Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?

Should the article about Poland be rewritten?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 71.4%
  • No

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14
Curiosity? What were the Yatvingians? By their name and different spellings, could it be that the "Danes" were already among them as later (Viking Age Russ-Varangians) or/and maybe earlier (Goth/Burgundians/Herules). Once in Sweden i found crazy that they called or rather pronounced Gotheborg not as one would expect in Vastergothland but with a soft 'G' (> Juteborg) as if from their neighbor Jutland, Goths=Gutes=Jutes? Jot-vingians?

some people will argue , but all below spoke different language

goths = an East Germanic people, two of whose branches, the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths,

gutes = Gutnish is among Gotlanders (Gutes)

geats = The name of the Geats also lives on in the Swedish provinces of Västergötland and Östergötland, the Western and Eastern lands of the Geats, and in many other toponyms.

IMO, none are related to each other
 
Curiosity? What were the Yatvingians? By their name and different spellings, could it be that the "Danes" were already among them as later (Viking Age Russ-Varangians) or/and maybe earlier (Goth/Burgundians/Herules). Once in Sweden i found crazy that they called or rather pronounced Gotheborg not as one would expect in Vastergothland but with a soft 'G' (> Juteborg) as if from their neighbor Jutland, Goths=Gutes=Jutes? Jot-vingians?

Yotvingians (also Jatwings, Sudovians), a Prussian tribe, ethnically close to the Lithuanians. The Yotvingians lived in a region known as Sudovia, located between the middle course of the Neman River and the upper course of the Narew River. Their main occupations were land cultivation, hunting, and fishing; they also produced handicrafts.
 
Thanks for the response. I'm going to need some time to digest.

In mean time we can contemplate how different nations drow same borders differently.

I believe this is Lithuanian version of borders:
Baltic_Tribes_c_1200.svg

When compared to polish map a big part of Mazowia belongs to Baltic Yatvings and Galindians.

Or this one:
baltai1.jpg


It might also mean that all maps are correct and what Mieszko "united" wasn't only made of Slavic tribes.
I suppose that first one is not professional in contrary to second one which seems to be in some of Baltic languages. North-Eastern part of Mazovia was probably ethnically mixed. Here I drew approximated border line of Mieszko's Poland on second map:
baltai1.2.jpg
But if so it was not big minority. Interesting thing is that Polish Dukes and Kings tried to conquer Prussia by many means. They tried military conquest, Christianizing mission many times. The last successful attempt was to employ Teutonic Knights to take over Prussia and to give the land back to Konrad I of Masovia. But how this agreement worked every one knows...
I have added two red dots which represents early Slavic gords. First one further to the north is Kolno and second is Wizna interestingly this name have no Slavic etymology but it could have Baltic or Germanic origin but it is not certain.
 
I suppose that first one is not professional in contrary to second one which seems to be in some of Baltic languages. North-Eastern part of Mazovia was probably ethnically mixed. Here I drew approximated border line of Mieszko's Poland on second map:
View attachment 6285
But if so it was not big minority. Interesting thing is that Polish Dukes and Kings tried to conquer Prussia by many means. They tried military conquest, Christianizing mission many times. The last successful attempt was to employ Teutonic Knights to take over Prussia and to give the land back to Konrad I of Masovia. But how this agreement worked every one knows...
I have added two red dots which represents early Slavic gords. First one further to the north is Kolno and second is Wizna interestingly this name have no Slavic etymology but it could have Baltic or Germanic origin but it is not certain.

thats interesting, because polish scholars present this as the goths land over time which are near by.........maybe the goths infiltrated into prussians tribes

i cannot remember the order, but I think it was
orange
blue
yellow
and last green

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
I suppose that first one is not professional in contrary to second one which seems to be in some of Baltic languages. North-Eastern part of Mazovia was probably ethnically mixed. Here I drew approximated border line of Mieszko's Poland on second map:
View attachment 6285
But if so it was not big minority. Interesting thing is that Polish Dukes and Kings tried to conquer Prussia by many means. They tried military conquest, Christianizing mission many times. The last successful attempt was to employ Teutonic Knights to take over Prussia and to give the land back to Konrad I of Masovia. But how this agreement worked every one knows...
I have added two red dots which represents early Slavic gords. First one further to the north is Kolno and second is Wizna interestingly this name have no Slavic etymology but it could have Baltic or Germanic origin but it is not certain.
Great job. Thanks

I was alway wondering how empty was the "Polish" land during Slavic expansion. We can assume it wasn't populated a lot. It was times of Atilla the Hun and other nomad conquests, obviously culminating in exodus of many Germanic tribes in area, and ethnically mixed Vandals. It was also time of global cooling (little ice age 1), failed crops and epidemics, like Justinian Plague. Archeological evidence tell us that not more than 10% of original population survived. Although I'm yet to read how many Slavs arrived in comparison to local demographics.
We can assume that quite more than locals, because Slavic language became easily dominant. Although harshness of Polish speech, when compared to other Slavs, might have something to do with East Germanic substratum of locals.

There might be some true in Piast Legend about Lech, Czech and Rus. Lech coming to empty land and taking it because of white eagle sign. There is no mentioning of glorious battles and war heroes. It is a very anticlimactic story, wouldn't you say?
 
thats interesting, because polish scholars present this as the goths land over time which are near by.........maybe the goths infiltrated into prussians tribes

i cannot remember the order, but I think it was
orange
blue
yellow
and last green

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
This map shows cultures at 200-300 AD. Maps about Baltic tribes show situation at 1200 AD. A thousand years later.

There are no written records to tell us what happened with Goths of Pomerania. All we know that most them went down south to the Crimea region around year 300 AD.
Future genetic research might shine some light on early demographics of this land.
 
This map shows cultures at 200-300 AD. Maps about Baltic tribes show situation at 1200 AD. A thousand years later.

There are no written records to tell us what happened with Goths of Pomerania. All we know that most them went down south to the Crimea region around year 300 AD.
Future genetic research might shine some light on early demographics of this land.

i did'nt know you could read polish

But as per all migrations , some number of people always stayed behind to maintain some of that ethnic tribe..............it was not like some type of " red-indian, pack up teepee and go to the next hunting ground" scenario
 
i did'nt know you could read polish

But as per all migrations , some number of people always stayed behind to maintain some of that ethnic tribe..............it was not like some type of " red-indian, pack up teepee and go to the next hunting ground" scenario

Yep, I'm Polish and Canadian.

Some Goths that stayed behind definitely mixed with Balts and Slavs with time.
 
This map shows cultures at 200-300 AD. Maps about Baltic tribes show situation at 1200 AD. A thousand years later.

There are no written records to tell us what happened with Goths of Pomerania. All we know that most them went down south to the Crimea region around year 300 AD.
Future genetic research might shine some light on early demographics of this land.
There is no written records, but there is heavy archaeology, written in the ground, of what centuries later became Poland. As clear, as the wagon trail to Oregon still has from busted wagons wheels buried on the ground. And as for the "East Germanic" or "Polish" Goths, there is enough digs and significant and clear signs within to see, that between the IV and the VI century the material culture that hitherto was employed in, then Poland, for reasons unknown came to appear upstream towards the Ukrajnian and Rumanian river valleys. But questions arise, WHAT were these Goths really, BEFORE the time they arrived on the gates of the Eastern Roman Empire and History? How many have been Balts, Slavs, Rutenians, Sarmatians or "Eastern Germanics"? Goths must have been at the time like the feared multi-ethnic Soviet Army to Roman Empire citizens. And from it, the consequent question... what were the local Goths who remained left behind before becoming Poles... besides those not becoming Gepids after and follow in the war path? We all know what the Goths were during their heyday, ample descriptions and rich records of their Federations and the MULTIPLE PEOPLES who composed their Nation train, as we all know what they became once settled within the Italian and Iberian peninsulas. And if so for the Goths...WHAT or who were those becoming "Slavic" Poles after..... just because which language they switched on to speak? The truth of that land is that most cultures it ever had, move over and leave to somewhere else. Is it so inhospitable, or its strategic position between greater cultural blocks makes it so "risky exposed"? The Poles tribes (and those speaking in it after) became equal to Poland_nation, wherever their borders may shift them, nation is equal to Poland language is equal to land and citizens.... Ethnicity and Genetics seem trivial thus
 
There is no written records, but there is heavy archaeology, written in the ground, of what centuries later became Poland. As clear, as the wagon trail to Oregon still has from busted wagons wheels buried on the ground. And as for the "East Germanic" or "Polish" Goths, there is enough digs and significant and clear signs within to see, that between the IV and the VI century the material culture that hitherto was employed in, then Poland, for reasons unknown came to appear upstream towards the Ukrajnian and Rumanian river valleys. But questions arise, WHAT were these Goths really, BEFORE the time they arrived on the gates of the Eastern Roman Empire and History? How many have been Balts, Slavs, Rutenians, Sarmatians or "Eastern Germanics"? Goths must have been at the time like the feared multi-ethnic Soviet Army to Roman Empire citizens. And from it, the consequent question... what were the local Goths who remained left behind before becoming Poles... besides those not becoming Gepids after and follow in the war path? We all know what the Goths were during their heyday, ample descriptions and rich records of their Federations and the MULTIPLE PEOPLES who composed their Nation train, as we all know what they became once settled within the Italian and Iberian peninsulas. And if so for the Goths...WHAT or who were those becoming "Slavic" Poles after..... just because which language they switched on to speak? The truth of that land is that most cultures it ever had, move over and leave to somewhere else. Is it so inhospitable, or its strategic position between greater cultural blocks makes it so "risky exposed"? The Poles tribes (and those speaking in it after) became equal to Poland_nation, wherever their borders may shift them, nation is equal to Poland language is equal to land and citizens.... Ethnicity and Genetics seem trivial thus

To be honest, I'm not really sure what your point is (complicated situation?), and what "equal to" mean in these contexts?

.. besides those not becoming Gepids after and follow in the war path? We all know what the Goths were during their heyday, ample descriptions and rich records of their Federations and the MULTIPLE PEOPLES
It is possible that Goths, at the end of their "trip" were a multi ethnic construct. All we know so far that their East Germanic language was a dominant one and that they started their voyage in Pomerania. However archeology of "Poland" tells us that at this time there were two distinct cultures living side by side. Literally side by side, we can find two villages close by of different cultural characters. Therefore it might mean that Goths didn't mix much with natives on their way South.

There is also a question who the heck were Veneti described by ancient historians as people of this area.
 
To be honest, I'm not really sure what your point is (complicated situation?), and what "equal to" mean in these contexts?


It is possible that Goths, at the end of their "trip" were a multi ethnic construct. All we know so far that their East Germanic language was a dominant one and that they started their voyage in Pomerania. However archeology of "Poland" tells us that at this time there were two distinct cultures living side by side. Literally side by side, we can find two villages close by of different cultural characters. Therefore it might mean that Goths didn't mix much with natives on their way South.

There is also a question who the heck were Veneti described by ancient historians as people of this area.

I recently read ( i will find the link ) that the Aestii and the Venedi are the same tribes, same coastal lands, same amber gatherers but written differently by different greek and Roman ancient historians.

And the theory of aestii being estonians is a myth...........these aestii eventually became part of the baltic-prussians
 
I recently read ( i will find the link ) that the Aestii and the Venedi are the same tribes, same coastal lands, same amber gatherers but written differently by different greek and Roman ancient historians.

And the theory of aestii being estonians is a myth...........these aestii eventually became part of the baltic-prussians
Jordanes wrote that Slavs ware under the name of Venedi in ancient sources. Tacitus placed them on east side of Vistula River.
 
Jordanes wrote that Slavs ware under the name of Venedi in ancient sources. Tacitus placed them on east side of Vistula River.
Everything I've read by polish historians was inconclusive. They could have been Slavic, Baltic, Celtic (name Kalisz, amber traders, is most likely of celtic origin) or other tribes related to Dacian or Slavic tribes who don't exist anymore. They could have been Germanic, although I would guess that germanic speech would have been recognized by contemporary historians back then.
If Venedi have been located on west side of Vistula they surely were assimilated by germanic tribes, if they were not germanic to start with. Last germanic tribe located around Kalisz was Vandals.
 
I think it all depends on the Przeworsk-culture and who the Vandali/Vandili were;

Tacitus (Ger.II) refers to the Germanic ancestors/origins to be Mannus son of Tuisto (God) and father of the Ingaevones, Istaevones and Herminones (confederations/multiple tribes) and Pomponius-Mela (III/XXXII) writes 'In eo sunt Cimbri et Teutoni, ultra ultimi Germaniae Hermiones' that the Herminones were dwelling on the extreme boundary of Germania; It was Plinius (IV/XXVIII) that added two more branches as Germanic i.e. the Vandili [Burgundiones, Varini, Carini, Gutones] and the Bastarnae; The Gutones (Goths) are known by manuscripts to have spoken a Germanic language and Jordanes (IV/XXVI) mentions that the Goths from Scandza subjugated the Vandals when they reached the other shore;

