Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #342429

    Anonymous

    I have been reading on Wiki about the runestones, which were basically their tombstones with dedication to those who died somewhere.

    Now i read about Sjonhem Runestone:

    "Hróðvísl and Hróðelfr, they had the stones raised in memory of (their) three sons. This (one) in memory of Hróðfúss. Black men betrayed him on a voyage. May God help Hróðfúss' soul. May God betray those who betrayed him."

    it says how some of those Vikings were probably killed by Balkanian Wlachs, Wallachs i.e. present day Romanians killed their group. So, wouldn't this like drop in water their theory how they fiercely raided, i mean maybe they did up there in England which was pretty close to come with ships and launch a war on them, but in the south and east it looks more that they were just traders and maybe adventurers that were reliant on people that lived there and had to cooperate with them, and in this case they ended up killed. So wouldn't you say the myths of Vikings and their actual raids are a bit too over-romanticized?

    In fact i believe the myths of vikings are probably the most over-romanticized stories in Europe, i mean, look at ancient Romans who conquered whole Europe and yet the stories of them aren't even nearly as "pumped up" as those of Vikings who basically where ever they left extincted. Probably a ww2 German propaganda is to be thanked to?

    WW2 was basically won by Russians, BeloRussians, Ukranians, Poles and Yugoslavs sole-handedly, US had a a minor impact on the outcome of war as 85% of Nazi troops were on the east front, yet you don't see too much bragging from Slavic side how their side  whooped their arse completely and defeated them. Now can anyone imagine if for example Germans had won the war what kind of glorious propaganda and self promotion of Germanic people would that mean? :D they would probably push it down everybodies throats until you'd choke on it and suffocate! I fear even to imagine the magnitude of such propaganda if it did happen!

    #368471

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    WW2 was basically won by Russians, BeloRussians, Ukranians, Poles and Yugoslavs sole-handedly, US had a a minor impact on the outcome of war as 85% of Nazi troops were on the east front, yet you don't see too much bragging from Slavic side how their side  whooped their arse completely and defeated them. Now can anyone imagine if for example Germans had won the war what kind of glorious propaganda and self promotion of Germanic people would that mean? :D they would probably push it down everybodies throats until you'd choke on it and suffocate! I fear even to imagine the magnitude of such propaganda if it did happen!

    More power-more science.
    Germanic countries are rich and can backup every kind of historical untruth and forgery.
    They invented "great migrations of Slavs" in 18th century, supported by Catholic church with their atavistic hatred toward Slavs.

    #368472

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    More power-more science.
    Germanic countries are rich and can backup every kind of historical untruth and forgery.
    They invented "great migrations of Slavs" in 18th century, supported by Catholic church with their atavistic hatred toward Slavs.

    Poles, Silesians, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Kaszubs, Sorbs and many Ukrainians, Czechs and Rusyns are Catholic, so it's not fair to say Catholic church has something against Slavs. Anyway, Slawenlegende and other such propaganda were created by Prussians, who considered Catholics as one of their great enemies (read about Von Bismarck's "Kulturkampf") and were Protestants/Lutherans themselves.

    #368473

    Anonymous

    I thought on their hatred of the pagan and Orthodox Slavs.

    #368474

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    I thought on their hatred of the pagan and Orthodox Slavs.

    In that case I agree. It is very unfortunate part of Slavic history, this stupid schisms.

    #368475

    Anonymous

    Even epic poem Beowulf mentions how Slavs raided Danish kingdom.

    Really? I want to see the source and back up argument for this statement, because i hardly believe beowulf was slavic. That is taking things too far…

    #368476

    Anonymous

    I thought on their hatred of the pagan and Orthodox Slavs.

    Sorry dervan but thats lame becouse all nations were effected by east west split not just Slavic people.

    Secondly if catholics Slavs didnt tolerate orthodox Slavs, how do you explain that there are some Uskoki ortodox villages in Bela Krajna since medieval ange and Slovene Catholics never attacked them.

    Also pagans were attacked by various Christians kingdoms including Orthodox.

