who are the pommeranians?

how yes no said:
do not write about genetics if you have no clue what those maps are....
look at this website (not forum) for some initial explanation about genetics...
Click to expand...

I know where to find them, I know they are genetic numbers, but I ask for others as well. Some legends in your posts would help , not just you, me but everyone else who reads these posts.
 
how yes no said:
let's take a look at match of culture spreads to spread of haplogroups

area of Pomeranian culture doesnot match in any way neither I1 nor I2b1, so it couldnot have been Germanic... I1 does show correlation with new culture (Oksywie culture) emerging along Baltic shores where north most part of Pomeranian culture was, so we can assume Nordic Bronze culturre spreading by conquest to north most areas of Pomeranian culture... spread of Przeworsk is clearly representing follow up of Pomeranian culture... and with Przeworsk we come very close to early Slavs

case closed...
Click to expand...

That is just wrong on so many levels. You take modern-day distributions of Y-chromosomal Haplogroups and ad-hoc assign ethnic affiliations to them. What you are forgetting is this:
- that these Haplogroup maps represent the modern-day situation and some 2200 years passed since the Pommeranian Culture.
- that Haplogroups and linguistic affiliations are rather detached from each other.

And, as I have stated before, if you take a look at Ptolemy, there is absolutely no onomastic evidence that there were any Slavic peoples in Germania in the 2nd century AD. Why should there be early Slavic peoples in the area in the 5th through 2nd centuries BC, then disappear in the 1st-2nd centuries AD and then suddenly reappear in the migrations period? That makes no sense. It's far more reasonable to assume that the Slavic people just arrived with the migrations period.

how yes no said:
intuition is also kind of logic...
if you are not able to feel the difference between art of different cultures than perhaps you are missing something in your education and logic...
Click to expand...

:petrified:

oh, come on... grow up...don't be such a 19th century historian...

Tacitus explains his methodology for classification when he talks of Vistula Veneti...
he says that Vistula Veneti have lot of elements of Sarmatian, but because they live in houses (and not as nomads) he classify them as Germanic...
with such a criteria I guess today whole world is Germanic...

only biased 19th century history school originating in biased historians of Germany and Austro-Hungarian empire can use such classification as a proof that Veneti were Germanic...

if your logic is still that Veneti are Germanic cause Tacitus said so, than you do not know what logic is...
Click to expand...

And again, you are insulting me. This time I'm going to report you. :useless:
 
According to Marija Gimbutas http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-03.html (map from p.83) Pomeranians were one of the Western Baltic tribes:

figure-24.jpg
Fig. 24. Baltic groups during the Early Iron Age (c. 600–400 B.C. and later) based on archaeological finds. 1, the “Face-urn” group of Pomerania and lower Vistula; 1a, the area of expansion of the “Bell-grave” group, successor of the “Face-urn” group, in the fourth and third centuries B.C.; 2, the west Masurian group, probably connected with the later Prussian Galindians; 3, the Sembian-Notangian group; 4, the lower Nemunas, western Latvian group connected with the early Curonians (Kurshians); 5, the east Masurian or Sudovian (Jatvingian) group; 6, the Brushed Pottery group ancestral to Lithuanians, Selians, Lettigallians and Semigallians; 7, the Plain Pottery culture to be identified with the easternmost Bolts; 8, the “Milograd” group of the seventh-sixth centuries B.C. Location of the Scythian farmers, Neuri and Androphagi based on Herodotus
 
Dagne said:
According to Marija Gimbutas http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-03.html (map from p.83) Pomeranians were one of the Western Baltic tribes:

figure-24.jpg
Fig. 24. Baltic groups during the Early Iron Age (c. 600–400 B.C. and later) based on archaeological finds. 1, the “Face-urn” group of Pomerania and lower Vistula; 1a, the area of expansion of the “Bell-grave” group, successor of the “Face-urn” group, in the fourth and third centuries B.C.; 2, the west Masurian group, probably connected with the later Prussian Galindians; 3, the Sembian-Notangian group; 4, the lower Nemunas, western Latvian group connected with the early Curonians (Kurshians); 5, the east Masurian or Sudovian (Jatvingian) group; 6, the Brushed Pottery group ancestral to Lithuanians, Selians, Lettigallians and Semigallians; 7, the Plain Pottery culture to be identified with the easternmost Bolts; 8, the “Milograd” group of the seventh-sixth centuries B.C. Location of the Scythian farmers, Neuri and Androphagi based on Herodotus
Click to expand...

