upper Austria, Lower Austria as far as the Danube, and from the district of the Lungau in Southern Salzburg through Carinthia, Carniola, Styria, the crownland of Grz-Gradiska, and a large part of Friuli. Under German supremacy the territory occupied by them has grown considerable less in the course of the centuries. They still maintain themselves only in Carniola, in the northern part of Istria, about Grz, and in the vicinity of Triest, in the mountainous districts north of Udine in Italy, in the southern part of Carinthia and Styria, and in the Hungarians countries bordering on the farther side of the Mur River. Carinthia is becoming rapidly Germanized, and the absorption of the other races in Hungary constantly advances. According to the census of 1900 there were 1,192,780 Slovenes in Austria, 94,993 in Hungary, 20,987 in Croatia and Slavonia, probably 37,000 in Italy, in America 100,000 and 20,000 in other countries. There are, taking them altogether, probably about 1,5000,000 Slovenes int he world; 99 percent of them are Catholics. F. Croats and Serbs In speech the Croats and Serbs are one people; they have the same literary language, but use different characters. The Croats write with the Latin characters and the Serbs with the Cyrillic. They have been separated into two peoples by religion, political development, and different forms of civilization; the Croats came under the influence of Latin civilization, the Serbs under that of the Byzantines. After the migration the warlike tribe of the Croats gained the mastery over the Slavonic tribes then living in the territory between the Kulpa and the Drave, the Adriatic and the River Cetina, in Southern Dalmatia. They founded the Croat Kingdom on the remains of Latin civilization and with Roman Catholicism as their religion. Thus the Croat nation appeared. It was not until a later date that the tribes living to the south and east began to unite politically under the old Slavonic name of Serbs, and in this region the Serbian nation developed. Decided movements of the population came about later, being caused especially by the Turkish wars. The Serbian settlements, which originally followed only a southeastern course, now turned in an entirely opposite direction to the northeast. The original home of the Serbs was abandoned largely to the Albanians and Turks; the Serbs emigrated to Bosnia and across Bosnia to Dalmatia and even to Italy, where Slavonic settlements still exist in Abruzzi. Others crossed the boundaries of the Croat Kingdom and settled in large numbers in Serbia and Slavonia, also in Southern Hungary, where the Austrian Government granted them religious and national autonomy and a patriarch of their own. Some of the Serbs settled here went to Southern Russia and founded there what is called the New Serbia in the Government of Kherson. Consequently, the difference between the Croats and the Serbs consists not in the language but mainly in the religion, also in the civilization, history, and in the form of handwriting. But all these characteristic differences are not very marked, and thus there are districts and sections of population which cannot be easily assigned to one or the other nation, and which both peoples are justified in claiming. Taking Serbs and Croats together there are: in Austria 711,382; in Hungary and Croatia, 2,839,016; in Bosnia and Herzegovina, probably 1,7000,000; in Montenegro, 350,000; in Serbia 2,298,551; Old Serbia and Macedonia, 350,000; Albania and the vilayet of Scutari, about 100,000; Italy 5000; Russia 2000; America and elsewhere, 300,000. In addition there are about 108,000 Schokzians, Bunjevzians, and Krashovanians, Serbo-Croatian tribes in Hungary who were not included with these in the census. Consequently the number of this bipartite people may by reckoned approximately as 8,700,000 persons. According to Serbian computation there are about 2,300,000 Croats in Austria-Hungary; the Croats reckon their number as over 2,700,000. The controversy results from the uncertainty as to the group to which the Bosnian Moslems and the above-mentioned Schokzians, Bunjevzians, and Krashovanians, as well as the population of Southern Dalmatia, belong. As to religion, the Serbs are almost exclusively Eastern Orthodox, the Croats Catholic, the great majority of the inhabitants of Southern Dalmatia are Catholic, but many consider themselves as belonging to the Serbian nation. The branches in Hungary mentioned above are Catholic; it is still undecided whether to include them among the Croats or Serbs. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-May-2005 at 12:49
|