Ptolemy (III/V) added that the Gythones dwelled below the Venedae; Ptolemy, Tacitus and Plinius all describe the Venedae/Venedi to be a vast peoples and locate then on/around the Baltic; And Jordanes is very clear (V/XXXIV) that the Venedi are the ancestors of the Sclaveni and Antes and in his time (6th cen AD) occupied a large area between Vistula, Dniester and Dnieper;

Germanic and Slavic (Venedi/Wends) are easily determined; What remains a mystery is what happened to the Sarmatians especially between Dniester and Dnieper;
 
I think it all depends on the Przeworsk-culture and who the Vandali/Vandili were;

Tacitus (Ger.II) refers to the Germanic ancestors/origins to be Mannus son of Tuisto (God) and father of the Ingaevones, Istaevones and Herminones (confederations/multiple tribes) and Pomponius-Mela (III/XXXII) writes 'In eo sunt Cimbri et Teutoni, ultra ultimi Germaniae Hermiones' that the Herminones were dwelling on the extreme boundary of Germania; It was Plinius (IV/XXVIII) that added two more branches as Germanic i.e. the Vandili [Burgundiones, Varini, Carini, Gutones] and the Bastarnae; The Gutones (Goths) are known by manuscripts to have spoken a Germanic language and Jordanes (IV/XXVI) mentions that the Goths from Scandza subjugated the Vandals when they reached the other shore;

Ptolemy (III/V) added that the Gythones dwelled below the Venedae; Ptolemy, Tacitus and Plinius all describe the Venedae/Venedi to be a vast peoples and locate then on/around the Baltic; And Jordanes is very clear (V/XXXIV) that the Venedi are the ancestors of the Sclaveni and Antes and in his time (6th cen AD) occupied a large area between Vistula, Dniester and Dnieper;

Germanic and Slavic (Venedi/Wends) are easily determined; What remains a mystery is what happened to the Sarmatians especially between Dniester and Dnieper;

Ptolemy tribes of voltoni and ossosi are in venedi coastal lands........do you have anything on these?
 
I'd like to say a few words on the Venedi (Baltic Venedi, to specify that, because in the past, people here and elsewhere mixed them up with the Gaulish Veneti and the Adriatic Veneti, which were unrelated): I know that the identification of the Venedi as far as ethnicity and language goes has gone forth and back, but I'd like to point out some of the pieces of evidence:

- Ptolemy records the Venedi at the Baltic Sea coast, in the area of former East Prussia and Lithuania. He mentions two undoubtably Baltic tribes, the Sudovians and the Galindians, which are attested to live in the same area a millennium later.
- Tacitus describes the Venedi as sedentary and culturally similar to the Germanic peoples (as opposed to the nomadic Sarmatians), but with a distinct language (as opposed to the Bastarnae, whom describes as having a Germanic language).

If we take these as facts, then its probable that the Venedi spoke a Baltic language, or, barring that, some form of more undifferentiated Balto-Slavic (its not improbable given the archaic status of Proto-Slavic at that time). Its certain that they didn't speak a Germanic language, and its improbable, given their location at the coast that they were Slavic.

I might add, Ptolemy possibly mentions of the later Slavic tribes, the Severians (as Savari) but he places them further east, and also further south than the Venedi or the Guthones (Goths).

As for the fate of the eastern Germanic peoples, I think the linguistic evidence is fairly unambiguous here: the speakers of Proto-Slavic had extensive contact with speakers of Germanic languages (first Proto-Germanic, later East Germanic), and it also seems likely to me that the Slavs absorbed a large number of Germanic-speakers during the Migration Period.
 
For the original question of the thread title, wether Poland was more Germanic or more Slavic, I would say the answer should be correctly "both": its just the matter of the timing.

Before the Migration Period, the area of modern Poland was predominantly inhabited by Germanic-speaking tribes, such as the Rugians, Burgundians and Vandals. The southwest of modern-day Poland also had a vestigial Celtic element in it, see the tribal name "Lugii", as well as place names such as "Calisia", now Kalisz, and "Lugidunum" (perhaps today Legnica, but that identification is far from certain).