That's confusing. The archaeological cultures on that map are vastly more located to the east than the Pomeranian Culture on the other map.
 
Hmmm, perhaps, the spread southwards happened a bit later than 600-400 BC. Gimbutas explains:
"The Face-Urn people, probably taking advantage of the breaking up of Lusatian power by the Scythians, expanded southward. The descendants of the Face-Urn people occupied the whole Vistula basin in Poland and the part of the western Ukraine reaching the upper Dniester in the south.

This expansion around 400–300 B.C. brought changes. The fashionable face urns gradually lost their human features and developed into much more simplified versions. [...] This change in grave type probably came about because of the spread of the Face-Urn people over the territory of the Lusatians who covered their urns with pots. Some scholars are therefore inclined to consider the pot-covered urn culture as a continuation of, or resulting from a mixture with, the Lusatian culture. However, it is more logical to suppose that the Lusatians merely influenced the Face-Urn culture. The similarity of the urns of the pot-covered urn period to the face-urns is striking whereas there is no genetic relationship to the style of the Lusatian pottery. We can also recognize a very close relationship with the pottery made by other Prussian tribes in East Prussia. The pot-covered urn culture is certainly not an “early east Germanic culture,” as Petersen called it in his otherwise valuable study of 1929 describing the graves and finds in the territory of prewar eastern Germany.22
 
Dagne said:
Hmmm, perhaps, the spread southwards happened a bit later than 600-400 BC. Gimbutas explains:
"The Face-Urn people, probably taking advantage of the breaking up of Lusatian power by the Scythians, expanded southward. The descendants of the Face-Urn people occupied the whole Vistula basin in Poland and the part of the western Ukraine reaching the upper Dniester in the south.

This expansion around 400–300 B.C. brought changes. The fashionable face urns gradually lost their human features and developed into much more simplified versions. [...] This change in grave type probably came about because of the spread of the Face-Urn people over the territory of the Lusatians who covered their urns with pots. Some scholars are therefore inclined to consider the pot-covered urn culture as a continuation of, or resulting from a mixture with, the Lusatian culture. However, it is more logical to suppose that the Lusatians merely influenced the Face-Urn culture. The similarity of the urns of the pot-covered urn period to the face-urns is striking whereas there is no genetic relationship to the style of the Lusatian pottery. We can also recognize a very close relationship with the pottery made by other Prussian tribes in East Prussia. The pot-covered urn culture is certainly not an “early east Germanic culture,” as Petersen called it in his otherwise valuable study of 1929 describing the graves and finds in the territory of prewar eastern Germany.22
Click to expand...

Well, from the areas involved in the other map, I made the connection with the East Germanic peoples. Based on that map, I figured that the areas involved are several centuries later (1st-2nd centuries AD) are inhabited by the various East Germanic peoples. However, in the map you posted above, I absolutely agree that this is way too much eastward to be associated with East Germanic peoples. Also, on second thought, the timing would make it unlikely, because the contact between Celtic and the Pre-Germanic language can be dated to about 500-600 BC.

This is really quite a bit of a mystery. What did happen in these intermediate centuries? How did the situation come into existence that was described by Tacitus and Ptolemy?
 
sorry but occam's razor doesnot agree with you...

Przeworsk is clearly continuation of Pomeranian culture..
I2b was clearly never part of Pomeranian culture..

you are obviously biased when it comes to Germans

Taranis said:
That is just wrong on so many levels. You take modern-day distributions of Y-chromosomal Haplogroups and ad-hoc assign ethnic affiliations to them. What you are forgetting is this:
- that these Haplogroup maps represent the modern-day situation and some 2200 years passed since the Pommeranian Culture.
- that Haplogroups and linguistic affiliations are rather detached from each other.
Click to expand...
actually, I do take it in account....

spreads of haplogroups are never completelly cleaned out...
look at Croatia..so many depopulation events and still is there some E-V13...
but no Germanic I2b in Pomeranian culture area means just one thing - it never was there...
how come we can see Nordic bronze I1 in area and we can't see I2b?
cause I2b, the key marker of all German tribes, was not living there...


