Let's Discuss Poland

[0R4NG3]

a) The name 'Hungary' has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Huns" and have everything to do with the words ' On Ongur'.

This is just a theory, not a proven fact, no matter how popular it is.

Huns were nomads(travelled from place to place) and whether there were any of them by the time Slavs appeared in Poland is debatable.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I haven't posted lately as this discussion is hopeless...

Anyway who the heck said that Poles were Huns? lol

 

[Angst]

I haven't posted lately as this discussion is hopeless...

Anyway who the heck said that Poles were Huns? lol

Finally, I thought you died from Cancer or something

 

[TheLastOne36]

My last post was in page 31...

 

[aronnax]

My last post was in page 31...

Most likely the only reason why the thread went off-topic for 10 pages

 

[Angst]

TheLastOne36! You are our savior! Make this On Topic Again!

 

[Ahimsadharma]

This is just a theory, not a proven fact, no matter how popular it is.

Huns were nomads(travelled from place to place) and whether there were any of them by the time Slavs appeared in Poland is debatable.

Sorry, false. This is clear fact, evidenced in Hungarian history by documentation and accepted as fact by historic circles around the world.
Hun= Hungarian is where pure fiction lies, not what i said.
If you wish, i can quote you any number of historians on this issue.

And whether there were/were not Huns in Poland is not debatable, since Huns were not nomadic but semi-nomadic, meaning they had well established villages and a significant vagabond population at the same time.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

I haven't posted lately as this discussion is hopeless...

Anyway who the heck said that Poles were Huns? lol

Poles = mixed with huns/descendants of the Huns. Hun history of Poland ends just 200 yrs before the Slavic history of Poland begins and in 200 years, entire region of villages and nomads don't disappear into thin air. They either get genocided to the last man or they get married/bred into and thus absorbed into the fold.
History is testimony to the fact that the former fact is recorded far more dilligently than the latter fact. And since there is ZERO evidence of any 'slavs wiping out huns' or anybody wiping out Huns in Poland/north-eastern Europe region, it stands to reason that Huns were most probably bred into and absorbed into the Slavic fold rather than just magically vanishing.
Therefore, Hun history is just as much part of Polish history as Slavic history is.
Denial of that is simply drawing history from a flawed 'race and ethnic' perspective.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^let's see TheLastOne's view and analysis on that... hes a real Pole, he'll tell us all he thinks of.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

^let's see TheLastOne's view and analysis on that... hes a real Pole, he'll tell us all he thinks of.

What someone 'thinks' or feels like simply because of his nationality is rather irrelevant when facts and logic say otherwise, doesnt it ?
Otherwise history would be one monotonous chain of falsehoods propagated through nationalistic/racial sentiments (which Europe and the middle kingdom has a tendency to do/did)

 

[TheLastOne36]

Poles = mixed with huns/descendants of the Huns. Hun history of Poland ends just 200 yrs before the Slavic history of Poland begins and in 200 years, entire region of villages and nomads don't disappear into thin air. They either get genocided to the last man or they get married/bred into and thus absorbed into the fold.
History is testimony to the fact that the former fact is recorded far more dilligently than the latter fact. And since there is ZERO evidence of any 'slavs wiping out huns' or anybody wiping out Huns in Poland/north-eastern Europe region, it stands to reason that Huns were most probably bred into and absorbed into the Slavic fold rather than just magically vanishing.
Therefore, Hun history is just as much part of Polish history as Slavic history is.
Denial of that is simply drawing history from a flawed 'race and ethnic' perspective.

1. Polish history before year 800 isn't even recorded, so for all you know slavs might have actually did wipe them out. theres no proof either way. and even if there is hun blood in poles, were nowhere close to having as much hunnic blood as a finn or a magyaran person would. and when t comes to finns and magyar's, you can see some similarities betwenn them and huns, whle those similarities aren't present when it comes to poles.

because of that, i do think that there may be some hunnic blood in poles, but not nearly as much as there would be in finns and magyars.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Polish history before year 800 isn't even recorded, so for all you know slavs might have actually did wipe them out.

