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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Slavization of Eastern Europe!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
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: Slavization of Eastern Europe!
    Posted: 04-Jan-2011 at 15:53

We know some different peoples, like Sarmations/Alans, Goths and Huns, ruled in the eastern Europe in the the first half of first millennium, of course Slavic tribes also lived in some parts, especially in the northern part, but they were certainly not in majority, after this period, some other peoples, such as Khazars, Bulgars and Avars, who were also not Slavic, occupied some parts of Eastern Europe, but it seems in the next centuries Slavs, without forming a solid empire, gradually spread all over this region and replaced almost all languages which were spoken in this region for thousands years with their own language!

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-Jan-2011 at 17:47
You post a most apt question! Just how did the Slavs/Slaves?, become the real majority?

Perhaps others have information concerning the absorbtion, or perhaps they have ideas also?

Edited by opuslola - 04-Jan-2011 at 17:48
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 00:57
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

We know some different peoples, like Sarmations/Alans, Goths and Huns, ruled in the eastern Europe in the the first half of first millennium, of course Slavic tribes also lived in some parts, especially in the northern part, but they were certainly not in majority, after this period, some other peoples, such as Khazars, Bulgars and Avars, who were also not Slavic, occupied some parts of Eastern Europe, but it seems in the next centuries Slavs, without forming a solid empire, gradually spread all over this region and replaced almost all languages which were spoken in this region for thousands years with their own language!

 
What about if so called "Slavs" were in fact... Sarmatians
 
Just one example. Ptolemy in his Geography 2nd century AD includes tribe with name "Serboi" in the list of Sarmatian tribes. You know about existence of Serbian nation and Serbian state in South-East Europe. Small Sorbian nation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbs (100 000 pop.) still live in what is now East Germany, and have a status of official recognized minority. 1500 km. away from what is now Serbia. There was a separation of this tribe in the early Middle Ages. Today there is a big difference in clothing and architecture of these people. It`s very hard to distinguish Sorbians from surrounding German population.


Edited by Kanas_Krumesis - 05-Jan-2011 at 00:58
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 04:32
What if they are huge former population that change "status" under the Rome,they were converted to slaves ?Will be more precise, under the Persian type of humanoids?And now we have slavs and arabs.But DNA says that 30% from population on Balcan and 21% from Egypt have similar DNA genes?Will be very nice to talk about this cognitive without recall of roman or greek  sources,but  normal  human  brain  cognitive  analysis! Ancient history of this people was assimilated inside part of history,that is known today like" the Greek history".They were erased and their history was stolen!?!?!If ancient history do not solve his paradoxes will stay mythology forever!!!
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 09:28
Slavs succeeded to impose their languages because in their migration they invaded scarcely inhabited territories and established states which used Slavic as language of administration and culture.

Latin language in the former Balkanic Roman provinces had had not any pretige after 4th century, Greek becoming the official language of the Empire which nominally or de facto controlled this area.

Slavic may have dominated for some centuries even in some parts of the present Greece, then, when the Byzantine Empire reconquered the land the Greek language become again dominant.

In today Romania, Slavic language was spoken in paralel with Latin/Protoromanian for centuries, the latter winning because of the superior number of people speaking it and because a Slavic state had never been founded here.



Originally posted by Kanas_Krumesis

What about if so called "Slavs" were in fact... Sarmatians



SLavs were speaking SLavic languages and Sarmatians Iranian language. People were identified by the language they were speaking, so what you mean by "being Sarmatian"? That the Slavic people were speaking an Iranian language?

Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 10:47
There is no evidence about "Slavic" population until fail of Rome.Then huge land parts  in former empire
were attacked  by organized groups in military structures.Slaves that belong once to slave masters.
Empire also have territories in African continent.Those people,slaves from Africa,were called Arabs.
Both names have same meaning if we use their old language:slaves.First one "s'lo ve n" means person that is signed on his body,sign of slave.Second one means literary,Present arm to be send,slave also...Sorry about translations but both words are not originally on English.
  Part of them have  tried  to come back to their former homelands,other were tried to escape far away from the  known areas of Rome.IN CASE Empire not to recover again.Part of them had stayed where they were, becoming part of the nations of Western Europe today.


Edited by medenaywe - 09-Jan-2011 at 04:23
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 11:33
Byzantine Empire consists of two classes: Master one(5%) that call themselves Romeans(romeys) and class of servants vulgaris(95%) ...Vulgaris are consisted by all no Phoenician/Roman speaking people from the territories of Empire and  slaves  that  were  colonized  during  the  conquering  wars."Slav" language  was  modified  originally from ancient Danayan languagel,literary from syllables of ancient Danayan language that was spoken from mayority of population, by St. Cyril and Metodius in 9 century.



Edited by medenaywe - 05-Jan-2011 at 11:53
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: 05-Jan-2011 at 11:45
Originally posted by Kanas_Krumesis

 
What about if so called "Slavs" were in fact... Sarmatians
 
Just one example. Ptolemy in his Geography 2nd century AD includes tribe with name "Serboi" in the list of Sarmatian tribes. You know about existence of Serbian nation and Serbian state in South-East Europe. Small Sorbian nation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbs (100 000 pop.) still live in what is now East Germany, and have a status of official recognized minority. 1500 km. away from what is now Serbia. There was a separation of this tribe in the early Middle Ages. Today there is a big difference in clothing and architecture of these people. It`s very hard to distinguish Sorbians from surrounding German population.
 
It is really possible that Sarmatian/Scythian was used by Greeks and Romans as a general name for all different tribes who lived in the Eastern Europe, including Slavic tribes, for a long time Iranians called all western Europeans as Farangi (Frank), it doesn't prove they were all Frankish tribes.
 
But it seems very possible that the Sarmatian tribe of Serbi in the north of the Caucasus were origianally an Iranain tribe who migrated to the Eastern Europe, as I mentioned in this thread: Serbian Coat of Arms & Iranian Cypress, the very Iranian word "Serb" (Modern Persian Sarv) means Cypress, the holiest tree in the Iranian culture, this tree is not indigenous to Eastern Europe, but Serbs and Croatians used it as a national symbol for a long time, of course, as you read, in modern times they prefer to use an oak tree, which is abundant in the region.
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: 05-Jan-2011 at 11:56
Actually in old Polish were many words of Iranian origin. As well as so called proto-slavic language was influenced by Iranian. Also the coats of arms of Polish nobility in big extent come from the tamga's of Sarmatians.
 
As for Sorb minority in eastern Germany, they are descendants of pagan Veletii. They got 2 dialects, lower and upper Sorbian. One is very similar to Czech and other to Polish. I can understand the articles on Sorb wikipedia cause they sound like archaic Polish language.
 
The claim that Slavic tribes were occupying areas which were free of any population I find rather stupid. The area was always populated, newcomers were pressing the locals towards west (like Scythians, Sarmatians or Huns) or merging with them. The land was good, forests were full of animals, amber from the coast was imported even to Romans, there was no need to leave the area. The Slavic tribes are known to fight for its territories against Franks in the 6-8th century. The first Slavic state was so called Samo's Empire in the 6th century.
 
Some scientist claim that some Slavic tribes around years 300-400 merged with Sarmatians and formed expansionistic wave that flooded eastern Europe absorbing also local populations.
 
It must be also noted that Slavic tribes in northern Europe were called Venetii, Vend's, Vind's and Vandal's and term "Slavic" was applied to them much later.
 
In the light of recent genetic research it is sure that different Slavic nations come from different people and often the only thing which they share is slavic language but they are of different blood. It wasnt one mass of people that in the same time invaded Europe but probably many different tribes that were coming and absorbing local populations.


Edited by Mosquito - 05-Jan-2011 at 12:11
"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: 05-Jan-2011 at 12:09
Originally posted by medenaywe

There is no evidence about "Slavic" population until fail of Rome.Then huge land parts  in former empire
were attacked  by organized groups in military structures.Slaves that belong once to slave masters.
Empire also have territories in African continent.Those people,slaves from Africa,were called Arabs.
Both names have same meaning if we use their old language:slaves.First one "s'lo ve n" means person that is signed on his body,sign of slave.Second one means literary,Present arm to be send,slave also...Sorry about translations but both words are not originally on English.
  Part of them try to come back to their former homelands,other were tried to escape far away from the
known areas of Rome.IN CASE Empire not to recover again.Some were stayed where they were becoming part of the nations of Western Europe today.
 
The theory that the source of the word "slave" is slavic has been questioned many times. The words in greek "sklavenoi" and in latin "sclavus" was describing only soughtern Slavs that were living on the borders of Roman Empire. But the classic latin that time was no longer used and in medieval times the word "slavus" was describing "serf" not "slave". In latin the word describing "slave" was "servus" while "sclavus" was prisoner of war.
 
There are many debates about origin of words like "Sloven". It may come as well from the word "sloboda" - freedom, or "Sloby" - muds, or "Slava" - glory.
 