And, as I have stated before, if you take a look at Ptolemy, there is absolutely no onomastic evidence that there were any Slavic peoples in Germania in the 2nd century AD. Why should there be early Slavic peoples in the area in the 5th through 2nd centuries BC, then disappear in the 1st-2nd centuries AD and then suddenly reappear in the migrations period? That makes no sense. It's far more reasonable to assume that the Slavic people just arrived with the migrations period.
Click to expand...
sorry, but haplogroupos reveal clearly lies of 19th century Germanic history school that set foundation for "drang nach Oosten"

besides from what I see Germanic people are misusing name Germans...
name clearly comes from ancestors of all I2 people.... not just I2b....
it probably never was I1 tribal name...

in Asia it is coupled to I2a (Gomer), in Africa to I2a1 (Garamantes)
in Europe it is primary related to I2b area and only recently in language sense it is used for I1 areas of Scandinavia..

from what I see original tribal name of I1 people is Suebi/Swedes
only that explains why North sea was mare Germanicum, and Baltic mare Suebicum
the two were not the same... but in some point of time they become the same...

Suebi crossed at some point from Scandinavia into lands of I2b (which very likely spoke same language as other I2 people) and merged into what is now called Germans...

they also pushed Pomeranian R1à culture (I do not know what its original language could have been - Scythian, Sarmatian, Balto-Slavic - who knows..) from Baltic shores to south...

that also explains why Slavic people do not use name Germans for Germans, but use name derived from word "mutes" (or people who lost their language that is ability to speak) and, often in pejorative sense, the name Švabe based on tribal names Suebi... Germans of today are just ex-Slavs and ex-Celts subjugated by early Swedes or Suebi...

besides Germans also don't use Germans as selfname... Deutch is quite different word...
but using name German is convenient for further stealing land from Slavic, Celtic, Baltic... as the area where people settled in houses was called Germania (based on I2 peoples tribal name) as opposed to area where R1a nomads lived (Sarmatia)....

coin Germanic languages is wrong word.. variant of IE language that is spoken by people who are now wrongly called Germanic people should instead be called Suebic or Swedish or Swaben languages

Taranis said:
And again, you are insulting me. This time I'm going to report you. :useless:
Click to expand...

don't you think I am insulted in many occasions with things you say to me? you continually try to put yourself in position of some teacher, while all you "know" is based on vague and biased hypothesis of 19th century "drang nach Oosten" history school...

point is already the name you use is insult to all Indo-Europeans... who do you think you are to use one of the names of primary God of all IE people? it's a blasphemy...
you hurt religious feeling by the very name you use......
but than again stealing other peoples names seems to be in the very basis of your culture...
 
Dagne said:
According to Marija Gimbutas http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-03.html (map from p.83) Pomeranians were one of the Western Baltic tribes:

figure-24.jpg
Fig. 24. Baltic groups during the Early Iron Age (c. 600–400 B.C. and later) based on archaeological finds. 1, the “Face-urn” group of Pomerania and lower Vistula; 1a, the area of expansion of the “Bell-grave” group, successor of the “Face-urn” group, in the fourth and third centuries B.C.; 2, the west Masurian group, probably connected with the later Prussian Galindians; 3, the Sembian-Notangian group; 4, the lower Nemunas, western Latvian group connected with the early Curonians (Kurshians); 5, the east Masurian or Sudovian (Jatvingian) group; 6, the Brushed Pottery group ancestral to Lithuanians, Selians, Lettigallians and Semigallians; 7, the Plain Pottery culture to be identified with the easternmost Bolts; 8, the “Milograd” group of the seventh-sixth centuries B.C. Location of the Scythian farmers, Neuri and Androphagi based on Herodotus
Click to expand...