Slavic legends exist as far back as 100AD and legends are often a cruder version of history. But nowhere in slavic version is there a mention of 'hunnic genocide'.
So until there is concrete evidence to prove otherwise, the more probable and logical conclusion must be followed : That a culture don't simply vanish without a trace in 200 unless they are absorbed into the fold.
Plus written history is not the only credible source of history-archeaology is also a very credible and often impartial source.

and even if there is hun blood in poles, were nowhere close to having as much hunnic blood as a finn or a magyaran person would. and when t comes to finns and magyar's, you can see some similarities betwenn them and huns, whle those similarities aren't present when it comes to poles.

1. How do you know of any similarity with huns, given that not a SINGLE hun potrait exists today ?
2. As i have said earlier, Magyars are NOT related to Huns and geography stands to reason that Poles are far more hunnic than Hungarians are.

Anyways, it is a moot point- facts that Huns inhabited Poland for centuries make them every bit a part of Polish history as Slavic period of Poland.
Mankind in Poland didnt start with Slavs and it probably won't end in Poland with slavs. Everyone who's lived in Poland at some point or another in history is part of Polish history, its just as simple as that, really.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Slavic legends exist as far back as 100AD and legends are often a cruder version of history. But nowhere in slavic version is there a mention of 'hunnic genocide'.
So until there is concrete evidence to prove otherwise, the more probable and logical conclusion must be followed : That a culture don't simply vanish without a trace in 200 unless they are absorbed into the fold.
Plus written history is not the only credible source of history-archeaology is also a very credible and often impartial source.

Slavic Legends do not mean Polish Legends. Most Slavic Legends originate in the former Yugoslavian lands. Ounce again, polish history before 800 ad is not recorded. and just because 1 group of slavs didn't kill all huns, doesn't mean all slavs did. The Slavs in Poland got rid of the celts, germanics, and Balts that lived there. I see why the didn't do t to the huns.

1. How do you know of any similarity with huns, given that not a SINGLE hun potrait exists today ?

well i think were pretty sure that huns were asian right? well there are some features that an asian has that you can notice with finns and magyars. it's not that noticible though, but noticible enough to notice it.

2. As i have said earlier, Magyars are NOT related to Huns and geography stands to reason that Poles are far more hunnic than Hungarians are.

So are Aborigenees in Australia any more Asian then there african friends just because there closer to Asia then the Africans are?
And how can you explain that Magyars have a similar language to the Finns even though the finns are hunnic (by blood) and as you say, the magyars arn't?

infact even Wiki agrees with me. Wiki would not get such a common fact wrong.

Wiki infact says, that Magyars are descendents of Scythians, Huns, Avars, and it also says sumerians which i don't get...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#Ethnic_affiliations_and_origins

That also shows a thing or to

Anyways, it is a moot point- facts that Huns inhabited Poland for centuries make them every bit a part of Polish history as Slavic period of Poland.
Mankind in Poland didnt start with Slavs and it probably won't end in Poland with slavs. Everyone who's lived in Poland at some point or another in history is part of Polish history, its just as simple as that, really.

that's the land poles inhabited for well over a millenia, not poles and poland.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Most Slavic Legends originate in the former Yugoslavian lands.

Eh ? No. Most slavic legends do not originate from former Yugoslavian lands- Yogoslavian Slavs arrived in Yugoslavia region just like they did in Poland.

Ounce again, polish history before 800 ad is not recorded.

As i said- even in Polish legends, there is no evidence of a complete break from hunnic Poland. Neither is there any archaeological evidence. As i said, people don't just vanish into thin air without any trace of mention ANYWHERE- That Polish/Slavs exterminated the Huns is not noted in *any* historical or legendary source- not of the Germans, Poles, Norsemen, Byzantines or Carolingian. Yet just 300 years before slavs even appear in history, rest of Europe was busy writing copious amounts of literature about the Huns and Atilla. Just a 150 years before Slavs enter human history, Huns are mentioned in Byzantine record. There is copious detail throughout the period of Hunnic power (and much western European hatred towards the Huns-understandably so) about Hunnic destruction/looting sprees, going so far as to name numerous specific towns, cities and villages ravaged by the Huns. So it makes no sense whatsoever that just 200 years later when the Slavs wiped out Hun villages & towns,everyone simply forgot to mention the 'Slavic terror' unleashed in Hunnic fashion.That is not just odd, that is downright contradictory circumstantial evidence to your claim (that Huns were driven/wiped out from Poland). Thus there is simply no evidence to suggest that such an extermination occured and it is far more reasonable to say that until evidence is presented, the default position is Slavs absorbed the Hunnic elements in poland into their fold, since world history is proof enough that interbreeding amongst tribes/cultures-especially in a slow & peaceful 'cultural absorption' process is not commented upon much whereas a sudden and cataclysmic end of a particular society is noted very definitively by societies surrounding it, especially if they have writing (which rest of Europe clearly did around the earlier Slavic period).
I personally think your position on Polish history is clouded form a bit of overzealous Slavic nationalism, which is just a thinly veiled form of ethnocentrism bordering on racism. That you choose to define history on a racial basis is clearly the proof of that.