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 12:19
Word games.Today Europe and rest of Western world have problem to increase their population without import of humans.And we trust in some documents that huge amount of people just grown up from nowhere because they change their status.Slaves become property in feudal society on which their master have to pay taxes.Among the rest they have to have entity like human beings.Easiest way was to call them or give them chance to call themself.But their masters just create "nationalities"...Slaves...Serbia is Servia on old Byzantine map.Bulgars also had origin in "Vulgaris"."V" is beta.In new slavic language  become  "B".Book of genesis for all absurds  that are  sharing  Balcan nations today.


Edited by medenaywe - 09-Jan-2011 at 07:41
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: 05-Jan-2011 at 12:20
From:
 
 
 
 
The Veneti were geographically and temporally contiguous to the Germanic and Slavic peoples and were eventually assimilated by both groups, perhaps even more decisively by Slavs, who later settled in the territory which erstwhile belonged to the Veneti. The Germanic peoples subsequently transferred the ethnonym Veneti to their new easterly neighbours, the Slavs. This tradition survived in German language where Slavs living in closest proximity to Germany were originally called Wenden or Winden, while the people of the Austrian federal lands Styria and Carinthia referred to their Slavic neighbours as Windische. It should be emphasised, though, that Slavic peoples never used the ethnonym Veneti for themselves but were called thus only by the neighbouring Germanic peoples. Such transfers of ethnonyms from one group to another are not unusual and have occurred frequently in history[16]. An analogous example is the name Böhmer, formerly applied by Germans to the Czechs, which originally was the name of a Celtic tribe Boii who dwelt in Bohemia before the Czechs. Similarly, the name of the Celtic Volcae (Proto-Germanic *Walhoz) was adopted as the collective name for the Celtic peoples and later for the Romance peoples[17] and gave rise to the names "Wales" and "Welsh" in English[18]. Although Tacitus listed the Venethi as a Germanic tribe, in his Getica, Jordanes equated the Venethi with the Sclavenes and Antes. Slavists such as Pavel Josef Šafařík have criticized Tacitus for erroneously identifying the Venethi as Germanic[19], due to the similar appearance of Slavs and Germans[20]


Edited by Mosquito - 05-Jan-2011 at 12:21
"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: 05-Jan-2011 at 13:55

I'm interested to know more about the original Slavic culture and the differences between Slavic languages, is there any Slavic people who consider themselves as pure Slavs? I see some Slavic people who talk about their pre-Slavic culture or their non-Slavic origins, it seems to be difficult to find somewhere that was originally inhabited by Slavs, the reason can about the lack of knowledge of the ancient history of these people, the original ones probably lived far from regions which have ancient recorded history.

Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 14:17
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

I'm interested to know more about the original Slavic culture and the differences between Slavic languages, is there any Slavic people who consider themselves as pure Slavs?
 
I think that Russian or Ukrainian peasants are closest to the original slavic physical features.  If so, the strong peasant features of Soviet Marshall Zhukov would be a good example to study.  I have noticed that Serbians have these features as do some Poles.  In contrast, only a few Czechs and Croats seem to have kept the features.  With the Croats, this may support the legends about their Iranian origins.
 
As a side note, Russian peasants vaguelly resemble Finno Ugaric peoples.  Finno Ugaric peoples are indigenous to Siberia.  If the original slavs and Finno Ugarics are related, it may show that Slavs are indigenous or near indigenous in their heartland of Russia, Belorus and Ukraine.


Edited by Cryptic - 05-Jan-2011 at 14:30
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 14:29
Main proof for my position is that so called "slavic population" is spreaded  around areas of ancient world. They have shared same territories  with masters of all Empires.The rest of them are refuges that, after fail of Rome and fail of Byzantine Empire  inhabited Central Europe and areas of former Soviet Union.You can not move such a lot of people from outside, inside those regions.They are natives that were there, also immigration(mostly refugees)in rare inhabited cold unreachable areas.But newcomers, their new masters after fail of Empire have no way how to explain who they are...their slaves  are with erased memories,except local folklore they have no other proofs...Also their former masters (mostly) are their new masters.They even do not want to change the name from their old, slaves...Ordinary way is to use combined forms of roman and native form for name slave.But something else that all this time look at our faces from stone will help me maybe to proof that.Their homeland is still alive...
  

Edited by medenaywe - 10-Jan-2011 at 10:30
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 15:43
Originally posted by Menumorut

Slavs succeeded to impose their languages because in their migration they invaded scarcely inhabited territories and established states which used Slavic as language of administration and culture.

Latin language in the former Balkanic Roman provinces had had not any pretige after 4th century, Greek becoming the official language of the Empire which nominally or de facto controlled this area.

Slavic may have dominated for some centuries even in some parts of the present Greece, then, when the Byzantine Empire reconquered the land the Greek language become again dominant.

In today Romania, Slavic language was spoken in paralel with Latin/Protoromanian for centuries, the latter winning because of the superior number of people speaking it and because a Slavic state had never been founded here.



Originally posted by Kanas_Krumesis

What about if so called "Slavs" were in fact... Sarmatians



SLavs were speaking SLavic languages and Sarmatians Iranian language. People were identified by the language they were speaking, so what you mean by "being Sarmatian"? That the Slavic people were speaking an Iranian language?
 
Yes, a Slavic state had never been found in what is now Romania, but Romanian lands were part of the Bulgarian state for centuries (especially Wallahia). Bulgarian language (as Slavic) still exist on South Romania. I personally met many people from south Romania and even from Bucharest, who can speak fluent Bulgarian language. Here in Bulgaria is believed that Romance language is artificially imposed in Romania as a state policy of Aromanian elite (originated from what is now FYROM), ruled Wallahia and Moldova in 18 and 19 century.
 
 
Can you give me ancient sources about what language is spoken among Sarmatians.


Edited by Kanas_Krumesis - 05-Jan-2011 at 16:02
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 15:59
Originally posted by medenaywe

Main proof for my position is that so called "slavic population" is spreaded  around areas of ancient world. They have shared same territories  with masters of all Empires.The rest of them are refuges that, after fail of Rome and fail of Byzantine Empire  inhabited Central Europe and area of former Soviet Union.You can not move such a lot of people from outside, inside those regions.They are natives that were there.But newcomers their new masters after fail of Empire have no way how to explain who they are...their slaves
are with erased memories,exept local folklore they have no other proofs...Also their former masters
also(mostly) are their new masters.They even do not want to change the name for their old slaves...Ordinary way is to use combined forms of roman and native form for name slave.But something else that all this time look at our faces from stone will help me maybe to proof that.Their homeland is still alive...
  
 
I had not read such nonsense from a long time. You must know that "Slav" is a self-given name. This originate from the word "Slovo", which mean "word", "speech". Opposite to the name given to Germans - "Nemci" which mean "mute", "someone whom we can`t understand". As Mosquito said traditional German name of the "Slavs" are "Wendi" or "Windish". What are these contraption about nation of slaves? These slaves had one common language, similar manners, strong armies and even the "great" Eastern Romans paid to them contributions!?!
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2011 at 19:26
Do  anything above change anything at all?Slavs have their language before.They need no Romans to come and teach them how to talk.Romans just romanised all languages that already have existed.And  erased  identity  of their  biggest enemies.Indirectly call them slaves in history that have been written like primordial matrix.After slaves rebellions and fail of Rome they start new doctrine.This one was called:Divide  et  impera.But  DNA  archeology  will  give us  initial  pressure for new history engine to start its normal work."Slavs" today are about 500milions...Arabs also...You need new formula,maybe clone machine that will create such huge number of people or will try to correct data already have been written  in history books with more acceptable theory.




Edited by medenaywe - 09-Jan-2011 at 04:26
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2011 at 00:53
What are your sources without your "great" logic? DNA research on slaves of the Ancient Rome or World Zionist Conspiracy (WZC)? Rather the "theories" of Hitler's Slavic inferiority. If you want to play on associations "Slavic-Slave" such as meanings of the word "Dutch" in English language, I'm not sure that this forum is the right place. Try with Stormfront.org
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: 06-Jan-2011 at 00:56
Originally posted by Cryptic

   
I think that Russian or Ukrainian peasants are closest to the original slavic physical features.  If so, the strong peasant features of Soviet Marshall Zhukov would be a good example to study.  I have noticed that Serbians have these features as do some Poles.  In contrast, only a few Czechs and Croats seem to have kept the features.  With the Croats, this may support the legends about their Iranian origins.
 
As a side note, Russian peasants vaguelly resemble Finno Ugaric peoples.  Finno Ugaric peoples are indigenous to Siberia.  If the original slavs and Finno Ugarics are related, it may show that Slavs are indigenous or near indigenous in their heartland of Russia, Belorus and Ukraine.
 
Wow! what an expert! Have you ever been to any of those countries?
"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  123 4>

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 0.113 seconds.