Slavs were the first Europeans!Do you believe it?

[Jebus]

Also, I just remembered the most obvious argument of them all: you can't call the Thracians, nor the Proto-Thracians, Slavs. Because they weren't. The Slavs only came to live above the Carpathian mountains with the Völkerwanderung in the 5th and 6th century AD, when they were pushed out of Russian territory by the Huns.

 

[Jebus]

Also, taking the huge leap of imagination needed to assume the Slavs were indeed the first European civilisation (although they only came out of Asia around 400 AD) - then how would you explain that the other European Indo-European civilisations are located to the West of the Slavs, and thus the farthest removed from the birthplace of the Indo-European peoples?

't Is funny how you always think of the most obvious arguments last.


I JUST CAME TO AN OBVIOUS SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION:

The Slavs were the last of the Indo-European peoples to arrive in Europe.




You dumb fuck.

 

[John Uskglass]

Jebus, do you take an Anthro class? You are pretty good.

First 'Europeans' is stupid. I guess the Basques could fit in that, and they where (probably) in Europe before the Indo-Aryans split off from the motherloving Northern Caucasians and Hittites.

Would'nt the first 'european' people just be the Indo-Aryans, before they started plitting off? Maybe just some vauge Centum group?

Jebus, your textbook is wrong I think. The Slavs developed West of the Urals, thus they have been European as long as anybody. They could have branched off from the Baltics anyway, making them among the older groups.

 

[Bradylama]

I JUST CAME TO AN OBVIOUS SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION:

The Slavs were the last of the Indo-European peoples to arrive in Europe.




You dumb fuck.

I take back half the bad things I said about Belgium.

 

[Jebus]

Basques

Good lord, I didn't even think of the Basques!

Jebus, your textbook is wrong I think. The Slavs developed West of the Urals, thus they have been European as long as anybody. They could have branched off from the Baltics anyway, making them among the older groups.

Actually, that's not certain. According to my textbook, there are two theories:

-The Autochtonic theory, which says that the Slavs developed somewhere between the Caucasus and the Ural mountains around 1000 BC

- The Allochtonic theory, which says they only came there from Asia with the Völkerwanderung

and the Allochtonic theory seems to have the most support. As I said, it's not certain, as all the earliest history of the Northern and Eastern European peoples is pretty much unknown, since neither the Romans nor the Greeks ever wrote much of them.

Jebus, do you take an Anthro class? You are pretty good.

No, 't is just your basic Belgian college history education.

 

[John Uskglass]

Good lord, I didn't even think of the Basques!

Basques, Georgians, Caucasians, whateverthefuckthe Etruscans where...

-The Autochtonic theory, which says that the Slavs developed somewhere between the Caucasus and the Ural mountains around 1000 BC

- The Allochtonic theory, which says they only came there from Asia with the Volkswänderung

No, it's not certain, you are right. The theroy I was talking about is linguistic (my primary area of interest), it's called Proto-Balto-Slavic I think. Basicailly, it's that the Baltics and the Slavs where the same people until Volkswanderung, or very closely related.

Still, your Autochtonic theroy, which would actually make sense as Slavic takes a lot from the Northern Aryan group (think Ossetians, Scythians), still places them west of the Urals.

Maybe by Europe your textbook means West of Poland.

EDIT: There's also a theroy, largely put forward by Polish Nationalists, that the Slavs originated in East Germany. I've encountered it at least on Paradox History Forums.

and the Allochtonic theory seems to have the most support. As I said, it's not certain, as all the earliest history of the Northern and Eastern European peoples is pretty much unknown, since neither the Romans nor the Greeks ever wrote much of them.

Of course.

Hehe. No, I don't - I learned most of this in my European Pre- and Protohistory and Classical history classes...

I'd slaughter an entire family of ducks with my bear hands for a Protohistory Class. Damn you.

 

[Fas Ist]

TOTALLY EDITED POST

I JUST CAME TO AN OBVIOUS SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION:

The Slavs were the last of the Indo-European peoples to arrive in Europe.


You dumb fuck.

1-Did you read the .pdf file?It is a new theory,it looks strange,I know.Indeed,"The First European" doesn't matter.The First known European civilisation matters-the Tracians were Slavs(according to that theory)So,they(and Macedonians) were the first known civilisations in Europe :arrow: The Slavs were the first ones,together with the Greeks,but we were more powerful-Alexander made a great empire,Tracians were the most and the most numerous people (after the Indians-according to Herodotus) in the ancient world(but were divided into tribes) And today the most numerous people in Europe are Slavs-about 250 000 000 people.
-I will give you more proofs in future.
Orpheus even was born in Bulgaria- in a mountain village/town today,he was a Tracian,but well,the Greeks claim that he is a Greek.
The ancient European history,the ancient European civilisation,the ancient European arts,the ancient European everything was on the Balkans.The ancient Europeans were Slavs(tracians,Macedonians and Ilirians-not Albanians)-over 70%(we were many) and Greeks
Ok,OK- Belgians were the first Homo Sapiens in Europe.They were speaking Belgian language
Basques are "relatives" with Chechenians :!:
2-Als mijn hond net zo lelijk was als jou, zou ik zijn kont scheren en hem achteruit leren lopen!

 

[Jebus]

-The Autochtonic theory, which says that the Slavs developed somewhere between the Caucasus and the Ural mountains around 1000 BC

- The Allochtonic theory, which says they only came there from Asia with the Volkswänderung

No, it's not certain, you are right. The theroy I was talking about is linguistic (my primary area of interest), it's called Proto-Balto-Slavic I think. Basicailly, it's that the Baltics and the Slavs where the same people until Volkswanderung, or very closely related.

Still, your Autochtonic theroy, which would actually make sense as Slavic takes a lot from the Northern Aryan group (think Ossetians, Scythians), still places them west of the Urals.

Maybe by Europe your textbook means West of Poland.

Well, no, by the Autochtonic theory they would be Europeans. But I doubt it, since as far as I know that area was completely filled up with Germans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Bactria, etc. etc. etc.
I guess that's why the Allochtinic theory has more support.

EDIT: There's also a theroy, largely put forward by Polish Nationalists, that the Slavs originated in East Germany. I've encountered it at least on Paradox History Forums.

Yeah, I've heard that one too. Very few scientists support that, though.

 

[Silencer]

Also, about your 'it's impossible to cross Gibraltar' theory

Last that I heard, there were apes dwelling in Gibraltar, so if apes could have crossed, I'm sure so could <s>Belgians</s> Slavs

 

[Brother None]

2-Als mijn hond net zo lelijk was als jou, zou ik zijn kont scheren en hem achteruit leren lopen!

Ok, people, that's enough. Do keep it civil. Also do not post in foreign languages. This is an English speaking forum, I'm getting a bit tired of reminding people of that.

 

[Jebus]

1-Did you read the .pdf file?It is a new theory,it looks strange,I know.

Like hell I'm going to read a 57-page linguistic dissertion on my spare time from cramming. You obviously have more time, so why don't you quote the essential parts backing your theory for me?

Indeed,"The First European" doesn't matter.The First known European civilisation matters-the Tracians were Slavs(according to that theory)So,they(and Macedonians) were the first known civilisations in Europe :arrow: The Slavs were the first ones,together with the Greeks,but we were more powerful-Alexander made a great empire,Tracians were the most and the most numerous people (after the Indians-according to Herodotus) in the ancient world(but were divided into tribes) And today the most numerous people in Europe are Slavs-about 250 000 000 people.

Really now? I always thought the first know European 'culture' in THAT area was the Sesklo-culture (7th millennium BC) in Thessalia. And those weren't Macedonians either, since they and the other proto-greeks (yes: Macedonians are Greek, not Slavic) only arrived around 2800 BC, when they were pushed downward somewhat by the proto-Thracians, among others. Or if you're talking about the first known 'high' European culture, then that would be the Kretenzic (spelling?) one, and that would still predate your precious (non-slavic) Thracians.

-I will give you more proofs in future.

I'm looking forward to it like you wouldn't believe.

Orpheus even was born in Bulgaria- in a mountain village/town today,he was a Tracian,but well,the Greeks claim that he is a Greek.

Aha.

Point?

Basques are "relatives" with Chechenians :!:

Aha.

Point?

2-Als mijn hond net zo lelijk was als jou, zou ik zijn kont scheren en hem achteruit leren lopen!

Good one.




Also - why are you this worked up about the Thracians anyway? Since you're Bulgarian, you do NOT come from Thracian ancestors, but from the Bulgars, obviously. And they also only arrived in Bulgaria with the Volkswänderung.

Or Turk, maybe, since one of your ancestors was most likely raped by an Ottoman.*




*meant humouristically

 

[Brother None]

Kretenzic

Do you mean Minoan? "Kretenzische" or whatever we Dutchies call it is not a term in English be it "Cretan" or "Kretenic" or whatever. Minoan is though, the one that existed from ca. 3000–1400 BC. That one?

Aha.

Point?

Orpheus = teh win

Aha.

Point?

Chechens obviously are barely human. As anyone can see, being terrorists means that any culture related to them is a "low" culture and can never be seen as relevant in history. Including the Russians who, after all, have fought with the country/region for the past 300 years. Wait...the Russians are Slavic...

Good one.

Don't encourage him. And watch the double posts.

Also - why are you this worked up about the Thracians anyway? Since you're Bulgarian, you do NOT come from Thracian ancestors, but from the Bulgars, obviously. And they also only arrived in Bulgaria with the Volkswänderung.

The boy's got dual blood, though I forgot which two "races"* he comes from

*note, if we're going to be all anthropological, I only want to see the terms "races" and "cultures" with the proper apostraphes. None of the races period stuff.

 

[Jebus]

Kretenzic

Do you mean Minoan? "Kretenzische" or whatever we Dutchies call it is not a term in English be it "Cretan" or "Kretenic" or whatever. Minoan is though, the one that existed from ca. 3000–1400 BC. That one?

Minoan, Kretenzic, Kretenic, whatever.

The civilization that developed on Crete!

Happy now?

(Thanks for the help, though. Translating Dutch scientific terms to English gets tricky sometimes)

 

[Fas Ist]

If you are an idiot,I can repeat 160 more times that Tracians,Macedonians and Ilirians were Slavs(according to that theory) There are proofs,there are 57 pages.Yes,you don't like Slavs,but please,stop making a shit of this toppic.

you do NOT come from Thracian ancestors

Why not?

He is like a Slavic version of CCR

Since you're Bulgarian, you do NOT come from Thracian ancestors, but from the Bulgars

Finally?
Khm...Say smth.about Tatars-you will "insult" me more

Also - why are you this worked up about the Thracians anyway? Since you're Bulgarian, you do NOT come from Thracian ancestors, but from the Bulgars, obviously. And they also only arrived in Bulgaria with the Volkswänderung(?).

Or Turk, maybe, since one of your ancestors was most likely raped by an Ottoman.*

No,I am a Christian.Usually Slavic muslims have their ancestors raped by turks.(The word for a Slavic muslim,actually means a tortured man)
Also-These muslims burnt my grandmother allive in Yugoslavia.Point? :arrow: Your joke was an insult to me,my familly...Yugoslavia,The Balkans...,right?

Don't encourage him

Ahahahahahahahaaa
Kreten!(jebus,not Kharn)

 

[Wooz]

Slavs were the first Europeans

Who cares?

I mean, except nationalist-craving fascist parties in Slavic countries?

 

[Jebus]

please,stop making a shit of this toppic.

I'm so sorry.

Please, resume your intellectual retoric. You were making such fantastic points! Don't mind me!


*goes back to herding his sheep*

 

[Fas Ist]

Slavs were the first Europeans

Who cares?

I mean, except nationalist-craving fascist parties in Slavic countries?

Low-brow people don't care.
You don't care
____________________________
...

Check this out

45% of my relatives(grandfathers) were partisans :!:

Slavic countries

The Bulgarian history is going to be rewrited,but for now-Bulgarians are slavs.


Do you know-Wooz69 and Jebus are the scions of this forum.Jebus is a nazi,Jebus is a racist :!: Jebus was the only one,who was against that theory,who was against the proof,that other countries(not his one) were the cradles of the European civilisation!Jebus hates Slavs and other eastern Europeans without a reason.
Wooz:

He is an asshole.Many people don't like him

 

[Brother None]

Low-brow people don't care.
You don't care

...

Dude, Wooz is, like, an artist and shit. Artists are *never* low-brow.

'cept maybe pornographic artists.

45% of my relatives(grandfathers) were partisans

45% procent of your grandfathers? Wow.

The Bulgarian history is going to be rewrited,but for now-Bulgarians are slavs.

You do realise Bulgarians come from prot-Bulgarians AKA Bulgars? And while Bulgars are accepted to be both slavicized and probably Turkic, they're not exactly what one would call "Slavs", period.

Also, do I really have to point out that since the commin history of Bulgaria and Turkey goes back a long way, it is REALLY quite likely you have some Turkish blood? Just because you're not muslim doesn't mean you're not a Turk.

The Bulgarian heritage is not Thracian. Just 'cause you're at the same spot doesn't mean that's so. That'd be like saying the heritage of the USA is Native American

Do you know-Wooz69 and Jebus(hoce da go jebes) are the scions of this forum

Wooz is like descended from Slavic nobility (uhm, did I get that right?) or something. Rock, huh?

 

[Fas Ist]

You do realise Bulgarians come from prot-Bulgarians AKA Bulgars? And while Bulgars are accepted to be both slavicized and probably Turkic, they're not exactly what one would call "Slavs", period.

Also, do I really have to point out that since the commin history of Bulgaria and Turkey goes back a long way, it is REALLY quite likely you have some Turkish blood? Just because you're not muslim doesn't mean you're not a Turk.

No,no.Bugars have an Iranian origin.They a have very acnient history,the world is not aware of it.I won't write about them,because some people will accuse me of being a racist

The Bulgarian heritage is not Thracian. Just 'cause you're at the same spot doesn't mean that's so. That'd be like saying the heritage of the USA is Native American

Tracian=Slav
Bulgarian(for now)=Slav
Bulgarian=Tracian
57 pages,..........

Wooz is like descended from Slavic nobility (uhm, did I get that right?) or something. Rock, huh?

A :

 

[Brother None]

No,no.Bugars have Iranian origin.They a have very acnient history,the world is not aware of it.I won't write about them,because some people will accuse me of being a racist

Not to insult your intellect, but if you're trying to prove the *superiority* of one race to another, that is in fact racist. "Superiority" or whatever should never be used in racial discussions. Heck, the whole concept of racist is ass-retarded

As far as I know, Bulgar history goes back to the Pamir Mountains, which is current Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, I must note that to use such terms is rather backwards. You can't say "Bulgars have Iranian roots" or whatever, since the concept of Iran is newer than the earliest date that the Bulgars could be traced back to

You've been ignoring most of Jebus' points, by the way. I don't like that.

A :

Polish nobility and stuff. You should worship him.

Tracian=Slav
Bulgarian(for now)=Slav
Bulgarian=Tracian
57 pages,..........

Hold on, I thought the article was about Tracians being Slavic. Where does it mention Bulgarians being Thracians? Also, the evidence it offers for Thracians being Slavic is already pretty thin, frmo what you paraphrased, perhaps you should put together another case

And again, proto-Bulgarians weren't Slavic, why would Bulgarians be Slavic? Slavicized does not equal Slavic