The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Genealogy  % width posts: 263

Polish DNA? Poles have the most genes in a group includes Balts, Macedonians and Greeks.


Marek11111 9 | 816
18 Oct 2010 #91
guesswho:
At least I don't have any problems to accept the historical truth

stay on this forum i will teach you about history
who said " history is written by victors "
so my young apprentice history in printed books might be inaccurate or just made-up
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591
18 Oct 2010 #92
But it could have too easily been fabricated/modified, what have you.

spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,720513,00.html

...
The essential question is whether the new data is accurate. Ptolemy's "Geography" is preserved only in duplication. The copy so far considered the most authentic is an edition produced around the year 1300 and kept by the Vatican.

But the team of experts in Berlin had the great fortune to be able to refer to a parchment tracked down at Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, Turkey, the former residence of the Ottoman sultans. The document, consisting of unbound sheepskin pages with writing in Roman capital letters, is the oldest edition of Ptolemy's work ever discovered. A reproduction of this version is due to be published next year.

Hard to fabricate...
Alot of people who must lie and two different copy's who say the same...another anti-polish conspiracy? ;)

a time when Germany was expanding into the east, towards *pagan* Poland and Lithuania Commonwealth. They also wanted to get into Prussia. And what better way to legitimize this great crusade to convert and destroy Slavic and Baltic people, than to claim that this land is ancient German land.

And here is the myth...Germans were pushed out before by the Slavs. The land into what they were "expanding" was german land before.

That is something that doesn't fit into the well known narrative of the nice, peaceful Slavs and the agressive Germans who always push eastwards into polish lands.

That's why this map is not openly accepted by some Poles.
Marek11111 9 | 816
18 Oct 2010 #93
no Polish person would accept this lie
guesswho 4 | 1,289
18 Oct 2010 #94
so my young apprentice history in printed books might be inaccurate or just made-up

Learn how to discuss from your countryman Filios, he does an excellent job in it.
Now, if I follow your theory, I'll have to assume that it works both ways, right? Just as well the books you've read and the history you know and accept might be inaccurate and made up, correct? Or is it only made up when it's not written by the Poles?
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591
18 Oct 2010 #95
no polish person would accept this lie

Most will have no problems and they won't have any other choice actually! ;)

It's like with Giordano Bruno, the Vatican and the flat earth...you can burn the messenger but
the message will still prevail! :)
Marek11111 9 | 816
18 Oct 2010 #96
yes show me the other find that is backing up the conclusion that Germans were living on Slav lands
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591
18 Oct 2010 #97
Well...most of the towns are still there... ;)

As I said...that map is a sensation and will pave the way for alot of archaeological and historical bruahaha...we can only sit back and enjoy the ride! :)

I for one can't wait what they will find...

PS: But don't act as if it would be totally news even to you that the Germanic tribes (coming from the North) where living in central Europe before the Slavs immigrated there from the East.

THAT one is a mainstream acknowledged historical fact, totally independent from Ptolemy...
Filios1 8 | 1,336
18 Oct 2010 #98
It doesn't really matter what we both believe

Well, true enough. But sometimes a really well supported post can sway someone in this direction or another. That is what I hope to do with you, for instance ;)

continue our discussion in a cultural manner.

I've never been one to begin acting like a child on a forum when trying to prove my point. You just come off as weak and easily intimidated/frustrated.

Alot of people who must lie and two different copy's who say the same...another anti-polish conspiracy?

Well, not exactly BB. But I think you're intelligent enought to realize that the Roman Catholic Teutonic Order had it self all mixed up with the Papacy.

For instance:

In 1217 Pope Honorius IIIproclaimed a crusade against the Prussian pagans. Duke Conrad of Massovia had been invaded by these barbarians and, in 1225,desperate for assistance, asked the Teutonic knights to come to his aid. He promised the Master possession of Culm and Dobrzin which Salza accepted with the provision that the knights could retain any Prussian territories that the Order captured. The Emperor's grant of Princely rank in 1226/27 in the "Golden Bull" of Rimini offered the knights sovereignty of any lands they captured as immediate fiefs of the Empire.

Note that it is in the 13th-14th century when these crusades are called, and its exactly when this map seemed to be reproduced by the Vatican.

It seems as though you are placing a lot of trust in the hands of the Vatican, when itself as an institution, has been as corrupt as any other in history.

It was in their interest at the time to fund the Teutonic knights fighting their way back into the east, as it would increase their own wealth and prestige (although of course most of these regions were already Catholic)

Germans were pushed out before by the Slavs. The land into what they were "expanding" was german land before.

Again, using black and white terms. The populations of these regions were already so intermixed that you can't really cross a line across the map and say "here are the Germanics" and "here are the Sarmatians." You aren't naiive enough to believe that, are you? The numerous tribes like Ostrogoths and Visigoths were mixed Germanic-Slavic. Peaceful settled agrarian tribes weren't doing the fighting, these guys were. Whether they pushed Germanics back, or helped push them forward, is altogether unclear. It's almost as if Germans calling for a crusade against Germans.
Marek11111 9 | 816
18 Oct 2010 #99
BB you can not produce one map after ??? with out collaborating evidence and accept it as truth
your assumption is wrong and I am right.
Filios1 8 | 1,336
18 Oct 2010 #101
Marek, I don't want to come off sounding rude, but this is a question I think all three of us are dying to know the answer to.

