Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Poland, original land of legendary Iranian tribes

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Poland, original land of legendary Iranian tribes
    Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 12:05
In Shahnameh we read about the legendary tribes of Kashvadian and Gutarzian, of course Ferdosi considers them as the same tribe, he says the great Iranian hero Gudarz (Gotarzes in Greek sources) was the son of Kashvad, so this tribe/dynasty is called both Kashvadian and Gutarzian, Ferdosi says in the era of Kian (Kingdom Era), after the family of Sam Sakzi (Scythian), the grandfather of Rustam, this is the most important Iranian family, Giv (Pahlavi Viv), son of Gudarz, married the daughter of Rustam, and then became the greatest Iranian hero, after Rustam.
 
I have said many things about ancient Gutian (Gothic) tribe in the south of Luristan in this thread, it is interesting to know the largest city of southern Luristan is Aligudarz (Al-e-Gudarz) which mean "the tribe of Gudarz" in Persian, people of this city consider themselves as the descendants of the legendary Iranian hero Gudarz and call themselves Gudarzi.
 
But about Kashvad, you probably know Kashu/Kassites: http://www.livius.org/k/kassites/kassites.html -> Kassites (Akkadian Kaššu): tribal federation living in the Zagros mountains, in modern Luristan. In the seventeenth century BCE, they threatened Babylonia, which they captured in the fifteenth century.
 
I believe the original land of both Kashvad (Akkadian Kashu) and Gudarz (Old Babylonian Guti) was in the north of Poland (Pomerelia and Pomerania) where Kashubians and Gutars (name of Goths in the Old Norse) lived.
 
Of course it is said Gutars (Goths) first lived in Scandinavia and then a legendary king named Berig or Berigas, according to Jordanes, led his people to Gothiscandza (the Vistula region in modern Pomerania), I think that is in fact the name of a major god, as you read here, Buri was the first god in Norse mythology. He is the father of Borr and grandfather of Odin. And you can read here that Burigas was the war god of the Iranian Kassites.


Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 02-Oct-2010 at 12:09
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 12:52
poland is way to far from iran though
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 15:00
Originally posted by balochii

poland is way to far from iran though
 
They didn't migrate directly to Iran, for almost a long time they settled in a region around the black sea and also the Caspian sea, in fact ancient Caspians were also the same Kashubians, there is almost no doubt that they were also related to Kassites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspians About etymology of Caspian you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea According to Greek historian Strabo, the name 'Caspian' is supposed to have been derived from the Sanskrit word 'Kashyapa' the name of an ancient Indian Sage, as is also believed by the Hindus from India.
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 15:44
Cyrus I think it was an opposite. Not Iranians came from Europe but Europeans - Celts, Germans, Slavs, Balts - came from the area of Iran/Afganistan/Northern India. Thats why they are called Indoeuropeans. Or maybe Im wrong?

Edited by Mosquito - 02-Oct-2010 at 16:57
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 16:10
^ well indo iranians or indo aryans were settled in what is south/central asia, which is today north east iran, northern afghanistan, southern Tajikistan and northern pakistan. This area is mostly likely the orginal home land of aryans, from there they spread in every direction including europe.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 21:03
I seem to have problems with both ideas! First of all, any movers and shakers (massive movements of people via assimilation or war) that came out of the vast forests of most of Europe, hundreds or thousands of years ago, would have built their societies with the most common and most easily shaped elements, and thus they were mostly (except for the great stone circles, and tombs etc.) a wooden society!

That is, their great cities are mostly only the remains of wooden post-holes!

But, for your edification, just think of all of the accounts of cities being burned to the ground in the areas where most buildings were built of stones or blocks of cut stone, or even "concrete?"

Yes, of course the roofs of almost all of these buildings were made of wood! But would that cause the distruction of the entire city?

Or would the inhabitants still left alive only start to re-roof their homes?

But, as always, I could well be wrong!


Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2010 at 09:56
Originally posted by Mosquito

Cyrus I think it was an opposite. Not Iranians came from Europe but Europeans - Celts, Germans, Slavs, Balts - came from the area of Iran/Afganistan/Northern India. Thats why they are called Indoeuropeans. Or maybe Im wrong?
I don't talk about the original land of Indo-European peoples, from this UNKNOWN original land these peoples migrated to different regions and formed different cultures in different periods, one of the most important events in the history of the world was the rise of the first civilizations in the Middle East, maybe we can compare it to Modern USA, this region attracted several peoples from almost all around the world, Indo-Europans were certainly among these peoples, some of them like Hittites preserved their own culture, but some other ones like Mitannians mixed with other peoples and formed new cultures, the most important thing about Gutians and Kassites is that they have mostly mentioned to have fair skin and hair in the Mesopotamian texts, so it is more possible that they came from somewhere in the northern Europe.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2010 at 04:59
Of course Christian-related religious books mostly talk about an opposite migration, for example look at this one: The God-Kings of Europe by Hugh Montgomery
 
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2010 at 19:10
What a good book! It is just chock full of wholesum information! Thanks for it!

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2010 at 04:31
In reading the selection on the "God Kings" What strikes me as that the confederation of The Franks (The Franks were a confederation of German tribes not one tribe) Claim they were descended from the Trojans. In this book it talks about how the Trojan Gods were the same as the Norse. The Germanic God Wotan of the Chatti  and Cherusi( two of the Larger Frank Tribes) as we know is the same as Odin.
 
 


Edited by Maximus Germanicus I - 11-Oct-2010 at 04:35
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2010 at 10:43
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus I

In reading the selection on the "God Kings" What strikes me as that the confederation of The Franks (The Franks were a confederation of German tribes not one tribe) Claim they were descended from the Trojans. In this book it talks about how the Trojan Gods were the same as the Norse. The Germanic God Wotan of the Chatti  and Cherusi( two of the Larger Frank Tribes) as we know is the same as Odin.
 
 
They were a confederation of Germanic  (not "German") tribes ( occasionally :" Germanian" after "Germania") some of which were in current Germany, others in the current Low Countries (Netherlands and Belgium) etc.
 
In Dutch (Nederlands ) or German ( Deutsch) languages themselves the usage of Germaans and Germanisch  is neutral and does not point to any specific modern country/etnicity. The equivalent in English for Germaans and Germanisch is "Germanic" not "German" which means "German " alone. That some English speaking authors  make no difference and use it wrongly is not relevant.   You know it so I expect you to use the normal term, in case you dont want to appear as a German Nationalist.
 


Edited by Sander - 11-Oct-2010 at 10:57
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2010 at 13:43
Sander--I hate to break it to you but you are German. The Dutch are German, they are just as German as folks in the Rhineland or Lower saxony-- The only reason why the Dutch don't speak HD is that they were not in the Prussian SOI during the language shift/ kulture Kampf. But rember you were part of the HRE until the 1500s and then the Hapsburgs. Before the 1800's a majority of Germany spoke a local dialect. Dutch is just another tribal dialect of German like Ruparian, Niederrheinisch or platte deutsch.
 
Guess what else the Romans refered to them as German Tribes not Germanic Tribes.
 
So when I say German Tribes (becuase that is what the Romans called them-They called them German and that includes the tribes and the NLDs even the Friese and the Angles)--I mean The Franks why-Becuase more many more of the tribes in the Frakish confederation were from what today would be known as Germany.
 
Tribes in the Frakish Confederation:
Cherusci (Germany)
Marsi (Germany)
Chatti (Germany)
Sicambri (NLDs),
Chauci (Germany) 
Salii (NLDs)
Chamavi (NLDS and Germany)
Bructeri (Germany)
Chattuarii (Germany/France)
Ampsivarii (NLDs/ Germany),
Tencteri (Possiblt Gaullic not Germanic but called "German by the Romans")
Ubii  (Germany)
Batavi (NLDs-Orginally part of the Chatti in modern Hesse-Kicked out and moved to the NLDs)
Blegic (Gaulic Tribe)
 
and the tribes that settled in the NLDs came from Germany proper
 
So don't play symantecs with me. When you say stuff like this you sound bigoted towards the German people.


Edited by Maximus Germanicus I - 12-Oct-2010 at 02:18
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 02:16

While I am at it--I am sorry your need for PC spits flat in the face of Historical accuracy--

 

The Romans used the term "German tribes" not Germanic tribes to describe the tribes that made up the Frankish Confed---Why

 

1. Because they weren't all Germanic--To call them Germanic would be historically wrong.  Germanic is a cultural term--German a place term

 

2. The Romans called any tribe (To include Gaulic Tribes) Living in GI, GS or Germania Magna--German it didn't matter if they were Germanic or not-- If you lived in the three German areas you were German, if you lived in Gaul you were a Gaul--So German is correct here not Germanic

 

3. I use Gaul and not Celt, because I really don't believe that there was any real difference between Germanic Tribes and Cont Celts at the Time of the Romans I think they were branched of the same people.

 

Germania Inferior was a Roman province located on the left bank of the Rhine, in today's Luxembourg, southern Netherlands, parts of Belgium, and North Rhine-Westphalia left of the Rhine.

The principal settlements of the province were Castra Vetera and Colonia Ulpia Traiana (both near Xanten), Coriovallum (Heerlen), Albaniana (Alphen aan den Rijn), Lugdunum Batavorum (Katwijk), Forum Hadriani (Voorburg), Ulpia Noviomagus Batavorum (Nijmegen), Traiectum (Utrecht), Atuatuca Tungrorum (Tongeren), Bona (Bonn), and Colonia Agrippinensis (Cologne), the capital of Germania Inferior.

Germania Superior ("Upper Germania"), so called for the reason that it lay upstream of Germania Inferior, was a province of the Roman Empire. It comprised the area of western Switzerland, the French Jura and Alsace regions and south-western Germany. Important cities were Besançon (Besontio), Strasbourg (Argentoratum), Wiesbaden (Aquae Mattiacae) and Germania Superior's capital Mainz (Moguntiacum). It comprised the Middle Rhine, bordering on the Limes Germanicus, and on the Alpine province of Raetia to the south-east.

