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

[Mr Durian]

Me and this guy are having an argument. The guy says Poles/Ukranians etc are Eurasians. i say no but they do have asian genes in them due to all the interbreeding during the Mongolian Empire and prior to that the Hun Invasion. Then another guy says this is not true.

So am I right? If so know any links to back this up?

[Kralizec]

The Slavonic languages are a branch of the Indo-European language group, just like Germanic, Celtic, Greek, Italic, etc.
As far as blood is concerned, of course some of the Hunnic or Mongol invaders would have raped women and passed on their genes there, but there never were a lot in Europe of either of them, so the impact on the Slavic genetic makeup would be small.

[Mr Durian]

The Slavonic languages are a branch of the Indo-European language group, just like Germanic, Celtic, Greek, Italic, etc.
As far as blood is concerned, of course some of the Hunnic or Mongol invaders would have raped women and passed on their genes there, but there never were a lot in Europe of either of them, so the impact on the Slavic genetic makeup would be small.


What about people and nomads immigrating from Asia and mingling with the local populace? It doesen't necessarily have to mongol invaders.

[Conqueror]

What do you mean by asking if they are "Eurasians"? What does that mean?? I've never seen such term used to describe ethnicity. Eurasia is a continent of which Europe and Asia are parts. So what is this "Eurasian" group of people and why wouldn't it include "Asians"? And how exactly do you define "Asians" for that matter?

[cegorach]

Me and this guy are having an argument. The guy says Poles/Ukranians etc are Eurasians. i say no but they do have asian genes in them due to all the interbreeding during the Mongolian Empire and prior to that the Hun Invasion. Then another guy says this is not true.

So am I right? If so know any links to back this up?



It is far more complicated. First Poles were never in any way a part of Mongol Empire.
Second in my opinion it is all utter nonsence - after 1000 or more years there is no purity anywhere and it is doubtful there ever was any.

Third Poland and Ukraine ( and Hungary and Britain, France etc) were or are multinational countries and their genes are a complete mixture of everything.

Ukrainians have much Polish and Russian blood, not to mention German, Hungarian or even Scottish and Italian - they are descendants of the people living in eastern part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - the 'wild east' of the country which has all the hallmarks of the famous american Wild West.

Poles have even more mixed forefathers - according to some tests we have genome with much Semitic or even Portuguese 'blood'.


Regards Cegorach:book:

[IrishArmenian]

Isn't a Eurasian someone with European and Asian Genes?
Anyway, why does Cacausian meen all white people? Shoodn't it be just those from the Cacaus Mts?

[The Wizard]

In Western terminology, a "Caucasian" is a white person, because it is believed that the origin of the Proto-Indo-European language finds itself in the Causasus mountain range.

However, in countries like Russia the term refers exclusively to people from the geographic region itself (Georgians, Abkhazians, Chechens, etc.). It basically depends on where you are.

[Orda Khan]

Isn't a Eurasian someone with European and Asian Genes?
Anyway, why does Cacausian meen all white people? Shoodn't it be just those from the Cacaus Mts?
Good point

......Orda

[Sarmatian]

What do you mean by asking if they are "Eurasians"? What does that mean?? I've never seen such term used to describe ethnicity. Eurasia is a continent of which Europe and Asia are parts. So what is this "Eurasian" group of people and why wouldn't it include "Asians"? And how exactly do you define "Asians" for that matter?

I think he means Indo-european.
@ Mr Durlan: Of all slavs, only russians and ukranians had significant contact with mongols. So I presume, there were some mixing but mongol genes aren't predominant. Calling them "asians" or mongols is like calling germans slavs because they mixed with poles and czechs, for example...

[L'Impresario]

In Western terminology, a "Caucasian" is a white person, because it is believed that the origin of the Proto-Indo-European language finds itself in the Causasus mountain range.

Actually I think that only Americans use that term extensively. In Europe it mostly refers to Caucasus inhabitants.
BTW Eurasian is a term that actually exists heh

[Silver Rusher]

Well, it depends what you mean by 'Slav', because many of the peoples who are commonly referred to as Slavs are not ethnically Slavs, just people speaking Slavonic languages. Southern Slavs, for example, are mostly steppe tribes that settled in that area and learned slavonic languages from either people they lived near early on, invaders or the sparse Slavic population of the regions they settled.

Croats are thought to be descended from Alans, but this is only a theory. Otherwise, the origins of the Croat tribe are unknown.
Serbs were a Sarmatian tribe.
Bulgarians were a Turkic people (another branch of the Bulgar tribe was the Volga-Bulgarians, who as you may have known settled along the banks of the Volga and converted to Islam).

However, people like Czechs, Poles and Russians are all descended from the original Slav ethnicity. Even these people, though, are incredibly varied in terms of their gene pool. Part of the point I was making earlier is that even within nationalities that are considered descended from the proto-Slavonic people, a huge history of invaders, natives, settlers and migratory peoples means that Slavs share very few genetic traits.

EDIT: Eastern European is also a dodgy term. Hungarians and Romanians are not Slavs, nor do they typically have proto-Slav genes.

EDIT2: Also, a caucasian (or caucasoid) is one of the 5 distinct races, incorporating people from Europe, through the Middle East and North Africa and right down to India. For your information, others are:

Mongoloid: Inhabitants of Asia (excluding caucasian areas) and natives of the Americas
Negroid: Originate in central Africa but also live in large populations in the Americas, Europe etc.
Capoid: Disputed, but usually agreed to be a seperate race from Negroids, they mostly inhabit southern Africa.
Australoid: Commonly referred to as 'Aboriginals' and live mostly in Australia but inhabit parts of India also.

[Sarmatian]

Well, it depends what you mean by 'Slav', because many of the peoples who are commonly referred to as Slavs are not ethnically Slavs, just people speaking Slavonic languages. Southern Slavs, for example, are mostly steppe tribes that settled in that area and learned slavonic languages from either people they lived near early on, invaders or the sparse Slavic population of the regions they settled.

Croats are thought to be descended from Alans, but this is only a theory. Otherwise, the origins of the Croat tribe are unknown.
Serbs were a Sarmatian tribe.
Bulgarians were a Turkic people (another branch of the Bulgar tribe was the Volga-Bulgarians, who as you may have known settled along the banks of the Volga and converted to Islam).