G. Bulgarians The Slavonic tribes living in ancient Roman Mosia and Thrace south of the Danube and southeast of the Serbs as far as the Black Sea came under the sway of the Turanian tribe of the Bulgars, which established the old Kingdom of Bulgaria in this region as early as the second half of the seventh century. The conquerors soon began to adopt the language and customs of the subjugated people, and from this intermixture arose the Bulgarian people. The historical development was not a quiet and uniform one; there were continual migrations and remigration, conquests and inter- mingling. When the Slavs first entered the Balkan peninsula they spread far beyond their present boundaries and even covered Greece and the Peloponnesus, which seemed about to become Slavonic. However, thanks to their higher civilization and superior tactics, the Greeks drove back the Slavs. Still, Slavonic settlements continued to exist in Greece and the Peloponnesus until the late Middle Ages. The Greeks were aided by the Turkish conquest, and the Slavs were forced to withdraw to the limit that is still maintained. The Turks then began to force back the Slavonic population in Macedonia and Bulgaria and to plant colonies of their own people in certain districts. The chief aim of the Turkish colonization was always to obtain strategic points and to secure the passes over the Balkans. The Slavonic population also began to withdraw from the plains along the Danube where naturally great battles were often fought, and which were often traversed by the Turkish army. A part emigrated to Hungary, where a considerable number of Bulgarian settlements still exist; others journeyed to Bessarabia and South Russia. After the liberation of Bulgaria the emigrants began to return and the population moved again from the mountains into the valleys, while large numbers of Turks and Circassians went back from liberated Bulgaria to Turkey. On the other hand the emigration from Macedonia is still large. Owing to these uncertain conditions, and especially on account of the slight investigation of the subject in Macedonia, it is difficult to give the size of the Bulgarian population even approximately. In approximate figures the Bulgarians number: in the Kingdom of Bulgaria, 2,864,735; Macedonia, 1,200,000; Asia Minor, 600,000; Russia, 180,000; Rumania, 90,000; in other countries 50,000, hence there are altogether perhaps over 5,000,000. In Bulgaria there are besides the Bulgarian population, 20,644 Pomaks, that is Moslems who speak Bulgarian, 1516 Serbs, 531,217 Turks, 9862 Gagauzi (Bulgarians who speak Turkish), 18,874 Tatars, 66,702 Greeks in cities along the coast, 89,563 Gypsies, and 71,023 Rumanians. The kingdom, therefore, is not an absolutely homogeneous nationality. In religion the Bulgarians are Eastern Orthodox with the exception of the Pomaks, already mentioned, and of the Paulicians who are Catholics. The Bulgarians are divided into a number of branches and dialects; it is often doubtful whether some of these subdivisions should not be included among the Serbs. This is especially the case in Macedonia, consequently all enumerations of the population differ extremely from one another. If, on the basis of earlier results, the natural annual growth of the Slavonic populations is taken as 1.4 percent, it may be claimed that there were about 156-157 million Slavs in the year 1910. In 1900 all Slavs taken together numbered approximately 136,500,000 persons divided thus: Russians, 94,000,000; Poles, 17,500,000; Lusatian Serbs, 150,000; Bohemians and Slovaks, 9,800,000; Slovenes, 1,500,000; Serbo-Croats, 8,550,000; Bulgarians, 5,000,000. LEOPOLD LNARD Transcribed by Angela Meady The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV Copyright 1912 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright 1999 by Kevin Knight ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 26-May-2005 at 18:27
| Why the hell are you copying and pasting here the whole catholic encyclopedia with the info from year 1912? Since that time really much research has been done. |
Posted By: Beowulf
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 10:21
Every valid historical source tells that Bulgars are Turks. And who is that "historian" that you speak of? Is his theory internationaly acclaimed? Not one single source says that Bulgars could be of Iranian origin. Can you back up your theory with some linguistical, ethnological or any other kind of data? I personally think that that theory is an attempt to escape from your ancestry. |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 14:03
Explain me why those Bulgarian kings had Turkic names and their military ranking-names where Turkic? ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Beowulf
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 14:12
|
Posted By: Jay.
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 16:18
|
Serbia & Montenegro, Bosnia & Hergzovina, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Kosovo, Russia. All that I can think of. Even though I am Slavic  ------------- Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava Only Unity Can Save the Serb |
Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 03:38
Jay, I assume that you're a Serb, and I if so I find it surprising that you don't include Kosovo as Serbian property. |
Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 03:39
| ...oh and you forgot Bulgaria and Macedonia. |
Posted By: Beowulf
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 12:12
|
You've been brainwashed by Canadians |
Posted By: HistoryGuy
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 18:21
Why is most of Poland Pakistani Kashimiri (according to Mosquito's map)? ------------- هیچ مردی تا به حال به شما درباره خدا گفته. |
Posted By: Jay.
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 18:26
LOL!! True.. ------------- Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava Only Unity Can Save the Serb |
Posted By: Jay.
