IX. How is it that all these tribes turn out to be Slavic?

Although the word “Slav” – in that form – does not appear before the 6th century, many of the tribes which we call Slavic do appear before the 6th century:

Rani

Rarogi

Rugians

Wagri

Svarini

Legii (Lugii)

Mugilones

Veltae

Hevelians

probably most of the Veneti and others

The common explanation is these were “Slavicized”. But this is strange. After hundreds of years of Germanization the Slavic Sorbs persist till this day. If the Slavs really Slavicized all these Germanic tribes they did so extraordinarily quickly.

But then why preserve the names of the original tribes? Elsewhere, when a small group of conquerors (Bulgars, Rus) take over a tribe quickly, they may become Slavicized but they keep the name and impose it on the rest of the population. If the group were larger, wouldn’t it be even more likely that they would have imposed their names on the various peoples in question?

X. If the above tribes could have been Slavicized, why not the Suevi?

Historians are ok with pointing out connections between Germanic and Slavic tribes. At least so long as theses tribes are small and insignificant. No one has suggested a Slavicization of the Suevi. It seems that that would make too many uncomfortable.

XI. And why if one can derive the name Slav from the name of a river, that river cannot be Solawa?

We know why. Because, we are told, the Slavs came from the East.

Solawa is particularly problematic because not only could its name be used etymologically to derive the name of the Slavs but it also occupies the region where the ancient authors found the river Suevus. That river, in turn, is associated with the Suevi and so the circle closes.