Origins of Polish Slavs

Jadowniki wrote:


polishforums.com/history/origins-slavs-58997/

What you call "turbo-slavism", I call The Truth About Poland - Mother of All Slavija.


Just a forum post without link to any credible source. As you can see in the Wikipedia article I posted earlier there was never more than around 5-6 thousand Tatars on the core Polish lands (Grand Duchy of Lithuania is a different matter). All in all, a neglibile influence.

When you say like this you didn`t say nothing.

Bulgarians originate from native Sarmatians (ie Slavs) who were exposed to Persian rule, while Persians themselves originate from native Sarmatians who were exposed to mixing with Black people. I say Black and don`t say with Semites because as far as we know all Semites maybe represent mix of Sarmatians and Black peoples. Today`s Semitic regions possible represent regions where was border between White Sarmats (ie Slavs ie Proto Slavs ie Proto Europeans) and Black Africans/Indians. What goes for Semites goes for Turkic peoples.

Crow, you must surely realise that Sarmatia (and sarmatism) is an internal Polish heritage. Nothing to do with Serbia, and certainly not with Little Turkey (aka Bulgaria).

By the way, why is there a club called Slavia Sofia in Bulgaria? It sounds like Galatasaray Warsaw or Cracowspor. ;)

Indeed. Its all fictitious propaganda from this commie, never ending.

You got it upside down as usual.

Can I just remind you where White Serbia and White Croatia were..........

All Serbs and Croats come from Poles............ LOL!!!

Exactly.

It's amazing how often one has to state the obvious on this forum. *rolls eyes*

In Serbia we have region Srem on Fruska Gora mountain where local people even today speak legends of wife of Sarmatian warlord who cut off the head from Roman Princess. Supposedly Sarmats ambushed Roman river convoy on Danube and slaughtered escort. Then wife of Sarmatian warlord didn`t like how Roman Princess looked at hear husband and cut of her head immediately.

Not to say that is from many sources and science confirmed how Serbian name represent remain of original form of Sarmatian name. You have it even in Catholic Encyclopedia where is stated that all Slavs originate from Serbs. You have Polish legends which stated that Poles originate from Sarmats. Then you have sources that clearly say how are Thracians same as Sarmatians. Sarmatian and Thracian center in Europe was what is now Serbia and, even today Serbs have two ethnic names- Serbs and Rashani (Serbowie and Racowie).

And what region was Ice Age refugium for all of Europeans during Ice age? Primarily Western Balkan and particularly mostly Serbia, sites like Vinca, Lepenski Vir, etc. In last 70.000 years Serbia wasn`t covered with glacial ice. Civilization here have continuity that you even can`t imagine how deep in past. In other parts of Europe civilization had to be restarted several times and restarted exactly by people who repopulated Europe from what is now Serbia and, most probably was Serbia even 10.000 years ago and more.

Turbo-slavism is a term now widely acknowledged as a term depicting views and opinions which propose things like some Slavic "Lechia state" (Wielka Lechia) existing in the past as an empire virtually equal to the Roman Empire and fighting with them on an equal basis. There has even been published a book discussing the phenomenon of turbo-slavism in Poland. Beside Poland, it is popular in Russia, I think.

I don't know if it is popular in Serbia, too, but what Crow proposes looks very similar to turbo-slavism except that it should be called "turbo-sarmatism".


In what sense is Poland "Mother of All Slavija"?


I think he means "Sarmatia" in a much broader (and going deep to the past) sense than the Polish particular case of "Sarmatism" that had become an ideology for our gentry people in the 16th century.

In every possible sense.

That is no answer. You are becoming another jon357 of this forum?


When they came into existence, you could not speak of "Poles" yet. At that time no one knew if Poland would emerge one day or not ...

This is true but Serbs and Croats came from the same region.

While you roll eyes think of this fact. Those Serbs in Poland you deny, Kashubs, Lusatians, etc... are genetically older populace in the region then Polani tribe. In fact, those Serbs are direct ancestors to Polani tribe. Some Polani directly originate from Balkan Serbs, as genetics confirms.