In the attached articles , when it mention ueniticians, it refers to the Venedi of the vistula who traded amber to egypt at the time of Ramses II

the illustration shown below, in which I introduce (in light blue) suggested names - UINI, UENE, UENETI, UINU. These are not arbitrary words, but words that can be argued to a)have originated from the same original word, and b)evolved into modern words for peoples with boat-traditions such as "Finnic", "Inuit", "Khanti", "Venedi".
This article is by way of elaborating on this map and my choices for names.
Map-3000BC.jpg


Map 1. This map introduces many inventions of name, and this article will explain the reasons. Here are some brief explanations: UINI is an invented word (from Finnic stem UI-) that can be seen to be ancestral to both "Finnic" and "Inuit". UINU is a variation that can be seen to have evolved into "Khanti", UENE can be seen to be ancestral to the Roman word for hunting people in the east Baltic Fenni, considering that the Roman F-character was really used for a sound that was more like V today. UENETI can be seen as its plural and ancestral to the same word in the southeast Baltic according to Ptolemy and others. I also show Vistula as arising from UISE-LA, another variation. Far to the west, I have written UITULA purely because Caesar describes the dominant people identifiable with the Aquitani, as Uiteriges, or Bituriges. Uiteriges, by Estonian or Finnish suggests uide riigid 'nations that float/swim'. The other naming (in white) takes directly from established words. "Brito-Belgic" of course refers to the Belgae and Britannicae of the Roman British period, and "Suevo-Aestic", combines the Suevi and Aestii larger regions as identified by Roman Tacitus and other ancient historians. Note that the intent of the map is to describe logical units based on how geography would influence interraction of boat-oriented peoples. Note to scholars: To keep the map simple, it does not include any information pertaining to land-based people other than the reindeer hunters at the top.


​
​
 
Taranis said:
Evidently, Ptolemy was part of that hideous 19th century German/Germanic school which promoted the "Drang nach Osten". :LOL:
Click to expand...

maybe he was one of the few in europe which was not serbian
 
interesting about culture below, its the gothic culture on the black sea via Pommeranian area

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

Slavic pressure northward was the outward sign of turmoil in southern Russia, and reflected changes in the ethnic configuration. The Hun invasion in A.D. 375 destroyed the power of the Gothic kingdom. As soon as the Slavic tribe of the Antae shook off the supremacy of the Goths, it expanded over the Black Sea coasts from north of the lower Danube to the sea of Azov. Subsequent invasions by the Turko-Tartar peoples, the Bulgars and, particularly, by the Avars who in the first half of the sixth century penetrated as far as the barrier of the dense forests along the River Desna and the upper Oka, culminated in the Slavic advance into the lands of the eastern Balls and the Finno-Ugrians, where least resistance would be encountered.

I always thought that slavic advances in the balkans only happened after the goths left the black sea areas.
 
Sorry how yes no,
but some parts in your messages sound as if you were accusing Taranis (or Germans), for instance of stealing... "but using name German is convenient for further stealing land from Slavic, Celtic, Baltic..."

it is natural that tribes were pushing each other and moving to different territories, but its not only German tribes, but all of them, and Taranis personally is not responsible for that ...

Lets keep it calm, please, it is an interesting discussion, isn't it?
 
Dagne said:
Sorry how yes no,
but some parts in your messages sound as if you were accusing Taranis (or Germans), for instance of stealing... "but using name German is convenient for further stealing land from Slavic, Celtic, Baltic..."

it is natural that tribes were pushing each other and moving to different territories, but its not only German tribes, but all of them, and Taranis personally is not responsible for that ...

Lets keep it calm, please, it is an interesting discussion, isn't it?
Click to expand...

yes, well I did overreact...

My point was that we do not even really know who were original Germans and what language did they originally speak, so it doesnot make much sense to claim that most of central and east Europe was Germanic in the sense that we now understand the word... from what I see tribal name Germans could have originally been about haplogroup I2 people and not about complete haplogroup I... but it could have been also about complete haplogroup I.... or about some mix of haplogroups... it all depends also on the time snapshot at which we look...

e.g. Tacitus is very clear that division Germania/Sarmatia was for him about style of living (in houses or as nomads) and not about languages... he classifies Veneti in Germanic only based on living in houses, which is quite different from term Germanic that we use today...

also we do not know whether at the time proto-Slavic was just an east Germanic dialect that has later further developed towards the language of iranian Sarmatians,,,

so, when we speak of proto-Slavs and proto-Balts and proto-Germanic people, it is not really clear where the actual language borders were and whether language borders really existed or was it a continuum of small regional variations in essentially same IE language... so, it just doesnot make much sense to directly map notion of Slavic, Germanic and Baltic languages of today to the notions from those times...

