Could you please give sources for what you're claiming? Something more recent than a thousand years ago.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Pity.
Still, I'm trying to understand what exactly is he claiming.
Some nationalist and/or pan-Slavic nonsense really. Probably read about it online somewhere, and that's why there aren't any actual citations or sources.
I mean I'm fine with suggestions and trying to fix inaccuracies, but making the Avars Slavic for... reasons isn't exactly doing so.
Well, I can find this kind of sources, if you're intrested. Essentially, there is a theory, based on some linguistic claims (some toponims and intresting things in craft-based lexics), that slavic birthplace actually WAS on Danube, then they leave it to the north and east, and then, in 6-7 century, they returned, with some kind of "reconquista mindset". I never was convinced, and always believed in Kiev theory, but Danube theory existed and even have some kind of scientific arguments. It's not some kind of Fomenko, who "mathematically proved" that Russian Golden Horde (sic!) ruled all the Earth (yes, maya are slavs; and romans; and everybody), and all historical evidences were rewritten in 17th century, and Jesus was Russian Emperor. I don't know if Fomenko ever been translated (or if you can read Russian), but if he was, and you're intrested in this kind of things, and you have free time, I'd recommend it, for good fun. "New Chronology" and "Old Maps of Great Russian Empire".
Still, even as avars, who rule Avar Khaganate weren't slavs themselves, in 8th century slavic people definitly were in the lands that Avar Khaganate ruled, and other tribes were allies of Avars. That's proven by historical evidence, archeology, and, well, slavic realms with history starting this dates. Same thing happend with bolghars, who are, actually, "mixed" ethnos. Slavic expansion from Prussia to Bjarmia (it's hard to strictly discern some balts and baltic slavs though; like, prussian question) in the last 1500 years is a historical fact. So, as I said, I believe it's reasonable to place some subjugated slavic duchies in Avar Khaganate.
Well I don't think there should be any Slavic rulers under the Avars off hand, but aren't there some Bohemian cultured provinces in 769? I haven't really looked and may be getting it confused with 867. There should probably be some Carantanian/Slovene and more Croatian too though.
Fresh, because Nestor could communicate with the Moravians, Poles, Bulgarians in the same language. They had a similar motive. No dialects. One language.
So that they do not claim that I am misleading, I know that the word king means in all Slavic languages means karol, on behalf of Charlemagne
Correct the Slavs in Sklavins. Sklavins is the ancestors of the Romanians, Moldovans.
Ants at the time of Justin had already been destroyed by Avars. Sklavinus were subjected to Avar aggression after the above campaign. Survived those who fled for the Danube, to empire.
These lands of the Ants were subsequently colonized by people from the Carpathians.
They were obviously small, poor. Not was one chief, and was anarchy
For 700 years, since the time of the Scythians, the Slavs have not learned anything. And they learned to hide in the forests and swamps. How many invasions of Scythians, Alans, Goths, Huns were. There was nothing: neither swords, nor compound bows, nor cavalry. The Germans have excellent products: potter's wheel, fibulae. The Slavs have only skins, stucco pots, dugouts. Eastern Europe flourished only twice: under the Scythians, under the Goths.
Compare Chernyakhov culture (Gothic) Penkovsk (Slavic). The difference between heaven and earth
Last edited:
By the way, the inhabitants of the forests of Ukraine themselves and the inhabitants of Wallachia could not call themselves Ants and Sklavins. These are just Greek names. Ants could call themselves Dulebs.
Nestor:
“And the Avars (Obrs) began a war against the Slavs and began to torment the Dulebs, who were Slavs. They (the Avars) mocked Duleb women: when someone went on a trip, he harnessed not a horse or ox, but ordered instead that three, four or five (dulebsky) women were harnessed to the yoke of his carts, and forced them carry him. That is how they plagued the Dulebs. "
Nestor:
“And the Avars (Obrs) began a war against the Slavs and began to torment the Dulebs, who were Slavs. They (the Avars) mocked Duleb women: when someone went on a trip, he harnessed not a horse or ox, but ordered instead that three, four or five (dulebsky) women were harnessed to the yoke of his carts, and forced them carry him. That is how they plagued the Dulebs. "
"Correct the Slavs in Sklavins. Sklavins is the ancestors of the Romanians, Moldovans."
Dude, what kind of nonsense is this? The Romanians and Moldovans are not slavs.The ancestors of Romanians and Moldovans are Vlachs which means ''latin speaker". Vlachs themselves formed from the Roman colonists that mixed with the autotchtonous Dacians but also with migratory Dacians called Carpi ( sec III-IV) that came from present day Republic of Moldavia.
The Slavs asimilated into the Romance speaking population resulting the Romanian language and people...Vlachs as they are known in historical mentions.
Also, never in historical methodology is something acceptable on account of only ONE source. Do yourself good and read more, preferably from multiple sources.
Anyway your last posts pretty much convinced me you are a troll :
And the Avars (Obrs) began a war against the Slavs and began to torment the Dulebs, who were Slavs. They (the Avars) mocked Duleb women: when someone went on a trip, he harnessed not a horse or ox, but ordered instead that three, four or five (dulebsky) women were harnessed to the yoke of his carts, and forced them carry him. That is how they plagued the Dulebs. "
Now if the Avars were Slavs why would they mock Slav women, Why the Avars themselves are not mentioned as "Slavs" and instead are called Avars if they were one and the same.
Dude, what kind of nonsense is this? The Romanians and Moldovans are not slavs.The ancestors of Romanians and Moldovans are Vlachs which means ''latin speaker". Vlachs themselves formed from the Roman colonists that mixed with the autotchtonous Dacians but also with migratory Dacians called Carpi ( sec III-IV) that came from present day Republic of Moldavia.
The Slavs asimilated into the Romance speaking population resulting the Romanian language and people...Vlachs as they are known in historical mentions.
Also, never in historical methodology is something acceptable on account of only ONE source. Do yourself good and read more, preferably from multiple sources.
Anyway your last posts pretty much convinced me you are a troll :
And the Avars (Obrs) began a war against the Slavs and began to torment the Dulebs, who were Slavs. They (the Avars) mocked Duleb women: when someone went on a trip, he harnessed not a horse or ox, but ordered instead that three, four or five (dulebsky) women were harnessed to the yoke of his carts, and forced them carry him. That is how they plagued the Dulebs. "
Now if the Avars were Slavs why would they mock Slav women, Why the Avars themselves are not mentioned as "Slavs" and instead are called Avars if they were one and the same.
Dude. Where I spoke, that Sklaviny this Slavs? Culture sklaviny, Ipotesty, is a mixture of many elements
They were not Slavs originally, their descendants from Slavic women and Avar forefathers became Slavs.
Already more than one source.
1) I have already begun to give archaeological reasons. For example, Penkovka culture is not at all in the Carpathian region. On the contrary, the Carpathian culture will begin expansion across Eastern Europe.
2) Linguistics. I gave an example of the word karol
Last edited:
I see rampant nationalism in the whole context of this thread.
400 years after the fact isn't "fresh" by any stretch of the imagination.
You can even play White Serbia IE Sorbia at the start, though they're put into the Pomeranian culture.
There is a bunch of Carantanian in the Avar territory at the start IIRC. The Bohemian there represents the Slovenes.
I don't think it's nationalism for once honestly, just someone who takes primary sources too literally.
It wouldn't make sense for him to be some kind of Slavic nationalist when he also call early Slavs literal imbeciles who were apparently completely unable to defend themselves until the mighty Avar warriors thought them how to fight.
If we recognize Nestor as nonsense, we will begin with what we call the nonsense of Gregory of Tours "The history of the Franks", Gerodotus-the father of history, Titus Livius "The history of Rome". Titus Livius wrote after 700 years, let's reject the story of the Senons about the robbery of Rome, the war with the Samnites, the story Of Marcus Furius Camill, because he lived 300 years before Titus Livius. Because there are also enough fairy tales.
Yes, you seem to have gathered heretics from science
Yes, you seem to have gathered heretics from science
Last edited:
