Leutnant wrote:The Roman historians said that the Slavs lived by the Pripjat marshes,
they controlled all the Black Sea coast so I doubt the Romans would'nt have heard of them if they were in the neighbourhood.
No, they were not mentioning Slavs at all. They were mentioning Germanic tribes here, but it's quite clear that they were not thikning in terms of language or race: one of them for example was speculating whether one tribe (commonly to think to be Slavs) should be categorised as Germans, because they "fight on foot" or as Sarmats.. I can bring whole fragment if you want.
Isn't it a widely accepted fact that Germanic tribes lived atleast as far east as the Vistula.
It's been documented that the Vandals lived between The Elbe and The Vistula.
Yes, but again: Our thinking about "Germanic" may be different from ancient, second: there were not only Germanic tribes but probably other as well (There are a lot of Celtic toponymes and hydronymes in Poland)
What I meant was that if they left in the year 500 and started coming back in the year 800, it's 300 years later.
More or less, but they haven't appearing in significant numbers in Silesia and elsewhere before 1150 or so.
"while Silesia in XVI century"
??
Silesia was colonized by the Germans between 1200 and 1300,
Nope. German settlers (in great numebr) arrived in SIlesia in around 1200 and 1300, that's true, but they have not "colonised" Silesia.
You are repeating XIX century historiography, when German historians assumed two facts which we now know are not true
1) "disastrous" Tatar invasion - German historians were saying that Tatars depopulated Poland and left it in ruins : while in political terms their invasion was disastrous, in other terms the most affected province was LEsser Poland (were there was not significant German colonisation), while Silesia was almost untouched. E.g. Breslau/Wroclaw was burned, that's true, but population - according to medieval srouces - escaped and found shelter in Breslau castle which was not taken. etc etc
2) All villages and cities located on German law were settled by German colonists. This is definetely not true. German law was considered (and was) superior to Polish in XIII century, so many existing cities and villages were simply given new set of laws (were "located on German law") while totally new settlements were rather rare. Examples which should convince you are for example Posen, which was located on German law in XIII century, while existed earlier since at least X century.
Poles were majority in Silesia well in XVI century, and in many regions well into XVIII century and even XIX. First printed Polish books were from XV century Silesia. When Prussians forbidden using of POlish in local regions, they had to withdraw because in some regions nobody was understanding German, so they had to stick to "Czech+German" rule.
I've read one Polish historian who, BTW argued that had not Prussia conquered Silesia, we would have separate Silesian nation. It was Prussia conquest which pushed back Silesians into Polish nation.
Besides, the German settlers in some regions were polonising (not forcefully) e.g. in Opole region. Opole region, Upper Silesia and Lubuska land were three main bastion of Polishness in Silesia up to second half of XIX century.
XIV-XVIII century Silesia was Bohemian BTW, not German. In XV century for example (when it was governed by Jagiellons) Silesia was sometimes ruled by Polish governors or even future Polish kings.
It's true that German colonisation started (even before) 1200, but it's not like they came and colonised empty country, you know.
or atleast my history books differs from Polish there (would'nt be the first time).
Well, from which year are those books?