I dont trust the official narrative of the spread of slavic people. It sound sus to me>Barely mentioned by historians before the 7th Century, in an area reported instead as filled with germanic and steppeniggers tribes>Yet suddenly they spawn in historical records with ridicolous high numbers, enough for their tribes to quickly overrun most of Eastern Europe and even replace entire genetic compositions in wide areas like the BalkansWhere did all of these millions slavoids hide before the Seventh Century?
>>18577006They used to be called Huns
>>18577006The slavic people descended from heaven after God got tired of them fighting too much.
>>18577006>Where did all of these millions slavoids hideIn shitty forests and swamps that nobody needed in? Finnish tribes of Russian plain almost all disappeared in history, because they lived in even more shitty forests.
Historical records from that era don't go into detail about what lay beyond the Roman borders, really. They make a lot of assumptions and tend to paint the peoples beyond the Empire with a broad, inaccurate brush. For example, the "huns" we know now, from genetic evidence, were not a single, homogeneous tribe but a massive confederation of different people from all over Eurasia. The original "huns" are more or less what people think of, a pastoral people who live in the saddle, probably from somewhere around Mongolia originally, but as they migrated west they rolled many different peoples into their horde. Slavs were almost for certain one of these groups the Huns picked up as they moved west, and then deposited them somewhere west of the Urals, but still east and north of everything Romans considered civilization at the time.If Slavs were part of the Hunnic invasions of the Roman Empire, Roman historians didn't single them out. Instead they identified those people fighting for the Huns that they were already familiar with like the Goths and other Germanic peoples. Slavs were likely there the whole time, but when they were simply part of the mass of generic "huns" the Romans didn't bother to differentiate them. Or maybe they did, and the record detailing the ethnography of the huns from that chaotic period simply never survived.
>>18577091>Slavs were almost for certain one of these groups the Huns picked up as they moved west, and then deposited them somewhere west of the Urals,Slavs lived in Northern Ukraine-Southern Belarus long before Huns.
>>18577006The Pahntom Time Theory™ might be of help to you. It says that around 700 years have been added to our chronology, and in that time nothing happened. That basically erases the "dark ages", along with many duplicating events and groups of people. It's developed by Gunnar Heinsohn. A very interesting rabbit hole to fall into.
>>18577097Intriguing. Care to elaborate further? Sound more logical than a trillion people just suddenly spawning in the middle of bumfuck-upon nowhere like in a video game script
>>18577172Basically after the civilizational collapse (which officially is 3 separate crises) wiped out all progress in the world, and people had to start from somewhere. So they picked the date 1000 AD, and the adjusted everything else to it. However, when we look at stratigraphy, there's only enough layers of mud and dirt to support a much lower time flow. One of my own observations is the fact that the HRE was started around 962. Why would they wait over 400 years to continue the legacy of Rome? But with this theory in mind it becomes clear that they didn't wait at all - it was established right after Rome fell. Here's the database of the author's work:https://www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohns-latest.html
>>18577006>Where did all of these millions slavoids hide before the Seventh Century?They weren't millions, they just lived in shit lands, so when the huns killed a billion trillion people and freed up good lands for settling, slavs moved in and started having 10-15 children each generation.
>>18577006>and steppeniggers tribesThere's your Slavs. At least that's my theory. Just like people would later refer to all steppeniggers as Tatars, ancient peoples eventually just called all steppeniggers Scythians, even if they were totally different from the real ones. So Slavs probably were in the historical record earlier, just mistakenly referred to as Scythians. They could have grown for centuries under that label before finally earning an identity of their own in the eyes of their neighbors. Just look at how long all Germanic peoples were considered Goths. And that was in a way more civilized and well recorded area.
>millionsSlavniggers were a thin ruling class ruling over subjugated Romans, Finno-Ugrics and Germanics. But since Americans sided with them in the Great Slav Wars(WW1 and WW2), we can't talk about that.
>>18577304Most of the DNA from presumed Scythian samples doesn't look Slavic, but think there are a few samples from Ukraine or Central Europe that do.
Why did they avoid the Baltics and the Carpathian Basin? Literally two of the most fertile parts of eastern Europe
>>18577446>Carpathian basinthat was horse nomad territory
>>18577453And the migrating slavs were not horse nomads?
>>18577006>Where did all of these millions slavoids hide before the Seventh Century?They had always been there. The Slavic homeland was the urheimat of the proto-Indo-Europeans, they were just the last to expand from there.
They were a component of tribal confederations and larger states like the Huns or Avars, the latter of which forced them to organize in self-defense and later as vassals. So there were now a bunch of organized Slav tribes, some of whom were ruled by Avar nobles and probably other remnant Huns and other groups too, running around taking land and slaves and a real incentive for all the other groups still there like remnant Germanics or Sarmatians and paleo-Balkan peoples to assimilate to Slavic culture. The Turkish ruling class was assimilated by the bulk of their peasants in some cases like the Bulgars but kept the name.>>18577446Baltics were a swamp with violent locals, just ask Poland and the Teutonic Knights
>>18577459No, they were riverine Balts. Even the name Slav is nowadays most commonly explained as the name of a river they concentrated around before the expansion, most likely what's now called Dnieper as it's surrounded by all sorts of "Slav"-adjacent river names and the word itself neatly reconstructs to some variant of "flowing" in PIE.And most of these people hugged and had a culture and cults that concentrated around them. Wether it's Morava for Czechs and Slovaks (Moravians - Water people), Dnieper for the Rus' and all their expansions into Finno-Ugric territory (if you look at the archaeological record, it's always a Rus' [whether Germanic or Slavic] settlement at the river with Finns and co. in the surrounding forests), the Pomerians (By-the-water people) and their own settlements, forts concentrating around Elbe and so on.Horse finds are incredibly rare and assumed to solely be a possession of the highest ranks in society, which is completely incompatible with a horsefucker lifestyle.
Wasnt there a Slavic ethogenesis paper that showed they are just East Germanics + Iranics + Thracians around a Baltic derived core? I mean a lot of proto Slavic words for stuff like market, helm, sword are east Germanic.
>>18577713I think you're confusing what was just later german influence on Slavic nations around the time of the HRE. I don't think westerners appreciate that there was like NOTHING east of the Elbe river in the early middle ages. These places were mostly forest with small Grods as the only real form of civilization (Things were a little different around the Kievan Rus/modern day Ukraine because nigkangs and eastern rome but still mostly NOTHING).The Germans were basically slavic Europe's only real window into the 'civilized' world, so a ton of technical terms and technical innovations themselves came to them from Germany (not to mention German settlement that was encouraged by the kings of places like Bohemia and Poland).
>>18577331The problem is that what ancients call scythians and what archaeologists identify as scythians are similar but divergent things.Ancients recognised that there are several different types of scythians, steppe Scythians, forest Scythians and marsh Scythians. The name for them as a group almost certainly an exonym resulting from asking the wrong question by some Greek travellers. IE people in general seemed to have a social structure where the members of the group are all freemen and by being so they're also warriors whether they like it or not. Slaves are not an element of the group(they were objects, legally). Since the Greeks fought with shields, some Greek traveller asked "scythians"(who used different tribal names to call themselves), how do they call a shield bearer(warrior, freeman, real member of their tribe) and the scyt- piece is related to shields in some ways, so he heard that shieldbearers are called shieldbearers and thought that's how they call themselves as community.This is why they saw several different group of them, with the forest or marsh Scythians being likely not the same as the steppe scythians and I suspect the marsh scythians may have been slavs.Archeologists meanwhile recognise Scythians by various archaeological clues which they've learned by researching steppe burials etc. In other words for them a scythian is only the steppe scythian. The fact that some burials still seem sort of Slavic is partly the result of heterogenity in the steppe and partly because the barbarian world was still reasonably interconnected, we can find genetic profiles fitting the prehistoric inhabitants of Masuria in Bohemian warrior burials from the marcomanic war period, clearly mercenaries some sort of glory seeker. Could've happened elsewhere.Slavs lived just beyond what the Romans and the Greeks inquired for and that's why we don't see them until they explode.
>>18577700>Even the name Slav is nowadays most commonly explained as the name of a river they concentrated around before the expansion, most likely what's now called Dnieper as it's surrounded by all sorts of "Slav"-adjacent river names and the word itself neatly reconstructs to some variant of "flowing" in PIE.No there's a much more reasonable explanation that doesn't speculate on hydronymy(hydronymy is extremely stable over time, so if they happened to have a special name for Dnieper that's gonna be some success for it to be replaced).They called themselves slavs, because they spoke language("spoke in words") they could recognise. The moment they had to define who they are to the outsiders they've said - we are slavs? Most likely they were initially confused with the Germanics but they did knew them and told the interpretere that no they're not Germanics, those are people who don't speak(niemcy).The ethno- and pan-ethnonyms have a very practical purpose in mind, whcih is why they're often etymologically meaningless. Freemen(French, Frank), the people(Deutsch) etc.
>>18578129There were about 4-5 early sort of civilised areas in the slavic world(excluding let's say Bulgaria where they just took over Roman province) early on. Kiev, Prague, Novogrod-Stara Ladoga(I treat them as one because it seems the latter declined hard at some point in favour for the former) some place near the Oder estuary the name of which I forgot and maybe Krakow. The rest wasn't completely empty, for instance 8th century area near posen looks like whoever was there(probably eventually became Piasts) was engaged in attrition warfare on quite large scale, but there wasn't anything resembling town or a city there. The "urban" centres were all trade centres and the trade was in slaves. The geography becomes kind of easily understandable once you realise that - Novogrod was scandinavia-facing, Kiev-Byzantium and Caliphate facing, Prague - empire facing, Oder estuary - secondary Scandinavian route as well as north sea region, so it's not like it's a claim to fame.
>>18578593ukrainian volyn
>>18578593different colors the same volyn sample
>>18577497>These dots in France/Spain where alans and suebis settledKink
>>18577006>Where did all of these millions slavoids hide before the Seventh Century?"The spontaneous generation of perfect animals, in particular human beings, was discussed in academic circles and almost universally rejected, although not without some traces of ambiguity. Blaisius of Parma (ca. 1347–1416) was an exception to this general trend, arguing in his 1385 treatise on the soul that human beings and their souls could be generated spontaneously with the aid of celestial influences because the human soul was inseparable from its body and therefore mortal, like the souls of other animals. Blaisius was a controversial figure in his lifetime and was probably fortunate not to suffer stronger condemnation, but his writings never mentioned magic, and the intellectual climate of the late fourteenth century was freer than it had been a century before. Ultimately, the alchemical humanoid or homunculus is rather elusive in the late Middle Ages, but it achieved a vivid expression in Paracelsus’s *De natura rerum* (ca. 1537), where parallels with the *Liber vaccae*—the use of human sperm, an incubation period of forty days, the feeding of blood to the incomplete creature, and its ability at maturity to reveal magical and alchemical secrets—make it likely that Paracelsus was influenced by the magic text."
