PDA

View Full Version : When did baltic and slavic split ?



Robert22
03-12-12, 12:18
I am unsure on tis, while some people say that baltic and slavic were still together around the turn of the eras. others say they split much earlier.
this map shows baltic and slavic being coloured in the same colour and its from 500 AD.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/IE1500BP.png

LeBrok
03-12-12, 18:39
Nobody really knows, the poor champs didn't leave any written records. :)

If Baltic language is a combination of proto-slavic mixed (or vice versa) with local substratum (different local Baltic language) than language can evolve much faster, and split might have happened much later, even around year 0.

If Baltic and Slavic evolved from common Balto-Slavic language, and they slowly drifted away without much contact, and didn't mix with any other locals, then it would take much longer to differentiate to current forms. In this case the split might have happened around 2,000 BCE. Perhaps some foundations were laid during Corded Ware expansion.

But in real life it is hard for a tribe or language to be secluded for so long, 4k years, therefore I would compromise the date of the split at around 1,000 BC.

Robert22
03-12-12, 19:50
baltic seems to be quite a primtive language, with many proto indo european features. so i think that slavic might is just a derived form with it. also regions which are slavic today, were once baltic. they got assimilated by slavs or germans (original prussians).
also heard that once slavs and balts were about of the same numbers, balts even lived around Moscow, while the slavs expanded and assimilated them, the balts rather stayed backwards and pagan, and today are reduced to lithuania and latvia.

Taranis
03-12-12, 19:57
First off, LeBrok is right: we don't know for certain because we have no written sources. :smile: I wouldn't pinpoint to a specific date, but in my opinion Balto-Slavic did have linguistic unity until (at least?) well into the bronze age, perhaps even into the early iron age. There's a common (uniquely Balto-Slavic) metallurgical vocabulary for words like 'tin' and 'iron', which is also subject to respective Baltic and Slavic sound laws (such as merger of PIE *a and *o which occured independently in Baltic and Slavic, as it was realized differently, or the palatalizations in Slavic).

Zeus10
03-12-12, 20:33
There has never been a natural split, because at least the slavic languages are all daughters of Old Church Slavonic language or differently known as Old Bulgarian. There was not any vernacular slavic language prior to OCS, which obviously was a vehicular language.

Yetos
03-12-12, 21:44
From Byzantines we know that slavic was the language of Great Moravia, and not Baltic area language,
that make some connect Slavic with Wends,
Other connect them with Sclavini,

from Historical facts we know that only a scytho-sarmatian entrance in central Europe could bring Slavic to south of Danube,
and concerning that Scythians had already enter Thrace from ancient times I believe that scytho-sarmatian difference is the same with Balto-slavic,
yet we know also that some Avar Turkic Ogur Finno_uralic population enter also, and that modern forms are based in the gathering of Cyrill and Method who created an official stability form of Great Moravia Slavic dialect.
I mean that Slavic Lingua Franca is the dialect of Great Moravia and in that basis older scytho-sarmatians re-arrange and follow their own paths.

Lebrok I Think is almost as old as you say, before Herodotus, and much younger, after the Varrangian-Viking entrance in Ucraine,
I think it started as scytho-sarmatian, and ended after the Uralic and Hunic and Viking invasion in central Europe and Ucraine to a Baltic and Slavic branch. disapearing Thracian as a linguistic unity but leaving remnants in the modern Balkanic languages,

Some modern linguists in Bulgaria also try to connect Slavic as a Scytho-Thracian or a Balto-Thracian language,
but until now I doubt about that, although seems that Slavic replace Thracian from Dinaric Alps to Samara areas were Herodotus say that Thracian were spoken.

Robert22
03-12-12, 22:21
so you think that thracian, baltic and slavic are all closely relate ? I think this could be true, especially dacian shows resemblances to baltic languages.

MOESAN
03-12-12, 22:23
There has never been a natural split, because at least the slavic languages are all daughters of Old Church Slavonic language or differently known as Old Bulgarian. There was not any vernacular slavic language prior to OCS, which obviously was a vehicular language.

"daughters"? Maybe - but is old church slavonic a synthetic language forged by some hysteric othodox monks upon nothing at all???
german written languages was forged upon a curious and not too logical mix or central and southern chancelleries of Germany about the XV° century, but its sources are older than this time, nevertheless, very older indeed - so slavic languages have ancient enough roots - some archeologists (I know, stones don't speak) think the lands North of the Battle Axes Cultures of the Steppes, say between them and Baltic, was yet shared between Balts and Slavs since the XIX° century BC...Slavs was supposed to have settled the lands between future E-Lausitz Culture and Dniepr Culture -

MOESAN
03-12-12, 22:24
all that would be a bit before Scythians and Sarmatians

Yetos
04-12-12, 00:05
so you think that thracian, baltic and slavic are all closely relate ? I think this could be true, especially dacian shows resemblances to baltic languages.

That is what i say, some modern 'push that way', although Thracian show also connection with Armenian Anatolian etc, and that is what I doubt, Scythians enter Thracian land in Romania before medieval Slavic speakers and that resemblances could be scythian and not Thracian,

LeBrok
04-12-12, 02:51
There has never been a natural split, because at least the slavic languages are all daughters of Old Church Slavonic language or differently known as Old Bulgarian. There was not any vernacular slavic language prior to OCS, which obviously was a vehicular language.
How do you explain Polish language being Slavic then? It had no connection to OCS. Poland was basically pagan till beginnings of second millennium and went straight into hands of Catholic Church with official language being Latin. And yet people spoke Slavic since the beginning, with no records indicating otherwise.

Yetos
04-12-12, 09:06
There has never been a natural split, because at least the slavic languages are all daughters of Old Church Slavonic language or differently known as Old Bulgarian. There was not any vernacular slavic language prior to OCS, which obviously was a vehicular language.

You have a point that,

But when did it Heppened? at 6th cantury Ad or at 1700 AD? wich calendar we must use?
Anatoli Flamenko or Julian?

So church again strikes,
After Latin and Greek which are Clergy language, Now Slavic is clergy language,

the Truth is until a point yes,

I will make a comparison with Germanic,

Germanic were Spoken from Bastarnae to Saxons and from Visigoths up to Norge,
Germanic language is not 'made in Berlin' language, but a family of languages,
only in Deutschland how many dialects we have? and how many states?
that could give each state to have its own dialect-language,
But the reformation that started from Luther start giving a written speech, and when writen speech is done then starts a reformation and a more preservative language,
until Goete and Hanover literature, Deutsch would split more and more to dialects, but that was hold,

Same is with OCS, only stronger,
Cyril and Method gather syntax grammar and vocabulary mainly from Great Moravia, not Bulgaria, Bulgaria is the less Slavic language and population. and reconstruct, or just construct a language from a dialect that was the lighthouse of Slavic reformation and not only,
OCS is not an artificial language like Esperando, but a language spoken by some, that help reform All Slavic and para-Slavic languages to a comon quide-ruler,
I mean that later education uses Great Moravian dialect as primary ruler,
same in Germany they use Goethe as ruler, etc

understand that, A priest if speaks in another language nobody listen to him, so no work is done,
only when a priest the language of people, can have a result, that is religious book were translated,

besides one of the first religious tests in Albanian language is a liturgy, a Clergy text,
would that means that Albanian is a clergy language?