During the Migration Period, the Germanic tribes (in particular the Eastern Germanic ones, including the Goths and the Vandals) entered the territory of the Roman empire and seized - with various successes - parts of it (Vandals in North Africa, Goths in Italy and Spain, Burgundians in Gaul, etc.). In my opinion, its doubtful that the tribes moved as a whole, its more probable that mainly the upper elements of the tribes moved and that a chunk of the population stayed behind and was absorbed by the Slavic tribes in the subsequent centuries (the linguistic evidence, in my opinion, speaks for this). By the 7th century, Slavic tribes inhabited the largest part of former Germanic-speaking Europe, as far west as the modern area of eastern Schleswig-Holstein in the north (bear in mind that the city of Lübeck - one the cities of the Hanseatic league during the Middle Ages, was originally founded by Slavs) to the Elbe and Thuringian Saale rivers in the south. Its clear that before the Eastern Frankish realm (its iffy to genuinely "Germany" at that point already) expanded eastwards, the area of modern eastern Germany (note: I'm talking about the area of the former DDR here, not pre-1945 eastern Germany) was firmly Slavic-speaking. So from that perspective there can be no doubt that the area of modern Poland was predominantly Slavic at the same time. But, wether it was entirely "Polish" or not is a different question, in my opinion.

It must be argued that a distinct Polish identity/ethnicity certainly could not have exist before the Migration Period. And while speakers of Proto-Slavic no doubt existed (roughly in an area of what today is southeastern Poland, Belarus and the northwestern Ukraine), but we do not know what they called themselves, at least the name "Slav" is unrecorded by Greek or Roman sources before the Migration Period (yes, Jordanes claims that the Slavs were previously called Venedi, but bear in mind his own work dates from the Migration Period). The word 'Slav' itself is derived from the Slavic word for 'speech' or 'language' (see Russian "слова"/"slova", Polish "słowo"), contrasted with 'mute' or 'non-speaker' (Russian "немой"/"nemoj", Polish "niemy"), which was the exonym used by the Slavic peoples for Germanic speakers (hence, in the modern Slavic languages, the name for "Germany" is derived from this word). If you consider this, it stands to reason that the "Slavic" identity (distinct from the speakers of Proto-Slavic, think of the distinction between "Briton" and "Welsh" here for an analogy) was likely a new construct that emerged in the Migration Period.

Another issue that should be brought up - both with regard for the origins of Poland, and from the perspective of interaction with what was to become Germany, is the issue of religion: the Slavic tribes at the start of the Middle Ages were originally polytheistic (as were the Baltic tribes), while the Franks were Catholics from the 5th century onward. Sadly, you might say that it is no coincidence that the German for 'slave', "Sklave" is similar to the name "Σκλαβηνοι" (Sklavēnoi), used first by the Byzantines for the Slavic peoples during the Migration Period. Thus, the Medieval eastwards expansion of East Francia/Germany into Slavic territories was partially driven (it wasn't the only factor, there were also internal factors of early Medieval East Francia that contributed to this) by what you might consider a 'loophole' in the medieval Christian identity, in the way that it was seen as acceptable (even "necessary") to conquer polytheistic peoples (see also Norther Crusades, against the Baltic peoples, in particular the Prussians). This is - somewhat cynically - one of the factors in the Spanish conquests over the native peoples in the Americas. Therefore, what ultimately spared the area that was to become the nucleus of Poland (the Czechs/Bohemia should be brought up here, but that decisively leads offtopic :) ) from a similar fate as the other Slavic tribes in Central Europe was the adoption of Christianity: the key issue for the origin of Poland is certainly the conversion of Mieshko I. (in 966 AD) to western Christianity / Catholicism, as opposed to the Orthodox church of the Byzantine Empire that adopted by the eastern Slavic peoples (its technically incorrect though to geniunely talk about "Catholicism" before the Church schism).

What remains a mystery is what happened to the Sarmatians especially between Dniester and Dnieper;

This is an interesting point, I would like to point out that some of the Sarmatians - the Alans (or Alanoi, to the Greeks) moved along with the Germanic peoples during the Migration period, the Alans moved together with the Suebi into western Iberia. Purportedly, the origin of the Portuguese town "Alenquer" is "Church of the Alani".
 
Last edited:
For the original question of the thread title, wether Poland was more Germanic or more Slavic, I would say the answer should be correctly "both": its just the matter of the timing.

Before the Migration Period, the area of modern Poland was predominantly inhabited by Germanic-speaking tribes, such as the Rugians, Burgundians and Vandals. The southwest of modern-day Poland also had a vestigial Celtic element in it, see the tribal name "Lugii", as well as place names such as "Calisia", now Kalisz, and "Lugidunum" (perhaps today Legnica, but that identification is far from certain).