The Slavs in Poland got rid of the celts, germanics, and Balts that lived there. I see why the didn't do t to the huns.

False. There is significant cultural and interbreeding between slavs, celts, germanics & balts in Poland. Your pretension that Slavic is a 'pure' race that got rid of the people is a boderline racist one, if not outright so, really.

well i think were pretty sure that huns were asian right?

False. Huns, like most Eurasian Steppe tribe, were completely heterogenous in their racial/ethnic makeup, with tribes varying from each other only in minor cultural differences.
This is a fact recorded in almost all ancient civilizations having extensive contact with the Huns in the Hunnic period - India, Persia, Byzantium & China.
There is no consensus on the Hunnic 'genetic' makeup, really.

And how can you explain that Magyars have a similar language to the Finns even though the finns are hunnic (by blood) and as you say, the magyars arn't?

Language is not a function of race. Caribbean people have the same language as people form Britain. You think they are of the same 'racial' makeup ? No.
Sharing a same language or more accurately, having languages that show distinct similarity and shared common origination only shows that there was cultural intersection/overlap/domination of one or the other, not an iota about race or ethnic makeup.

infact even Wiki agrees with me. Wiki would not get such a common fact wrong.

Please do not misquote Wiki. Wiki says this : The origin of the Hungarians is partly disputed......The most widely accepted Finno-Ugric theory from the late nineteenth century is based primarily on linguistic and ethnographical arguments, while it is criticised by some as relying too much on linguistics. There are also other theories stating that the Magyars are descendants of Scythians, Huns, Avars, and/or Sumerians. These are primarily based on medieval legends, whose authenticity and scientific reliability is strongly questionable, as well as non-systematic linguistic similarities. Most scholars dismiss these claims as speculation.

So kindly desist from spreading misinformation.

I said that Poles have far more to do with Huns than Hungarians simply because:
a) Hungary is not a word derived from Huns but rather 'On Ongur', which is a bulgar word.
b) Hunnic mention of Poland is merely 200 years earlier than first slavic mention of Poland.There is no known date of 'slavic migration' into Poland either. Yet there is definite proof of Magyar migration in one specific, significant huge arrival on a specific year in history. Hungarians today, aka the magyars, didnt arrive in the area known as Hungary today until 850-900 AD, a full 450-500 years after Hunnic power was destroyed and a full 250-300 years after Hunnic history/culture was absorbed into the Slavic fold. Logic dictates that therefore, Hunnic culture/bloodlines were already fairly thinned out by absorption into the celtic/slavic/germanic hybrid fold of Europe long before the Magyas even arrived in Central Europe. Yet in the case of Polish, there is no such categoric break or distinct difference recorded in history and thus cannot be simply assumed so.

that's the land poles inhabited for well over a millenia, not poles and poland.

This sentence makes no sense. Could you perhaps clarify what you meant ?

 

[TheLastOne36]

Eh ? No. Most slavic legends do not originate from former Yugoslavian lands- Yogoslavian Slavs arrived in Yugoslavia region just like they did in Poland.

I did not say when they went to the area, i said that the legends usually come for the those lands.