It is commonly held that Albanian must have been written at least since the 12th century as many facts would indicate.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language#cite_note-HinrichsB.C3.BCttner1999-25) A 1332 document written in Latin by a monk, variously identified as either Guillaume Adam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Adam) (Archbishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Bar) of Antivari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar,_Montenegro) in the Principality of Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Serbia_%28medieval%29) from 1324 to 1341), or Brocardus Monacus (Frère Brochard), testifies to the existence of written Albanian prior to the earliest records so far discovered.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language#cite_note-FOOTNOTEElsie200328-30-26)

he "Formula e pagëzimit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_e_pag%C3%ABzimit)" (baptismal formula), which dates back to 1462 and was authored by Pal Engjëlli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pal_Engj%C3%ABlli) (or Paulus Angelus) (ca. 1417–1470), Archbishop of Durrës (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durr%C3%ABs). Engjëlli was a close friend and counselor of Skanderbeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skanderbeg).[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPrifti19823-27) It was written in a pastoral letter for a synod at the Holy Trinity in Mat and read in Latin characters as follows, Unte paghesont premenit Atit et birit et spertit senit ("I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost"). It was discovered and published in 1915 by Nicolae Iorga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Iorga).[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language#cite_note-FOOTNOTEIorga1971102-28)



Watch the above, if I follow your Logic then
Albanian is a Clergy language also, created by monks
and to use your vocabulary a Vehicular language.

So by following your way of Thinking,
in post about proto-Greek you say Greek naver existed but invented by church
Latin is also a clergy language,
now Slavic is a Church language,
by what we see Albanian is also a clergy language,
the only one left are the Germanic in Europe and Fino-Ugric languages,
are they connected with church also?

which language is not a clergy language?

Kardu
04-12-12, 13:23
baltic seems to be quite a primtive language, with many proto indo european features. so i think that slavic might is just a derived form with it. also regions which are slavic today, were once baltic. they got assimilated by slavs or germans (original prussians).
also heard that once slavs and balts were about of the same numbers, balts even lived around Moscow, while the slavs expanded and assimilated them, the balts rather stayed backwards and pagan, and today are reduced to lithuania and latvia.
Original Prussians were actually exterminated...

Zeus10
04-12-12, 17:34
How do you explain Polish language being Slavic then? It had no connection to OCS. Poland was basically pagan till beginnings of second millennium and went straight into hands of Catholic Church with official language being Latin. And yet people spoke Slavic since the beginning, with no records indicating otherwise.

That's a very good question. My only explanation to this is that their rulers might have been originally from the Slavic Church, and this might have happened during a 'history piece' that we are missing in the Poland history. If this is true this obviously happened prior to the 'conjunction' to the Catholic Church, for a short period of time, but long enough to transmit the language to the educated people which apparently was never lost, after the theocrats of Poland joined the Catholic Church.

Yetos
04-12-12, 17:42
That's a very good question. My only explanation to this is that their rulers might have been originally from the Slavic Church, and this might have happened during a 'history piece' that we are missing in the Poland history. If this is true this obviously happened prior to the 'conjunction' to the Catholic Church, for a short period of time, but long enough to transmit the language to the educated people which apparently was never lost, after the theocrats of Poland joined the Catholic Church.


Ucraine is also catholic, did that happened also in Ucraine?
Chech I think also catholic did that happened also to Them?


which language is not a clergy language?

since Greek Latin Slavic Albanian are clergy languages

Zeus10
04-12-12, 19:35
Ucraine is also catholic, did that happened also in Ucraine?
Chech I think also catholic did that happened also to Them?

Yes.



which language is not a clergy language?

since Greek Latin Slavic Albanian are clergy languages

Albanian is the clearest example of a historical vernacular language among all European languages. Even among the Albanian clergy, in their writings was expressed a clear ethnic identity about the people:


...fatesse doresse Arbenesce, prastu per εinima me chete......

and their language


...Tve mos dijtune Stampatorete ghiuhenee Arbenesce, ndoonesse vne iemendogne,.....

Therefore there is nowhere attested Albanian to be anything else but a family hearth language.

Yetos
04-12-12, 23:08
Yes.



Albanian is the clearest example of a historical vernacular language among all European languages. Even among the Albanian clergy, in their writings was expressed a clear ethnic identity about the people:



and their language



Therefore there is nowhere attested Albanian to be anything else but a family hearth language.


Funny or Tragic,

latin is a clergy language, so Latin speaking Catholic rulers teach Italian Francais Spanish latin languages,
Greek is also a clergy language, Greek Orthodox priests Teach Greek to Greeks
Slavic is also a Clergy language, Slavic Rulers learn Orthodox Slavic Clergy language and Teach Catholic Polands Chechs Ucraine etc Slavic language, But !!! outside church but outside since inside Churches Latin was Spoken,
so Church and Clergy language did not manage with Rulers!!!, a mistake of church, since it manage with Greek and Latin,

But in Albania where the 3 oldest Text are words from the ceremony and Church,
NO it is not a clergy language,

Probably all the world speaks clergy languages except Albanians right Zeus?

Tell us something Zeus why you have the Avatar of a God of a clergy language?

Zeus was God of Greeks, which Learn Greek from Church of Polytheists and their primary God Zeus,
why you are using the Avatar of conspiracy Clergy religion?

You should hate Zeus cause he teach Greeks a Clergy language,

Albanian is also a Clergy language since the 3 oldest text are Church rituals,
as Greek as Latin as Slavic,
Albanian spoke another language before and learn Albanian from church,

Zeus10
05-12-12, 00:13
Funny or Tragic,

latin is a clergy language, so Latin speaking Catholic rulers teach Italian Francais Spanish latin languages,
Greek is also a clergy language, Greek Orthodox priests Teach Greek to Greeks
Slavic is also a Clergy language, Slavic Rulers learn Orthodox Slavic Clergy language and Teach Catholic Polands Chechs Ucraine etc Slavic language, But !!! outside church but outside since inside Churches Latin was Spoken,
so Church and Clergy language did not manage with Rulers!!!, a mistake of church, since it manage with Greek and Latin,

But in Albania where the 3 oldest Text are words from the ceremony and Church,
NO it is not a clergy language,

Probably all the world speaks clergy languages except Albanians right Zeus?

Tell us something Zeus why you have the Avatar of a God of a clergy language?

Zeus was God of Greeks, which Learn Greek from Church of Polytheists and their primary God Zeus,
why you are using the Avatar of conspiracy Clergy religion?

You should hate Zeus cause he teach Greeks a Clergy language,

Albanian is also a Clergy language since the 3 oldest text are Church rituals,
as Greek as Latin as Slavic,
Albanian spoke another language before and learn Albanian from church,

No Yetos, unfortunately it's not. In 1635 Franciscium Blanchus, created the

Dictionarium Latino-Epiroticum(Latin-Albanian Dictitionary)

to help Albanians to undestand


Isilli Libre me pelghiei, e mu duch se chiste meu chiene per ndoogna ndime

the predication and all other ceremonies performed in the Latin language in the Catholic Church, which he calls:


Kiscese Romesse

the Church of Rome(Roman Catholic Church)

The entire passage in Albanian:


Tue passune dite, e perdite (te dascunitee mij mbassi hina nde College cuituem me ghisc zoppe Libre chesce me ndimuem mbe gnaane ghiuhene tane, ghi po bdarete, e po bastastarξohete saa maa parete vè; e maa fort me ndimuem giξξe atɣne ghi iane ndurξenite tine ɛot e te Scintesse Kisce Cattoliche es dijne ghiuhene Latine, paa tessijet as cusc smune scerbegne si duhete, paa te maξ error, e sai, hesaapete, ɛakonete, e Ceremoniatee Scintesse Kiscese Romesse. Me ndɣ io pach mire me marre, e me ncheξɣem nghiuhet ze Letine mbe ghiuhet Tarbenesce gna Ditionaar, ghi tietre sascte vecesse gna Libre, ghi kaa ndeuetehe saa fiale, e saa emena iane, e gindene nde chete piesse Seculi

So he clearly named the Latin language as the "Church Language"(of Rome ~Catholic), and with his 'testimony' from 400 hundred years ago, dropped your presumption that Albanian is a religious language.