Not to speak that I recently learned that Polani tribe was originally named Dragovic. Dragovic Sarmatian tribe that lived on plains and fields and with time was by others known as Polani. So Polani used that name for itself, for sure, once when Romans destroyed old Sarmatian (ie Serbian) order in Europe and ancient meta-ethnicity remained in past and moved to legends, while Serb name remained sporadically alive throughout entire Europe and especially on Balkan-Baltic line, original first line of life in Europe after Ice age.

@Crow Do you remember the map that I sent you from Mariusz Kowalski's book? Check your PM box, you might still have it. Genetic science is precise and ruthless, and it doesn't support your legends I'm afraid.

Any chance you could share that on here?

Where did you get it from? And do you mean the Kievian Polani or the Polani of Gniezno?


I join in this request. The book Torq mentions looks genuine, although it is not written by a historian or another specialist. You know, there are tons of books of this field on the market which are nothing more than crap. But


in reference to that book sounds a bit suspicious, anyway.

On TV and later that program was also on YouTube. Now I already search for that again before somebody here ask for link.

It was in general. `Polani are Serbs of Dragovic tribe`. Nothing specific. Just general info then man that gave info wanted to pursue topic but TV man cut him off and repeated Polani, Polani, they are Polani.

See, I do believe that we Serbs receive more info then all Slavs and Europeans together but, official Poland is here like holly cow. Media always hesitate not to insult Poland. Why would be that insult I don`t know but, well. What I can tell you its not out from fear from Poland but, for some deeper connection. Like that we Serbs wait for something. That Poland awake for some, let`s say 1000 years. Like we would be alive when that happen.... On the other side, once, Poland arrived in time

Here's the map, gentlemen...

... it clearly shows, as far as the most primeval Slavic genetic combination of R1a+I2 is concerned, that former Rzeczpospolita has the highest number of carriers (plus, surprisingly, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia).

In our considerations we must take into account that Croats consider themselves Germanic (Goths), so culturally they disqualify themselves from Slavia, and Bosniaks are very often Muslim, so religiously they disqualify themselves from Slavia. Ukraine and Belarus, because of their close ties with Russia via former Soviet Union underwent a process of cultural mongolisation, so genetically they are all right, but culturally - sorry - disqualified from Slavija.

As the map very clearly shows Czechs were germanised, Slovaks magyarised, and Russians, Serbs and Bulgars thoroughly mongolised/turkicised (and in case of Bulgars, they might have been Turkic in the first place anyway).

That leaves only Poland and Slovenia as the only tangibly, genetically and culturally Slavic countries (I forgot Slovenia in my first post on this matter, because they are so neglibily small). So, I hope we can clearly see that Poland stands in the very centre of Europe, the very heart of it, as the only remaining Slavic country in the world.

Science -- I absolutely love it. It confirms everything I always knew deep down in my soul.

P.S. One more thing that this map shows is that Grand Duchy of Lithuania is actually, by and large, what we today call Belarus, and country that is, for some reason, using the name "Lithuania" today is actually Samogitia (Żmudź).

Torq omg you're so *****. Calling Bulgaria little Turkey is like calling Poland little Germany. We have in common with Ukrainians and Hungarians. But Czechs are mostly Germanic genetically, hence why they're the ugliest Slavic speakers.

Thank you.


...is rather accurate. You said you were Turks who adopted a Slavic language yourself, didn't you?


...would be extremely rude and inaccurate. :(


Actually, I think I mentioned this before - two most beautiful girls I've ever met were German. :) And I'm in Czech Republic at least once a year, so don't bulls*it me -- Czeszki are extremely hot. :)

I visited both Prague and Bratislava recently and Bratislava wins hands down for female beauty!

No calling Bulgaria little Turks is offensive. 500 years of Ottoman occupation and oppression. That's longer than Russian and Nazi occupied Poland combined! We hate Turks for obvious reasons.

Well there's a large genetic Turkic component (obvious to anyone who spends any time there and who isn't blind0


Is that why Zhivkov led the reprehensible anti-Turkish movement of the 1980s?

Serbians look more Turkish btw.

What are the features of mongolization? Principally, the cultures are intermittent and people aren't born with some culture. Do you afraid Ukraine can never change?