As i said- even in Polish legends, there is no evidence of a complete break from hunnic Poland. Neither is there any archaeological evidence. As i said, people don't just vanish into thin air without any trace of mention ANYWHERE- That Polish/Slavs exterminated the Huns is not noted in *any* historical or legendary source- not of the Germans, Poles, Norsemen, Byzantines or Carolingian. Yet just 300 years before slavs even appear in history, rest of Europe was busy writing copious amounts of literature about the Huns and Atilla. Just a 150 years before Slavs enter human history, Huns are mentioned in Byzantine record. There is copious detail throughout the period of Hunnic power (and much western European hatred towards the Huns-understandably so) about Hunnic destruction/looting sprees, going so far as to name numerous specific towns, cities and villages ravaged by the Huns. So it makes no sense whatsoever that just 200 years later when the Slavs wiped out Hun villages & towns,everyone simply forgot to mention the 'Slavic terror' unleashed in Hunnic fashion.That is not just odd, that is downright contradictory circumstantial evidence to your claim (that Huns were driven/wiped out from Poland). Thus there is simply no evidence to suggest that such an extermination occured and it is far more reasonable to say that until evidence is presented, the default position is Slavs absorbed the Hunnic elements in poland into their fold, since world history is proof enough that interbreeding amongst tribes/cultures-especially in a slow & peaceful 'cultural absorption' process is not commented upon much whereas a sudden and cataclysmic end of a particular society is noted very definitively by societies surrounding it, especially if they have writing (which rest of Europe clearly did around the earlier Slavic period).
I personally think your position on Polish history is clouded form a bit of overzealous Slavic nationalism, which is just a thinly veiled form of ethnocentrism bordering on racism. That you choose to define history on a racial basis is clearly the proof of that.

1. Your argueing as if i'm saying that that's impossible. It is possible that poles do have hunnic blood in them, if it's true then Yipee!!! i couldn't care less.
2. The Hunnic empire was loosly organized, and sparsley populated etc.
3. Your bringing in a theory with little to no proof. The vikings and the Miq Maq (sp?) have no "legends" that i know of that spoke of this 'meeting' on Newfoundland. It has happened varias times in history, so why couldn't it have happened with the slavs and Magyars?
4. At the end your saying i'm a slavic nationalist. I might as well say your a latin/Germanic/English nationalists to. You had no arguements supporting whatever nationalist you are, and i did the same. so if you call me one, i think i should call you one. I'm basing my statements on fact. THERE WAS NO RECORDED HISTORY OF POLAND BEFORE 800AD. There is very likely history before that, and there was very likely Polish City States before that aswell. (much like the greek city states). Just because Slavic Legends did not speak of this "hunnic extermination" does not mean it didn't happen. There is no evidence either way. Give me a blood sample of a pole, a finn, and a Magyar, get a scientist and show me to make me believe.

False. There is significant cultural and interbreeding between slavs, celts, germanics & balts in Poland. Your pretension that Slavic is a 'pure' race that got rid of the people is a boderline racist one, if not outright so, really.

of course there were interbreeding between the slaves and balts,celts, germanics etc. There has always been interbreeding between peoples like this throughout history. And if you read early polish history, Then you'd know that Poland and Poles might not even exist today if it wasn't for getting rid of the balts/celts/germanics from the polish land.

Language is not a function of race. Caribbean people have the same language as people form Britain. You think they are of the same 'racial' makeup ? No.
Sharing a same language or more accurately, having languages that show distinct similarity and shared common origination only shows that there was cultural intersection/overlap/domination of one or the other, not an iota about race or ethnic makeup.

False. (well true, but also false) Why doens't the rest of eastern europe speak a hunnic language then? Why don't the native americans speak english then? Why don't Korean people speak Japanese or Chinese?

a) Hungary is not a word derived from Huns but rather 'On Ongur', which is a bulgar word.

I did not dispute that. I find it kinda funny somebody even brought that up lol.

b) Hunnic mention of Poland is merely 200 years earlier than first slavic mention of Poland.There is no known date

as with the rest of polish history before 800 AD.

This sentence makes no sense. Could you perhaps clarify what you meant ?

Just because the vikings settled Newfoundland does not make the natives of Newfoundland Viking. Poles have been poles for well over millenia. And Poles have lived in Poland for well over a millenia. And there has been no major genetic changes in poles for that long as well. Yes there is some Celtic, Batlic, Germanic blood in poles and possible some hunnic to, but this amount of 'foriegn' blood is no where NEAR significint.