LeBrok
05-12-12, 07:33
That's a very good question. My only explanation to this is that their rulers might have been originally from the Slavic Church, and this might have happened during a 'history piece' that we are missing in the Poland history. If this is true this obviously happened prior to the 'conjunction' to the Catholic Church, for a short period of time, but long enough to transmit the language to the educated people which apparently was never lost, after the theocrats of Poland joined the Catholic Church.

I have another explanation, it is the simplest one. There was a common Slavic language that they all spoke before spreading around half of Europe. From Byzantine and Roman records we know that there was a Slavic expansion, right? So if they expanded, it is logical to assume that they expanded from somewhere, and from much smaller place (otherwise it defies the word "expansion"). If they came from a smaller area, why wouldn't have had a same language?
This common origin idea, can easily explain why all Slavic peoples speak Slavic language. Regardless of what church they belonged to and pagan past. Regardless of political influences, either of Holly Roman Empire, Mongol Hordes or Turkish Ottomans.
It also goes nicely together with all legends, spoken traditions, first historic written records, linguistics, etc, etc.
Everything fits.

If everything fits, with no exceptions, why isn't it the truth?

Yetos
05-12-12, 09:54
No Yetos, unfortunately it's not. In 1635 Franciscium Blanchus, created the

Dictionarium Latino-Epiroticum(Latin-Albanian Dictitionary)

to help Albanians to undestand



the predication and all other ceremonies performed in the Latin language in the Catholic Church, which he calls:



the Church of Rome(Roman Catholic Church)

The entire passage in Albanian:



So he clearly named the Latin language as the "Church Language"(of Rome ~Catholic), and with his 'testimony' from 400 hundred years ago, dropped your presumption that Albanian is a religious language.

come on Zeus, by a signal post and a stone in Rome senate you claim that Greek is a clergy language,
avoiding the existance in every life things like cups,
and in case of Albania where 3 oldest texts are Clergy, and in wrong Alphabet like Early Greek it is obvious,
First Church used Latin which people know, and then teach Albanian and gave Albanian Alphabet,
Like with Latin,
Like with Slavic,
Like with Greek
same with Albania, a Clergy language,

Yetos
05-12-12, 10:01
If everything fits, with no exceptions, why isn't it the truth?

There is an exception, Church Divided the Albanian Speaking Europe to 2 new languages, Slavic and Germanic, since the old trick conspiracy of Greek and Latin did not work, so they make Cyrill in East to create a Clergy language, and Luther in West to create another, and they teach languages to people that spoke other languages before like the primordial lingua of Zeus10,
Only in Albania language is not a religious one, that is the exception,
Only there Church speak same language with people and learn the language of the people,
Right Zeus10?

Kardu
05-12-12, 10:54
If a "clergy language" was forced on a population, what language would they originally speak?

LeBrok
06-12-12, 02:28
If a "clergy language" was forced on a population, what language would they originally speak?
Slavic, lol. It is exactly same question I was going to ask Zeus.
Cyril and Methodius wrote bible in common Slavic, so the Slavs could finely understand church teachings. Simple like that, and no new language was invented. By the way, they also created new alphabet for Slavic language but it didn't take hold.

Yetos
06-12-12, 14:05
That's a very good question. My only explanation to this is that their rulers might have been originally from the Slavic Church, and this might have happened during a 'history piece' that we are missing in the Poland history. If this is true this obviously happened prior to the 'conjunction' to the Catholic Church, for a short period of time, but long enough to transmit the language to the educated people which apparently was never lost, after the theocrats of Poland joined the Catholic Church.


The problem is that you want to twist History
When cyrill and method translate Bibble
THERE WERE NO CATHOLIC, NO ORTHODOX

CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX DIVISION STARTED AT 1054 AD WHILE SLAVIC TRANSLATION IS AT LEAST CENTURY EARLIER

SIMPLY WHEN DIVISION WAS DONE POLAND DECIDED TO GO WITH CATHOLICS,
a more simple explanation. when Slavs enter Christianity there was one church, not 2,

the division to orthodox and Catholics is centuries after the translation,

So Slavic Polish decide to follow Catholic while other Slavic decide to follow Orthodox,

the rest are twisting History.
POLAND DID NOT JOIN (conjuction) NEITHER CATHOLIC NEITHER ORTHODOX,

THEY JOIN THE ONE CHURCH,
AFTER years Happened the division, meaning that after years rulers and priests decide to Follow Catholic
When Cyrill wrote his alphabet and translation THERE WAS NO CATHOLIC NO ORTHODOX

OCS is max 863 done.
Schism(a) is at 1054

200 years after,

again twisting History?

POLAND as Ucraine as majority of Slavic Speaking UNITE THE ONE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH,
WHEN THAT CHURCH DIVED TO 2 THEY DECIDE TO FOLLOW THE ROMEOCATHOLIC TYPE THAN THE ORTHODOX TYPE.

OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC WAS Part of the 'ONE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH'
NOT OTHODOXOCATHOLIC NEITHER ROMEOCATHOLIC WHEN WAS ESTABLISHED,
THE DIVISION IS AFTER 200

the rest are sick imagination from your effort to twist history,

just to restore history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_and_Method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

some slavs decide to follow the Western liturgy, and some decide to follow the Eastern liturgy, and mainly that was Bishops decision

Cyrill and Method are considered equal to apostols at East church,
co-Patron saints to West church,
cause their effort was done under the one church,

Zeus10
06-12-12, 20:59
I have another explanation, it is the simplest one. There was a common Slavic language that they all spoke before spreading around half of Europe. From Byzantine and Roman records we know that there was a Slavic expansion, right? So if they expanded, it is logical to assume that they expanded from somewhere, and from much smaller place (otherwise it defies the word "expansion"). If they came from a smaller area, why wouldn't have had a same language?
This common origin idea, can easily explain why all Slavic peoples speak Slavic language. Regardless of what church they belonged to and pagan past. Regardless of political influences, either of Holly Roman Empire, Mongol Hordes or Turkish Ottomans.
It also goes nicely together with all legends, spoken traditions, first historic written records, linguistics, etc, etc.
Everything fits.

If everything fits, with no exceptions, why isn't it the truth?

What the Slavic had in common was they were practicer of a common Slavic religion related to the Orthodoxy, and that was the source of their common language, which after splitted up in many local dialects, which became distinct languages thereafter. The Σκλάβοι or Σκλαβηνοί mentioned by the unreliable Procopius, were the slaves of the Byzantine rulers and they had no common ethnic origin and therefore no common ethnic language, but I am not denying that whoever created OCS was based on a spoken Slavic-like idiom. However there's never been an ethnos neither of a minor nor of a major proportion, of a natural ethnic Slavic origin.

Yetos
06-12-12, 21:15
What the Slavic had in common was they were practicer of a common Slavic religion related to the Orthodoxy, and that was the source of their common language, which after splitted up in many local dialects, which became distinct languages thereafter. The Σκλάβοι or Σκλαβηνοί mentioned by the unreliable Procopius, were the slaves of the Byzantine rulers and they had no common ethnic origin and therefore no common ethnic language, but I am not denying that whoever created OCS was based on a spoken Slavic-like idiom. However there's never been an ethnos neither of a minor nor of a major proportion, of a natural ethnic Slavic origin.

