Talk:Balto-Slavic peoples

message: For balts it is ofensive to be called a slav. And there isn't no Balto-slavic peoples, at least there isn't no common cultural or linguistic identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo 555 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 18 October 2007 
Offensive to you or not, Balts and Slavs are very close related linguistically, mentally and culturally. Within the Indo-european world, Balto-Slavs are on the same type of ethnic  relation like Indo-Iranians are. A lonely intrudors like yourself cannot decide about the unity of Balto-Slavic nations. So, no matter if the truth is killing you or not, BaltoSlavs are reality, and they will always be. Cheers, 24.86.110.10 (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Balto-Slavic is an accurate term ethnographically I don't know, but linguistically there is no real doubt that Baltic and Slavic descended from a common ancestor much later than Proto-Indo-European. As a linguistic term, Balto-Slavic is really only denied by Baltic nationalists with a political ax to grind. —Angr 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

message: Original Baltic languages are completely different than Slavic language. The Communist Historiography tried to show Baltic-Slavic unity , as one people etc in order to take over the lands. The facts are that Baltic language speakers lived in territory much larger than today and much of it was conquered by Slavic peoples in the last 1000 years (see maps and history of Baltic peoples). Therefore traces of Baltic language are mixed in the language of people in the territory of Belarus and Poland. Lithuanians were suppressed by Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and that's where loan words or mixing of Baltic and Slavic laguages happened. 
The original Baltic languages and the Slavic languages did not descend from a Slavic or Proto-Slavic language. From a common ancestor? That would be Indo-European. Baltic language in older sources is often related to the Goths. The Aesti-Prussians acknowledged Gothic ruler Theoderic the Great, who governed in Ravenna in connection with Roman Empire. Goths and number of other Germanic tribe lived in much of Central Europe (between Oder and Vistula Rivers) and Eastern Europe across later Ukraine (down to Moesia and Crimea at Black Sea. City of Danapirstadir of the Goths became later the city of Kiew at the Dniepr River. Other people and languages from much further south/east also added greatly.  
Two thousand years ago by  Tacitus (98 AD) Germania at Baltic Sea was called Mare Suevicum and next to the Germanic people on the Vistula  (collectively Suevi the Aesti (Prussians, further north-east Lithuanians, Letts) , next to them the Fenni (Estonians, Finns). No Poles, no Russian. Jordanes writes about the Goths around the Vistula/ Danzig rerritories. 
A thousand years later after the Huns, the Avars, the Magyars, the Hungarians were finally stopped in 955 AD at the Lechfeld a bunch of Slavic tribes emerged all over Eastern and Central Europe. Conquest of Prussian territory begins in 997 AD by newly created dukes of Poland, continues for centuries and Eastern Prussian territory of the Sudauer/Sudovians (or Yotvingians) was conquered by Daniel of Halich. 1945 the Communists took the rest.
As a linguistic term Balto-Slavic is really only a political term of the 20th century and not a correct historical term at all. Unfortunately, the Communist Historiography and especially Nationalist Polish Communist Historiography is still very much repeated in Wikipedia in the 21st century. An Observer (71.137.202.100 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, politically neutral linguists have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Baltic languages and Slavic languages are much more closely related to each other than either is to any other branch of Indo-European, and must have evolved from a common ancestor that no other branch of Indo-European evolved from; in other words, from Proto-Balto-Slavic. Now, it may well be that Communists abused that fact for propaganda purposes to justify the annexation of Lithuania and Latvia to the Soviet Union, but that doesn't change the linguistic facts. Trying to deny the Balto-Slavic hypothesis for political purposes is just as scientifically unethical as trying to use it for political purposes. And in fact, the Soviets certainly didn't need the Balto-Slavic hypothesis to justify their annexation of the Baltic States, since they had no qualms about annexing Moldavia, even though their language is undeniably Romance, and Estonia, even though their language isn't even Indo-European. —Angr 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There isn't a direct and unambiguous and unique line between relationship (which can be as simple as territorial cohabitation, which is verifiable) and common ancestry. Most of the references I have found using the term "Balto-Slavic peoples" use it as a container more than an indicator of ancestral unity. PetersV       TALK 06:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltic laguages versus Slavic languages