During the Migration Period, the Germanic tribes (in particular the Eastern Germanic ones, including the Goths and the Vandals) entered the territory of the Roman empire and seized - with various successes - parts of it (Vandals in North Africa, Goths in Italy and Spain, Burgundians in Gaul, etc.). In my opinion, its doubtful that the tribes moved as a whole, its more probable that mainly the upper elements of the tribes moved and that a chunk of the population stayed behind and was absorbed by the Slavic tribes in the subsequent centuries (the linguistic evidence, in my opinion, speaks for this). By the 7th century, Slavic tribes inhabited the largest part of former Germanic-speaking Europe, as far west as the modern area of eastern Schleswig-Holstein in the north (bear in mind that the city of Lübeck - one the cities of the Hanseatic league during the Middle Ages, was originally founded by Slavs) to the Elbe and Thuringian Saale rivers in the south. Its clear that before the Eastern Frankish realm (its iffy to genuinely "Germany" at that point already) expanded eastwards, the area of modern eastern Germany (note: I'm talking about the area of the former DDR here, not pre-1945 eastern Germany) was firmly Slavic-speaking. So from that perspective there can be no doubt that the area of modern Poland was predominantly Slavic at the same time. But, wether it was entirely "Polish" or not is a different question, in my opinion.

It must be argued that a distinct Polish identity/ethnicity certainly could not have exist before the Migration Period. And while speakers of Proto-Slavic no doubt existed (roughly in an area of what today is southeastern Poland, Belarus and the northwestern Ukraine), but we do not know what they called themselves, at least the name "Slav" is unrecorded by Greek or Roman sources before the Migration Period (yes, Jordanes claims that the Slavs were previously called Venedi, but bear in mind his own work dates from the Migration Period). The word 'Slav' itself is derived from the Slavic word for 'speech' or 'language' (see Russian "слова"/"slova", Polish "słowo"), contrasted with 'mute' or 'non-speaker' (Russian "немой"/"nemoj", Polish "niemy"), which was the exonym used by the Slavic peoples for Germanic speakers (hence, in the modern Slavic languages, the name for "Germany" is derived from this word). If you consider this, it stands to reason that the "Slavic" identity (distinct from the speakers of Proto-Slavic, think of the distinction between "Briton" and "Welsh" here for an analogy) was likely a new construct that emerged in the Migration Period.

Another issue that should be brought up - both with regard for the origins of Poland, and from the perspective of interaction with what was to become Germany, is the issue of religion: the Slavic tribes at the start of the Middle Ages were originally polytheistic (as were the Baltic tribes), while the Franks were Catholics from the 5th century onward. Sadly, you might say that it is no coincidence that the German for 'slave', "Sklave" is similar to the name "Σκλαβηνοι" (Sklavēnoi), used first by the Byzantines for the Slavic peoples during the Migration Period. Thus, the Medieval eastwards expansion of East Francia/Germany into Slavic territories was partially driven (it wasn't the only factor, there were also internal factors of early Medieval East Francia that contributed to this) by what you might consider a 'loophole' in the medieval Christian identity, in the way that it was seen as acceptable (even "necessary") to conquer polytheistic peoples (see also Norther Crusades, against the Baltic peoples, in particular the Prussians). This is - somewhat cynically - one of the factors in the Spanish conquests over the native peoples in the Americas. Therefore, what ultimately spared the area that was to become the nucleus of Poland (the Czechs/Bohemia should be brought up here, but that decisively leads offtopic :) ) from a similar fate as the other Slavic tribes in Central Europe was the adoption of Christianity: the key issue for the origin of Poland is certainly the conversion of Mieshko I. (in 966 AD) to western Christianity / Catholicism, as opposed to the Orthodox church of the Byzantine Empire that adopted by the eastern Slavic peoples (its technically incorrect though to geniunely talk about "Catholicism" before the Church schism).



This is an interesting point, I would like to point out that some of the Sarmatians - the Alans (or Alanoi, to the Greeks) moved along with the Germanic peoples during the Migration period, the Alans moved together with the Suebi into western Iberia. Purportedly, the origin of the Portuguese town "Alenquer" is "Church of the Alani".

Current slav papers put the slav origin in what they call the Ukraine-Belarusia Polesine ( basically a heavy forest wet area).
Below the Fenni as per ptolemy
 
I think most genetics of people from Poland,at least of women,is not Slavic.
Maybe most of the genetics there is from Baltic people,who knows.
 

This thread has been viewed 346914 times.

Back
Top