Twisted methods and twisted theories can be created by twisted mines like yours


just to restore history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_and_Method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism)


SLavic language has Nothing to do with Orthodoxy, or Catholicism
Slavic people enter the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC BEFORE THE SCHISM OF 1054 THAT CREATED THE DIVISION OF EAST AND WEST CHURCH.

the rest are up your mind like the one 'daughters of old Church Slavonic'
or as the solution with 'foreign Slavic church rulers'

Zeus10
06-12-12, 22:22
Twisted methods and twisted theories can be created by twisted mines like yours


just to restore history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_and_Method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism)


SLavic language has Nothing to do with Orthodoxy, or Catholicism
Slavic people enter the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC BEFORE THE SCHISM OF 1054 THAT CREATED THE DIVISION OF EAST AND WEST CHURCH.

the rest are up your mind like the one 'daughters of old Church Slavonic'

Ok Yetos. Now just step aside and don't quote and comment me any longer. Your intelectual and education level deserves no mercy.

Kardu
06-12-12, 22:31
Zeus10, do you also claim that well-attested Slavic Pagan pantheon was also created by Christian saints Cyril and Methodius?

Yetos
06-12-12, 23:20
Ok Yetos. Now just step aside and don't quote and comment me any longer. Your intelectual and education level deserves no mercy.

Twisted methods and twisted theories only by twisted minds can be created, like yours

you are right, I can not reach your level,
your twisted intelectual is many levels up, :innocent:

zanipolo
06-12-12, 23:52
Original Prussians were actually exterminated...

The baltic prussians are not eliminated, they are still around..actually the russian owned area of old kalingrad is seeking to be a soverirn nation called prusia ( note the 1 s )

The germans took the name prussia after teh teutonic kights defeated the baltic prussians in the 13th century.
IIRC it took a 60 year war.

typically, the slavic, germanic, italic, nordic languaged peoples always tried to falsely inherit cultures that they conquered......very similar to the ottomans claiming they are descendants of also the byzantines because they conquered byzantine.

try asking a slavic person to name the original slav tribe.............they will never answer , because 99% do not know

Kardu
07-12-12, 00:08
The baltic prussians are not eliminated, they are still around..actually the russian owned area of old kalingrad is seeking to be a soverirn nation called prusia ( note the 1 s )

The germans took the name prussia after teh teutonic kights defeated the baltic prussians in the 13th century.
IIRC it took a 60 year war.

typically, the slavic, germanic, italic, nordic languaged peoples always tried to falsely inherit cultures that they conquered......very similar to the ottomans claiming they are descendants of also the byzantines because they conquered byzantine.

try asking a slavic person to name the original slav tribe.............they will never answer , because 99% do not know

Most of the conquerors tried to incorporated/claimed culture of defeated if it was worthy for whatever reason.

If you read the chronicles you will see that great majority of Prussians were physically destroyed, the remnants fully assimilated by the neighbours.
That movement for Prussia in Kaliningrad Region is just a romantic phantasy on behalf of political players.

As for the tribes, a member of which modern nation knows to which tribe they belong? Do English know? Italians, Spanish etc.?

Zeus10
07-12-12, 01:12
As for the tribes, member of which modern nation know to which tribe they belong? Do English know? Italians, Spanish etc.?

That's true. Newly created nations like the ones mentioned from you above , can claim no inheritance from the ancient tribes. It's a different story, when it comes to the nations with a long ethnic history. The 15th Century Albanian leader Scanderbeg, was very aware about his people origin (Albanians). When Giovani Antonio the Prince of Taranto compared the Albanians to the sheep, he claimed descendence from the Ancient Epirotes, Pyrrhus the Great and Alexander the Great. In the response letter he wrote




Moreover, you scorned our people, and compared the Albanese to sheep, and according to your custom think of us with insults. Nor have you shown yourself to have any knowledge of my race. My elders were from Epirus, where this Pirro came from, whose force could scarcely support the Romans. This Pirro (Pyrrhus the Great), who Taranto and many other places of Italy held back with armies.
I do not have to speak for the Epiroti. They are very much stronger men than your Tarantini, a species of wet men who are born only to fish. If you want to say that Albania is part of Macedonia I would concede that a lot more of our ancestors were nobles who went as far as India under Alexander the Great and defeated all those peoples with incredible difficulty. From those men come these who you called sheep. But the nature of things is not changed. Why do your men run away in the faces of sheep?

zanipolo
07-12-12, 01:24
Most of the conquerors tried to incorporated/claimed culture of defeated if it was worthy for whatever reason.

If you read the chronicles you will see that great majority of Prussians were physically destroyed, the remnants fully assimilated by the neighbours.
That movement for Prussia in Kaliningrad Region is just a romantic phantasy on behalf of political players.

As for the tribes, member of which modern nation know to which tribe they belong? Do English know? Italians, Spanish etc.?

Distortion of history when someone claims anothers identity.

Distortion of history when someone uses a linguistic terminology and applies it to a culture , like slavic or germanic etc

whatever you may think , baltic prussians still exist today, its a distortion of national propoganda from countries in the region that deny this.

english, know they are either, saxon, angles, jutes, frisian, or one of the nordic viking people or whatever, same with italians, spanish, french..........slavic people cannot name a tribe/culture and neither can the germanic people to a lesser degree.

Are you saying , as a georgian you do not know the ancient tribes of georgia?

Yetos
07-12-12, 01:25
That's true. Newly created nations like the ones mentioned from you above , can claim no inheritance from the ancient tribes. It's a different story, when it comes to the nations with a long ethnic history. The 15th Century Albanian leader Scanderbeg, was very aware about his people origin (Albanians). When Giovani Antonio the Prince of Taranto compared the Albanians to the sheep, he claimed descendence from the Ancient Epirotes, Pyrrhus the Great and Alexander the Great. In the response letter he wrote

twisted methods are born in twisted minds, wich even twist Texts




IN WHAT LANGUAGE THAT WAS WRITTEN?
AND what SAY EXACTLY?

don't put extra words, you started to twist texts also?

1) first of all the thread is about Baltic and Slavic which you name clergy language a vehicular language, and modern Slavic as daughters of a church

2) what connection has, what Kastrioti wrote in his correspondance with Tarantines?


3) since you Use Kastrioti tell us at least in what Language that letter was written, since Latin Greek and Slavic are vehicular languages,
and why you make a 'free-rough' translation'
does the original text say
<<If you want to say that Albania is part of Macedonia>>
or you put it?



4)
IS THAT THE SAME REASON YOU CLAIM A GREEK GOD AVATAR?

do you claim that you are a descentant of an ancient Greek god?

Kardu
07-12-12, 12:17
Distortion of history when someone claims anothers identity.

Distortion of history when someone uses a linguistic terminology and applies it to a culture , like slavic or germanic etc

whatever you may think , baltic prussians still exist today, its a distortion of national propoganda from countries in the region that deny this.

english, know they are either, saxon, angles, jutes, frisian, or one of the nordic viking people or whatever, same with italians, spanish, french..........slavic people cannot name a tribe/culture and neither can the germanic people to a lesser degree.

Are you saying , as a georgian you do not know the ancient tribes of georgia?

Who are the Baltic Prussians today? :) That way we can also say that Etruscans still exist or Minoans etc...