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 18:27
|
HistoryGuy did you have a site on history of Yugoslavia? Because I think I've read it. ------------- Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava Only Unity Can Save the Serb |
Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 05:35
That's because the people who live in both areas have similar genes, believe it or not. It's one of the amazing discoveries of modern genetic research. On the other hand, it should not be too surprising, because it just confirms the evidence that exists in the historical record of peoples migrating across the Eurasian steppes in ancient times.  |
Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 06:04
|
Taking Serbs and Croats together there are: in Austria 711,382; in Hungary This numbers are not valid...Example-nearly in USA ther's over 1000000 Serbs... |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 06:09
If you're talking about R1a Y-chr haplogroup, it seems now, as genetic studies are becoming more precise that the group is original from Southern Asia, together with several other groups. It seems that that region was very central in Eurasian diversification in general. This doesn't mean that some of the genes haven't travelled aboard steppary horse-riders but it doesn't seem the main reason regarding India and Pakistan. ------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Surbel
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 07:12
|
Beautiful study from stanford, "The Euroasian Heartland:A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity." http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/PNAS_2001_v98_p10244.p df ------------- When your heart is empty,your mind is worth nothing. anonimus |
Posted By: GoldenBlood
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 12:18
100.000 in Albania 350.000 Macedonia Montenegro 350.000 In Kosova have 60.000 serbs In Croatia dont have ani serbs In Sanxhak have 150.000 serbs ECT... it is really |
, In Madedonia have 1% serbs under 30.000
Posted By: Beowulf
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 15:45
What can't you believe? In Croatia there are Serbs. Britannica says: "In addition to the Croats (more than three-quarters of the population) and the Serbs (less than one-eighth)". Today in Croatia live at least 200.000 Serbs. |
Posted By: GoldenBlood
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 18:39
|
Beowulf had in 1992-1993 but today have not serbs in Croatia And this britanica while you read, is old but in Croatia today in 2006 not have serbs, 98% are croats and others bosniaks, albanians, slovens ect. |
Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 18:49
|
you can check at wikipedia...And yes, in 1991 1/8 of all of Croatia's population were Serbs...Today ther's about 202000...Montenegro is a different issue... |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 19:18
I am sure that some could have Turkish blood in them but many do have Slavic and pre Slavic ancestry but the latter could be a whole range of racial mixes and not just Illyrian. Latin as well but I do not have my sources with me for now. They are mixed like the rest of the Balkan peoples. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 19:36
|
The Bulgarian nobility during medieval times was that of Bulgar Turk, but the vast bulk of the people in the Bulgar nation were Slavic or pre-Slavic. In the case of Bulgaria, the aristocracy became integrated into the Slavic culture, not the other way around. It is very similar to the Norman invasions of Britain, the aristoracy may have been Norman-French but the nation as a whole remained composed of their previous ethnic identity. Over time, the tiny aristocracy adapted to become part of their subjects' kingdom. ------------- |
Posted By: GoldenBlood
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 19:40
Please stop you propaganda...albanians are unique race: dinaric and alpin...but look you greeks are mis albaniano-turks-sllav-hebrenj-bulgar... |
Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 20:06
|
|
Posted By: Beowulf
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2006 at 08:21
|
What are you saying? Can someone translate this for me? What is hebrenj and what is sllav or mis? I feel like like I'm in a semantic hell!
|
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2006 at 08:38
You stop your racist propaganda: there's no such thing as a pure race, much less in such a transited region as the Balcans. Besides Eaglecap is not even Greek. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2006 at 09:04
|
I want to make a point about these STUPID pie charts (I have already made in anotehr topic)... All they do is tell us that there is a common male ancestor, I will give an example... If a German with R1b had a baby boy with a Chinese female 400 years ago, the son would look half white and half Chinese and would carry the R1b marker, if this boy had a son with a Chinese female too, the boy would carry R1b but would look almost competely Chinese. This father - son R1b inheritance could continue until the end of time or unless the boy is killed before he reproduces or does not reproduce (male offspring). Suppose this German male also had male offspring in Germany at the same time, does this mean that the people in China and Germany with R1a are the same race? Definately not. Every male carries the same marker as his father, unless he himself is a mutation.
------------- |
Posted By: GoldenBlood
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2006 at 11:38
hahaha ok sorry guys Eaglecap, whom say have turkish blood and slavic...Bulgarian? or Albanian? |
Posted By: RomiosArktos
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2006 at 12:01
|
Bulgarians are definitely a slavic people and Serbs are also Slavs.What
matters most is the culture.The culture of Bulgaria is predominantly
slavic.When we say Bulgars,we refer to the Turanic people but when we
say Bulgarians we mean the mixture of the Bulgars,the slavs and the
pre-Bulgar and pre-slavic population into one nation.The nation of the
Bulgarians was formed in the medieval times and all the non slavic
racial groups were assimilated by the numerous Slavs,throughout the
centuries.So,as far as I know Bulgarians are a slavic nation,although
it is different from other slavic nations,the Serbs for example,due to
the different substratum,linguistic or racial. The Albanians are not a slavic nation,although they were influenced by them.These influences can be seen in the language. |
Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 10:47
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 11:22
|
What exactly is Slavic, how do i tell if someone is Slavic or not. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-May-2006 at 11:41
 These Albanians dont really look that ethnic. Someone said they arent Slavic, why not?? ------------- |
Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 06:06
|
Because Albanian language and customs aren't slavic...