I2 haplogroups are especially a puzzle of its own...e.g. was I2a2 original Slavic haplogroup or when did I2a2 merged with Slavic people..where did it come form... what was its original language? what were tribal names related to it?...

who were original IE people? when did they arrive in Europe? did they arrive in Europe or did IE languages in fact spread from Europe to Asia? there are many things in official history that are just layers of assumptions...

it's not like it was clear cut...process of languages emerging to the form they have today was complex process with many factors... we just donot know many things... e.g. where are today people who originate from speakers of Celtic languages of central Europe, or e.g. if you look at italian language today, it is more different from latin than one would expect... but how did that happen...

point is languages are alive, they keep changing...we just cannot directly map language division of today to the notions of Germania and Sarmatia that were cultural categories related to style of living (in houses or as nomads).....

what is clear is that Przeworsk was continuation of Pomerania culture...
 
how yes no said:
e.g. Tacitus is very clear that division Germania/Sarmatia was for him about style of living (in houses or as nomads) and not about languages... he classifies Veneti in Germanic only based on living in houses, which is quite different from term Germanic that we use today...
Click to expand...

they where not slavic but finnic, baltic and aesti in languages, thats what tacitus meant

also we do not know whether at the time proto-Slavic was just an east Germanic dialect that has later further developed towards language of iranian Sarmatians,,,
Click to expand...
impossible, slavs where still on the eastern areas of the black sea at this time

so, when we speak of proto-Slavs and proto-Balts and proto-Germanic people, it is not really clear where the actual language borders were and whether language borders really existed or was it a continuum of small regional variations in essentially same IE language... so, it just doesnot make much sense to directly map notion of Slavic, Germanic and Baltic languages of today to the notions from those times...
Click to expand...
not proto-slavic at this time, please say proto-finnic

I2 haplogroups are especially a puzzle of its own...e.g. was I2a2 original Slavic haplogroup or when did I2a2 merged with Slavic people..where did it come form... what was its original language?
Click to expand...
are the goths I2a2, did they migrate to the area north of the black sea, isnt it logical the slavic got this haplogroup from the goths!

it's not like it was clear cut...process of languages emerging to the form they have today was complex process with many factors... we just donot know many things... e.g. where are today people who originate from speakers of Celtic languages of central Europe, or e.g. if you look at italian language today, it is more different from latin than one would expect... but how did that happen...
Click to expand...
you do not believe that the celts, iberians and norse stayed where they where and did not migrate do you?. The celts moved towards the east, the norse moved south and the iberians moved also east via the mediteraen coast line
Click to expand...
 
zanipolo said:
they where not slavic but finnic, baltic and aesti in languages, thats what tacitus meant
impossible, slavs where still on the eastern areas of the black sea at this time

not proto-slavic at this time, please say proto-finnic
Click to expand...
really? you are now mind reader and know what Tacitus meant?

Tacitus, Germania

Chapter XLVI
Veneti (or Venedi as it appears in Pliny) is the same name as Wend
Click to expand...

http://books.google.nl/books?id=VWne2bcwpZIC&dq=Tacitus Germania&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q=veneti&f=false

Peucinorum Venetorumque et Fennorum na-
tiones Germanis an Sarmatis ascribam dubito, quam-
quam Peucini, quos quidam Bastarnas vocant, sermon e,
cultu, sede ac domiciliis ut Germani agunt. Sordes
omnium ac torpor procerum ; connubiis mixtis non-
nihil in Sarmatarum habitum foedantur. Veneti
multum ex moribus traxerunt; nam quidquid inter Peucinos Fennosque silvarum ac montium erigitur,
latrociniis pererrant. Hi tamen inter Germanos po-
tius referuntur, quia et domos figunt et scuta gestant
et pedum usu ac pernicitate gaudent: quae omnia
di versa Sarmatis suut in plaustro equoque viventibus.
Click to expand...

translates as:

As to the tribes of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni, I am in doubt whether I should class them with the Germans or the Sarmatæ, although indeed the Peucini called by some Bastarnæ, are like Germans in their language, mode of life, and in the permanence of their settlements. They all live in filth and sloth, and by the intermarriages of the chiefs they are becoming in some degree debased into a resemblance to the Sarmatæ. The Veneti have borrowed largely from the Sarmatian character; in their plundering expeditions they roam over the whole extent of forest and mountain between the Peucini and Fenni. They are however to be rather referred to the German race, for they have fixed habitations, carry shields, and delight in strength and fleetness of foot, thus presenting a complete contrast to the Sarmatæ, who live in waggons and on horseback.
Click to expand...