Of course I know the ancient or not so ancient tribes of Georgia and to which my ancestors belonged to, but so what? Do you deny existence of Slavic tribes?

zanipolo
07-12-12, 20:12
Who are the Baltic Prussians today? :) That way we can also say that Etruscans still exist or Minoans etc...

Of course I know the ancient or not so ancient tribes of Georgia and to which my ancestors belonged to, but so what? Do you deny existence of Slavic tribes?

I do not deny the existance of slavic tribes, but slavic is not a tribe its a linguistic group, like germanic. . sycthians , sarmatians are not slavic tribes........I would like to know who are these slavic tribes by name.
Only 1 tribe is said to be slavic, a tribe called Stavani (Stavanoi) who lived in the northern Carpathian mountains.
You cannot claim anything due to language, if this is incorrect, then you are english because we communicate in english.


Baltic prusians, would be some, poles, latvians, estonians etc etc dispersed....there are even genetic markers for them.

Yetos
07-12-12, 21:24
I do not deny the existance of slavic tribes, but slavic is not a tribe its a linguistic group, like germanic. . sycthians , sarmatians are not slavic tribes........I would like to know who are these slavic tribes by name.
Only 1 tribe is said to be slavic, a tribe called Stavani (Stavanoi) who lived in the northern Carpathian mountains.
You cannot claim anything due to language, if this is incorrect, then you are english because we communicate in english.


Baltic prusians, would be some, poles, latvians, estonians etc etc dispersed....there are even genetic markers for them.


I think you can guess,

from all Roman and Greek chronicles we don't know them,
they could be here, or they could came from elsewhere,
but the first seems little bit stretchedto be such a big linguistic group and no Historian mention about,
so they came from else where,
possible areas, North far North, East inland (very north from Crimea or more East)
by watching the dates we see that Goths Vandals are leaving central Europe after ROMAN dicline, we see Huns and other steppe people to arive, also we see the Northern exit to Black sea of Varragians,
from History we know that Thracians and especially a quenn named Tomaris comes from Caspian sea,
meaning that Thracian were till Caspian,
also we know that Scythians entered and created Scythia minor, so Scythian and Thracian got mixed already,
from the Golden Horde and the rest steppe Hordes we see only Magyar and Finn kept their language,
so in one hand we have a possible known nation or group of tribes, and the on the other an unknown,
but we know Slavic although were recorded in Great moravia, were spoken even to Roxolani lands,

that again leads us to 2 lands of origin,
1 is the North and central Europe, and Varangians to East to spread them, and the other is lands near Roxolani,
But
conserning Balkans we have 2 entries, one is the known from Great Moravia and Pannonia , and the other is the Severi from Ucraine via Romania,
the second is a key,
Bulgars of Asparuch were allies of Severi, they settled side by side and they cooperate, they almost moved same time through roads that are beside, when enter Balkans,
if we understand that then we have a key. that leads us beside to Scythia major, or even scythia major it shelve, while through Scythian minor they were already familiar with Thracian,
also the case of Sclavini
their entrance in Great Moravia and Balkans seems to be the spark of the rest known world to face them with different eye,
Sparkey in a Thread said that it si very possible that some Y HG in Balkans came from Central Europe and Ucraine,
it is clear that Slavic languages were mainly developed outside Roman empire, (the inside but from paysants and peacefull people, seems not ok with me)
from a population that was forced to devastate or cooperate with Steppe people invasion from East, and not from North, but from Linguistic we know that are relative with Baltic,
that means either that both came-enter almost same or near time-age, or the one was near the other,
so the solutions are
Baltic came same time with Slavic?
Baltic was spoken in Baltic lands before, so Slavic language was a nearby area language.
no matter what seems like their exodus to central and south Europe was done as a chain reaction with Roman decline, Goths, Huns etc to a relative speaking population, Scytho-Thracians

Kardu
08-12-12, 01:45
I do not deny the existance of slavic tribes, but slavic is not a tribe its a linguistic group, like germanic. . sycthians , sarmatians are not slavic tribes........I would like to know who are these slavic tribes by name.
Only 1 tribe is said to be slavic, a tribe called Stavani (Stavanoi) who lived in the northern Carpathian mountains.
You cannot claim anything due to language, if this is incorrect, then you are english because we communicate in english.


Baltic prusians, would be some, poles, latvians, estonians etc etc dispersed....there are even genetic markers for them.

I think you are mixing some terms... Which tribes are tribes then? :) That way Georgian is just a langauge and all those tribes in Georgia were not Georgian.

Have you bothered to check at least the wiki page? What do you say about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_tribes

zanipolo
08-12-12, 04:55
I think you are mixing some terms... Which tribes are tribes then? :) That way Georgian is just a langauge and all those tribes in Georgia were not Georgian.

Have you bothered to check at least the wiki page? What do you say about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_tribes

i have........as per the term pre-proto-slavic, means they became slavic by language only because the slavs migrated that way...what would have happened if nordic languages arrived there first, then the term would be pre-proto-nordic .
Its basically a linguistic terminology. ..........

Considering that no Roman or Greek historian knew about slavic , then we can assume the tribes that where on the outside of the Roman empire and that they knew about them and did not designate them as slavic, clearly indiucates that they where not slavic but something else.

georgian is only a nationaltic title created in the 18th century when nations first appeared.
The Georgian people in antiquity have been known to the ancient Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greeks) and Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome) as Colchians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchians) and Iberians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Iberians).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_people#cite_note-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_people#cite_note-15) East Georgian tribes of Tibarenians-Iberians formed their kingdom in 7th century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCE). However, western Georgian tribes (Moschians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushki), Suanians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svans), Mingrelians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingrelians) and others) established the first Georgian state of Colchis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchis) (circa 1350 BCE)
There is nothing like this for slavic

So, this issue of balto-slavic etc etc are all linguistic terminology and not a cultural terminology

Yetos
08-12-12, 09:38
i have........as per the term pre-proto-slavic, means they became slavic by language only because the slavs migrated that way...what would have happened if nordic languages arrived there first, then the term would be pre-proto-nordic .
Its basically a linguistic terminology. ..........

Considering that no Roman or Greek historian knew about slavic , then we can assume the tribes that where on the outside of the Roman empire and that they knew about them and did not designate them as slavic, clearly indiucates that they where not slavic but something else.

georgian is only a nationaltic title created in the 18th century when nations first appeared.
The Georgian people in antiquity have been known to the ancient Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greeks) and Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome) as Colchians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchians) and Iberians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Iberians).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_people#cite_note-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_people#cite_note-15) East Georgian tribes of Tibarenians-Iberians formed their kingdom in 7th century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCE). However, western Georgian tribes (Moschians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushki), Suanians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svans), Mingrelians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingrelians) and others) established the first Georgian state of Colchis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchis) (circa 1350 BCE)
There is nothing like this for slavic

So, this issue of balto-slavic etc etc are all linguistic terminology and not a cultural terminology


yet there is,

i don't know if the are connected but there is a nation described by Greeks as Χαλυβες - Haluves

if we turn to satem sounds the Greek Χ then we have Shaluv-es.
concerning that Slavs in their language tent to cut vowels (the IE language with less vowels) then it is possible to become Shluv-es, Although that is still in sphere of possibility, and not attested,

since Haluves can be connected with both Haal, and Slav.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27687-%CE%A7%CE%B1%CE%BB%CF%85%CE%B2%CE%B5%CF%82-%28chalybes%29-an-unknown-historical-tribe-Iron-age-begining

yet the Varna Necropolis seems to change history,
after varna we know that gold Mettalurgy had been invented somewhere there and in possible ratio of nearby,

Kardu
08-12-12, 14:58
i have........as per the term pre-proto-slavic, means they became slavic by language only because the slavs migrated that way...what would have happened if nordic languages arrived there first, then the term would be pre-proto-nordic .
Its basically a linguistic terminology. ..........