What exactly is Slavic, how do i tell if someone is Slavic or not.
You can't - until you hear the language-slavic peoples have vey diverse appearances...slavic is not a racial term-more like linguistical\cultural one... ------------- "It's better to be a billionair for a lifetime then to live in poverty for a week" Bob Rock |
Posted By: Arbr Z
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 07:28
|
[
These Albanians dont really look that ethnic. Someone said they arent Slavic, why not?? [/QUOTE]
How should ethnic albanians look like? The pictures you provided show us some common albanian features (in the faces). Now, of course in the balkans and everywhere else people mixed between them (interbreed or whatever you like to call it). But the point of belonging to a nation should be more related to that nations culture.
Anyway, if the serbians or the greeks look like the albanians, it doesnt only mean that they mixed between them (this fact might look offending to some of those nations), but it suggests also that they might have derived from some common ancestor. ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 09:50
|
mmmm im not quite sure how Albanians should look. But i thought Slavic was a racial sub group. ------------- |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 30-May-2006 at 18:32
First of all in a nation there isn't only one or two common phenotypes. Common ancestry doesn't mean that all people are brunets or blondish. Especially in Balkans I think that the admixture is not so extensive as some people say so the DNA of the peoples hasn't change(apart from the Bulgars who were slavicised regarding their culture as well as their gene pool but it happened in the byzantine times and now they are a slavic nation). Greeks, Albanians, Slavs don't look like each other.
Here in Greece, we can easily understand if someone is anything else but Greek. Albanians, Slavs, Greeks differ.
------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Arbr Z
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 11:34
First of all in a nation there isn't only one or two common phenotypes. Common ancestry doesn't mean that all people are brunets or blondish. Especially in Balkans I think that the admixture is not so extensive as some people say so the DNA of the peoples hasn't change(apart from the Bulgars who were slavicised regarding their culture as well as their gene pool but it happened in the byzantine times and now they are a slavic nation). Greeks, Albanians, Slavs don't look like each other.
Here in Greece, we can easily understand if someone is anything else but Greek. Albanians, Slavs, Greeks differ.
How can you understand somebody is albanian?Pleas, tell me some physical characteristics of the albanian people. ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: steven
Date Posted: 31-May-2006 at 12:02
|
The fact is that we all like to think we're quite different, but Greeks blend with their neighbours like everyone else for the simple reason that invading armies are very horny. |
Posted By: dorian
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 06:07
|
Oh my God...!!!!!!!! ------------- "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 06:12
|
Dorian whats the problem, why the omg??? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 09:28
| its funny how discussion about slavs turned into discussion about albanians :D |
Posted By: Onkel_Wowa
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 15:09
|
" What exactly is Slavic, how do i tell if someone is Slavic or not. "
Heard from one linguist: If they call 100 - "sto", they are Slavic.
|
Posted By: arras
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 13:27
|
"You can't - until you hear the language-slavic peoples have vey diverse
appearances...slavic is not a racial term-more like
linguistical\cultural one... " "mmmm im not quite sure how Albanians should look. But i thought Slavic was a racial sub group." Slavic is racial term ...since it referes to people with the same origins and Slavs are racial sub group ...at last as much as I understant it. Term refers to people of the same genetic, language and cultural origin. They shared the same religion, same language, teritory and same ancestors. Of course today there are much greather diferencies between them than in 6th ct. for obvious reasons. " " What exactly is Slavic, how do i tell if someone is Slavic or not. " Heard from one linguist: If they call 100 - "sto", they are Slavic."
...that is simplification but may help. Slavic are Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovinians, Chorvats, Serbs, Bosniaks, people of Montenegro, Macedonians, Bulgarians. There was strong group of Slavic people in Germany which we call Luzica Serbs but they are non existant anymore probably. ...there is even something you can call "Slavic mentality" with some level of simplification |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 08:59
|
The Slavic peoples are the dominant people in Europe right now..
The first time they appeared was in the 6.century.. The Roman records never mention about them...So their very past is a mystery..But one thing is for sure: The Slavic Nations are a dynamic people.
What distinguishes The Slavic Nations among themselves is by where they were christianized from.
the Western Slavic Nations, Czech Republic,Slovakia,Poland were christianized by Rome and therefore catholics..They use Latin letters,and more individualistic societies in comprasion to their counterpants in the East. Their post-communist transformation was easier and more adaptable for the societies than the ones The Eastern Slavic Nations went through.
The Eastern Slavic Nations, Russia,Ukraine,Byelarussia were christianized by Istanbul,and hence Orthodox peoples. They use different letters which contributed their separateion from the rest of the Europe. The Eastern Slavic people make up a more collectivist society than the western slavic nations make up. It this respect,I think,it should be known that the Eastern Orhodoxy made Russia more likely to accept communism in comprasion to the western Europe.
The southern slavs are those people who had established Yugoslavia-''The Kingdom of Southern Slavs''. They were also christianized by Istanbul. Hence they are also orthdox peoples. But also Muslim slavs exist,as we see in the example of The Bosnians. Before the Ottoman Rule, The only strong state establied by the Southern Slavs was the empire of Stefan Dushan. ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: NikeBG
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 05:15
|
Diplomat, I have to correct some things: First, it's well known (and I believe it was already mentioned in this thread) that the Romans do have records of some Slavic tribes, which they called Venedi (which was later used for all Western Slavs, while Antes was used for Eastern Slavs and Slavini - for Southern ones). Second, the Western Slavs were indeed converted by Rome and became Catholics, writing with the Latin alphabet. But I wouldn't say they're much more individualistic than the other Slavs. F.e. we, the Bulgarians, are also very individualistic as persons, especially today. Third, the Eastern Slavs were christianized not by Istanbul, but by Constantinople (same city, but different names with different meanings today). And these "different letters" have a name and that's Cyrillic alphabet. Which by chance happens to be "invented" in 9th century Bulgaria (and not from the saint brothers Cyril and Methodius (as most people think), which created the Glagolitic alphabet, but presumably by their disciple St. Clement of Ohrid). And the fact that the Eastern Slavs were converted with old-Bulgarian/old-Slavonic alphabet, writing and books should bring up the question: "Who did Basil II send to convert the Rus: Greek or Bulgarian monks?" Anway... As for the Eastern Slavs' collectivism, I can't really say, as I'm not so familiar with them. Fourth, you made a mistake, which we studied in the Logic classes in 9th grade: "Yugoslavia (or South-Slavia on English) was indeed established by Southern Slavs, but not all Southern Slavs established Yugoslavia". And - yes, the Southern Slavs were also christianized by Byzantium, although in times there were negotiations with the popes (and a union in the early 13c.; btw I wonder what would've happened if we had chosen Rome). But before the Ottoman conquest, there were actually two great South Slavic states - one of them was indeed Stefan Dushan's Serbia. But the other one and, I might say, even mightier was Bulgaria, which is also South-Slavic. And at times Croatia was also an influential country, although it never reached the imperial status, as Bulgaria and Serbia. Back on-topic: So you (people) say that the Slavs are not so much racial, rather more linguistic group? Well, that would explaing why most of us are Mediterranean looking rather than Germanic. And also to some degree it could back up all those genetic researches. But if we are Slavs mainly by language, traditions etc., what are we (South Slavs) by ethnos? Because I could hardly believe that the Bulgarians are 60% or 40% Thracians by genes, as these researches say. Not to mention that this contradicts absolutely every historiography, unofficial or official (for which some people care about so much - it must be official and world-acknowledged). Because, while official world historiography is still back on the disputable Turkic thesis for the Bulgar's origin, ALL historiographies undisputably say that the present South Slavs are Slavs, which have replaced the ancient populations of their lands, i.e. we're not Thracians. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 07:12
|
Russians, Poles, Czechs+central European Slavs look more Germanic than Medditeranean. I think so anyway. ------------- |
Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 07:53
| I think they (Russians, Poles, cent. Euro. Slavs) look neither Germanic nor Mediterranean, but rather like something different altogether. I ought to know; I'm one of them. |
Posted By: tsar
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 12:17
we r not slavicized turks, those people were assimilated when they mixed heaviy with the slavs on the balkans, they are thought to have been of turkic origin but not even that is certain. |
Posted By: tsar
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 12:25
|
Posted By: arras
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 13:19
|
The Diplomat >> in which way are Slavic people dominant in Europe? ...for sure not poloticali and economicaly... Also western Slavs were also christianized by Konstantinople. Dont forget Ciril and Method. Only in 10th century they finaly fell to Roman catholic influence. But you are in general right about diferences. NikeBG>> to my knoweledge, Slavini (Sclavini) were those who settled in the western and northern Europe and Ants settled in Balkans. wasnt Cirilic developed from Glagolic by students of Ciril and Method when they were exiled from Great Morava? And I have question for all, what have Slavs to do with Illyrians and Sarmathians? I found some sources refering to Slavic people as Illyrians or Sarmatians. |
Posted By: Simona
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 16:42
I think I can answer the Illyrian part: The time of the constituting of the Pan-Slavic idea was also (roughly) the time of intense research on the Illyrian culture. The supposed Illyrian area's extent diversed depending on the researcher. Some archaeologists and linguists of the nineteenth century believed that Illyrians had inhabited half of Europe, others would be more moderate in their assumptions, but the supposed Illyrian area never shrank below the territory of what was to become Yugoslavia (and of course Albania, but we're discussing the Illyrian-Slavic connection here). This came handy to promotors of the Pan-Slavic/Yugoslav idea who emphasised that Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenes, Montenegrians and Macedonians all share common cultural ancestry, i.e. Illyrian. This was a romantic and appealing idea at the time. All around former Yugoslavia we still have hotels, halls, parks, streets that bear the name Ilirija. When I went to school we would learn about "Celts and Illyrians that had inhabited the territory of Slovenia before Slavs". After 1991 this changed to "Celts that had inhabited the territory of Slovenia before Slavs". Our archaelogists find out that we can't really be certain if there ever were any Illyrians in present-day Slovenia. |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 12:09
Hi Simona.
What about the theory that the Venetics were the ancestors of Slovenian people?
Where in Slovenia are you from? Just curious to know
 |
Posted By: Death
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 23:40
|
You call us slav(e)s! What about Shocs and Bunys?Arent they slavic too? Most of you guys havent even heard of them,and i guess i havent heard of at least 10 more Slavic groups, but then again we are talking nations.Huh. Albanians arent Slavs,they are Albanians.Bulgars are Bulgars. Dont mess with these too,...lol,...just kidding.Bulgars are more Slavs then Hungarians,that are also not Slavs but Hungarians. Very dificult to say what is what........like saying" who are the Swiss"?Ger,Fra,Ita,right? Right. Look at their flags-mostly red,white and blue(not American,lol),or a combination of 2 of these. |
Posted By: NikeBG
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 09:12
That's an interesting question that you bring up. Because before the Slavic "colonisation" of the Balkans (i.e. during the Slavic raids) both the Southern Slavini and the Eastern Antes raided the peninsula for some time. But, IIRC, Byzantium caused an internal conflict between them (as it had done with the (possibly) Bulgar Kutrigur and Utigur tribes), which basically eliminated the Antes from the game. But, then again, the so called "Old Great Bulgaria" (as it was called by the Byzantines) on the northern side of the Black Sea has most probably bordered with Antes and not Slavinii. Although there are no reports of the Bulgars, bringing to Moesia some Eastern Slavs together with them. About Cyrillic - it's being thought that Cyrillic developed from the Glagolitic and that's probably right. But it was "improved" so much, that today there is basically almost no similarity. I believe there's a thread in the Linguistics section about the Glagolitic and you could see how strange it looks, compared to Cyrillic. And Cyrillic itself was developed in Bulgaria in the second half of the 9th century, but the question is "By who and where?" Most believe that it was by the Bulgarian cleric, disciple of the saints brothers, Saint Clement of Ohrid. But there's also the thesis that it was made by another of the disciples - St. Naum of Preslav. In both cases, it's done in Bulgaria by Bulgarians.  And Slavs have (ethnically) nothing to do with Illyrians and Sarmatians. Some Slavs only settled on ex-Illyrian lands, therefore some of those Slavs claim Illyrian heritage. The other "link" is that some modern Slavs (Bulgarians, Serbs and others) could've mixed in the early middle ages with Sarmatian tribes (of Bulgars, Serbs and others). Edit: And on the question to Diplomat - I think he meant Slavs are dominant in Europe by numbers and territory - nearly whole of Eastern Europe with parts of Central one. Politically and economically - definitely not. ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 13:59
Actually Poles may be related with Sarmatians. For example british historian Norman Davies suggest it. There are some evidences and some customs that might lead to Sarmatians. Especially many coats of arms of polish nobles sarmatian. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 06:12
| There is even evidence in Slavic languages of Sarmatian influence. In Polish, for example, is the title "Pan" which would be the equivalent of "Mr." in English. I read somewhere that it is derived from the Sarmatian word "Ban." |
Posted By: arras
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 11:10
|
Thanks all for repply. Mosquito>> regarding those coats of arms of polish nobles I was reading that it was not more than just that polish nobles declared themself to be of Satmatian origin only to separate themself from common folk they ruled and that whole idea is largelry romantic. The same tendencies can be seen with nobles around whole Europe declaring to be of some diferent, better (ofthen warlike) origin than others, giving them kind of right to rule them. I can give you my source if you are interesting. Scitho-Sarmatian>> Pan mean Mr. in all slavic languages not only polish. |
Posted By: arras
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 11:24
NikeBG>> yes you are right about diferencies. Her is an example
of the Glagolitic script created by Saint Cyril (from wikipedia): |
Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 13:19
Slavs asimilated quite a bit of Illyrians (and Thracians).If not-what happened to them-did they just dissapear? As for Sarmatians, I'd say all Slavs have got at least a bit of their genes. Scytho-sarmatian contacts with Slavs have lasted for many centuries... ------------- "It's better to be a billionair for a lifetime then to live in poverty for a week" Bob Rock |
Posted By: Desperado
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 17:07
I've heard about the slavic tribe SEVERI that came across the Danube with Bulgars as alies. One of the reasons for the successfull integration of various slavic tribes in the Danubian Bulgarian state could be that some of them were already integrated in the Great Bulgaria on the north coast of Black Sea. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2006 at 18:22
Except for the fact that the oldest coats of arms come from times before Polish nobles invented theories about their samratian origin and that those oldest coat of arms looks like sarmatian tamgs or are similar to them. With time those coats were changing its shape but similarities are obvious. I guess you understand that Polish nobles were not archeologists and didnt know how sarmatians tamgs were looking like.