Serbs were not a sarmatian tribe. The fact that there was a sarmatian tribe called "serbs" doesn't necesarilly mean that serbs were sarmatians. Toponyms which include the root of the name (srb) exist in a very large area, from middle east and asia to central europe. Sarmatian theory is just one of the many theories of the origin of the name "serbs". Wikipedia:
Earliest historical records of names similar to "Serb"
Here are a few of the earliest quotations from well known ancient geographers and historians:

Herodotus (11,6) (5th century BC), and Diodor from Sicily (1,30) mention the lake named Serbonis (Σερβυνιδοζ) in lower Egypt. However taking the large distances into the account it is highly unlikely that today's Serbs have anything to do with that particular toponym.

Strabo (63 - 19 BC): "the river Kanthos/Skamandros is called Sirbis (Sirbika) by the natives." ( Strabonis rerum geographicarum libri septendicini, Basileza 1571 s. 763).

Tacitus (ca. 50 AD): described the Serboi tribe near the Caucasus, close to the hinterland into the Black Sea. Many consider this theory as a very probable one taking some distant linguistic similarities with today's Caucausus people's such as Ingushi, Chechens etc.

Pliny (69-75 AD): "beside the Cimerians live Meotics, Valians, Serbs (Serboi), Zingians, Psesians." (Historia naturalis, VI, c. 7 & 19 Leipzig 1975). It coincides with the Tacitus's view on Serbian ancient homeland among the Iranian peoples of the Caucausus.

Ptolemy (150 AD): "between the Keraunian mountains and the river Pa, live the Orineians, Valians and Serbs." (Geographia V, s. 9). Ptolemy also mention the city in Pannonia named Serbinum (present day Bosanska Gradiška in Republika Srpska). This well known ancient scientist one more time points out to the Caucasus placing Serbs close to Black Sea riviera.
In the third century Roman emperor Licinius referred to the Carpathians as 'Montes Serrorum' ("Serb mountains").

There is a theory that the name Serbs was a designation for all Slavic peoples in history. The earliest possible association of Serbi with Slavs is from Procopius (6th century), who says that Antae and Sclavenes (Slavs) originally had the common name Sporoi, which has been claimed as a corruption of Srbi (Serbs).

Most non-slavic theories about origin of the croats are from the WWII. Nazi puppet state croatia tried to prove that croatins were not slavs, because slavs weren't "aryan" race. From that time many theories take place, includind scandivian origin of the croats, iranian and so on...

You were right on bulgars, though.

[Silver Rusher]

Heh, that's ironic. Your username is Sarmatian and you live in Serbia :laugh4:

EDIT: Oh, and looky here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_on_the_origin_of_Serbs#The_Iranian_theory_of_the_origin_of_the_name_.27Serb.27

[Sarmatian]

Heh, that's ironic. Your username is Sarmatian and you live in Serbia :laugh4:

EDIT: Oh, and looky here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_on_the_origin_of_Serbs#The_Iranian_theory_of_the_origin_of_the_name_.27Serb.27

:laugh4: Yes, it is. That's why I chose this username. I didn't say that Iranian/sarmatian theory isn't true, just that it isn't proven. We can not say with certainty that this theory is true. It is one of many theories. There is a theory that all slavs called themselves serbs, for example. Sarmatian/iranian theory tries to explain the name "serbs", not people. France got it's name after the german tribe, franks, but today we do not consider french to have germanic origin.

[Silver Rusher]

OK, sorry, I guess I misenterpreted the first part of your post.

I agree that upon the theory being more connected with the name, but we must remember that migrations of entire groups of people are especially potent. However, links with sarmatians have pretty well completely gone so I guess the argument really goes straight back to the name.

[The Wizard]

"Entire groups of people" do not migrate. Look at modern mass migrations and tell me that they are different from those of the ancient days.

They are not. The Bulgars moved to Bulgaria and bequeathed their name to the nation, yet speak Slavic now and look it, too -- all the while leaving a powerful state on the steppe that survived until the Mongol juggernaut took it down. The Anglosaxons moved to England, yet Saxony recreated the Holy Roman Empire and the Angles went on to form part of the Danish nation. The Turks conquered Anatolia yet their language is still dominant in the Central Asia from which they came. In that exact way, millions of men, women, and children moved out of Europe, yet is this continent empty?

To assume that was the truth back then is to assume that something can be racially pure -- or, perhaps better said, racially defined. Nobody is "pure" of "blood"; disregarding the fact that we all have the same simple system of red and white running through our veins in the first place, all of us are the product of a hundred thousand individuals through three million years. The only thing that truly matters is language in these cases, and that is much easier to alter than blood.

[Silver Rusher]

Gah, slight miswording of post. When I said entire groups of people I meant things like tribal branches rather than 'peoples' if you see what I mean. That was probably very misleading, I apologise.

[Papewaio]

Actually I think that only Americans use that term extensively. In Europe it mostly refers to Caucasus inhabitants.
BTW Eurasian is a term that actually exists heh

Australians do as well... so I have the feeling that it is an english term for Europeans in general.

Considering that Eurasia is a single land mass techically you can call anyone on it Eurasian so that definition is not really that useful... as it is too broad.
Eurasian is commonly used to mean someone who has a European parent and an Asian parent... like my son is termed Eurasian.

[L'Impresario]

Hmm, here's wiki's take (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race) on it:


Different regions of the world use the term in different ways. In the United States, Caucasian is currently used primarily as a distinction loosely based on skin color alone for a group commonly referred to as White Americans, as defined by the American government and Census Bureau. In Europe, "Caucasian" refers exclusively to people who are from the Caucasus.


In Britain and Ireland the term "Caucasian" is almost never used, White British or "European" is used instead.

BTW these quotes don't refer to any specific research on terminology (apart maybe from frequent poll use), but it agrees with my personal experience and feeling on that word.

And, yes, I 've seen "Eurasian" used almost exclusively in that particular context.

[Kralizec]

yet Saxony recreated the Holy Roman Empire

That's not the way it went. The infant state of "Germany" was created by Franks when Charlemagnes old great empire was split in 3 for his grandsons.
The first nobleman to explicitly name himself Holy Roman Emperor was indeed a Saxon, Otto the Great.

Using the name "Saxony" is also misleading as it can be taken to mean the modern Bond state Saxony, wich as far as I know doesn't have anything to do with the Saxons (it's in a totally different area)

[Samurai Waki]

Using the name "Saxony" is also misleading as it can be taken to mean the modern Bond state Saxony, wich as far as I know doesn't have anything to do with the Saxons (it's in a totally different area)

You are pretty much correct. I find it kind of odd, as the Saxon Tribe was focused around modern day Kiel and Hamburg and the area was referred to as Saxony. Yet not long after the fall of Holy Roman Empire in it's entirety, Saxony somehow managed to drift into Selisia (sp?). However, the modern day state in Germany (and perhaps since the break-up of the Holy Roman Empire) the region has always been referred as Saxony-Anhalt. Perhaps there were two separate migrations of the Saxons? One to the British Isles, and the other into Selisia? Yet for some reason or another, due maybe to migration, Old Saxony lost it's cultural identity? I am suddenly deeply intrigued and will do some research :book:

Thanks Kralizec for sparking interest in the subject.