We don't hate the Turks. They were honourable enemy - when they signed cease fire they kept to it, and they never recognised the partitions of Poland.

Even though they are Muslims, our relations are quite good, and in history they proved to be an enemy, but an honourable one as I said. You, Bulgars, on the other hand, massacred even your Serbian Orhodox brothers...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surdulica_massacre

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0tip_massacre

... so maybe you aren't Turks after all. But you said yourself that you aren't Slavic either -- so who are you?


- corruption
- fall of morality (divorces, abortion, parentless children, AIDS - all those statistics for Russia are higher
than in Western Europe)
- despising weak people and those who are lower in status than you
- "byzantine" style in politics
- cynicism and violence towards the weaker

...to name just a few. Turanic civilisation (Russia, Turkey, Mongolia), is diametrically different than Latin civilisation (France, Poland, Italy).


They can change, but the years of mongolisation left a very deep marks on their culture and mentality. With time and effort they might lift themselves up to Polish civilisational level, who knows, but it will require a lot of both.

And of course the "fall of morality" factor is significantly higher in Russia than in Turkey, who stayed faithful to their religion, whilst Russians abandoned Orthodox Christianity en masse, fooled by the marxist liars.

Also, those with at least minimal knowledge of Poland appreciate how our country manages to combine its unique Slavic culture with Latin civilisation, as well as the best traits of our Central European neighbours - Germany. We took the best from various civilisations and further improved it - we are sort of like Borg in this respect (only, of course, more benevolent).

That's why, as a leader of V4 (Visegrad), we aim at creating Intermarium (Międzymorze) - natural Polish sphere of influence, and future centre of European civilisation, when both the West and Russia fall.

It is a shame that, after all those years, I still have to repeat the same things here, but that's my job as a Pole - educate and civilize.

What is interesting about this map is that the author on the one hand combines haplogroups R1a with I2, and on the other he combines R1b with I1. Does he point out to any reasons for creating such combinations?

Your opinions on germanization, magyarization, mongolization are a little bizzare to say the least. It is certainly true of Hungary, but as Hungarians came from the north, they incorporated the remaining Slavic people of Panonia into them.


The map says nothing about their germanization. It only shows that Czechia has roughly the same proportion (30-60%) of R1a+I2 and R1b+I1. Thus, in the light of your interpratations you might say they are genetically half-Slavic and half-German. In every Czech newspaper that takes an interest in population genetics and archeogenetics you will read they are genetically half-Slavic and half-other with that other half consisting of Celtic (50%) and Germanic (50%) ancestry. Does the author of the book mention the Celts and their heritage at all? The Celtic people once inhabited half of Europe and even the old name of Czechia is a Celtic name (Bohemia).

As far as Bulgaria is concerned, I'm not particularly well acquainted with the subject, but it seems that their ruling elite was of Turkic origin (a similar story as in Kievian Ruthenia with their Viking elite), but the bulk of the people were Slavic. The contemporary Turkish component maybe more of the story of Turkish admixture from the time of the Ottoman Empire.

Brate map is fake. Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Crna Gora, Croatia. It's genetically one and same people. Scientific fact. Its main proof map is fake.

Then, Croatia (with Bosnia-Herzegovina) is there presented exactly in borders of WWII Nazi Independant state of Croatia. Some sh** is promoted on that map. Are you sure the one created map isn't ustasha? You know ustashe are kind of banderists.

So, fake it is. Sorry if I ruined your idea of that map.

Dobri brate Torq, how I see things, if all depend on you and me, we would make a great deal. We would sit on the table and talk, like our ancients. It would be totally tribal thing. The young woman would serve us rakija and food, young warriors would perform battle simulations and show their strength, the old woman would hide from us, the old man would play on gusly, etc.

Warsawa and Beograd via Budapest. Let wealth flow like in good old days.

Hmm... I must admit that your vision is rather appealing. :)

You know. I like the eagle of Poland. First, white is white. One head is enough. I would only put OCILA on the red shield of the eagle. You know for ocila, don't you? It's our common ancient symbol. The very important thing. Then, we keep the flag of Poland, and only instead of red shield behind eagle we put blue shield (ocila are on the red shield on the chest of the eagle).

Should we put something in the legs of the eagle?