Second thing is the very special system of polish heraldry. Unlike in the western Europe in Poland one coat of arms was shared by hundrieds of famillies who under one sing were going into battle - and that sign, coat of arms was sarmatian in its origin. Some historians claim that Poles are related with Sarmatian tribe of Alans who dissapeared in the forests of eastern Europe in the end of 4th century and begining of 5th.
 ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 03:05
|
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 17:29
|
There are many theories about the origin of Slavs as well as theories about origin of Poles.
The theory about sarmatian origin of Poles has both arguments for and against it.
Strong points of theory of sarmatian origins of Poles:
+ this theory explains the mysterious symbols (tamgs) of Sarmatians in the Polish coats of arms and names of this coats of arms like for example "Chamiec", "Roch", "Mora", "Doliwa", "Jaksa")
+this theory explains the 2-partial names of Slavs and Poles which were present in all Indoeuropean tribes except for Romans but only in slavic languages (especially in Polish) are so strict in its form. Some of those names sound even like being directly translated from Iranian. This was also very typical for Sarmatians.
+ this theory explains the expansion of Slavs in early medieval times, somthing unusual for the people who were settled farmers, it could have been inspired by the nobles of sarmatian origin for whom wandering was more typical than for settled farmers, what would last until the soughtern Slavs were conqured by Awars,
+this theory explains the names of cities and villages in Poland which come from the Iranian language
Now - what is TAMGA. In the culture of steppe people it were the symbols, signs which were weared on the shields and on other items. It was a simplified image of the animal or weapon or somthing like sun, thunder, bird but very simple in its form (look on the picture in my earlier post). In Sarmatian culture one Tamga was shared by big number of famillies or even by the whole tribe. Polish coats of arms dont look similar to the Tamga's of Scandinavians or Hungarians but they look excatly like sarmatian tamgas. In many cases the symbol on the shield of Polish knight was nothing more but exactly a sarmatian Tamga. This is somthing that cannot be find on the coats of arms in any other european country. And notice also the fact that only the earliest polish coats of arms are sarmatian in shape.
The problem is that there is no other theory explaining why polish coats of arms looks like many hundrieds years earlier sarmatian Tamga's and are very different (in fact unique) in Europe.
Afcourse in time Polish coats of arms were changing its shape, after reneissance so much that looked even different. The 11th century polish knight had on his coat sarmatian Tamga but his descendant 500 years later had it symbol which was only more less lokking like that Tamga.
Compare this Tamga and 16th century polish coat of arms:
  And here are other Polish coat of arms of Sarmatian origin, some of them even unchanged, are nothing more but a Sarmatian Tamga on the shields of Polish nobles.
          ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 17:46
|
And here part of the article from WIKIPEDIA:
Although the Polish heraldic system evolved under the influence of French and German heraldry, there are many notable differences. The most striking peculiarity of the system is that a coat of arms does not belong to a single family. A number of unrelated families (sometimes hundreds of them), usually with a number of different family names, may use a coat of arms, and each coat of arms has its own name. The total number of coats of arms in this system was relatively low ca. 200 in the late Middle Ages.
