Slavs are descendants of Sarmatians?

Every single one of them is pushing up daisies. As is their entire culture and traditions.


Cobblers.

Pierdolze on all who negate fact about European Slavic (ie Sarmatian/ie Thracian/ie Celtic) antiquity.

Merged:

Sarmatian warlords of what is now Serbia and Hungary were overlords to those who lived in what is now Poland ?

Let us focus our observation on Sarmatians located from South-Eastern Europe to Baltic, from what is now Serbia and Hungary to what is now Poland. We often ask ourselves, was there any common tribal organization and mutual alliance between, to say Polish and Serbian Sarmatians. Well, we do have some documents. If we accept old records that proving how Celts were in fact Sarmatians (ie Slavs), we know for the written sources that describing tribal alliance between Skordicsi (on the South-Eastern-Central Europe) and Boii (Northern-Eastern-Central Europe).

Now, you all heard about King Arthur (Arcturus Castus), right? See, he commanded to 5.500 Sarmatian warriors that were sent to Britain after Romans defeated Sarmatians in long war and forced them to pay tribute. In obligation, among else, Sarmatians had to give 5.500 warriors to Roman service. Now, modern genetic science confirmed that most of those 5.500 Sarmatian warriors which were sent to Britain have Polish genetics (let`s say, gene variation of Northern Sarmatians), only few of them genetics of Serbians (let`s say, gene variation of Southern Sarmatians). You would say, well, what about it, coincidence, nothing strange. But see, battlefields of those wars after Polish Sarmatians gave 5.000 their finest warriors as tribute to Romans, were predominantly around the Danube in what is now Serbia and Hungary, in the land of Sarmatian Iazyges. That issue belong to Marcomannic Wars, of great Sarmatian-Roman conflict.

I would give you even more data. Man who gave direct order, after got request from Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, for sending 5.500 Sarmatian warriors in Roman service was King Zanticus of Iazyges. He was desperate man. Casualties inflicted by Romans were tremendous and what he obviously did is to turn to tribes of more northern Sarmatians and asked them to give warriors as tribute, what they did, obeying to his demands. Obviously, Zanticus (probably- Santic and then Romanized in records as Zanticus) was important Sarmatian and Iazyges were overlord Sarmatian tribe to those Sarmatian tribes in what is now Poland. That is the only explanation for this situation, in which northern Sarmatians (not most directly involved in the war) gave warriors as tribute to the foe, on the demand from southern Sarmatian warlord.



The Roman expedition against the Iazyges in the eastern Pannonian Plain and the great Marcomannic invasion, 167 - 170 AD

The Roman counter-offensive across the Danube, 171-175 AD

Venedi were proto-Baltic. In either case proto Balts were closely related to their indo-European cousins the Scythians. A pre-Slavs people emerged as a branch off from the southern Balts around 500-200BC. They were most likely the Spali/Spori* and spoke Indo-European language (proto-Indo Iranian or proto Baltic?), as the Spali are the forfathers of the Antes and Sclavi, who emerge around 450 AD in historical records. The Goths conquered the Spali in 200AD. The Spali language changed, a broken dialect of Sarmatian called Slavonian, with a large influx of German vocabulary.

The Spali riginated from the Srubnaya people, east of the Urals, and were fleeing from the Massagetae. They eventually settled near Kiev and subdued a local population there.

remember also, the baltic area in ancient times was larger than what it is now spanning from the vistula to moscow and southeward to Kiev

Germanic not German

I don't know about the details but the general picture seems reasonable - it is very likely that Proto-Slavic was a bastard Baltic mixed with Iranian (perhaps Sarmatian) elements and then influenced by Gothic (quite a big list of Gothic loanwords in Slavic) - I don't know if Goths ever ruled over Proto-Slavs but they definitely lived next to each other

if you have read thoroughly on the matter you would all realise that the following facts are true;

you need facts;

venedi of whom Tacitus speaks of in the 1st century are none other than Balts. these proto balts extent of area was much
larger than todays range of Baltic speakers, stretching from vistula to Moscow and down to Kiev.

Secondly, be aware of pan-slavist authors who argue that Slav speakers and communities existed in Poland and Ukraine since ancient times and that they
were the bearers of the Lusatian culture. This is not true.

Balts alone lived in eastern Poland and german tribes in the west.

Thirdly, if the forefathers of the proto-Slavic Antes and Sclavi were the Spali/Spori (who are Sarmatians), then it is only because the Spali were conquered by the Goths

in 200 AD and their language or dialect changed from a purer Indo-European/proto-Indo Iranian to a dialect with a lot of Gothic loan words. Slavonic language has a lot of Satemised German words. Sarmatians spoke proto Indo-Iranian which was very similar to PIE.

Fourthly, according to Sulimirski, the Spali settled near Kiev and subdued local population there. Could these have been Baltic speakers?Quite probable, explaining the beginning of collapse of Baltic to Slavic. According to some scholars, Slava is a Sanskrit word meaning glorious or famous. Antae is also a Sanskrit word meaning frontier people.

The Antes founded Rus and Novgorod & Bulgaria, the Slavi (White Croat) tribal league founded Galicia, Silesia, Bohemia, Moravia and Lusatia as well as Balkan Croatia and Serbia later on.

History records speak of Sarmatians under few different names. From Pictish lands of what is now Scotland, to what were Galish lands in what is now Spain and France, over the entire European and Anatolian Celtic, Thracian, Slavic, Balto, Iliryan, etc, etc realms, to the Eurasian steppes all the way to Ind river, all was territory of Sarmatians, in ethnic and linguistic sense, cultural influences stretching even wider.

These situation was reality in between last two glaciations (ice ages), so in about 4000 to 10.000 years ago. Most probable that great decline of the ancients started when back in past, some 5000 years, great fertile lake turned to be what we now know as Black Sea. It was tremendous event that happened right in the center of our old civilization. Some say that so called biblical flood speaks of it.

Some examples of Gothic loan words of proto-Slav;

Chlieb-chleb
dach-dach
lubic -lieben
grenze - granica
pannings - pieniadze
folde - pole

some examples of archaic proto Indo-European/proto Indo-Iranianroot words of Slavonic;

zhima - winter
deruv-drzew (tree)
giri-gora
kibitka-wagon
kurta-kurtka coat
perdzu - pierdzic (fart)
bag-bog (God)
Buddha-budzic awakened/enlightened

The Slavonic invasions of Europe;

the slavi only broke free from the Antes at about 550 AD because the Avars attacked the Antes and the Antes federation began to disperse in different

directions and break up. Some tribes headed by the White Croats and Serbs moved into Poland around this time. The Avars finally dispersed the Antes completely by 590 - 602AD.

The Slavi had to continue the war with the Avars in central Europe. Samo, the leader of the Slavi, defeated the Avars at least in the Carpathian area. Byzantine

Emperor Heraclius invited the warlike Croats and Serbs into the Balkans during the 620's AD to finish off the Avars there. Thus, Croatia and Serbia came into existence.

That is only a theory (a guess). it is not some Gospel's truth.


Nothing to do with pan-Slavism but another theory that run counter to migration or conquest theory - autochthonism or at least make an assertion that Slaves had been there for much more longer time than some people would have.

The latest progress in DNA research seems to strengthen the latter.

Buddha was white and Scythian (ie Sarmatian, ie Slavic).

no. We all were already where we are now. Roman borders were by force drawn by Romans over our realm.

Both ethnic names (Serbian and Croat) are from same source- Sarmatian ethnic name. But, Sarmatian is foreign given form (pronounceable by foreigners). Linguistics proved that `Sarmatian` coming from domestic `Serbian` or some similar native form. In Serbian `Srbi`. In foreign `Serbi` or `Sarbi`, even `Surbi` and `Sorbi`, all to the `Sarmi, Sarmatians`. Now, first records about `Sramatians` were of Greek origin. Later, Romans used same designation for Sarmats but also parallely used romanized term (in middle ages it was used for those Sarmats that were directly subjugated to Rome > `Croati`). So we got `Sarmatians` > `Carmatians` (similar as Turks call Serbians/Sarmatians > `Cauri`).

In our time, last Sarmatians (ie Slavs) that still uses their original ethnic designation are Lusatian/Central European and Balkan/Central European/South-East European Serbs. All other today existing Sarmatians (ie Slavs) with time adopted their tribal local name as their ethnic name. Still, most of Slavs are aware of their Sarmatian metha-ethnicity.

Dear Ironside,

DNA would only prove that it was Baltic or pre-Slav or something in between (Balt have same DNA grouping). DNA could not prove historical facts. All my western historical sources support the fact that Slavs only entered Poland at the beginning of the middle ages, circa 500 AD, process accelerating with the Avar invasion later.

`Venedi' according to latest evidence may have been originally a centum speaking Indo-European group and later multiple ethnic identities dominated by nomads from the east.

Autochthonous theory is backed by pan slavist agenda

The Germans misnamed the Slavs entering Germany in the middle ages as Venedi. That is a mistake. The Slavs did not call themselves Venedi.

To go by DNA only is just too weak.

Some of the tribes inhabiting Poland before the arrival of the Huns 376AD were;

Burgundians,
Lombards,
Suevi
Peucini
Basternae

Baltic tribes in the east including Galindae, Lubavians, Sasna

Balts did not call themselves Veneti either.

That make little difference and is weak as arguments go. If we go by political views - supporters of Hitler backed theory of the late migration.

So?


Any given group and names you named doesn't tell us much about their ethnical identities. It is possible they took their names from the dominant group, the god their shared or a name of the clan which was in charge.

All those sources tell us much but not enough to talk about anything with much a certainty.

DNA tell us at least something about ethnic composition of those people and is much more solid material than anything that has been written about it at the time.

It is possible that Slavs are just a cultural branch of a Indo-European/ Baltic tree that somehow gained on them.

Ironside linguistic tells us a lot of things - like for example the names of the rivers in Poland - most of these names don't mean a thing in Slavic (not to mention Polish) - ergo they are an earlier linguistic substratum - there are also ancient historical sources even if not very precise - there is also the archealogy that supports late arrival of Slavs to what is now Poland - that Hitlers propaganda used the argument that archeology supports that these were lands inahbited by Germanics doesn't make the argument invalid - also of what DNA markers are you talking about - there are some markers that are shared by a big proportion of Slavic and north Indian populations for example - does it prove Hindus were Slavs?

You can now present your arguments to the western scholars and some Russian and Polish scholars who would disagree with you.

the DNA covers Balts and Slavs.

There must be linguistic, historical and genetic sources to any argument.

I do not have to agree that Slavs lived in Poland long ago, before Christ.

Good night.

No you don't. Nether I have to agree to your views.
You simply have no arguments or spine to stand for what you think is right.
Night!


Sure, maybe doesn't tell us a lot - those are just guesses. there is no solid evidence one way or the other. How about this- Slavic are not ethnically drives tribes. Slaves are just kind people living on the vast territory who at one point in time took on gods and organization, technology followed by culture and language that spread amongst people that had been already there?

Somehow akin to Celts who were not an ethnicity.

Sarmatians are alive and kicking.

Ironside,

Celts are language group and race.

`Slaves are just kind people living on the vast territory who at one point in time took on gods and organization, technology followed by culture and language that spread amongst people that had been already there.'

Who said Slavs are unkind? Your theory above does not disprove anything but does not explain anything either. Explain more in detail. Cite sources please (if you do in fact read anything)

@Ironside

Napoleon Bonaparte once said that official history is bunk. Winners write the history.

George Orwell said:"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."

Polish students are being taught the version of history that had been adopted from the Viennese-Berlin school.

"Official history" is distorted, many historical events have been misrepresented with only the correct dates provided and even they too in some cases have been not accurate. Slavs are among the few nations that have unfortunately allowed others to write their history.

Ironside,

Slavs do'nt even know how to rule themselves. Poland is the best example of this.

You Poles needs more Serbian generals in your jails. Something good would definitely come from it. God loves you Poles, Racowie are among you again. You would get new wings.

Ironside & Cogniorac,

Give it up. Biskupin was not Slavonic. Recent Technologia reveals this.

This is just down right Polish far right nationalism.

There are many Polish or Czeck and Ukrainian writers who would disagree with you.

Are you talking about the old fortress? Biskupin is literally smack dab in the middle of modern day Poland...

Also Slavonic is a general term used to describe languages, customs, etc of Slavic people... Poles, Czechs, and Ukranians are also considered to be Slavic and their languages Slavonic...

Dirk Diggler,

I know they are all Slavs (Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs etc). What is your argument there?

Biskupin was part of the Lusatian culture (1300BC-500BC) and is now identified with ancient West Indo-Europeans. It does not matter if it is in the middle of Poland. Europe was very different back then and so was much of the world.

@classic34
Identified by whom?
Would you care to provide a source for your claim and briefly summarise the evidence on which the theory in question is based?

kaprys a lot of data (historical, linguistic even archeological) point to the late arrival (about 6th century C.E.) of Slavs to what is now Poland (and not only Poland) - plenty of Polish and other Slavic scientists (I would risk saying an overwhelming majority) support that view

that Biskupin was a Slavic settlement was sure a much welcome theory among educated Poles but it doesn't hold water in the light of later findings

by saying this I am not supporting Jan34 aka classic view that Slavs have no capability of ruling themselves - that's just plain racism

I'd say it's fifty-fifty presently. There is a lot of doubt about it. The main argument for that is the so-called settlement gap (pustka osadnicza) that allegedly existed for about a hundred years before the 6th century AD (which doesn't mean there was no one in this land, but only that there were much less people than before that period). Anoher argument is that the type of settlement form the 6th centure onwards differs significantly from the type of settlement preceding the settlement gap. There is no doubt these are indeed very serious arguments which the so-called Turbo-Slavs tend to neglect.

On the other hand, genetic assesments seem to strongly suggest that contemporary Poles have been living on the territory of the present-day Poland for a period stretching far back beyond the 6th century AD.

when, time you were attending a school 20 years ago? Anyway read what I have written on the subject in this thread rather than fall back on some outdated mussing fed to kids at school.


Yes, that one. You have a lot of peasant-commie traits but I can overlook it if you actually say something of merit. Good job!