Just because Huns lived in the area of modern day poland, does not mean there now polish.

 

[Grimz101]

How did aussies get an accent like that, if they were orginally from England ?!?!?!!?

 

[Catharsis]

The Aussie accent is basically the Cockney accent in slow-motion.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

It is possible that poles do have hunnic blood in them, if it's true then Yipee!!! i couldn't care less.

And until this possibility is categorically ruled out, Hun history = part of Polish history. Just that simple, really.

3. Your bringing in a theory with little to no proof.

not theory, historical analysis through logic. You will find that this methodology is employed by most historians in university level.

You had no arguements supporting whatever nationalist you are, and i did the same. so if you call me one, i think i should call you one.

How do you call a dual-citizenship holder a 'nationalist', since one cannot be nationalistic and hold multiple allegience a the same time.
Anyways, if you want to- go ahead. But you will find that my concept of 'nation' doesnt revolve around the narrow definition of a race or ethnicity and neither does my countries of allegience ( Canada and India) define their nationalism in such manner.

. There is very likely history before that, and there was very likely Polish City States before that aswell.(much like the greek city states).

Err no, they did not have city-states ala Greek style. Atleast, not until the last 1000 years ago did they reach any semblence of a quasi-modernistic city-state society. Read Guns, Germs & Steel and it will be apparent why it was so- simple answer : Farming is required extensively particularly of complex carb. veggies (rice/wheat/grains/corn/potato etc) and Poland did not have any substantial agriculture in these critical departments. Primarily because the weather of Poland was not suitable to these kinds of cultivation on any substantial scale before the last 1500-2000 years. As such, city-states are a bit difficult to swallow in Poland's case, though it certainly did have medieval/pre-medival style towns & villages scattered all over it for quite some time before its recorded history.

Just because Slavic Legends did not speak of this "hunnic extermination" does not mean it didn't happen.

No, as i said, i highly doubt it happened because not just slavs- NOBODY mentioned the Huns getting wiped out. You'd think that if the Huns were wiped out just 200 years after the terror Atilla unleashed on rest of Europe, the demise of the Huns (extermination) would've been recorded by atleast ONE kingdom/civilization that the Huns brutalized.
As such, the lack of proof here in all directions dictates that Hunnic extermination be proved rather than postulated when it goes against all logic and evidence.

Then you'd know that Poland and Poles might not even exist today if it wasn't for getting rid of the balts/celts/germanics from the polish land.

They might've gotten rid of the balt/celtic/germainic power hold on Poland but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Poland exterminated those people. You potray your ancestors in far more barbaric fashion than is supported by history.

Why doens't the rest of eastern europe speak a hunnic language then? Why don't the native americans speak english then? Why don't Korean people speak Japanese or Chinese?

This is a huge topic in itself and we can debate it seperately somewhere.
But bottomline in this is, as current and any part of human history shows, sharing a language does NOT mean they are the same ethnic people and neither does having a different language mean they are differnt ethnicities.
Languages evolve, people move and few centuries later, the geographical locations and isolations ensure that what was one language becomes two or more.
That Magyars have a more similar language to Huns simply indicates common origination of the language, nothing whtsoever to do with ethnicity.

as with the rest of polish history before 800 AD.

Err no, Polish history is recorded by Roman & Byzantine sources a lot earlier than 800 AD, though not extensively.

And there has been no major genetic changes in poles for that long as well.

Is there any proof of this ? Poland has spent much of the last millenia being subjugated by one kingdom or another. And in every single instance of subjugated kingdoms in Europe, there is extensive marriage bonds established to 'strengthen' the subjugation. Can you supply one piece of evidence that goes against this almost universally established truism of European history ?

Just because Huns lived in the area of modern day poland, does not mean there now polish.

Anyone who's lived in Poland for any period of time at any point of history is Polish. Its that simple and saying otherwise is simply being racist from a pro-slavic standpoint.
If your arugment is correct and tomorrow Poland is exterminated by say China, with Chinese moving in to settle Poland, then at that point in history, Slavs would forfeit the right to be referred to as Poles in Polish history, just as you advocate the same in case of the Huns.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Yes there is some Celtic, Batlic, Germanic blood in poles and possible some hunnic to, but this amount of 'foriegn' blood is no where NEAR significint.