EDIT: Honestly, I have no idea what I'm talking about so I could be waaaayyy of base.

[lars573]

Isn't a Eurasian someone with European and Asian Genes?
Anyway, why does Cacausian meen all white people? Shoodn't it be just those from the Cacaus Mts?
Because Caucasiod, Negeroid, and Mongoloid refer to facial features rather than skin tone. The variations in skin tone among peoples with very similar features. So Indians, Arabs, Persians, Turkics, and Europeans are all Caucasoids.

[LeftEyeNine]

Turkics should be mongoloid originally -yes facially.

[Reenk Roink]

Yep, caucasian is based on facial structure. I always found it interesting why us Americans use it essentially to mean "white" while most hispanics are also scientifically classified as 'caucasian' but aren't labeled as such...

[Sarmatian]

Yep, caucasian is based on facial structure. I always found it interesting why us Americans use it essentially to mean "white" while most hispanics are also scientifically classified as 'caucasian' but aren't labeled as such...

I think it has nothing to do with science, they consider that term politically correct.

[Reenk Roink]

I think it has nothing to do with science, they consider that term politically correct.

Well, it is a term used in physical anthropology, but you are right that most people would not understand it that way.

[Samurai Waki]

Yep, caucasian is based on facial structure. I always found it interesting why us Americans use it essentially to mean "white" while most hispanics are also scientifically classified as 'caucasian' but aren't labeled as such...

I have noticed that while filling out applications and such, that Middle-Easterners and Indians (from India), are also considered Caucasian.

However, oddly enough, even though Hispanics are considered caucasian they are categorized into a different race altogether. As well as Black, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander. Technically though, wouldn't Native American, Pacific Islander, and Asian all fit into the same category based on genus?

[Incongruous]

I thought the Ameri-Indians were descended from European tribe who migrated from France in the last Ice Age.

[Kraxis]

And how ould they get those destinctly Asian features?
Besides the landbridge between Alaska and and Siberia (don't know the real term so bear with me) would have been far better suited for migration than the flimsy icebridge across the north atlantic.

There is some controversy over the Kennewick man and his rather European features, but that is about it.

When it coems to Saxony, it has to a great extent retained it's name. Sure Saxony is ALSO to the east, but Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) is actually placed roughly around the Saxon areas... the lower parts of course.

[Stig]

mmm Tarrak I doubt that anything as a land bridge over the North Atlantic ever existed. When you look at the times of migration.
Homo Sapiens entered Northern Europe in about 30,000-35,000 BP, by then the biggest Ice ages were already in the past, and even the Bering Street was begining to become open again.
So if anyone could even have migrated to America over a land bridge it was Homo Neanderthaliensis, and then it should have been clear that Kennewick man (never heard of him tbh) should have looked like a Neanderthaler not a Homo Sapiens.

Next to that land bridges form over places where the sea isn't very deep and where it's cold. So that should mean that the migraters should have migrated over the North Pole as that was the best place to migrate over. The Atlantic Ocean simply is too deep to freeze solid and the ice didn't come lower then Scotland in the last Ice ages, so France is out of the question anyway.

[Kraxis]

Note that I said icebridge...

Ah yes, it would be a better term to call it the Berings Strait landbridge. But it was there until around 12000 years ago, which coincides with the earliest human remains in North America (in Alaska). Then it took thousands of years for humans to actually reach South America. So it is assumed that the humans that made it were very few. Perhaps no more than a couple thousand.

The Kennewick man is about 9000 years old and look like a European. It is a very controversial case as the local Ameri-Indians quickly won his remains in court (all ancient remains are considered theirs and mustn't dug up). Currently only a mould of his skull exists, and of course the reconstructed face.
To me the case looks like the Indians fearing that Kennewick man perhaps WAS European. So much that they obstructed ANY work to get his identity known. They even made certain that no DNA samples could be taken and ruined the remains while in the custody of the researchers by sprinkling them with leaves and various other organic matter.

Why fear a SINGLE man? Even if he was European his group must certainly have been a minority, and seems to have died out.

Btw, the man was killed by an arrow in the back.

[Stig]

If he was European he had to set out by boat.
Which would have been possible. Polynesia was colonized about the same time. In 9000 BP the Earth was already much warmer and with Island hopping (British Isles, Iceland, Greenland, New Foundland) it would have easely been possible for humans to reach America. It could have been fishers who lived on Iceland and got off course (as deepseafishing was practised according to some historians).
No in 9000 BP it would have been possible to reach America from Europe I think.

[Samurai Waki]

well that is very possible Stig. However, factually speaking, the Pacific Islander migrations certainly didn't happen over night. Much like the Aborigines, the migration out to sea probably happened in waves, where no more than a tribe consisting of maybe a couple hundred of people or less just kind of set sail (for reasons unknown, although most likely because they were in search of food without competition). But maybe only 1 tribe landed in certain archipelagos and from there, expanded to nearby Islands.

The Kennewick man is certainly an anomaly, and maybe he was a fisherman who was badly blown off course, and perhaps landed in the US purely by luck (although as a castaway). Has there been more evidence of a white migration across the seas predating Maddog and the Vikings? Or are there other specimens like the Kennewick man? I guess I'm kind of skeptical at this point until more evidence is found. The Native Tribes are doing themselves a huge disfavour by blocking any research on this guy, because it will likely be an interest by the scientific community for a long time, and only stir up hype.

[DukeofSerbia]

:laugh4: Yes, it is. That's why I chose this username. I didn't say that Iranian/sarmatian theory isn't true, just that it isn't proven. We can not say with certainty that this theory is true. It is one of many theories. There is a theory that all slavs called themselves serbs, for example. Sarmatian/iranian theory tries to explain the name "serbs", not people. France got it's name after the german tribe, franks, but today we do not consider french to have germanic origin.