Tacitus wrote in AD 98:

For the rest, they affirm Germania to be a recent word, lately bestowed. For those who first passed the Rhine and expulsed the Gauls, and are now named Tungrians, were then called Germani. And thus by degrees the name of a tribe prevailed, not that of the nation; so that by an appellation at first occasioned by fear and conquest, they afterwards chose to be distinguished, and assuming a name lately invented were universally called Germani.

Or in English German

 

Germania was inhabited by different tribes, the vast majority Germanic but also including some Celtic, Baltic, Scythian, and proto-Slavic peoples. The tribal and ethnic makeup changed over the centuries as a result of assimilation and, most importantly, migrations. The German people spoke several different dialects.

So when I use German--It is a place name-and since the Gaulic Belgic tribes were in the Frank Confederation as well as other Gaulic Tribes who lived in modern North east france and Belgium-to call them Germanic would not be accurate.



Edited by Maximus Germanicus I - 12-Oct-2010 at 02:23
Back to Top
Aijn View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 06-Jun-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
  Quote Aijn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 07:42
In medieval times Germany was known as Ashkenaz.
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 23:23

I’ v seen enough. Maximus Germanicus (MG) was warned some time ago and in the former post as well. No attention was paid to it. Only using it to expand his  rubbish. He is suspended for excessive nationalism towards other national groups and gross distortion of facts for that purpose. COC violations etc. will be posted soon in the announcement section.

 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Sander - 13-Oct-2010 at 01:57
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2010 at 01:37
 A few comments  regarding MG's last posts:
German tribes or Germanic tribes ? 
Most German nationalists prefer “German tribes” above  the nowadays far more commonly used  “Germanic tribes”.  It often  used as some  bridge for  labelling the modern Dutch as “German”  instead of  Germanic. MG  has  just demonstrated so by calling me “German”. Of  course he knows that with that he denies the specific Dutch identity. His extreme nationalists intentions are clear .He is balancing on the edge.
If there was any doubt about his intentions, he just cleared it up with the below comment:
Originally posted by Maxiumus Germanicus

Dutch is just another tribal dialect of German like Ruparian, Niederrheinisch or platte deutsch.
 
MG ‘s  German Nationalism reached its peak there !  With this deliberate distortion he doesnt get of the hook. He asserts there is no such thing as a genuine Dutch language by claiming its actually only a dialect(!)of German.  Such is another serious denial of the Dutch identity. Its also  the joke of the year.
Standard Dutch belongs to  the Low Frankish (Low Franconian) group while standard German belong to the  High German group. Both are distinct  languages and follow their own distinct lines from  West-Germanic. And yes, Old  Low Frankish originated/developed in the southern half of the Netherlands. High German group ( German ) developed in Germany.
MG  never referenced  good academic papers/URLS to support his fiction ( only wiki-like/derived stuff) . He may learn from this tree  (2009 ):
 
Red is Dutch. Green is German ( NHG=New High German)
Development of Dutch (Low Frankish) :
West Germanic> [Low Saxon-Low Franconian] >  Old Low Frankish/Old Dutch> Middle Dutch> Modern Dutch/Flemish
Development of German (High German):
West Germanic> Old High German> Middle High German> New High German
See also  link to Ethnologue (leading in the field of linguistics, source for academics and governments) for the official classifications (as mentioned above )of Dutch and German:
In short, MG 's nonsensical claim that  Dutch is a dialect of German is anti-Dutch garbage, posted for nationalist purposes. Big mistake Thumbs Down


Edited by Sander - 13-Oct-2010 at 02:05
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2010 at 09:15
Well, for me Dutch, German, English are also Germanic languages, not German, in the same sence as Polish, Russian, Czech, Serbian or Sorbian (eastern Germany) are slavic languages. So the notion Germanic describes the familly of languages, not a specific language. saying that Dutch is German is stupid because it is like saying that Polish is Czech or Czech is Polish.
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2010 at 09:17
And I would bet that even in the times of Roman empire there wasnt 1 German language but many many dialects.
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2010 at 09:23

Please stick to the main topic, there are also some ignorants who, for example, say Gilaks are Persian!!! just because Romans called this country Persia, of course Gilaki, Mazandarani, Luri and even Kurdish are very similar to Persian language but Persian, like German, is just the name of one language with several dialects.

Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2010 at 09:37
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Please stick to the main topic, there are also some ignorants who, for example, say Gilaks are Persian!!! just because Romans called this country Persia, of course Gilaki, Mazandarani, Luri and even Kurdish are very similar to Persian language but Persian, like German, is just the name of one language with several dialects.

 
 
Sorry Cyrus, Im not trying to highjack your topic. However staying on it its not possible for me because I cant find this theory in any serious book. I consider it as pure speculation.
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.079 seconds.