    #368477

    Anonymous

    Really? I want to see the source and back up argument for this statement, because i hardly believe beowulf was slavic. That is taking things too far…

    I never said Beowulf was slavic. I said that Slavs are mentioned in Beowulf and not that Beowulf is slavic ok.

    #368478

    Anonymous

    Movie Beowulf and Grendel is based on battle with Grendel of epic poem Beowulf but most of the text is exactly the same as modern english translation original except that few characters and some more modern words like fuck are added in movie story.

    Watch conversation between Beowulf and danish King on 03:25.
    Beowulf & Grendel Part 3

    #368479

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    I thought on their hatred of the pagan and Orthodox Slavs.

    Sorry dervan but thats lame becouse all nations were effected by east west split not just Slavic people.

    Secondly if catholics Slavs didnt tolerate orthodox Slavs, how do you explain that there are some Uskoki ortodox villages in Bela Krajna since medieval ange and Slovene Catholics never attacked them.

    Also pagans were attacked by various Christians kingdoms including Orthodox.

    The Catholic Slavs were not the one that had own states (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth excluded), they were serfs of the Austro-Hungarians.

    They were not attacked by the Catholic authorities cause they were useful as warriors, but some converted to catholicism (Greek-Catholic) under the influence of the Catholic church. Reason for it was the impossibility for orthodox Serbs in the Krajina (Uskoks from Zhumberak region for example) to rise in rank if they stayed Serb-Orthodox. They only way to become a baron (first "free rank") in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, is to convert to Catholicism, that was the reason many did convert to Greek-Catholicism, while the others migrated to the orthodox brother Russia, and colonised parts of todays Ukraine (New Serbia and Slavo-Serbia)


      [li]There was a novel written on that subject

    Seobe by Milos Crnjanski.[/li]
    [li]A prominent example is Petar Preradović

    A famous work of Pavle Jovanovic depicting that period.
    [table]
    [tr]
    [td][img height=270]http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp6/SerbianCulture/Paja%20Jovanovic/seoba.jpg”/>[/td]
    [td][img height=270]https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/40771/HIL_ENICH_VID_2_34.jpg”/>[/td]
    [/tr]
    [/table]

    #368480

    Anonymous

    The Catholic Slavs were not the one that had own states (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth excluded), they were serfs of the Austro-Hungarians.

    Cvetinov some Slavs were serfs to houses like example Habsburgs and Serbs were serfs to their own local crown like example Nemanjiči and later they were serfs to Ottoman rulers. I personaly dont see any difference between local and foregin rulers, they were all oppresors of humanity, they were "noble" mafia.

    Also concept of "your own" state didnt exist back then becouse all commoners were property of their Lords either foregin or non-foregin.

    #368481

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    The Catholic Slavs were not the one that had own states (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth excluded), they were serfs of the Austro-Hungarians.

    Cvetinov some Slavs were serfs to houses like example Habsburgs and Serbs were serfs to their own local crown like example Nemanjiči and later they were serfs to Ottoman rulers. I personaly dont see any difference between local and foregin rulers, they were all oppresors of humanity, they were "noble" mafia.

    Also concept of "your own" state didnt exist back then becouse all commoners were property of their Lords either foregin or non-foregin.

    Yes I agree, but Austro-Hungary was not a Slavic state, hence it was not promoting Slavic interest. Serbs were serfs to their Lords, but their Lords were Serbs as well.


      [li]Ottomans were never recognised as lords, or rulers, but merely occupiers, hence the extremly harsh oppression of Serbs including impaling and similar practices. Serbs never recognised "foreign" rule.[/li]
    #368482

    Anonymous

    I always have wondered about the Viking "syndrome" as an ethnic self-identifier for Germanics, with many Germans, especially on the NS side, being wannabee Vikings. Actually Vikings were travelling merchants, pirates and pillagers, and no ethnic group, but in order to maintain an ethnicity, two opposite sexes and their mating is required as pre-condition, something male sword-brotherhoods did not provide (or, in short, there were no female Vikings ;) ).
    Just my 2 Pennies + some links:
    http://www.au.dk/en/about/news/single/artikel/harold-bluetooths-vikings-were-polish-mercenaries/

    http://www.polishforums.com/archives/2009/history-poland-34/polish-vikings-relations-20259/

    http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=733&PN=5

    Quote:
    Poles, Silesians, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Kaszubs, Sorbs and many Ukrainians, Czechs and Rusyns are Catholic, so it's not fair to say Catholic church has something against Slavs. Anyway, Slawenlegende and other such propaganda were created by Prussians, who considered Catholics as one of their great enemies (read about Von Bismarck's "Kulturkampf") and were Protestants/Lutherans themselves.

    I just wanted to give a quick note – the Kulturkampf also targeted Lutherans, Lutheran churches were surrounded by Prussian military and the church gowers were forced to accept the Prussian Union*, the amalgation of Calvinists and Lutherans (which real Lutherans could not volunteerly accept, expect they were staunch Prussian loyalists.) South/Central German Catholics and Lutherans were united in their distrust towards Prussia.
    "Fürst Heinrich XXII. versuchte weiterhin, die absolutistische Regierungsweise fortzuführen, die Reuß ä. L. zu einer Hochburg eines orthodoxen Luthertums machte. Sein Verhalten gegenüber den Vertretern Preußens war durch Abneigung bis Feindschaft gekennzeichnet. Die preußische Presse gab ihm den Beinamen „der Unartige“
    Prince Henry XXII coninued his absolutistic style of governance, which means to make the Principality Reuß Elder Line an orthodox Lutheran bulwark. His behavior towards Prussian representatives was marked by repulsion to hostility. The Prussian press called him "the Naughty".
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reu%C3%9F_%C3%A4ltere_Linie

    *
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Union_%28Evangelical_Christian_Church%29

    But it also must be said many Lutherans, protestants supported the Catholics and Catholic emancipation, namely Empress Augusta – Bismarck, who had to take back his Kulturkampf laws not at least because of her, hated here like Prussian/NS imperialists do this up today.

    #368483

    Anonymous

    Yes I agree, but Austro-Hungary was not a Slavic state, hence it was not promoting Slavic interest. Serbs were serfs to their Lords, but their Lords were Serbs as well.

    I dont think any nobles in Slavic kingdoms promoted "Slavic" interests in any way. They promoted their own interests like all "good" nobles did. Thats becouse idea of nationalism didnt exist until 19th century.

    In balkan for example Bosnian and Serbian rulers invited many saxon (german speakers) miners and town folk, becouse they wanted to profit from mining and trade, hence nicknames like Sasinović.

    In other Slavic kingdoms it was same. Polish-lithuanian commonwealth for example invited many Germans to establish towns and mining settelments under german law becouse they gave huge profit to Polish lords. I shouldnt even go into details how slavic lords mixed with westrern lords in name of bigger prestige and profit.

    #368484

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    Yes I agree, but Austro-Hungary was not a Slavic state, hence it was not promoting Slavic interest. Serbs were serfs to their Lords, but their Lords were Serbs as well.

    I dont think any nobles in Slavic kingdoms promoted "Slavic" interests in any way. They promoted their own interests like all "good" nobles did. Thats becouse idea of nationalism didnt exist until 19th century.

    In balkan for example Bosnian and Serbian rulers invited many saxon (german speakers) miners and town folk, becouse they wanted to profit from mining and trade, hence nicknames like Sasinović.

    In other Slavic kingdoms it was same. Polish-lithuanian commonwealth for example invited many Germans to establish towns and mining settelments under german law becouse they gave huge profit to Polish lords. I shouldnt even go into details how slavic lords mixed with westrern lords in name of bigger prestige and profit.

    Promoting your language, your culture, your tradition as a Slavic noble in your region is therefore promoting your Slavic interest. The national awakening was built upon that medieval heritage, not the other way around.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

11 User(s) Online Join Server
  • kony97
  • Oliver (TW BLOCK)
  • slovborg
  • ca$hbunni
  • GOGA
  • 'las