• This topic has 3 voices and 2 replies.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #347609



    Thread is saying, in short, Balts + Sarmatians = Slavs, which is nonsense.



    Don’t forget the addition of Gypsies, Jews, and Turks.



    Balts + Sarmatians = Slavs. And Slavs + Sarmatians = Bulgarians (and maybe Serbs and Croats). Makes sense.

    Now, seriously, there have been a number of articles that would require a serious correction (I’ve requested it for the ones about Vanga’s predictions and the Volga Bulgars, f.e.), though I was pleasantly surprised that at least in the article about the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantium, they eventually removed Tsar Simeon’s portrait and replaced it with a new one of Basil II.



    This Sarmatian theory (as it is in this thread) is bullshit. It’s most likely that Balts and Slavs were always 2 separated ethnicities. Just their languages became closer during the time. Maybe such Balto-Slavic language group never existed. Scientist never agreed at all about this case.

    Slavs = specific ethnia
    Balts = specific ethnia

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


9 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Das Rheinenfuchs
  • LukaVader
  • Симеон
  • LCaine
  • m1tric
  • Australian Santa