Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 74 of 74

Thread: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

  1. #61

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    To the person who said Albanians weren't around until medieval times, are you sure? I thought they were descendants of the Illyrians?

    Also, in response to the original question- I was recently in Budapest, and I would say just looking at the Hungarians you can see a certain degree of "asiatic-nomad" in them, although this naturally is not a universal trait amongst them.
    Of course, Hungarians are
    A) Central Europeans
    B)Later arrivals than the slavs, with a relatively well-documented history of their arrival on the Pannonian plains

  2. #62
    It was a trap, after all. Member DukeofSerbia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sombor, Serbia (one day again Kingdom)
    Posts
    1,001

    Default "Illyrians"

    Quote Originally Posted by Glemte_hage
    To the person who said Albanians weren't around until medieval times, are you sure? I thought they were descendants of the Illyrians?
    1. First mention of Albanians was in 1054. Only ancient Albanians are on Caucasus (Albanii).
    2. Illyrians never excisted. "They" were conglomerate of various tribes which Romans and Greeks called like that. Long story.
    Watching
    EURO 2008 & Mobile Suit Gundam 00

    Waiting for: Wimbledon 2008.

  3. #63
    Shark in training Member Keba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Colonia Iuliae Pietas Pola
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kraxis
    DukeofSerbia... I cincerely doubt that the Thracians and Illyrians would just accept the Slavs.
    Eventually, of course, they did. I can't exactly speak about the Thracians, but Illyrians and Romans actually managed to live alongside the Slavs in certain areas (few areas, places where their cities couldn't be conquered easily). Some modern cities began with two seperate towns, a Slavic one and another, older one, that eventually merged, as the Slavs assimilated or were assimilated ... that bit is difficult to say.

    However, I will say that Byzantines are hardly a source of information on the Slavs, some books, like the Strategikon, actually sing praises of them at times (treatment of slaves, for one, as well as the organization of local goverments, there are also praises of the rules of hospitality in existance among the Slavs). At the same time, they condemn them for raiding. Of course, they neglect to mention the fact that the Empire, y'know, forgot to pay them. They were barbarians after all, and pillaging is as efficent a way as getting paid as any. The Byzantines (at least, the Strategikon) suggested equally vile strategies (such as surround them, then slaugher everyone in a clan, so they can't come back for vengance, an important detail, I mean, vengance).

    So, essentially, they didn't really stand out in cruelty overmuch.

  4. #64
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keba
    Eventually, of course, they did. I can't exactly speak about the Thracians, but Illyrians and Romans actually managed to live alongside the Slavs in certain areas (few areas, places where their cities couldn't be conquered easily). Some modern cities began with two seperate towns, a Slavic one and another, older one, that eventually merged, as the Slavs assimilated or were assimilated ... that bit is difficult to say.
    Of course... In time most people tend to learn how to live together. That is why we aren't all at war with just about everybody else.

    But initially an invader, no matter who that invader is, will be resisted and resented. There won't be a brotherly embrace of Communist fame (you know all those propaganda events where troops meet and so on).
    Perhaps the Slav were a bit easier to accept, I won't argue against such, but friendly terms in a general sense are impossible.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  5. #65
    Shark in training Member Keba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Colonia Iuliae Pietas Pola
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    Oh, I never said friendly. The example I was citing had a city on an island, about a hundred meters off the coast. A Roman city. The Slavs found it too much trouble to conquer and set up their own city on the shore. Eventually, the sea pulled back and the two merged, but by then had friendly enough relations. That, of course, took years.

  6. #66
    Guest Stig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    At the bar
    Posts
    4,215

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    mmm what's that city called, sounds interesting

  7. #67
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    Budapest? But that is in Hungary and the city was still split until not too long ago.
    But is that a possible candidate for such an 'honour' (if not perhaps Slavs then Magyars)?
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  8. #68
    Shark in training Member Keba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Colonia Iuliae Pietas Pola
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    Dubrovnik is the name these days. I said Roman/Slavic ... not Hungarian, they came late, there were no real Romans left by that time (apart from the Byzantines and the Venetians, maybe).

    I can't remember where I've read the information ... it was a long time ago, over five years (number reached by process of elimination), and I can't remember the book, this is all that I seem to recall. Eh, my mind just works that way.

