To me it seems that before Germanics and Slavs arrived, Finno-Ugrics and Celts were everywhere on the continent where the Romans weren't. Are those two related somehow?
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Uh, I don't think the Finno-Ugrics were ever as expansive as the Celts. And I'm pretty sure that they're two completely different groups of people.
AFAIK, they don't. Celts are Indoeuropean and Finno-Ugrics are... well, Finno-Ugrics. They are completely different cultures and people.
Well they lived all over Scandinavia before the Norse and in quite a bit of western Russia. I'm assuming before the Slavs migrated to the Kiev area the Finno-Ugrics were there too.
I don't think the Finno-Ugrics ever lived in most of Scandinavia. From what I can find, you had Proto-Indo-European speaking people migrating there around the 3rd millenium BC, and they eventually became the Germanic people. The Norse didn't just pop in and settle Scandinavia, the Norse came to be in Scandinavia.
Yeah, but don't forget the cultural assimilation.
So culture A, became culture B, because it was better in that way.
Finno-Ugric were in B.C times Proto-Uralic / Uralic.
Picts are a questionable culture from proto-european culture.
So culture A, became culture B, because it was better in that way.
Finno-Ugric were in B.C times Proto-Uralic / Uralic.
Picts are a questionable culture from proto-european culture.
Some say that before all such folk, including Celts and Romans, all of Europe was ruled by the Old Europeans; the stock of whom can be found still in the Basques.
.png){kind=avatar}
The terms you use are very anachronic, as both the "Germanic" and the "Finno-Urgics" cultures came into being much later than the first known culture in Scandinavia. The modern term for this culture is the Fosna culture.
In short, it's meaningless to speak about "Germanic" and "Finno-Urgic" when discussing mesolithic Scandinavia. Both of these cultures came into being about 5000 years ago.
Sami speakers migrating into northern Scandinavia is most likely a pretty substantially more recent event than the evolution of a native Germanic culture in southern Scandinavia. Whatever language Sami replaced in northern scandinavia is unknown but most likely it was neither an indo-european nor a finno-ugric language.
Finno-Ugric people live from Scandinavia to Ob, I think, it is obvious, they were expansive. And don't forget about Hungary.
But did any Celtic tribe neighbour any Finno-Ugric tribe? I can't remember any case.
And I'm sure, other, lets say, "European" Indoeuropeans also were somewhere on the continent that days.
But did any Celtic tribe neighbour any Finno-Ugric tribe? I can't remember any case.
And I'm sure, other, lets say, "European" Indoeuropeans also were somewhere on the continent that days.
Aside from some fringe theorists, there is general consensus that both Slavs and Germanics were always in Europe in areas of temperate climate. There were also other Indo-European groups that dwelled between Celts and Finno-Ugrics, all of them got assimilated by either Slavs or Germanics with the exception of Balts.
I was under the impression that the Finno-Ugrics migrated westward from somewhere in southern Russia or thereabouts. One group migrated northwestward early on, and settled in what was to become Finland, while a second group later moved west and eventually reached the Carpathian Basin, forming Hungary. Supposedly, Magyars from Hungary found an enclave of Finno-Ugric speakers with a very different but still mostly understandable dialect still living in the Ukraine region sometime during the late 1700s or early 1800s. It also appears that Finnish and Hungarian are closely related in structure, while being unrelated to the languages around them, but have no major words in common due to having been separated for so long.
The information I've read considers Germans to have been one of the major native populations of much of Europe for at least several thousand years.
The information I've read considers Germans to have been one of the major native populations of much of Europe for at least several thousand years.
Last edited:
I don't mind being corrected, but if you're saying that most of the information I read was wrong, that does nothing to correct it. Saying "that's not how you spell that word" is all but useless without giving the actual spelling. In this case, I'm assuming that the "actual spelling" is subject to much debate anyway, both informed and uninformed.
While the Uralic urheimat is debated I think that most consider it to have it's origin somehwere on the Kama river and spread from there into Siberia and toward Scandinavia while the indo-european's are belived to have originated not very far away on the middle volga and then spread south, east and west from there.
Ugric possibly branched off from proto-uralic in the area around the Ob/Irtysh rivers. Mostly based I guess on the territorial extent of the Khanty and Mansi languages (closest relatives of Hungarian) in historical times. That would mean that Hungarian has it's origin in the same area (I'm guessing on the forest steppe in the south of the Irtysh considering how Hungarians evolved into horse nomads).
Last edited:
I'll try to explain what Amallric meant. You need to understand the dates involved to see why your statement didn't make much sense. Basically we think that the Proto-Uralic peoples were living somewhere in the forests of the Ural mountains (no one is sure where exactly) at around the same time that the Proto-Indo-European peoples were living on the open grasslands of Southern Russia and Ukraine (again, no one is sure where exactly). And this was in the stone age (or Neolithic age), like 4000 or 5000 BC (very roughly).
The Indo-Europeans spread out to the West, East and South, into most of Europe, parts of the Middle East and India. While the Uralics spread out to the North, to Scandinavia, Central Russia and Siberia.
Both groups gradually developed into many different cultures over a long period of time (I wont list them all). The Hungarians only come into the story much later. The ancestors of the Hungarians (Magyars) were a group we call the Ugrians, who lived in parts of Siberia East of the Ural mountains. They were Uralics, but they split off from the rest of them very early on. They lived in the tough arctic forests of that region until around 1300 BC (again rough estimate) when for some reason the Proto-Hungarians left that region and went south to live on the steppe (the grasslands). They became horse nomads and they interacted with the other nomads there, like the Scythians and later the Turks. In the Middle Ages the Hungarians migrated west into Ukraine and lived there for a while, until they invaded modern-day Hungary (the Pannonian plain) around the year 900 AD.
The Finnish people are also descended from the original Uralic peoples and they moved to Finland in ancient times. So yes the Finns and the Hungarians are related, but only distantly. The two groups of Uralics probably separated back in the stone age.
I agree with most of what you said, but to say that modern Finns and Hungarians are descended from older Uralic peoples is not something I think is accurate. Their culture descends from them, yes, but there was probably a lot of assimilation of local peoples when the Magyars and etc. migrated to their final destinations; we shouldn't confuse cultural heritage with biological ancestry.