One of the most visually striking characteristics of Polish heraldry is the abundance of gules fields. Among the oldest coats of arms in Poland, nearly half use a red background, with blue (azure) coming in a distant second. Nowhere else in Europe, shows such a strong bias towards a particular color scheme. Other typical features used in Polish heraldry include horseshoes, arrows, Maltese crosses, scythes, stars and crescents. There are also many purely geometrical shapes for which a separate set of heraldic terms was invented. It has been suggested that originally all Polish coats of arms were based on such abstract geometrical shapes, but most were gradually "rationalized" into horseshoes, arrows and so on. If this hypothesis is correct, it suggests in turn that Polish heraldry, again unlike western European heraldry, may be at least partly derived from a kind of rune-like symbols: the Tamgas used by nomadic peoples of the Steppe, such as the Sarmatians or the Avars, to mark property. However, the evidence about the origins of the system is scanty, and this hypothesis has been criticized as being part of the Polish noble tradition of romanticizing their supposed Sarmatian ancestry. On this matter, research and controversy continue. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 18:00
|
I've got no doubts that Poles were influenced heavily by Sarmatians, but Poles speak a slavic language-not iranic + polish culture is undoubtedly slavic, which is to show us that the original Sarmatians were quickly absorbed by the Slavs - like in other parts of slavic world. As somebody already said, the only people that can claim that they're descendants of the Sarmatians are Ossetians.
Btw, are those symbols genuine? I mean-maybe someone ''slightly'' changed them to resemble Sarmatian ones (since I've encountered similar attempts by our Serbian and other "historians''  -although it's got nothing to do with Sarmatians...). Some links would be useful...------------- "It's better to be a billionair for a lifetime then to live in poverty for a week" Bob Rock |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 18:03
These coats of arms are older than theory of sarmatian origin of Poles :)
Lets say it: Polish warior and later knight didnt know about earlier Sarmatians and never heard about them. He also had no idea that the Tamga he is using is sarmatian in its origin.
Affcourse these symbols were changing in time just like i said earlier. But they were changing not to look more like sarmatian Tamga but in opposite way, to look less like Tamga but more like somthing real (they were being rationalised), to look like a cross, horse head, star or crescent or tree.
This symbol:
was changing in this way:
Not in opposite site. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: arras
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2006 at 13:11
|
Mosquito >> well thnks for all that info. It might be true. I was also reding somewhere that Slavs might absorb some big nomadic cultures like Allans, Sarmatians and even Scithians. One thing which should not be forgoten is that all Indo-European nations share the same origin in Asia Minor. Their ancestors once or even several times on their journey to places where they settled finaly came across or were living nex to each other. This include Aryana of India and Iranians too. |
Posted By: Great Khan
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 14:54
| Curently we have countries that claim to be slavs(and they are i think):russians,belarussians,poles,serbs,croats,bosniaks,bulgarians,macedonians,slovenians,slovakians and others.There is no PURE NATION.But generaly we can say that the main part of a nation is a slav and that woud be so.We have comon traditions,language(related not same) so we are slavs.That is what makes us slavs.If more of the russians are blond that is because of the climate.So is with the Bulgarians more of us are with black hair(me to)thats also from the climate.As for the sarmatians they were destroyed by the huns.And i forgot why people from turkey thing that turk is their countrisman.In bulgarian we say to the turk turci and to the turckik tribes like bulgars sarmats magyars we say tiurki.There is a difference. |
Posted By: Jeru
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 16:01
|
I see a lot of people claiming to be Macedonians,to those who do please tell me what this says:
"Aλεξανδρος δε επειδη απεδεξε ως ειη Αργειος, εκριθη τε ειναι Ελλην και αγωνιζομενος σταδιον συνεξεπιπτε τω πρωτω".
I've seen writings of Aristoteles(Macedonian) and they don't look like this at all:
"Оче наш кој си на небото, Excavations in Pella only show greek writings.
By the way i always thought that it was the greek byzantine monks Saints Cyril and Methedius who developed the first writing system for the Slavonic languages,and that your "macedonian" writing and language is one of them.
Sorry for the off topic but i can't ignore propaganda.
|
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 16:12
|
Jeru the Great Khan as Bulgarian propably mean the Slavovic origing inhibants of the Macedonian region. I realize there is a confusion as about this issue but the thread focus for Slavic nations including and the Slavmacedonians. Actually the ministry of the Culture of the FYROM is clear (or want to seem as clear) as about the origin of the Slavonic citizens
Scenes from the Bible are also inbuilt into the mosaics. Georgieva adds that Heraklea remains the challenge to many generations of archeologists and the excavations of archaeological material from the period of Hellenic Macedonians will be of particular importance. Because Macedonian Slavs who settled in these areas where our Macedonian roots originate, necessarily mixed the autochtonous ancient Macedonians.
http://www.culture.in.mk/story.asp?id=3608 - http://www.culture.in.mk/story.asp?id=3608 ------------- 
|
Posted By: Jeru
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 16:29
|
I'm sorry if i didn't understand, it's just that i made a small research and even went to Pella to see the findings and there is nothing logical to support such propaganda. I wasn't referring to Great Khan,i just read all the posts in this thread.
|