When did baltic and slavic split ?

zanipolo said:
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 and Romans as Colchians and Iberians.[14][15] East Georgian tribes of Tibarenians-Iberians formed their kingdom in 7th century BCE. However, western Georgian tribes (Moschians, Suanians, Mingrelians and others) established the first Georgian state of 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
Click to expand...

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'?
 
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 -
 
Kardu said:
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'?
Click to expand...

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
 
MOESAN said:
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 -
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Robert22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Robert22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
Zeus10 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
zanipolo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...)
 
zanipolo said:
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
Click to expand...

Kardu said:
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.?
Click to expand...

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.
 
LeBrok said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
 
oriental said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 51525 times.

Back
Top