  9. #69
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    Well, I did mention that it couldn't be it, but that it possibly could a similar case.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  10. #70
    Elephant Master Member Conqueror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the Ruins of Europe
    Posts
    1,258

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    Both Buda and Pest were Hungarian cities when they merged, and they were separated by the Danube river (and still are, they just function as a single city now).

    RTW, 167 BC: Rome expels Greek philosophers after the Lex Fannia law is passed. This bans the effete and nasty Greek practice of 'philosophy' in favour of more manly, properly Roman pursuits that don't involve quite so much thinking.

  11. #71
    It was a trap, after all. Member DukeofSerbia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sombor, Serbia (one day again Kingdom)
    Posts
    1,001

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keba
    Eventually, of course, they did. I can't exactly speak about the Thracians, but Illyrians and Romans actually managed to live alongside the Slavs in certain areas (few areas, places where their cities couldn't be conquered easily). Some modern cities began with two seperate towns, a Slavic one and another, older one, that eventually merged, as the Slavs assimilated or were assimilated ... that bit is difficult to say.

    However, I will say that Byzantines are hardly a source of information on the Slavs, some books, like the Strategikon, actually sing praises of them at times (treatment of slaves, for one, as well as the organization of local goverments, there are also praises of the rules of hospitality in existance among the Slavs). At the same time, they condemn them for raiding. Of course, they neglect to mention the fact that the Empire, y'know, forgot to pay them. They were barbarians after all, and pillaging is as efficent a way as getting paid as any. The Byzantines (at least, the Strategikon) suggested equally vile strategies (such as surround them, then slaugher everyone in a clan, so they can't come back for vengance, an important detail, I mean, vengance).

    So, essentially, they didn't really stand out in cruelty overmuch.
    Keba, nikakvi Iliri nisu postojali.

    Go here: History of Balkan forum
    Watching
    EURO 2008 & Mobile Suit Gundam 00

    Waiting for: Wimbledon 2008.

  12. #72
    Shark in training Member Keba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Colonia Iuliae Pietas Pola
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    I actually meant the conglomeration that the Romans called Illyrian tribes. It's for simplicity's sake, just as I keep calling the Byzantines like that, it's easier that having to constantly explain the concept, and is more convenient.

  13. #73
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conqueror
    Both Buda and Pest were Hungarian cities when they merged, and they were separated by the Danube river (and still are, they just function as a single city now).
    Well of course... The merge was a relatively late instance. So that is hardly a very good point.

    If one as Roman, and the other happened to pop up when the city couldn't be taken, but over the centuries the populations mingled, in time both would be the same.

    However, knowing relatively little of their history, I will not go against the 'wholly Hungarian' thought. I just felt the argument was rather thin.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  14. #74
    Retired Senior Member Prince Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In his garden planting Aconitum
    Posts
    1,449
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lightbulb Re: Are Eastern Europeans/Slavs Eurasians or have Asian genes in them?

    So complicated, so complicated.


    Anyway so much has been written and it is really hard to sum it up. I will just say what I know on the topic.

    First: the Russians. I think the Asian genes in the Russians are not so much (if we talk about the ethnic Russians). as far as I know the Russians were vassals of the mongols but not entirely under their rule. Of course there were some genes given by the passing tribes but it was not leading ( actually there is not any ethnic group that is absolutely 'clear' ). Far more important role in the Russian history had the vikings (called varangians by the natives) which united the Slavs on the Russian land and put the foundation of the Russian nation. But Russians are slavic people because the varangians were slowly but surely assimilated by the natives especially after they were convert to Christianity.

    Second I am not very familiar with the history of Poland, Checks, Slovacs, Serbs, Croatians and some other Slavic nations or ethnic groups so I can not comment. However I think (note very sure; any info appreciated) Checks had some German genes (although they are definately slavs) because they were very close to the Germons in historical aspect ( first in the Holy Roman Empire later under Austrian rule and at the end under Austria-Hungarian domination).

    The Romanians- definately not slavs but for me they are mystery. It is really hard to tell anything about their origin without making a mistake.