ok, so he doubts where to class Veneti, Fenni and Peucini...
although Peucini (called by some Basternae) are alike to Germans in their language

this clearly means Veneti and Fenni are not alike Germans in their language
 
Dagne said:
Sorry how yes no,
but some parts in your messages sound as if you were accusing Taranis (or Germans), for instance of stealing... "but using name German is convenient for further stealing land from Slavic, Celtic, Baltic..."

it is natural that tribes were pushing each other and moving to different territories, but its not only German tribes, but all of them, and Taranis personally is not responsible for that ...

Lets keep it calm, please, it is an interesting discussion, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I have accomodated this by assessing in this thread when Proto-Slavic approximately was spoken.
 
how yes no said:
really?

Tacitus, Germania

Chapter XLVI


http://books.google.nl/books?id=VWne2bcwpZIC&dq=Tacitus Germania&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q=veneti&f=false



translates as:



ok, so he doubts where to class Veneti, Fenni and Peucini...
Peucini (called by some Basternae) are alike to Germans in their language

this clearly means Veneti are not alike Germans in their language
Click to expand...

could you be logical on this issue?
If the amber road was a venedi/venethi trading road and this raod was on the baltic sea like Ptolemicus says ( vendica bay) , then on the coast where baltics, finnic or aesti ( or westwards suebi) , slavs where not on the coast and they as stated by scholars did not know about the sea.

You are trying to replace proto-finnic or proto- baltic whith proto-slavic.
 
zanipolo said:
could you be logical on this issue?
If the amber road was a venedi/venethi trading road and this raod was on the baltic sea like Ptolemicus says ( vendica bay) , then on the coast where baltics, finnic or aesti ( or westwards suebi) , slavs where not on the coast and they as stated by scholars did not know about the sea.

You are trying to replace proto-finnic or proto- baltic whith proto-slavic.
Click to expand...

so, based on living along trade road you conclude Veneti could not have been proto-Slavs?

let's see Russian primary chronicle

Thus the Slavic race was divided, and its language was known as Slavic.
When the Polyanians lived by themselves among the hills, a trade-route connected the Varangians with the Greeks. Starting from Greece, this route proceeds along the Dnipro, above which a portage leads to the Lovat'. By following the Lovat', the great lake Il'men' is reached.The river Volkhov flows out of this lake and enters the great lake Nevo. The mouth of this lake opens into the Varangian Sea. Over this sea goes the route to Rome, and on from Rome overseas to Tsargrad [Constantinople]. The Pontus, into which flows the river Dnipro, may be reached from that point. The Dnipro itself rises in the upland forest, and flows southward. The Dvina has its source in this same forest, but flows northward and empties into the Varangian Sea. The Volga rises in this same forest but flows to the east, and discharges through seventy mouths into the Caspian Sea. It is possible by this route to the eastward to reach the Bulgars and the Caspians, and thus attain the region of Shem. Along the Dvina runs the route to the Varangians, whence one may reach Rome, and go from there to the race of Ham. But the Dnipro flows through various mouths into the Pontus. This sea, beside which taught St. Andrew, Peter’s brother, is called the Rus Sea.
Click to expand...
http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/PVL-selections.pdf
 
how yes no said:
so, based on living along trade road you conclude Slavs could not have been Veneti?

let's see Russian primary chronicle


http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/PVL-selections.pdf
Click to expand...

LOL, hahaha

According to the Primary Chronicle of Rus, compiled in about 1113 AD, the Rus' people, a group of Swedish Vikings,[8][9] had relocated from Uppland, Sweden, to Northeastern Europe, organizing an early politity centered around Lagoda and Novgorod under their leader Rurik, laying the foundation for the Rurik dynasty. Under the leadership of Oleg of Novgorod, a relative of Rurik, the Varangians expanded southwards by capturing Kiev, founding the medieval state of Rus'

varagians where from the 10th century AD, you are out of touch by over 1000 years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 68655 times.

Back
Top