Complete, baseless and utter conjencture driven by racially motivated reasons (not necessarily yours but your source's).
There is no way of proving one way or another how much 'foreign blood' is present in Poland, since it would by definition require a 'pure pole' as a subject to contrast to it. And since no such 'pure polish blood' exists ( no bloodline is pure ever, all bloodline is a result of mixing), its a moot comparison, really. For all you know, your great great great great great great great Grandfather could've been a mongol on your dad's side and great great great great great great great great great grandmother could be Danish. You have no way of knowing, unless ofcourse you claim to keep 30-40 generations of history in your family with credible sources. And if you cannot claim that, you cannot make any claim whatsoever about your own 'racial/ethnic Polish purity', let alone your entire nation's.

Anyways, i will make this my last post, it is pretty obvious that it isn't going anywhere. You and a few others here are hell-bent to define history on racist terms, which is not an unknown phenomenon amongst rising Slavic nationalism in most of Eastern Europe. Afterall, defining race as a 'big deal' is a typical European hallmark so i can't say i am surprised either. Its a pity that most of it is based on psuedo-science and pure egotistic nationalism gone mad.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Err no, they did not have city-states ala Greek style. Atleast, not until the last 1000 years ago did they reach any semblence of a quasi-modernistic city-state society. Read Guns, Germs & Steel and it will be apparent why it was so- simple answer : Farming is required extensively particularly of complex carb. veggies (rice/wheat/grains/corn/potato etc) and Poland did not have any substantial agriculture in these critical departments. Primarily because the weather of Poland was not suitable to these kinds of cultivation on any substantial scale before the last 1500-2000 years. As such, city-states are a bit difficult to swallow in Poland's case, though it certainly did have medieval/pre-medival style towns & villages scattered all over it for quite some time before its recorded history.

I have a book somewhere called "before the Piast Dynasty" *note english translation* very good read, if you understood polish,and got your hands on the book you'd believe me. But i'll sayy ou win this one as it's only a theory. (with evidence supportinjg it) Also what's with that farming comment? learn a thing or two about our agriculture first.

They might've gotten rid of the balt/celtic/germainic power hold on Poland but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Poland exterminated those people. You potray your ancestors in far more barbaric fashion than is supported by history.

Oh, now i know what you mean, so yes i'd agree with you.

Err no, Polish history is recorded by Roman & Byzantine sources a lot earlier than 800 AD, though not extensively.

Give me one source. There was polish kings and states etc before 800AD just no recording of them. i have never came up with someone saying that. If it was recorded by vikings (or in viking legends) or by the germanic people then i'd believe you more then if it was the romans. Rome never reached anywhere close to poland, i wouldn't understand why they would record this happening then.

Is there any proof of this ? Poland has spent much of the last millenia being subjugated by one kingdom or another. And in every single instance of subjugated kingdoms in Europe, there is extensive marriage bonds established to 'strengthen' the subjugation. Can you supply one piece of evidence that goes against this almost universally established truism of European history ?

The biggest possibility is during the partisans. But i have never heard of austrians, prussians or russians moving into poland. oh and for your information, Poland has only been invaded succesfully twice in it's entire millenia.

now for the last part, Poles have been living in POland for over a millenia. And no vandals/goths/saxons/etc came to invade poland, while they did for other countries.

Anyone who's lived in Poland for any period of time at any point of history is Polish. Its that simple and saying otherwise is simply being racist from a pro-slavic standpoint.
If your arugment is correct and tomorrow Poland is exterminated by say China, with Chinese moving in to settle Poland, then at that point in history, Slavs would forfeit the right to be referred to as Poles in Polish history, just as you advocate the same in case of the Huns.

1. How is it a pro slavic point? How can the huns be part of polish history when no poles even existed yet? I'd consider the Germans, Prussians, Austrians, Soviets, and RUssians to all have a big role in polish history, as all have them invaded poland, And Poland has been a significint annoyance to them all during most of history and all of them have been a significint anoyance to poland's history. There has been no Hun-Pole interaction that i'm aware of in the history of poles. And even if there was, it would be to insignificint to say it was part of polish history.

2. I don't understand the second part of your post.