    About Bulgarians. I have much to say about them if not too much. Well, I have to study for their origin. So many theories. And some of them are ideological. Just an example. Between the World Wars there was a trend the Slavic origin to be ignored. Why? Because until 1944 the main trade partner of Bulgaria was Germany and we all know that Nazis thought Slavs are inferior( fortunately the influence was just here,in the science; fortunately the fascism has never been popular in Bulgaria; And I think it never will be, although there are some provocations (well, I am not very sure whether it is fascism but IMHO it is far from normal behaviour) by certain political figures with a strange behaviour now.). Under the Soviet rule ( because IMHO that was the communistic regime in Bulgaria) just the opposite happened - Bulgarians were clear Slavs with insignificant contribution of the other ethnic groups. And things like that

    First the Thracians. According to many of the Bulgarian historians they were destroyed or assimilated by the numerous Slav. But I do not think Slavs were ' the most cruel inveaders'. Why? Yes, they were invaders. Yes they killed many locals while pillaging.( But please do not trust so much to the byz historians: they are notorious for making their enemies look like savage people that are closer to the animals than to the human race) But there are also some hints of cooperation: the Thracians learned the Slavs in viticulture and fruit culture. Some Thracian customs are also preserved in the Bulgarian tradition. Nothing new under the sun here. So there are hints left by the Thracians although the latter disappeared from the history. However it is a exaggeration to call the Bulgarians slavinized Thracians.

    Slavs. Indo- Europeans. They were definitely the most numerous ethnic group in the early Middle ages Were they the dominant component in Bulgaria? Time to discuss the Bulgars...

    Bulgars. It is one of the most complicated themes in Bulgarian history. While preparing for my history exams I met let me see… four theories about their theories. The most popular was this of the Turkic origin but now another one is gaining power ( it seems it will be the leading one in the future). According to it the Bulgars are an Iranian tribe and had much in common with the Iranians which mean they are Indo- European ( I am almost sure the Iranians are Indo-European). However in the both cases Bulgars were highly influenced by the Turkic tribes. Their movement is interesting but it is not connected with the topic. What is sure? If there had not been the Bulgarians ( they had had their own state ( if not states because some historians claim there were more than one Bulgarian state); the interesting fact was they united because they had a common enemies; the Bulgarian Slavs were not conquered), Byzantium would have assimilated most of the Slavic tribes on the Balkan peninsula. But large group of Bulgarians came and founded the Bulgarian state which was of a great importace in Eastern Europe ( btw another group of Bulgars founded Volga- Bulgaria; Volga-Bulgars are something like cousins of the Bulgarians). So who assimilated who? Probably the answer are the Slavs but I am not very convinced the only reason is in the number. Why? Just look at Hungary – the Magyars assimilated the Slavs not the Slavs Magyars. Where is the answer?
    When the Bulagrian khan Boris convert the Bulgarians( actually the two ethnic groups: the Slavs and the Bulgars) to Christianity, Bulgaria had to preserve itself from assimilation by the Byzantine empire. Why? Because neither the Slavs nor the Bulgars had script and had to use Greek script and Byzantine clergymen. Fortunately Byzantium had decided ( some years before the converting to Christianity of the bulgarians) to make the converting from Constantinopol more attractive for the Slavs ( the reason: the Papal ambition to convert them to christianity but from Rome; you know their old rivalry) esp for these in Central Europe and created Slavic script. So Bulgaria addopted that script ( although the Byzantium was against it; actually Byzantium wanted to give script only to the other Slavs but not to the Balkan ones (why should it? It is better to assimilate them). And what happened – Bulgars had to learn Slavic language because there was script in addition the Slavs were numerous… And the result is… that Bulgarians are Slavs. But definitely they had really many ethnic components in their blood ( including the Pecheneg( they are Turkic ( Asian tribe) , the Cuman blood and so on).

    Why Bulgarians look like the other Mediterranean nations? But they are very similar to the Russians… And I think to the Iranians ( which also look like the Europenas)… Add the climate and here is the answer. It is not so amusing.



    Ooops! I know it! I spoke too much! I do hope you are not bored by my info for Bulgaria… I should not have posted such a long post… But I have not been in the Monastery for so long!
    Last edited by Prince Cobra; 10-17-2006 at 20:53.
    R.I.P. Tosa...


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO