|
Post by Subu'atai on Mar 27, 2010 10:28:34 GMT 3
Skinheads sure won't like this one xD!
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Mar 27, 2010 22:34:00 GMT 3
yes exactly, that's the main reason why this book is important even though it might not be correct. releasing a book in Germany saying "our ancestors might have been Sarmatians" or that Turkic tribes might have been living in Germany before Germany even existed is utmost revolutionary.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 28, 2010 0:06:13 GMT 3
And it's surely a blow to the "Aryan pride"
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Mar 28, 2010 15:42:47 GMT 3
It's not really realistic to think this way about how Germans would think of such historical notions. There are many devoted historians, archaeologists around the world who are trying to find answers to such questions these days without any bias, that's how the human knowledge advances. As for this I think many Germans know today that the modern heart of Europe before Germans were settled by Celts and they were replaced by Germanics and because there are evidences that Celts themselves were invaders in this land surely there were other people before them. Thus any so-called hasty words like Sarmatians or maybe Turkics being ancestor of Germans don't change the possible sense. You know it is not new for me I have already heard from a Turk: " You surely know that Germany was created by the Turks?!" And that just give guys searching for sheer knowledge to go on reading further. After WWII and the use of inaccurate term "Aryan" for all the IE people. It's use diminishes on the former sense and the world is observing consciously coining of new terms like "Turkic pride" which is to be studied more cause it dates back even before the WWII - the years of notions like Aryan pride - I mean to about WWII.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Mar 28, 2010 19:44:49 GMT 3
well, it's not that easy. Celtic origin is traced to Southern Germany and the Alpes, eastern Germany are mostly Germanized Slavs. even though most Germans would not considder themselves neither Aryan nor Nordic, but still most people are unaware of those other backgrounds and would still say that Germany is overall homogenous in origin, that is Germanic. no one knows if Celts were "replaced" or not, and certainly Eastern Germans tried hard to cover their Slavic traces, particularly in 19th century Prussia. also most research on the origin on Germanic people began in the 19th century and it was of course nationalistic agendas which led to conclusions still maintained today. some time ago, there was a series of documenatries called "history of Germans" in which Otto the great fought the Magyars, and he wore lamellar armour (!) while the Magyars looked like gypsies on horseback. this is what most Germans still believe it was like.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Mar 29, 2010 17:48:58 GMT 3
After WWII and the use of inaccurate term "Aryan" for all the IE people. It's use diminishes on the former sense and the world is observing consciously coining of new terms like "Turkic pride" which is to be studied more cause it dates back even before the WWII - the years of notions like Aryan pride - I mean to about WWII. Don't worry Azadan, they just renamed the whole thing with "White Pride" and "I.E.". Though some still use the Aryan term. Sometimes I wonder how you folks cope with it. Especially when Iran = Land of Aryans ;D Heck, can't even say the word Aryan now without weird looks from the public ;D
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 16, 2010 22:39:16 GMT 3
the book also mentioned the Frankish exodus legend, saying the Franks originated from the Maeotian marches(!). the book also mentioned the already known supposed Iranic origin of Croats. this is interesting in a wider context, even though i found the coat-of-arms argument rather weak. anyways, about Hun-Goth relationship, it was perhaps mutual, seeign as Attila is a Gothic name. but still it get's even more complex. ruler names, ending with -mir/mer (as in Balamir for example) are actually not that uncommon, but look what kind of rulers had those names: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcomer (legendary?) Frankish ruler en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balamber Balamir, Hunnish ruler en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valamiren.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodemir & Videmir, all three Ostrogoth rulers en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_Croatia a dozen or so of Croat rulers which leads to the question, what's the deal with the -mir ending? is it Germanic, Hunnic, Slavic, Iranic, else..... if we're to assume that Marcomir was real and the Franks really originated from Maeotia, (and the Croats were really a Sarmatian tribe) then all four people have one thing in common, they were at one time in the pontic steppe. after finding out about those Bulgarian rulers, i wanted to check back the Croatian rulers, and as i suspected: first Croatian rulers with -mir ending: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojnomir_of_Pannonian_Croatia (c. 790-810) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratimir_of_Pannonian_Croatia (829-838) interestingly, this one ruler was installed by the Bulgarians! Budimir of Littoral Croatia(740-785) Vladislav of Littoral Croatia (821-835) he was the son of a certain Klonimir and the first Bulgarian ruler: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malamir_of_Bulgaria (831-836) his father was the one who installed Ratimir in Pannonia so they are all somewhat contemporary to each others, is that a coincidence? what led to the re-appearance of names with the -mir ending?
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 16, 2010 23:15:27 GMT 3
Slavs always had those "mir" names they are in fact some of the most spread and typical traditional Slavic names. Why looking for some other "supernatural" explanations there ?
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 18, 2010 18:36:41 GMT 3
there's no explanation why western slavic people (and slovenes) don't have it. like i said before, only those who had any sort of connection with the pontic Steppe have those names. also, first written records of those names goes to people that were NOT slavic, we cannot just disregard those facts.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 18, 2010 19:22:32 GMT 3
What facts are you talking about? All Slavic people have these name. And I would say they are very popular among Western Slavs including Slovens. In fact, they are much more popular among the Slavs which didn't have any contacts with Pontic steppe. Those names are rather very rare among Russians and Ukrainians (except Vladimir) and very popular among Czhechs, Poles and Slovenes. First written records, of those particular names you cited are related to Slavs. There are some Germanic names that had the root "mir" what we can discuss is that origin of that mir, whether it was Slavic or not. But as I said, a general rule is that "mir" was traditional component of many Slavic names everywhere in the Slavic world. And it can't be tied to the Pontic steppe, because I don't know of any Scytho-Sarmatian names with that root.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 18, 2010 21:46:17 GMT 3
what facts? those we discuss here since page one, like those in my quote? there is no evidence for Slavic names with -mir until several centuries after the first that are supposedly Germanic and Hunnic from the Pontic Steppe.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 19, 2010 2:42:58 GMT 3
Slavic names with "mir" which you cited above from Croatian and Bulgarian sources are Slavic. This is the fact.
The origin of "mir" in Germanic names is not that clear. There are theories which say they were Slavic. And there can be only theories. No facts. There is nothing that suggest that Slavic "mir" names were adobted from someone else; they are indigenously Slavic. And that makes pefect sense.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 19, 2010 19:56:46 GMT 3
what don't you get about this? there's nothing that makes them inherently slavic at all. and, there is evidence that other people used them first.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 19, 2010 20:44:47 GMT 3
I don't have any bad intentions. I just think that doesn't make sense and you go to a wrong direction. All the Slavic names with "mir" have meaning in Slavic languages because "mir" is a Slavic word. It's not Germanic, Greek, Latin, etc. let alone Scythian or Hunnish. Why one should assume that it was adobted from some one else?
Because, there were some ancient Germanic people whose names had that "mir." What did that "mir" in their names mean?
Besides, "mir" in Germanic names look weird, while it's totally natural for Slavic names. Doesn't that tell us about something? Doesn't the fact that "mir" is attested in Eastern Germanic names among the Germanic tribes who lived close to Slavs tell us about something?
Do we have any evidence that Slavs took "mir" from Germans? - No.
It makes more sense that Germans took it from Slavs, but again, there is not enough evidence.
Finally, the fact the names of Slavic rulers are recorded relatively late (compare to Germanic ones) doesn't mean that those names weren't used before. It's only because Germanic tribes lived more to the south, so they had more direct relations to Romans, who started to record some of their names. Slavs weren't in direct contact with the centers of civilization until some time around 6 century AD. That's why their names got recorded later.
But does the fact that the Slavic "mir" names were recorded later mean that they weren't used before? No, of course, not.
Also, you theory about Pontic contacts also isn't correct. Because, as I said, "mir" was very popular everywhere in the Slavic world and, particularly, among Baltic Slavs who lived in the modern Eastern Germany and who didn't have any contacts with the Black Sea steppes nomades at all.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 21, 2010 21:26:54 GMT 3
I don't have any bad intentions. I just think that doesn't make sense and you go to a wrong direction. All the Slavic names with "mir" have meaning in Slavic languages because "mir" is a Slavic word. I know. but there's no certainty that is inherently Slavic ever since. no it's obviously not Germanic as far as we can say at this point. but the Scythian and Hun language is only barely known at all, we wouldn't have a discussion about whether Scythians were Turkic or iranic if we had any certainty of their language except for some words, mostly names. i originally started this thread because of this theory that Franks (and possibly some more), or at least their ruling elite, were Sarmatians, not Germanic, therefore a Germanic origin of those -mir names can be ruled out pretty much anyways. that's to find out. it also needs to be found out why those supposedly Germanic cheiftains had such names. or why for example Attila has a clearly Gothic name? we should not forget that even Temujin had the name of a captured prisoner so why not assume Attila was named after a captured Goth (for example)? but that's a premature conclusion. first, it's typically slavic now. like i've shown above, the first Bulgarian ruler with a -mir name is supposedly also the first Bulgarian ruler to have a slavic name. isn't that suspicious? on the Croatian ruler's list is also a certain Borna, which totally doesn't look slavic to me but actually close to the ancient version of my own first name. also those -mir names appeared ratehr late. there's also no real explanation why the Rurikids suddenly changed from Germanic to slavic names, even though it seems there was no change in dynatsy, though the last ruler with a germanic name was female (saint olga). that's not what i implied, actually i thought i already cleared that issue when i said Germanic Valdemar was adopted from slavic Vladimir, even though Valdemar DOES have a meaning in Germanic too (a different though). what i want to get at, is that those -mir names have a Steppe origin (Sarmatian or Hun). yeah i know, that's my main gripe here. it would be great to find out about earlier ruler names to get more hints and clues. in regards to Bulgarians, who can be traced rather far back, AND who do have a certain connection to Huns, it's easier. that, and the suspiciously numerous appearance of -mir names in Croatian, compared to other slavic languages, is a major hint for me that those -mir names likely have Steppe origin. that's just speculation at this point. there were also Russian Czars named Alexander, and Alexander is a popular name in many Slavic (and non slavic) languages now, but we can still trace it's place of origin to macedonia, which is curiously enough slavic too now. but IF those names would have a Steppe origin, it would be difficult to proove that nowadays. of course i'm speculating here too, but i think that's a convincing hypo. there's nothing like "Baltic Slavs", Baltic people are Baltic speakers and those Western Slavs in Eastern Germany DID had Steppe influence, as a) there was a major find of a Scythian artefact on the Saxon-Polish border (the famous "fish") and b) Serbians (Sorbs), linguistically related to Croatians, lived there too, and the White Croats didn't lived so far away either.
|
|