Iranian theory has some weaknesses. Many Croatian historians claim that they came from Iran.:laugh4:

[Sarmatian]

Iranian theory has some weaknesses. Many Croatian historians claim that they came from Iran.:laugh4:

That is actually based on the same theory. Serbian and croatian toponyms are often present in the same geographical areas. Some historians claim that this proves that serbs and croats have same roots. But even experts on subject can make no more than an educated guess, so will never know, unless they find some new evidence...

[Stig]

However, factually speaking, the Pacific Islander migrations certainly didn't happen over night. Much like the Aborigines, the migration out to sea probably happened in waves, where no more than a tribe consisting of maybe a couple hundred of people or less just kind of set sail
Yeah true and if something like that happened in the North Atlantic it's only a matter of time before will find their remains. That's why I called them fishermen. They were looking for new fishing grounds, with about 4 boats or so they set sail and land on Iceland, in a couple of hunderd years they move on to Greenland etc.

[Kraxis]

Trouble is that neither Greenland nor Iceland has any remains of previous settlements.

I don't know where Kennewick is in the USA, but I got the destinct impression that it was near the west coast. The terrain looked a whole lot like what you see in Westerns (not desert mind you).
I agree that the Indians are shooting themselves in the foot, hoping that this oddity will go away. And I can't seem to figure out why they are so afraid. They even went so far to say that their own storytelling has no mention of white men, so obviously the man can not have been one, and thus he MUST have been one of their ancestors.

Their own reasoning is that in the late 1800s their old mounds were dug up and their ancestors remains carried away, and now they are mad that it happens again. No thought to the fact that many of those in 1800s were criminals doing the digging hoping to make a buck on selling odd stuff, while the researchers are careful people mostly (at least today they are). They even said that they would hand back the remains as soon as they had studied them. That isn't terribly great for a researcher as in the future new methods can't be used, but it showed that they had respect for the wishes of the Indians.

[Stig]

Googled it, Kennewick is in state Washington

Which means that somehow that European Home Sapiens must also have colonised America, together with the Asian Homo Sapiens.

Either 2 things could have happened I think.
1. It's all a big mistake, Kennewick man looks like a European but just isn't.

2. 2 kinds of Homo Sapiens almost simultaniously colonized America. The Asian human was stronger and with more men and managed to extreminate the European human.
But if this is true, we should be able to find settlements in atleast Eastern America that support this, but these have not yet been found. (to they even dig in those parts, never heard of archaeologic excavation in that region)

Anyway about the settlements on Greenland, they might not have been found yet, since it's covered in ice.
I study Archaeology and were I study (Groningen) we have the 'department' Artic Archaeology. Don't get it till the second year so I don't know how difficult it is to dig in the Artic

[Kraxis]

On Greenland you can only live on the coaststrip. There is neither plants nor animals further in. And there hasn't been since before humans have existed (icecore samples go back extremely far).
But the cold and lack of proper erosion leaves ancient remains readily accessible (comparably). And given the extensive work on Nordic settlements I would have expected older objects to have been found in perhaps a limited quantity.

Personally I believe Kennewick man is asiatic, just a fluke. Remember how the Olmecs looked? A lot like western Africans, big lips, sloping forehead, big cheekbones. However they were not Africans.
But without the remains to look into, there is no chance to ever find out. This will in turn lead to people speculating, getting ideas and so on. It could very well end up hurting the indians a great deal as people will begin to claim the land and so on... You know how people can get.

If he was European then I doubt there would have been many like him. And I suspect that his bloodline eventually was washed out.
There is some minor evidence for Europeans as number of remains of Europeans have been found in China and Mongolia. However these are a good deal younger. But it isn't too far to expect them to have branch off from a group that went to North America. But I just believe it more likely than a fluke.

[Stig]

Now you name the Olmecs. Look what Polynesian people look like. People from Papoa New Guinea (Is that the English name?), Maori's, Aborgines, etc. They all have asian humans as their 'fathers'. But they don't really look like it.
Known is that little rodents (mice) can evolve very quickly, we can now date stone age settlements by just looking at the teeth of mice found in it. Why can't this also happen to humans. Ofcourse something like real evolving takes 100,000 of years, but the change in 'looks' can happen really quickly. In no more then a couple of 1000 years. Look at the people 1000 year ago and us now, we also changed (not only by speaking of height)

And I'm with you that Kennewick man will most likely be Asian, I know little about him, but him being European is very unlikely for me

[Kralizec]

Look at the people 1000 year ago and us now, we also changed (not only by speaking of height)

The increased height is more likely due to our much improved nutrition.

You have a PM, btw.

[Stig]

The increased height is more likely due to our much improved nutrition.
Not only m8, over the years people grow, look at the (more estimated) length of the people in Roman times and the (again more estimated) length of people in Medieval times and after. Nutrition in that didn't really change (maybe even fall back) and still they grew. Not much but people became longer

[DukeofSerbia]

It is far more complicated. First Poles were never in any way a part of Mongol Empire.
Second in my opinion it is all utter nonsence - after 1000 or more years there is no purity anywhere and it is doubtful there ever was any.

Third Poland and Ukraine ( and Hungary and Britain, France etc) were or are multinational countries and their genes are a complete mixture of everything.

Ukrainians have much Polish and Russian blood, not to mention German, Hungarian or even Scottish and Italian - they are descendants of the people living in eastern part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - the 'wild east' of the country which has all the hallmarks of the famous american Wild West.

Poles have even more mixed forefathers - according to some tests we have genome with much Semitic or even Portuguese 'blood'.


Regards Cegorach


Excellent post. Especially what is bolded. I will add that nations are not created on genetics than nations are created on culture.



Serbs were not a sarmatian tribe. The fact that there was a sarmatian tribe called "serbs" doesn't necesarilly mean that serbs were sarmatians. Toponyms which include the root of the name (srb) exist in a very large area, from middle east and asia to central europe. Sarmatian theory is just one of the many theories of the origin of the name "serbs".


Agree. Those Serbs were probably some kind of ruling class. Just to add that every theory based on Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos “De Administrando Imperio” (which we learn in our Serbian schools) is junk.



Using the name "Saxony" is also misleading as it can be taken to mean the modern Bond state Saxony, wich as far as I know doesn't have anything to do with the Saxons (it's in a totally different area)


Exactly. In modern Saxony (federal state of BRD) lived Slavs and Germans through medieval colonized that area.

https://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2752/nemciislovenijw3.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

[DukeofSerbia]

Well, it depends what you mean by 'Slav', because many of the peoples who are commonly referred to as Slavs are not ethnically Slavs, just people speaking Slavonic languages.


Mostly not true.