How much have you had to drink?
Marek11111 9 | 816
18 Oct 2010 #102
ok do you have any other proof of your claim?
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591
18 Oct 2010 #103
Well, not exactly BB.

Well, I don't think so too... ;)

Marek seems to think so!

Note that it is in the 13th-14th century when these crusades are called, and its exactly when this map seemed to be reproduced by the Vatican.

That's why it's great they found an even older copy in the Topkapi-palace in Istanbul...double proof is just better. :)

The populations of these regions were already so intermixed

Not at the beginning. The Slavs pushing westwards assimilated those germans who still lived there after most of them migrated south to Rome.
Even more mixing happened as the Germanics came back...since then it's a continous shoving back and for.

"here are the Germanics" and "here are the Sarmatians."

In the beginning there were surely clear borders between people of different traditions, language, culture...as today.
It was clear to Ptolemy and Tacitus. The border between our both people is still there even after 2000 years of mixing.

If they pushed Germanics back, or helped push them forward, is altogether a blur.

I agree it's never only black and white and more of a grey blur.
But its the Germans who were painted by the Slavs in the blackest colors, as the only agressors, for centuries...it's time to throw that one sided viewpoint into the bin! :)

Just think about how Poles justify the ethnical cleansing of millions of Germans..."re-taking originally polish lands"....Tja...that argument is now busted!
Marek11111 9 | 816
18 Oct 2010 #104
How much have you had to drink?

today?
this week?
George8600 10 | 637
18 Oct 2010 #105
me? One 750ml bottle of Canadian whiskey...is that alot?
Filios1 8 | 1,336
18 Oct 2010 #107
today?

Tonight, or this morning, whatever time zone you are in.

Topkapi-palace

And so I default to my previous position, that Ptolemy was a Slav who was payed off by confused Slavs or in other words, Germanics ;)

it's time to throw that one sided viewpoint into the bin! :)

I've never been in favour of such a view.. because in history, no one is entirely innocent. Slavs were invading just as much as Germans were invading. But that still doesn't change my mind over the map. Map is practically inaccurate, as you would expect it to be. Slavs may have not been native to some partial tracts of land that it has owned in history. But I would still consider todays Poland give or take (minus thousands of km's in the east, and shifted partially to the west) in keeping with its historical borders.
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591
18 Oct 2010 #108
And so I default to my previous position, that Ptolemy was a Slav who was payed off by confused Slavs or in other words, Germanics ;)

Cheers Fili, glad to have you back in that mad house called PF :)

...going to bed now...
Filios1 8 | 1,336
18 Oct 2010 #109
glad to have you back in thad mad house called PF

Third time coming back ;)

...going to bed now...

Gute nacht.
And don't forget to take your helmet off before getting into bed.
Marek11111 9 | 816
18 Oct 2010 #110
the map is forgery and not representing any evidence.
we will have to agree to disagree.
if you find more documents let me know as maybe a map that was written by roman in 1 ad or in England in 300 ad.
ShortHairThug - | 1,103
19 Oct 2010 #111
The Russian occupation time in Poland is over. Poland is a free and a much better country now. No need to stick to the old communist history and geography. You guys are free now and it's time to open up to the unknown before the 1989 historical facts.
I like Polish people, the only problem I have with you guys here and there is when we're talking about history because you still seem not to let go the old "truth".

The stupidity of your average Yank shines right through. So what is the "truth" or the "facts" that you speak of? What do you know about Ptolemy or his writings anyway o wise one? To the rest of us uneducated former commies as well as very well educated western morons, unlike yourself, (mere mortals if you will) historically speaking we know virtually nothing about the man himself, all we know is that he lived in the 2nd century A.D and worked in Alexandria. His works were translated into Latin in the 15th century, some 1300 years later and that’s the document that’s being disused here. Columbus himself read freshly translated Ptolemy’s "Geography", based his theories and plotted a course in accordance to what he just read in that book; look at the confusion that it caused when he reached the new world, that what he thought was Asia. All due to Ptolemy’s exaggerated size of Asia as presented in his work, you know the one we discuss here.

Why do you suppose Scotland is skews as much as 90 degrees to the east in his work? His fairly accurate description of the known world is based on the extent of the Roman army’s reach where the accurate measurements and the distances would have been known to the Romans therefore to Ptolemy himself, everything else past Hadrian's Wall as well as other parts of Europe where Rome had no influence was Tara Incognita to Ptolemy (here be dragons). What lied beyond that point was based on educated guess, speculation, hearsay from numerous unsubstantiated sources, that’s what he had to work with, so he did his best under the circumstances. Placement of the tribes as well as associating them with those of the Germanic or Slavic extraction is pure guesswork. Archeological evidence on the lands in question discovered so far and dating back to the time frame in question does not support this theory either. So much for the truth! The rest is simply someone else’s interpretation of his writings; wishful thinking, a whole lot of fantasy all neatly wrapped up for easy consumption by the masses and perhaps even semi coherent to the likes of you but you still have no problem excepting it as a gospel truth simply because you’re too lazy to read up on the subject matter and draw your own conclusions.
PennBoy 76 | 2,437
19 Oct 2010 #112
even though many people may not agree with it, 90% of the time Bratwurst Boy is right about what he says :)
Marek11111 9 | 816
19 Oct 2010 #113
see, you do not know the points there is no other known maps of this region so someone translate a map that Ptolemy write but he was in Egypt working from tails or letters, writings of roman soldier and of course he might have name them with German names but it does mean they were German towns. When I see other collaborating evidence I say BB is wrong.

how BB can be 90% right when I only agree with him 1% and I am 100% right ;-)
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
24 Oct 2010 #114
Here's the distribution of the R1a haplogroup which is common in Slavic populations.

It is interesting to note that the highest percentage of R1a haplogroup is in what is modern day Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Afghanistan has the exact percentage as do Poles.

Polish origins?
Filios1 8 | 1,336
24 Oct 2010 #115
Actually, there was recently an article I read somewhere... Unfortunately I cannot find the link, that higher casts in India (who have visibly lighter skin) have really high R1a occurance, while lower casts have barely, if any, R1a. Article explained this by saying that a few thousand years ago, some fairly large scale Slavic migration made its way to India, and the Slavs, because of more complex technologies, quickly assumed positions of power in the existing culture there.

So I would not be surprised that this migration made its way from Central-Eastern Europe as well. Just like Croatians have higher R1a because they are originally from modern Poland...
FlaglessPole 4 | 669
24 Oct 2010 #116
Just think about how Poles justify the ethnical cleansing of millions of Germans..."re-taking originally polish lands"....Tja...that argument is now busted!

BB can you say: soczewica, miele, koło, młyn? ;)
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
24 Oct 2010 #117
"Poles justify the ethnical cleansing of millions of Germans..."re-taking originally polish lands"....Tja...that argument is now busted"

Seems like BBis putting all his marbles on that 'suspicious' map with its 'dubious' interpretations. It's his hoped for "Holy Grail" (and of course Germany is Camelot). Hmmm, reminds me of this:

youtube.com/watch?v=yjacqcTFYFw
g.k.
5 Nov 2010 #118
In my opinion Ptolemeus called Germanic all People they lived outside the northern border of Roman Empire. He couldn't distinguish between German and Slavs. Some sciencetists think that Suebi-Svevi are just Slavs , look on the name. I strongly belive this is the trueth. So the Slavs coluld easily live to the Elbe or even Rhein line.

Regards
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,591
5 Nov 2010 #119
Yeah...when the historical facts are uncomfortably one is open for every crooked explanation!
Sorry to burst your wishful bubble, just look at the map by Ptolemy again.
He knows exactly to differ between the Germanics and the Slavs...there is a clear drawn border right on the map to the eastern Sarmatians!

There wouldn't be any if they would be all the same to him.

Not to mention that he was an Egyptian not a Roman, or that you think the Romans quite stupid not knowing about the many people in an outside of their empire.

Maybe they didn't know so much about the Slavs but they for sure did know their Germans, being at war and trading with them for centuries already...

And if Ptolemy is not enough for you, Pliny the Elder and also Tacitus know to differ between Germanics and Slavs already.

Some sciencetists think that Suebi-Svevi are just Slavs , look on the name.

I hope you don't use the same "scientific" resources as Crow because mainstream history is clear about the Suebi as a germanic tribe:

/wiki/Suebi

...
The Suebi or Suevi (from Proto-Germanic *swēbaz based on the Proto-Germanic root *swē- meaning "one's own" people,[1] from an Indo-European root *swe-,[2] the third person reflexive pronoun) were a group of Germanic peoples[3] who were first mentioned by Julius Caesar in connection with Ariovistus' campaign...

What next? Ariovistus a Slav too???
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariovistus

Ariovistus was a leader of the Suebi and other allied Germanic peoples in the second quarter of the 1st century BC. He and his followers took part in a war in Gaul, assisting the Arverni and Sequani to defeat their rivals the Aedui, after which they settled in large numbers in conquered Gallic territory in the Alsace region.

Ariovistus

The Suebians left their traces even today: /wiki/Swabia

...
2000 years ago, the Suebi or Suevi were an Elbe Germanic tribe whose origin was near the Baltic Sea, which was thus known to the Romans as the Mare Suebicum (today, the term "Swabian Sea" is applied to Lake Constance). They migrated to the southwest, becoming part of the Alamannic confederacy.
...
Swabia (sometimes Suabia or Svebia) (German: Schwaben, also Schwabenland or Ländle) is a cultural, historic and linguistic region in Germany.

What is it with you guys...is your own history not enough for you now you need to steal from others???
Ironside 49 | 10,353
5 Nov 2010 #120
BB Germanic doesn't equal German !

Home / Genealogy / Polish DNA? Poles have the most genes in a group includes Balts, Macedonians and Greeks.
Discussion is closed.