Considering that no Roman or Greek historian knew about slavic , then we can assume the tribes that where on the outside of the Roman empire and that they knew about them and did not designate them as slavic, clearly indiucates that they where not slavic but something else.

georgian is only a nationaltic title created in the 18th century when nations first appeared.
The Georgian people in antiquity have been known to the ancient Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greeks) and Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome) as Colchians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchians) and Iberians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Iberians).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_people#cite_note-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_people#cite_note-15) East Georgian tribes of Tibarenians-Iberians formed their kingdom in 7th century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCE). However, western Georgian tribes (Moschians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushki), Suanians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svans), Mingrelians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingrelians) and others) established the first Georgian state of Colchis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchis) (circa 1350 BCE)
There is nothing like this for slavic

So, this issue of balto-slavic etc etc are all linguistic terminology and not a cultural terminology

Greeks and Romans didn't know Slavs because they are relatively young ethnicity.

How do you explain names like Slovenia and Slovakia?

How do you explain 'Slav' as a term for a slave in Germanic languages which overtook the place of original 'Thrall'?

MOESAN
08-12-12, 22:42
just a general ground remark
on antiquity among "barbarian" tribes or nations, people don't read nor write - they have not the handbooks "Berlitz for travellers" to learn new foreign languages, so language is not, despite some affirmations I red here and there, an easy exchanged kit for communication" -language WAS a cultural tool linked to everyday life and near enough to other aspects of economy, culture and ethnic sentiment - only "elites" (what a bad term for this case) change their skirts so quickly - changing language was changing way of life and changing 'saga' and I took a bit of time, I suppose...
so please don't kick too quickly off the languahge aspect when considering the formation of ethnies and nations, wh speaking about ancient times -

zanipolo
09-12-12, 01:48
Greeks and Romans didn't know Slavs because they are relatively young ethnicity.

How do you explain names like Slovenia and Slovakia?

How do you explain 'Slav' as a term for a slave in Germanic languages which overtook the place of original 'Thrall'?

Its the terminology which is a problem, we do not say the germanic migration/invasion of britain...we say the angles and saxons migrated/invaded britain

zanipolo
09-12-12, 01:51
just a general ground remark
on antiquity among "barbarian" tribes or nations, people don't read nor write - they have not the handbooks "Berlitz for travellers" to learn new foreign languages, so language is not, despite some affirmations I red here and there, an easy exchanged kit for communication" -language WAS a cultural tool linked to everyday life and near enough to other aspects of economy, culture and ethnic sentiment - only "elites" (what a bad term for this case) change their skirts so quickly - changing language was changing way of life and changing 'saga' and I took a bit of time, I suppose...
so please don't kick too quickly off the languahge aspect when considering the formation of ethnies and nations, wh speaking about ancient times -

true , but then we have no slavic, nordic or baltic in ancient roman and greek period.
Language is not something we need to define as a cultural identity of anyone , not even in the ancient times.
most of southern europe and middle east spoke greek, then later Latin ....we do not say these people where all greek or latin.

Robert22
09-12-12, 11:06
what avout the theory of thracian and dacian being related to baltic languages, i think they are really quite similar, despite being seperated by thousand of years.
not sure on thracian, but dacian definatly seems related.

zanipolo
09-12-12, 11:51
what avout the theory of thracian and dacian being related to baltic languages, i think they are really quite similar, despite being seperated by thousand of years.
not sure on thracian, but dacian definatly seems related.

unsure about the baltic language, but dacians are thracians....one of the 4 great thracian tribes, along with Getae, Moesians and odyssians.
All are thracians according to historians, then again, maybe they did not know any better.

Yetos
09-12-12, 12:45
what avout the theory of thracian and dacian being related to baltic languages, i think they are really quite similar, despite being seperated by thousand of years.
not sure on thracian, but dacian definatly seems related.

and again I repeat that Thracian is an unknown field,

from the liitle we know, it contained also vocabulary that belong to Anatolian Armenian etc,
the effort of modern linguists to connect thracian with Baltic always drops,
we find thracian vocabulary also in non Slavic- Baltic languages, as also in Albanian which although belong to that family, is not Slavic or Baltic,

the balto-thracian is a modern effort but doomed to fail always,
for example the Dacian capital is Sarmigetussa - tussa which is near Hettit than baltic,

the sons in Thracian is muca, etc which show connectivity also with minor Asia than baltic,

the geto-baltic connection is mostly pushed, but does not work,

on the other hand lets look at toponymes of some cities that Greek build in thrace,
seems like the have ending - bria
polto-bria
μεσημ-bria
συλληστρα ->συλλη-bria,
that -bria is sending us to Germanig - burg
remember Visigoths which are considered relative to Germanic speaking starting area is wide Thrace,

on the other hand as you say, if we watch the connectivity of what you say Baltic-Dacian that is major in Scythia minor,Scythia minor was a /thracian land that slowly become scythian,,
have you ever thought of that?

Kardu
09-12-12, 13:04
Its the terminology which is a problem, we do not say the germanic migration/invasion of britain...we say the angles and saxons migrated/invaded britain

You are mistaken :) Simple google search would prove it ;) Just type: germanic invasions of britain

This is one of the hits:

https://www.uni-due.de/SHE/HE_GermanicInvasions.htm

Robert22
09-12-12, 20:15
thats why i am saying i am unsure of thracian is related, but dacian seems to have more resemblances on baltic, and some even think that dacian is not related with thracian.

Yetos
09-12-12, 22:08
No Dacian Getan Odryssee Thracian Tribali thracian PAeoni thracian Phrygian are all Thracian,
it can be like Deutsch Dutch Austrian at maximum difference
the most different of all sems to be Phrygian and not Dacian

the possible difference is that Scythian created Scythia minor there,
so the possibility of Scythothracian can be more Baltic,
But in that case we admit that Scythian is Balto-Slavic language, and not Thracian,
if we admit that Dacian is more Baltic then we have to check the dates, and if the dates show after Scythia minor, then we surely speak (prove) that Scythian-sarmatian is a relative balto-slavic language, not Thracian,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia_Minor

while Scythia major is East parts of Ucraine,

I mean the Sarmigetussa Getan-dacian capital also follows hettit -tussa, but the later toponymes Dawa Dova can be after Scythians who enter thrace in historical times, not by Thracians

LeBrok
10-12-12, 21:37
What the Slavic had in common was they were practicer of a common Slavic religion related to the Orthodoxy, and that was the source of their common language, which after splitted up in many local dialects, which became distinct languages thereafter.
It only seams right when talking about Slavs in Balcans. They accepted Christianity sooner and there is lack of earlier written Slavic records to prove otherwise. However, once you go north and north-west, your theory builds too many exceptions and falls apart quickly.

Let's look at most West Slavs, Polabians: Veleti and Obodriti. Saxon and other German missionaries describe them wholly pagan till 12th century, and were geographically completely insulated from any influence of OCS.
Refer to "Chronica Slavorum", which contains places or gods names of Polabian Slavs. Names, though written with German spelling, are only understandable for Slavic speakers, ether from Poland or Bulgaria.