Southern Slavs, for example, are mostly steppe tribes that settled in that area and learned slavonic languages from either people they lived near early on, invaders or the sparse Slavic population of the regions they settled.


That’s the one version of history in which mostly believes Croatian historians and several Serbian. Read my next answer.



Croats are thought to be descended from Alans, but this is only a theory. Otherwise, the origins of the Croat tribe are unknown.


Croats are not descendants of Alans. Descendants of Alans are Ossetinians.

Read those: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/identity_croatians_ancient_iran.php

And download this: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/pdfs/iranian_origin_croats.pdf

In this pdf you will read how Croats discovered America before Vikings at least twice… http://smiles.zy.cz/585.gif Those texts are political pamphlets as Croatian historians and linguists try to prove that they are not Slavs and that they have nothing common with us (Serbs) and that Croatian has nothing with Serbian.


Many indications that early Croats sailed long before Protoslavs exist there. E.g. the early texts in southeastern Europe of 6th and 7th cent. noted Croats sailing in Adriatic, Peloponnesus, Crete, and Bosporus, where their navy allied to Persian emperor Khosrov II attacked Constantinople from the seaside. The large medieval empories of Croatian navigators persisted in Moorish Spain and Sicily. In 16th cent. Croatian captain Vice BUNE sailed from India into Pacific, explored Melanesia and the first discovered New Hebrides and Salomon islands, and then went to Mexico becaming its viceking. Different indicators suggest that Croatian medieval navigators at least twice crossed Atlantic and reached Americas before Vikings and Columbus: Viking reports on early Hvirtamanna people and Hvirtaland country (then Croatans in east USA), early Indios legends with Croatian names and related American names in old Adriatic legends, Iranic-Croatian symbols in Yucatan temples, Iranic-Croatian emblem in early Andean kings, American cactuses in medieval Dalmatia, etc. The joint Croat-Moorish sailings from Spain across Atlantic to America iteratively describe some old Arabic texts and old Croatian epic legends: in Old-Croat Semeraan & Semeraye = West Ocean and Westlands, in Old-Arabic script "Dark Ocean" and Ard-Majkola. These expeditions in 11th cent. probably organized Moorish generals Wadha EL-AMERI and Zohair AL-AMERI: isn’t America's name from them? The last study of ing. H. Malinar et al. analyses the big hillfort of old naval city Uri-Kuoryta (recent Korintija) in Krk Island, the largest ruins of Adriatic to 2,5 km wide, but it was not studied because it was developed justly during the Croatian immigrations there, and some non-Slavic cultural indicators in these ruins were contrary to the Vukovian dogmas on the Slavic origin of Croats.
The latest theory published Turkish historian Osman Karatay: “IN SEARCH OF THE LOST TRIBE: The Origins and Making of the Croatian Nation”, Çorum, September, 2003.

CONTENTS:

Foreword 1
Introduction 3
The Iranic, Germanic and Slavic Theories 9
Bulgaric, Oghuric and Other Origins of the Actors 19
Post Hunnic Spectacle of Eastern Europe 31
The Age of Avar Supremacy in the Western Steppes 40
The Years of Constant Rebellion Against the Avars 54
The Coming of Croats to Balkans 65
Who were the First Croats 80
The desertion of Khuber Khan and Roots of Serbian State 97
Origins off Bosnian State and the Royal Kotroman Family 111
Conclusion 143
Literature 149

Rewiev of Mr. Karatay’s book:



In Search of the Lost Tribe

How to Make a Balkan Nation

A medieval story by Osman Karatay on how a Turkic tribe near the Caspian Sea disappeared, and then appeared in Poland to start the making of the Croatian nation

by Bülent Kenes

It was surely easier in olden times to solve, or to suggest a solution to the very problems of ethnic origins. People used to be grandsons of certain historical or legendary personalities. Today, however, we can be hardly satisfied with those kinds of stories. On the other hand, historico-scientific researches continue also not providing very believable and credible explanations for certain questions. One of them is the mysterious theme of how, where and when the twin nations of the Balkans, the Croats and Serbs were formed. International diplomacy has succeeded in finding some solutions to the most complicated questions posed by the collapse of the Socialist Yugoslavia in 1991, even though of temporary nature and aimed at lengthening the many cease-fires; but world-wide attempts to suggest solutions to the historical matrixes of Eastern Europein Early Medieval have resulted in very less consensus. Among them, the problem of origins of the Croats and Serbs ranks the first.

Croats are a northwestern nation with a Slavic language and Catholic confession. Today, their confession is the determinant factor on their identity. However, there was a Croatian nation even before the Catholicism. Language is by no means determinant, as they speak the same language as their neighbors Serbs, Montenegrins and Bosniacs. Thus, historians agree on the fact that a certain ethnie, regardless of its ethnic or linguistic affiliation,
is on the base of this nation. Who were, then, those Proto-Croats?
Their description in medieval sources signs a non-Slavic identity. Thus, many historians tended to suggest an Iranic and Germanic origin for them. The second has very few bases, thus has no much supporters. The first theory relies on the prejudgment that before the Slavic and Turkic invasion of north of the Black Sea, some Iranic peoples inhabited there. Proto-Croats split from them and migrated to Poland. In the second phase they came to the Balkans, were slavicized meanwhile, and formed the Croatian nation. This theory is even weaker than the Germanic one, as historiography still searches for traces of those supposed or imaginary Iranic people. Some scholars suggested Turkic (i.e. Avaric and Bulgaric) origins; however, their proofs were also very weak and contradictory.

Osman Karatay, the leading balkanolog of Turkey, as well as a prominent medieval historian has focused on this very extreme question for long years. He published his conclusions in a Turkish book (Hirvat Ulusunun Olusumu, Ankara, 2000), in which he proposed a Turkic origin for the Croats. Though seems very fantastical, this theory was appreciated in scholarly milieu, and not too much challenged. Its language precluded the book from reaching more readers. Mr. Karatay preferred writing a new book in English, instead of translating the Turkish version. Thus, "In Search of the Lost Tribe" was borne.
It is totally different from the Turkish edition both in structure and content. Fruits of the studies of the last three years were added, and the content was enriched. This also meant more consolidation of the theory, which the author himself calls "The Oguric theory".

Mr. Karatay suggests that a tribe of the Oguric union, a Turkic group comingto Europe just after the collapse of the Hun Empire, second half of the 5th century, were driven by the Avars from the northwest of the Caspian sea to Galicia, south of Poland. A few years later the Avars came just to their south, in today's Hungary and Slovakia. That Ogurs became champions of resistance to the Avars, and organized local people, i.e. Slavs. The last and conclusive phase of their anti-Avar activity was invasion of Dalmatia in a coordinated
assault with the Byzantium and Franks. These Turks, very few in number, were slavicized in the course of time, however gave their national name to the mass under their state. Medieval Greek, Russian and Latin sources clearly sign to this adventure.

This very interesting book is also full of new ideas on the formation of Serb and Bosniac nations. He proposes, for instance, the first Serbian king was a Turkic prince called Kuber Khan, son of the Great Bulgar khan Kubrat (mid 7th century); and there are many Serbian kings with Turkic names. His contributions to the Pre-Proto-Bulgar history are surely very outstanding. The author has new ideas on Hungarian and Khazar histories, too. For example, he claims the Hungarians had never been in the North Caucasus. Ancestors
of most of the Tataristan Turks, then called Bulgars, lived in cohabitation with the Chechens in the Caucasus, and were expelled by the rising Khazars to the north, and not by the Arabo-Islamic armies, as widely accepted.


So, Karatay “discovered” that Croats are Onoguric origin and that the first Serbian king was Turkic prince. http://smiles.zy.cz/461.gif

From what I read and researched Croats originally were some kind of Avar ruling caste witch intermix with Slavs and they became Slavs. Croats are product of intermixing between Pannonian Slavs and Avars.

[DukeofSerbia]

Serbs were a Sarmatian tribe.


And what if I wrote that Sarmatians are proto Slavs? Territory were live Slavs Greeks called Scythia, Romans called Sarmatia and later from nowhere came Veneti, Slavs and Antes on their place! Sarmatians just vanished! Names are changed but people/tribes stayed the same. The problem is that Greeks and Romans called all tribes on East as Scythians and/or Sarmatians, but all those tribes weren’t Scythians/Sarmatians. So, Sarmatians weren’t all proto Slavs but neither were all Iranians.

Btw, Serbs are direct descendants of Triballi/ Τριβαλλός (tribe in Central Balkan Peninsula, one tribe of so called “Illyrians”).

P.S.
Caucasian theory of origin of Serbs can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/origins.html



Bulgarians were a Turkic people (another branch of the Bulgar tribe was the Volga-Bulgarians, who as you may have known settled along the banks of the Volga and converted to Islam).


But Bulgarians were minority who ruled over various Slavic tribes. After they assimilated they left only name. The same was with Franks in France and Rus (Swedes?) in Russia.



EDIT: Eastern European is also a dodgy term. Hungarians and Romanians are not Slavs, nor do they typically have proto-Slav genes.


Hungarians have Slavic genes because they occupied territory were Slavs lived.



but we must remember that migrations of entire groups of people are especially potent.


Great migration of entire tribes is a tale. And I admit very impressive tale. All those so called great migrations of Germanic tribes weren’t. Those were invasions except Angles and Saxons who colonized Britain. And colonization is not migration.
Great Slavic migration never happened. Our ancestors always lived in those areas where we are now (except in far away Russia) – from modern Eastern Germany to the European part of Russia, from Baltic Sea down to Pannonia and parts of Balkan Peninsula. Official history has so many holes but it still survives because western historians refuse to discuss about something else. Fortunately, there are modern (and were in past) western historians who know that theory of great Slavic migration is falsification or at least have many holes which can’t be any more ignored.

Excellent book about Slavs is written by Francis Conte, Professeur à l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne “LES SLAVES Aux origines des civilisations d'Europe centrale et orientale (VI-XIII siècles)” There is book in English, too – “The Slavs”.

Let us see what Francis Conte wrote:


It is traditionally believed that the barbarian invasions from the fifth and sixth centuries mark the beginnings of European history.
…
At the end of the fourth century, Saint Ambrosis had already sensed the most phenomenal aspect of these cascading invasions: "The Huns, he writes, attacked the Alans the Alans the Goths, the Goths the Sarmatians. And, it is not over!"
…
Also, contemporary witnesses are very often themselves the victims: they witnessed sedentary peoples being massacred, towns burned, monasteries robbed, shops turned into ashes, and markets destroyed. They witnessed the destruction of the connections, roads, and pathways which brought the countries, regions, and cities closer. However, looking at the end of the chain, these invasions appear to be the result of tribes running away from one another after a much stronger wave of invaders.


So, those “migrations’ were de facto invasions.

[Rex_Pelasgorum]

Regarding the central asian heritage in Eastern Europe, i can say that at least in the southern and eastern parts of Romania, that heritage is clearly felt in toponyms, personal names, and phisionomy, altough it may came also from the Turkish Invasions. It is not very significant, but it is , much stronger than the Slavic influence~:)
Regarding Slavs, the situation is extremely complicated....

It is raging debate at the moment, considering the fact that the archeology did not found any clear Slavic settlements... maybe they lived in tents, or how ?How can a small area around the Pripyet Marshes generate such a wawe of invasion to clear out all the non-latin/non-greek populations in the Balkans ?

Even if whe presume they slaughtered in mass the inhabitants (which is likely, they were among the most cruel if not the most , invaders in the known history ) , than how did the Proto-Romanians , Albanians and Greeks survived ? They fled in the mountains like cowards.. but what about Thracians, Sarmatians, Germanics, and others ?

Anyway, the Slavic invasion, from a strict genetic point of view, at least in the balkans had a very limited impact. Just look at the Bulgarians, they have clear mediteraneean traits ! Even they, in the last decades, they consider themselfs more of Thracian ancestry than of Slavic one. Romanians are romanized Thracians, Bulgarians are slavicised Thracians.

The turks are a very interesting mix. Some even argued whith good arguments, that the modern Turks share the same amount of common genes whith the Ancient Hellenes like Greeks....

The process which i clearly do not understand, is how a population is simply losing its language. I can understand how the Romans imposed latin, etc, but how nations, and tribes whith an inferior culture managed to impose theyr language on civilisation whith a higher degree of advancements (such as the Slavs did in Balkans, or the Turkis tribes did on Anatolian Hellenes).

[Kraxis]

If you set up a nobility after you have destroyed the local cultural places, then the locals will be forced to adopt a certain amount of the new language.
English has a good amount of French in it, and yes that dates to the Normans. For instance, all kinds of meat have different names from the animals to the meat. Sheep - mutton, ox - beef, pig - pork, ect... I doubt it is unique, but the French is clear in the meatnames, while a certain degree of germanic is visible in the animalnames.
English even has a surprisingly large amount of Danish words in it. Not just the old Saxon words, but words adopted from the vikings.

If the ruling class was weak and relatively few in numbers, then the loal language might survive, but distorted. French is a case of that. Something akin to latin evolved into French, while the nobility was in fact germanic Franks. But it also seems that like the Lombards and Ostrogoths in Italy the Franks were in awe of the local culture.

Another possibility, which I found to be disgusting, is the removal of the previous language. When a certain group of Britons 'fled' Brittania in face of ever stronger Saxon attacks, they took over Amorica (home of Asterix). There they killed the men mostly, and took their women. Then they cut out the tongues of the women so that they would not teach the children a foreign language. And to this day the place is named Bretagne (Brittany) and they speak a celtic language (in addition to French of course), though it is in decline.
I don't know if it is true, but it is a story the conquerors themselves believed and they wrote it down with pride.

However I do not believe in the Slavs having always lived where they live now (eastern Germany to Russia and all the other places mentioned).
The Burgundians and Lombards, both Germanic groups, came from deep within the so-called Slavic homelands, and the Goths treked over their lands with no dilution of their germanic language.

[Sarmatian]

Even if whe presume they slaughtered in mass the inhabitants (which is likely, they were among the most cruel if not the most , invaders in the known history ) , than how did the Proto-Romanians , Albanians and Greeks survived ? They fled in the mountains like cowards.. but what about Thracians, Sarmatians, Germanics, and others?

The process which i clearly do not understand, is how a population is simply losing its language. I can understand how the Romans imposed latin, etc, but how nations, and tribes whith an inferior culture managed to impose theyr language on civilisation whith a higher degree of advancements (such as the Slavs did in Balkans, or the Turkis tribes did on Anatolian Hellenes).

Just how did you come this conclusion that slavs were the most cruel invaders?

And exactly which civilizations in the balkans, expect greeks, had higher degree of advancement?

[Kralizec]

Thank you for the information, Sarmatian and DukeofSerbia. I always thought of Serbia and Croatia as intriguing countries, though sadly I don't know much about them. Time to do some reading :2thumbsup:

[Sarmatian]

Thank you for the information, Sarmatian and DukeofSerbia. I always thought of Serbia and Croatia as intriguing countries, though sadly I don't know much about them. Time to do some reading :2thumbsup:

No problem. Always happy to help...

[Kagemusha]

I find it intresting that when people talk about the peoples living in modern Russia. Before the Slavic expansion.The Finno Ugrian people are always forgotten. Here is a map of the Finno Ugrig peoples of Europe. These people apart the Magyars that conquered Hungary, were more or less sedentary people and had been habiting the same areas as long as there are any mentionings about them in history.
So i think if there are anything even remotely populations that could be called the original inhabitants of Western and Northern Russia, it would be the Finno Ugrians.Here is the map whats left of the Finno Ugrian populations today:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Finno-Ugric_languages.png

[Watchman]

There's apparently been Fenno-Ugric speakers all across the northern coniferous belt for quite a while. Naturally nobody knows quite when the rather isolated inhabitants of Finland took to speaking the language family, but in any case it was likely before the wide spread of Indo-European languages (which probably went hand in hand with agriculture; here the ecology wasn't really suitable for it so the wave sort of just passed by and left behind an awful lot of agrarian loan-words).

Not that aside from the Magyars that language family was ever particularly important at least so far as reliable sources exist; one gets the impression the speakers mostly just stuck to their cold forests and hunted elk until someone sufficiently organized (like the Swedes and Novgorodians) got fed up with the damn pagan barbarians raiding their borders and shipping and took over.

Anyway, if you ask me breaking too many lances over the exact ancestry of assorted populaces is by and large a waste of breath and more often than not nationalistically motivated. With the exception of for one reason or another rather isolated areas just about everyone from Britain to China has to a greater or lesser degree gotten mixed with just about everyone else and their dog through the varied dynamics population groups now interact in, and when you really get down to it everyone ultimately harks back to the Rift Valley in Africa or however the theory now currently goes. Languages are hardly a good guideline, since they obviously have very little to do with genetics and quite likely the vast majority of assorted populaces regarded as reasonably monolithic mainly for convenience were highly heterogenous collections of odds and ends picked up from the four winds (and migration routes) who just needed some sort of lingua franca, commonly adopting that of the ruling elite, for internal communication. As someone put it, "for the peasantry it would have mattered none if the mandarins conversed in Latin amongst themselves." Heck, before the thorough linguistical standardization programs of the 1800s even most "old-established" "nation-states" were pretty polyglot by default due to different regional dialects of the same root-language being almost unintelligible to each other...

[DukeofSerbia]

Even if whe presume they slaughtered in mass the inhabitants (which is likely, they were among the most cruel if not the most , invaders in the known history ) ,


That never happen as descedants of Slavs always lived in parts of Balkan. There are no historical records in which is described inclusion of Slavs and so called Illyrians and Thracians in Balkan Peninsula.



than how did the Proto-Romanians , Albanians and Greeks survived ? They fled in the mountains like cowards.. but what about Thracians, Sarmatians, Germanics, and others ?


Albanians? They never excisted until medieval. They are not aboriginals in Balkan Peninsula.

Proto-Romanians? :help: What you mean?


I have answers on what you asked in your post but I don't have time to type it.

[DukeofSerbia]

I find it intresting that when people talk about the peoples living in modern Russia. Before the Slavic expansion.The Finno Ugrian people are always forgotten.

Russians have more intermixing with Finnic people than with the Turkic/Mongol. I read some genetic research about that.

Anyway, I agree that Finnic tribes lived in moder Northern Russia. This is written in Primary Chronicle of monk Kiev (all those Finnic tribes are mentioned: Mordovinians, etc.).

[Watchman]

I read somewhere the cultural-linguistic supergroup known as Slavs came to being under Avar auspices (ie. assorted tributary peoples for one reason or another came to adopt similar language and culture and a vague sense of shared identity) and proved rather better at both expanding and staying around than their pastoral overlords...

[DukeofSerbia]

Regarding Slavs, the situation is extremely complicated....


Yes, it is, especially situation was extremely complicated from XIX century when mostly German historians in era of nationalism and romanticism published theories about Slavs who are...



How can a small area around the Pripyet Marshes generate


That’s the whole point when official theory falls. From nowhere, the Slavs, the most numerous group of people, exploded for some unknown reason. From Francis Conte “The Slavs”:



In the middle of the first millennium, the Slavs were called Venedes in their western territory, Sclavenes in the south and Antes in the east. Why did they start to assert themselves at that time? Why did they ferociously push beyond the limits of their original territory? Did they experience an increase in population that prompted them to move to the east and the west in search of greater agricultural lands and pastures for their cattle? Were they attracted to the south—beyond the Danube—by the lure of rich Roman cities that served as magnets similar to the shining fringes of the Oriental Empire? Were they targeting Byzantium itself, a desirable object of all barbarians? Or, were they pushed by a more powerful force, be that as it may only a working force?




such a wawe of invasion to clear out all the non-latin/non-greek populations in the Balkans ?


And then Conte continues:



Contrary to other barbaric peoples, Byzantium was never able to push the Slavs out of this area. Today, they still live there and form the large majority of the population, despite a succession of incessant invasions and five centuries of Turkish domination that was unable either to integrate or disperse them.




Anyway, the Slavic invasion, from a strict genetic point of view, at least in the balkans had a very limited impact. Just look at the Bulgarians, they have clear mediteraneean traits ! Even they, in the last decades, they consider themselfs more of Thracian ancestry than of Slavic one. Romanians are romanized Thracians, Bulgarians are slavicised Thracians.


When people here will finally start to think that CULTURE make tribes and nations and NOT the genetics!

Romanians are not only Romanized Thracians but also conglomerate of various tribes who were on territory of Wallachia and Moldavia.

[DukeofSerbia]

However I do not believe in the Slavs having always lived where they live now (eastern Germany to Russia and all the other places mentioned).
The Burgundians and Lombards, both Germanic groups, came from deep within the so-called Slavic homelands, and the Goths trekked over their lands with no dilution of their germanic language.


Francis Conte “The Slavs”:



Germania slavica

In the eighth century, the Slavs occupied a land which went beyond today's border of East Germany. They extended from Eastern Holstein to Bavaria, occupying the eastern territories of Barnberg, Nuremberg, and Ratisborin. The heart of Prussian Germany, despite what Bismark might say, has been Slavic for centuries. Today, historians in general admit that, until 1945, one of the main characteristics of Eastern Germany was precisely its Slavic element.


From what I researched and read proto Slavs originate from Pannonia (around Danube) and northern parts of Balkan Peninsula. Monk Nestor wrote it in “Primary Chronicle”:



After many years the Slavs settled along the Danube the present-day location of the Hungarians and the Bulgarians. It is from there that the Slavs spread out and took specific names as they established themselves in different countries. For example, they settled near a river called Morava and took the name of the Moravians, while others called themselves Czechs. The white Croats, the Serbs, and the Khorutans are all Slavs! The Vlakhs who had gone among, the Slavs near the Danube, settled with them and oppressed them, and then remained on the Vistula and called themselves Leks. Among these Leks, some were named Poles, others were called Lutitchas, Mazoyians, or Pomorians.
And the Slavs who had settled near the Dnieper also took the name of Poles, while others called themselves Drevlians because they lived in the middle of the forests. Others who went to live between the Pripet and the Dvina were called Dregovitches. The Slavs who staved around Lake llmen kept their name and built a town which they called Novgorod; those who settled on the Desna, the Sem, and the Sula are called Severians. In this way the Slavic race expanded, and its language is known as Slavic.


Nestor was clear when he wrote that Slavs originate from Illyricum and Romans pushed them to north. After a Roman rule was weakened Slavs started to cross Danube and without any problems “occupy” territories up to Peloponnesus.
The question is: why all those “Illyrians” and Thracians never fought against Slavs when they fought/resisted bloody to Romans via centuries. They just accepted them without any resistance. But somebody can say that Slavs exterminate them! No, South Slavs except Bulgarians are Dinaric race, so, domicile inhabitants of Balkan were in majority. And then, “cultural inferior” Slavs forced new language and culture. But the true is that we know nothing about so called “Illyrian language”. I will explain – Greeks and Romans called tribes in Balkan as Illyrians but in fact it was term for various tribes who all weren’t similar. Some were (Dalmatians, Triballi, Mezi and Dardans) and other no (like Scordisci who were Celts). Historians and linguistics who refuse to accept that “Illyrians” are Slavs thought out “Illyrian language”.
It’s interesting if you read Byzantines you saw that they called through medieval Serbs as Triballi and Dalmatians and Bulgarians (as I remember) as Mezi.

Story about Lombards is interesting. Lombards were neighbors of Slavs. German historian Georg Waitz has good theory about relations of Lombards and Slavs.

[DukeofSerbia]

Just how did you come this conclusion that slavs were the most cruel invaders?


Procopius – History of War.



These people apart the Magyars that conquered Hungary


How Magyars could conquer Hungary when there weren’t any Hungary?:wall: Magyars conquered Pannonia. :book:

[Kagemusha]

How Magyars could conquer Hungary when there weren’t any Hungary?:wall: Magyars conquered Pannonia. :book:

I stand corrected the area of modern Hungary.~;)

[Kraxis]

DukeofSerbia... I cincerely doubt that the Thracians and Illyrians would just accept the Slavs. Even if they were related and spoke somwhat related languages, there is no doubt that the local romanized people would never accept an invader. Seldomly has this happened.
Even the Rus in Russia, who claimed to have been invited to rule over the locals, took the land by force.

Also, even if related, most people tend to not care when it comes to their land. It is still an us/them matter. As can be seen by the numerous wars in Gaul and Germania, and not only there but practically everywhere.

The Illyrians and Thracians had by the time of the Slav invasions been removed so far from their ancestral tribal ways, as to not have that ferocious strength anymore. They had been peaceful for too long.
So either they didn't have the strength, or quite simply our limited sources on the matter didn't know what happened beyond a general matter. If you notice, the sources are very limited and very general. It isn't that unlikely that they didn't know what went on, and if they did they didn't bother to write the obvious.

A peaceful takeover, of two brotherpeople embracing, is about as far from the possibilities I can get.

[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?

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

[DukeofSerbia]

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. :book: 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.:book:

[Keba]

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.

[Kraxis]

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.

[Keba]

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.

[Stig]

mmm what's that city called, sounds interesting

[Kraxis]

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)?

[Keba]

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.

[Kraxis]

Well, I did mention that it couldn't be it, but that it possibly could a similar case.

[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).

[DukeofSerbia]

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.:book:

Go here: History of Balkan forum (http://p087.ezboard.com/bistorijabalkana)

[Keba]

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.

[Kraxis]

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.

[Prince Cobra]

So complicated, so complicated.
:sweatdrop: :wall: :sweatdrop: :wall: :sweatdrop: :wall: :sweatdrop:

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! :oops: 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!