How come Slavs expanded over such a huge territory in such a short time span?
Is it likely that proto-Slavic was a language of the military caste of the Avar khaganate?
That would explain this rapid expansion, remarkably low variation between Slavic languages; compared to the Romance or Germanic family; and seamless and quick assimilation of Avars. However, it wouldn't explain East Slavic migration.
Btw, what happened to Iranian tribes in Eastern Europe (Sarmatians, Scythians etc.)?
>>609819
>How come Slavs expanded over such a huge territory in such a short time span?
Power vacuum after the collapse of the Roman Empire and the German and Avars migrations.
>>609819
>Is it likely that proto-Slavic was a language of the military caste of the Avar khaganate?
>That would explain this rapid expansion, remarkably low variation between Slavic languages
Such language would almost certainly contain simplified grammar. Moreover, each modern language would contain lots of loanwords, especially for terms not related to military and government.
And it's obvious that Slavic languages are not like that. Their grammar is perhaps the most archaic among modern Indoeuropean groups (Lithuanian tops Slavic languages only in terms of phonology an morphology), suggesting relatively little linguistic admixture. Plus, Slavic has core vocabulary related to daily life and agriculture that is directly inherited from PIE.
>>609978
I remember reading that the language closest to Sanskrit was actually Lithuanian.
>>609819
>How come Slavs expanded over such a huge territory in such a short time span?
Pushed from the east by huns/mongols
>>610045
But Slavs expanded eastward as well
Hun and Mongol invasions were in different period
>>610076
Notice how they expanded north-east and not just east.
Those lands were filled with turkic- mongolic tribes.
>>609819
Frankish was the language of the military caste of the Carolingian Franks, and you saw what became of that. Furthermore, a quick assimilation of the Avars is not so unlikely. Up until the 10th and 11th centuries almost all major political states in Slavic Eastern Europe were khanates established by a steppe tribe migrating west and unifying proto-Slavic tribes. The Avars were just one of several, and even after the 10th century there are moments where some Iranic, Turkic, or Uralic tribe again migrated into the area only to be assimilated.
The difference between Eastern Europe and the West was the relative lack of Romanized urban culture and aristocracy as an influence on language. Latin for instance drew in Gaulish from the countryside and Frankish from the migrating tribes into French, and similar fusions elsewhere but with different component languages led to Spanish, Italian, etc.
In Poland however there was just proto-Slavic and a short lived steppe hegemony.
>>609978
>Moreover, each modern language would contain lots of loanwords, especially for terms not related to military and government.
Well they do.
>>610080
It's pretty wrong to label every Turkic nomad group as "Mongols", Jesus fucking Christ.
>>610171
Ok mister autismo
>>610183
That's on par with calling the English "Russians".
>>610188
Not really. There are some tribes you really can't classify since they came all together with or pushed by the mongols, like the cumans or avars
>>610194
Avars arrived good 500 years before the Mongols were a thing.
>>610196
so?
>>610201
So they couldn't have been pushed by the Mongols you dumb cunt.
>>610080
Mongolian tribes were far from the area until the invasions started by Genghis. The region was mostly inhabited by more Western Eurasian tribes.
>>610215
I said they were pushed by the huns you retarded subhuman
>>610248
>since they came all together with or pushed by the mongols
>pushed by the mongols
>mongols
Are you so stupid you can't read your own posts?
>>610289
>Pushed from the east by huns/mongols
You can proceed to go kill yourself now.
>>609819
>Sisek where Gradec should be
Also, it's Carantanians in English, not Chorutanians.
And there was no country called Samo.
>>610422
If I remember correctly, He was one of the few authors to not be as negative towards the Slavs in his writings as other writers.
Samo may have been a king, but his empire was a tribal union at best. And I read somewhere that archeologists found evidence of trade embargoes going on between Moravia and Carantania, showing proof that the union was shaky at times.
>>610422
possibly a tribal federation
>>610444
I legit don't think Samo was an actual person instead of just Fredegar's invention.
>>609990
And Latvian.
>>610080
> Notice how they expanded north-east and not just east.
Nothing to do with the "mongol" invasion.
As you might've noticed there is a green line showing the forest/steppe border.
Horse nomads did not go to forests, Slavonic tribes did not go to steppes. Well, except those who went on to become Balkan Bulgarians.
>>610453
I think his sources were Frankish enovys to the Slavs. Still, it's possible he made Samo up to show Frankish superiority over the "barbarian hordes". On the other hand, why was he not more subjective in his writing, then?
>>609819
>remarkably low variation between Slavic language
Which can be explained by their self-identity.
You didn't need potatoface to be slav. There are many Mediterranean-looking slavs even in let's say Slovakia. Slav is a person who can talk. Germans tend to be named as "those who can't talk". The very identity of proto-slavic people was based on language, hence why there's so little variation between slavic languages.
>>609819
>What happened to Iranian tribes in Eastern Europe
They were assimilated or driven away when the huns and the nomadic hordes that followed came through. Now they are just Ossetia.
>>610422
> Did Samo's "empire" even exist?
As a tribal union? Why not?
> while shit like this is never contested
I think it gets. I mean, how many people here are actually aware of the Norman theory debates in Russian historiography?
>>609990
>>610467
Doesn't mean much. I'd say English and Swedish are "closer" than Latvian/Lithuanian and Sanskrit. For example, I can read Latvian (and by extension Lithuanian), but can't understand Sanskrit at all.
>>610481
The oriental Bolghars came to what is today Bulgaria and intermingled with the Slavic tribes living there, becoming Slavicised in the process, but retaining their old name.
>>610502
Slavs used to be exclusively an ethnic group until the migrations, when the mixing began. You can see from the pic I provided that most of the ethnic groups still have a genetic picture with a plurality of the R1A haplogroup (the percentage is smaller in the Balkans where there were more natives). And I wouldn't really say there's little variation in Slavic languages; it's hard to understand a speaker from another regional language group (West, East, South Slavic) and it becomes impossible to understand anyone when dialects are involved. I won't deny that Slavic languages remained much closer than languages of other Indo-European language families, though.
>>610525
"Norman theory" is a term used solely by Russian historians who are too anal pained to acknowledge the early Rus' states were founded by someone who wasn't ethnically Slavic, and even worse, very likely Swedish, from the country of eternal Russian enemies.
>>610529
>R1a haplogroup
I honestly hate people who are too stupid to comprehend genetics and associate R1a solely with Slavs, not realizing there are different subclades of R1a that existed in certain areas literally thousands of years before Slavic migrations.
>>610502
> Germans
Anyone, actually. Germans simply were the ones who got stuck with the title of "foreigner" by 18th century.
>>610532
> too anal pained to acknowledge the early Rus' states were founded by someone who wasn't ethnically Slavic, and even worse, very likely Swedish, from the country of eternal Russian enemies.
Oh, boy. Here we go again.
>>610543
How do you explain that this debate exists pretty much only in Russia?
The people who established the first Rus' states were clearly Norse, as evidenced by everything from contemporary sources, through Пoвecть вpeмeнных лeт, customs, toponyms, names and even genetics.
>>610525
I think more people would know about it if you changed the word Norman for Varangian.
>>610537
It may be so but looking at the miniscule distribution of the R1A haplogroup in Western Europe and taking into account that the Slavic speaking ethnic groups are the ones with most, it's not really too far-fetched to connect the haplogroups to Slavs. I do remember reading that it was also shared by some East Germanic tribes, too, which could explain the distribution in Scandinavia (and perhaps for some of the distribution in the German-speaking area - some of that is from assimilated Slavs, on the other hand).
>>610560
To add: while it's correct that various Slavic princedoms existed in the area BEFORE Rurik, it doesn't override the fact that Rurik himself was not Slavic.
>>610562
The R1a in Scandinavia has absolutely nothing to do with Slavs, literally nothing. It existed there centuries before Slavs were a thing.
>>610567
I never wrote it was there due to the Slavs.
>>610560
> How do you explain that this debate exists pretty much only in Russia?
a) It doesn't.
b) Why would anyone be surprised, if Russian history gets the most attention in Russia?
> everything from contemporary sources
> customs, toponyms, names
I distinctly remember some historians were not agreeing with this.
> genetics.
N1c is hardly "germanic".
>>610565
> it doesn't override the fact that Rurik himself was not Slavic.
Rurik is no different from Samo - thoroughly legendary figure. Also, his ethnicity is nothing but a conjecture.
>>610591
>It doesn't
Yes it does, or at least in serious academic circles. The denounciation of "Normanist theory" is a thoroughly Russian thing and comes from Stalin's times where it could even land you in jail.
>>610567
> The R1a in Scandinavia has absolutely nothing to do with Slavs, literally nothing.
Why do you think this? There was a lot of confirmed evidence of Slavs in Scandinavia.
>>610591
>N1c is hardly "germanic".
His particular branch is traced to central Sweden.
>Rurik is no different from Samo - thoroughly legendary figure.
With one exception, Samo didn't found a dynasty that ruled over his kingdom for hundreds of years.
>>610638
>>610633
> Stalin's times
You just went full retard.
>>610651
> His particular branch is traced to central Sweden.
I'd like some actual sauce on this.
>>610722
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Rurikid.pdf
>>610745
> out of date genetic research of a philologist
Nope. No dice.
Slightly more relevant: http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/153/
Did Slavic influence any languages outside of its group?
There's virtually no loanwords in common Western languages (I can only think of 'bistro' off the top of my head), but what about some close non-Slavic languages like Romanian, Hungarian, the Baltic ones, or Albanian?
>>610502
Not really, Slavs have a distinct look, but they mixed a lot.
For example, I'm personally from Balkans and all my ancestors are from Balkans, but I kinda look ''Russian'', I can't really explain it.
Point is there is a distinct Slavic look, just that for example in Balkans most of Slavs are heavily mixed with natives who were Mediterranean.
But still you have a fair amount of people in Balkans who look Slavic.
>inb4 Turks
No we didn't mix with Turks, nor are Turks anything else but Greek and Balkan converts.
>>610774
He references actual data which you can see if you know anything about genetics.
>>611131
German word for border has Slavic origins, just off the top of my head. Hungarian has a cockload of Slavic loanwords.
>>611162
Daniel Craig looks very Russian to me, doesn't mean he is one.
>>610537
Just because descendants of a basal clade start speaking a different language does not change its origins, unless we talk about founder effects we still classify them as the marker of the group.
>>611131
linguistically it's very difficult to say which languages have been borrowing words and which have been loaning them as most languages in the Fenno-ugric areas didn't have a written word up until the 18th-19th century. Lennart Meri discusses this whole topic in his book "Silver white"
>>611131
I would say mostly Hungarian and Romanian, but the latter went through several reforms and now contains far less Slavic loanwords.
>>611131
> There's virtually no loanwords in common Western languages (I can only think of 'bistro' off the top of my head),
Plough, saddle? There are quite a few.
>>612839
acc. to etymonline.com neither ploug or saddle fit the description (former being the literal opposite GER->SL, the latter a PIE word)
>>609819
Orthodox religion (and its strong association with Slavic) definitely helped assimilating new folks.
>>612854
> former being the literal opposite GER->SL
Plough? The word that initially referred to the heavy wheeled plough used 5 A.D. in the north-east of Roman Empire? Germanic origin?
Cool story, bro.
>>612909
Most of the assimilation happened before the Slavs had turned to Christianity and only a portion of the Slavs are Orthodox.
>>609819
Eastern Europe wasn't permanently settled back then. They just claimed the land for themselves.
>>609819
Cossacks estate.
>>612735
>but the latter went through several reforms and now contains far less Slavic loanwords.
That's a myth.
>>613056
Wikipedia says a fifth of the vocabulary is to this day based on Slavic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_influence_on_Romanian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_lexis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_influence_on_Romanian#List_of_Romanian_words_of_Slavic_origin
>>613074
yes, but the 19th century revisionism has nothing to do with erasing slavic loanwords, but adding more romance loanwords.
>>613081
Wasn't the point of the reforms to replace Slavic loanwords with words from other Romance languages?
>>613144
Well, in the 19th century Romania switched to latin script. It opened up to western europe and new technical innovations started making their way into the country. That's how new words of romance origins started to be used more often than those of the local slavic origin.
We just did. Praise Illuminati.
>>613192
Okay, it may have had a different name before that but the people were the same.
1) Slavs were the slave-infantry of the Avar Khaganate, whose concerted force was enough to break Byzantine power in the Balkans and allow them to settle as far south as the north Aegean coast within 50 years of their emergence at the Danube frontier.
2) Slavs, when on their own, migrated not by foot or horse, but by boat, which boosted their travelling speed significantly. Their vessels were simple logboats carved out of a single tree trunk which had beforehand been made pliable by exposure to fire - the procedure of carving a new boat took no more than a few days. The logboats enabled the Slavs to infiltrate even the Dalmatian and Greek islands and coastal Anatolia almost immediately.
3) The main culprit in enabling the Slavic expansion across Pannonia, Illyricum and the Eastern Alps was the Byzantine Empire, the machinations and wars of which caused the Germanic tribes which had hitherto inhabited the region to either migrate westwards or be destroyed. Since the Romance population of the area had been under the military rule of the Germanic tribes, a gap in the superstructure of local populations opened, which Slavs were able to fill as the new political elite of the region.
>>613268
Is this like an inverse information troll?
>>613268
>slave-infantry of the Avar Khaganate
Source on this?
>>613294
I'm curious where did you get that slave-infantry part from, since what I know seems to indicate the Slavic polities were just standard vassals.
>>613294
>"I will make a claim"
>"now I demand others present evidence to counter it"
cool story bro
>>613276
Some of the things he wrote check out but the rest are fishy at best.
>>609819
>Introduction of new farming equipment and tools in the 500s led to massive population growth
>Increasing organizational complexity in tribes thanks to greater wealth
>Power vacuum from previous migrations
>Ability to assimilate natives
>>613268
> slave-infantry
So, it's like giving arms and military training to people whom you then exploit? In a nomadic tribal society?
> simple logboats carved out of a single tree trunk
It's a bit more complicated than that, but - yes. River-sailing culture was a thing. But it didn't provide that great of an impact.
> Byzantine Empire
No. Just. No.
>>614261
> >Power vacuum from previous migrations
Everything except this.
>>614417
Log-boats were popular all over Europe and Slavs were also makers and users of them.
In Slovenia, people used them well into the 19th century and I hear they are still made today, although mostly just as a part of cultural heritage.
>>614423
This is the time the heavy plow spread north and earth alongside threefield crop rotation 2bh pham
Read Peter Heather's "Empire and Barbarians"