There is more attestation from later sources 18th century, with visible germanisation of common speech but still (after 1000 years of separation) comprehensible for all Slavs. Scroll to prayers in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polabian_language


You would faster convinced us that slavic language took beginning, or was introduced on various tribes, by their common pagan religion and religious leaders (when they lived still in proximity to each other) than later after expansion and through OCS.




OCS was based on a spoken Slavic-like idiom. However there's never been an ethnos neither of a minor nor of a major proportion, of a natural ethnic Slavic origin.

Look at basic vocabulary and grammar, even from today's sources. How can you explain commonalities visible through out half of Europe without even a minor ethos? OCS can't help you now. ;)

MOESAN
10-12-12, 21:55
true , but then we have no slavic, nordic or baltic in ancient roman and greek period.
Language is not something we need to define as a cultural identity of anyone , not even in the ancient times.
most of southern europe and middle east spoke greek, then later Latin ....we do not say these people where all greek or latin.

Are we so sure of that??? basic folks speak these languages everywhere in Mediterranea, do you think? some trademen , merchants was 'polyglottic' surely, not all the people, and the change of language took I think more than a generation at these times: the written traces we found was the well evolved populations ones of these "imperialist" countries in their colonies: they don't tprove the bulk of the surrounding populations was speaking thses languages: in an other way, how these honoured and mightfull languages disappeared after even without great populations movements, staying just (as by hazard) in some restricted colnized areas? Just my thoughts - and when people changed completely languages, they changed their saga and their ethnic name (look at Romanians, at Gallo-Romans...)

LeBrok
11-12-12, 00:29
The baltic prussians are not eliminated, they are still around..actually the russian owned area of old kalingrad is seeking to be a soverirn nation called prusia ( note the 1 s )

The germans took the name prussia after teh teutonic kights defeated the baltic prussians in the 13th century.
IIRC it took a 60 year war.

typically, the slavic, germanic, italic, nordic languaged peoples always tried to falsely inherit cultures that they conquered......very similar to the ottomans claiming they are descendants of also the byzantines because they conquered byzantine.

try asking a slavic person to name the original slav tribe.............they will never answer , because 99% do not know


Most of the conquerors tried to incorporated/claimed culture of defeated if it was worthy for whatever reason.

If you read the chronicles you will see that great majority of Prussians were physically destroyed, the remnants fully assimilated by the neighbours.
That movement for Prussia in Kaliningrad Region is just a romantic phantasy on behalf of political players.

As for the tribes, a member of which modern nation knows to which tribe they belong? Do English know? Italians, Spanish etc.?

If I may add on Prussians. It's very unlikely that Teutonic Knights decimated Prussians on a big scale. I'm not saying they arrived in Prussia to enjoy vacation by the lake, and they were known to be well oiled killing machine, but the true numbers of Prussian casualties are unknown. Why do I think so, because they were building castles and roads on industrial scale. How could they do it without huge slave and trade labor of hundred thousands of locals. Obviously they've killed enough Prussians to subdue them, christen them, and force to their will.
As I said, it is terribly hard to find any numbers, but estimated sizes of population from my past readings, peg teutonic knits at around 5000-10,000 against population of Prussia of 100,000-200,000. It would be even physically too expensive to find all Prussians in dense forest, swamps and 1000 lakes which characterizes this area. Plus, why would you kill your future labor force, just for fan? They couldn't even afford to kill only man, because they were catholic monks, who promised celibacy. I'm not sure even how many offspring they left?
Regardless, it is safe to assume that germanized Prussians (of 20th century) were genetically almost identical to original Baltic Prussians, even on Y-dna side. Culturally they were very German, but autosomelly still Prussians.
Ironically they were the ones who has united all the Germans again, by Bismark

Nowadays Prussia is split between Poland and Russia. After WWII Stalin moved (by force) all the Germans/Prussians to area of today's Germany. If someone was left behind it was a small percentage, if any. So whatever wasn't finished by Teutonic Knights, was completed by Stalin order. Prussia in any shape and form is gone forever.

zanipolo
11-12-12, 06:00
If I may add on Prussians. It's very unlikely that Teutonic Knights decimated Prussians on a big scale. I'm not saying they arrived in Prussia to enjoy vacation by the lake, and they were known to be well oiled killing machine, but the true numbers of Prussian casualties are unknown. Why do I think so, because they were building castles and roads on industrial scale. How could they do it without huge slave and trade labor of hundred thousands of locals. Obviously they've killed enough Prussians to subdue them, christen them, and force to their will.
As I said, it is terribly hard to find any numbers, but estimated sizes of population from my past readings, peg teutonic knits at around 5000-10,000 against population of Prussia of 100,000-200,000. It would be even physically too expensive to find all Prussians in dense forest, swamps and 1000 lakes which characterizes this area. Plus, why would you kill your future labor force, just for fan? They couldn't even afford to kill only man, because they were catholic monks, who promised celibacy. I'm not sure even how many offspring they left?
Regardless, it is safe to assume that germanized Prussians (of 20th century) were genetically almost identical to original Baltic Prussians, even on Y-dna side. Culturally they were very German, but autosomelly still Prussians.
Ironically they were the ones who has united all the Germans again, by Bismark

Nowadays Prussia is split between Poland and Russia. After WWII Stalin moved (by force) all the Germans/Prussians to area of today's Germany. If someone was left behind it was a small percentage, if any. So whatever wasn't finished by Teutonic Knights, was completed by Stalin order. Prussia in any shape and form is gone forever.

we disagree, your nationalistic ideas would also place you under the same theory that there are no palestinians because there is no Palestine.

for everyone else on baltic-slavic, read link
http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/galindai.htm


as for baltic-prussians, scholars of genetics have said:
R1a1a1g2d: a paternal genetic signal from the Baltic Prussians
does paternal mean original?

zanipolo
11-12-12, 10:04
R1a1a1g2d: a paternal genetic signal from the Baltic Prussians (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/r1a1a1g2d-paternal-genetic-signal-from.html) or R1a, Z280+, Z92+.

above is the marker of the baltic Prussians as given by genetic scholars - by more site than just the attached


http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/galindai.htm

baltic-slavic language
(http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/galindai.htm)

LeBrok
11-12-12, 17:41
scholars of genetics say,
R1a1a1g2d: a paternal genetic signal from the extinct Baltic Prussians
still around today

your theory on prussians would also mean there are no palestians because there is no nation called palestine

for baltic-slavic language, read below
http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/galindai.htm


I didn't say that Prussians, or their descendants are gone. They live in Germany now. I said that Prussia is gone forever, because it is highly unlikely that Poland and Russia give it back, or today's Germany would start another war to get it back, or if they get it back how many descendants will return? If they return, they still might be a small minority. So, tell me Zanipolo, will you call it Prussia again?



your theory on prussians would also mean there are no palestians because there is no nation called palestine According to this, there were no Prussians after Teutonic invasions. They became all Germans, right?



R1a1a1g2d: a paternal genetic signal from the extinct Baltic Prussians
still around today
Who have they tested? Prussian decedents from Germany, or people in Poland or Russia who live in area of former Prussia?

What is more important for you? Culture and language or genetic and physical structure?

oriental
11-12-12, 21:58
There would have been refugees westward towards Russia when the Teutonic knights were conquering Prussia how else and why would the Russians gather together and defeat the Teutonic knights and stop them entering Russia and doing the same to them?

Kardu
11-12-12, 22:37
:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prusi

LeBrok
11-12-12, 22:49
There would have been refugees westward towards Russia when the Teutonic knights were conquering Prussia how else and why would the Russians gather together and defeat the Teutonic knights and stop them entering Russia and doing the same to them?
Maybe Balts from Livonia escaped to Russia, but Prussians if escaped in numbers they entered Lithuania for safety.
Can't find any information on when Russians defeated Templars?

oriental
12-12-12, 00:24
Battle of the Ice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ice

http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id85.html




(http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/polish.html)

LeBrok
12-12-12, 01:42
Battle of the Ice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ice)

Good find, never heard of it.




http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id85.html

(http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/polish.html)
The Grunwald was their major defeat and turning point, short time after they became Polish/Lithuanian vassal.

Kardu
12-12-12, 13:44
Scientific study: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-769-1/dissemination/pdf/vol27/27_089_106.pdf

oriental
12-12-12, 23:30
When I was in Toronto I had a Finnish landlord and among the tenants was a Swede, German-Hungarian, Estonian. We used to shoot the breeze a lot and I learned a lot about the "other" Europe that we were not taught about. I learned about gypsies. I was taught only British history. The Estonian worked for St John's Hospital and I was talking about the Templars. He said "what do you think the St. John's Hospital was?"

I checked it and found it was also similar to the Templars and he told me about the Teutonic Knights coming to the Baltic area. I find these discussions fascinating though I understand a lot of heat is involved as there were so many wars and Medieval Europe was never taught very much in school except it was mentioned as the Dark Ages.

zanipolo
13-12-12, 20:56
Scientific study: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-769-1/dissemination/pdf/vol27/27_089_106.pdf

the article, while good is very irrelevant for the topic.......anything after the year zero is irrelevant in regards to baltic-slavic

zanipolo
13-12-12, 20:57
When I was in Toronto I had a Finnish landlord and among the tenants was a Swede, German-Hungarian, Estonian. We used to shoot the breeze a lot and I learned a lot about the "other" Europe that we were not taught about. I learned about gypsies. I was taught only British history. The Estonian worked for St John's Hospital and I was talking about the Templars. He said "what do you think the St. John's Hospital was?"

I checked it and found it was also similar to the Templars and he told me about the Teutonic Knights coming to the Baltic area. I find these discussions fascinating though I understand a lot of heat is involved as there were so many wars and Medieval Europe was never taught very much in school except it was mentioned as the Dark Ages.

the Hospitalers became St.John, the Templars did not

oriental
13-12-12, 21:56
Thx. I know that Templars and St. John's were two different organizations. After the Templars were dissolved I think St. John's took over their role.( I think).

zanipolo
13-12-12, 22:31
Thx. I know that Templars and St. John's were two different organizations. After the Templars were dissolved I think St. John's took over their role.( I think).

They where around at the same time
-Hospitalers wore black with white cross ( see movie Kingdom of heaven ), they wore red with white cross in northern europe
-Templars wore white with red cross
-St Stephans wore white with yellow cross
-Teutonic knights wore white with black cross

oriental
14-12-12, 00:00
:good_job:

Robert22
20-12-12, 02:58
well, so the aistians were the balts ? what about the venedae, were those the people we call slavs today ?

zanipolo
20-12-12, 04:27
well, so the aistians were the balts ? what about the venedae, were those the people we call slavs today ?

aistians? ........do you mean aestii .........they are modern estonians, east-baltic people

venedae , logicically they can only be initially west-baltic people who first became germanized and later became slavitized ......then by the early middle-ages, the term was used by the lithuanians.
In the middle ages, the commonwealth of Poland-Lithuanian led to the poles claiming the term....ah..the monarchies, you have to have a greedy mind...it s mine, mine I say.

the "ae" at the end of the word indicates a mixed group ( ethnicity) of people, like samatae, bastanae, etc etc

Robert22
24-12-12, 23:37
yes, i meant the aestii, so were those fenno-ugric people ? i thought they were baltic speaking.

so that means the Venedae were baltic ? i thought they were the ancestors of the slavs however. i also read somewhere that venedae might have been centum people.

Kardu
25-12-12, 01:20
'The Germanic tribe referred to as the Aestii by others, who Endzelins states knew themselves as Prussians, transferred the name to the more eastern Estonians with which they had contact since the first century BC, as the Estonians did not have their own name other than maarahvas "people of the land".[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesti#cite_note-Endre-8)

The Estonians themselves only took on the name in the late nineteenth century.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesti

Yetos
25-12-12, 18:00
aistians? ........do you mean aestii .........they are modern estonians, east-baltic people

venedae , logicically they can only be initially west-baltic people who first became germanized and later became slavitized ......then by the early middle-ages, the term was used by the lithuanians.
In the middle ages, the commonwealth of Poland-Lithuanian led to the poles claiming the term....ah..the monarchies, you have to have a greedy mind...it s mine, mine I say.

the "ae" at the end of the word indicates a mixed group ( ethnicity) of people, like samatae, bastanae, etc etc


hmmm

that -ae in end might mean something

lets see

ending in -οι -oi
sometimes means group of sons, ancestors,
sons of Keltos are Keltoi
sons of Makedon are Makednoi

ending in -es
sometimes means group of habitats dwellers allies
Crete people are Κρητες

but there is no special ocasion rule,
for example Italians are Italoi

the case of -ae might be connected with Greek -αι
that means a female name of tribe or City name

Female nouns in plural get -αι but we find no description of nation or tribe with -αι -ae in Greek
but we find city names like
Μυκηναι Mucenae
Αθηναι Athenae
that maybe means a territorial name, or a city name

I agree that ending in -ae describes plural with different form, probably a union, an alliance or a major toponymic description,
example Mycenae was a city, but we also consider as Mycenae that era Sparta Pylos etc
probably what Greek used as -ες, sarmatae - Σαυροματες.

zanipolo
25-12-12, 20:44
yes, i meant the aestii, so were those fenno-ugric people ? i thought they were baltic speaking.

so that means the Venedae were baltic ? i thought they were the ancestors of the slavs however. i also read somewhere that venedae might have been centum people.

thats what I said, east baltic speakers.

ask yourself, who was in east germany and poland before the germans and slavs arrived

zanipolo
25-12-12, 20:50
'The Germanic tribe referred to as the Aestii by others, who Endzelins states knew themselves as Prussians, transferred the name to the more eastern Estonians with which they had contact since the first century BC, as the Estonians did not have their own name other than maarahvas "people of the land".[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesti#cite_note-Endre-8)

The Estonians themselves only took on the name in the late nineteenth century.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesti

baltic people

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=kfv6HKXErqAC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=aestii+people&source=bl&ots=_x-HIew42G&sig=RkzmpuJaKC9ShiE-ePLIEL0i10A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RAPaUNfAKYOCiQfQmYDwCw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=aestii%20people&f=false

Kardu
25-12-12, 23:58
baltic people

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=kfv6HKXErqAC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=aestii+people&source=bl&ots=_x-HIew42G&sig=RkzmpuJaKC9ShiE-ePLIEL0i10A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RAPaUNfAKYOCiQfQmYDwCw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=aestii%20people&f=false Nice link, but doesn't it say the same as the Wiki article? :) That Estonians are hardly the descendants of Aestii :)

Dagne
26-12-12, 12:10
A quite plausible explanation is that Aestii means Eastern - any of the peoples who lived East of German tribes. According to this explanation, any peoples could be referred to as Aestii (Eastern from German tribes) - Prussians, Lithuanians, Lats, Estonians, etc., but no one particular tribe called themselves Aestii during classical times.