There's too much generalized history and historic related subjects on /his/. How about we go into detail about specific countries.
This thread is meant for anon from various countries to ask one another about their own histories.
For example, i'm from Moldova, anyone interested can ask about it's history, and so on.
Moldova's an eastern european country founded in 1359. It's etymology comes from the germanic people who named the current river of Moldova "Mulde" from which the name of the country comes from.
>And how are you not just special snowflake romanians?
Why should we? All contributions to present romanian literature and philology were done by moldovans, who identified as part of the moldovan nation. We also have no common language or history.
Where are you from?
Tell me what's the beef you have with Denmark. Under which circumstances did you declare independence ?
>Why should we?
>All contributions to present romanian literature and philology were done by moldovans
>We also have no common language or history.
Except you both speak Romanian, your closest genetic relations are romanians, and you're both descended from Latin speaking Dacian tribes.
>Where are you from?
Why should we call ourselves romanians when we historically had nothing to do with the state of Romania since medieval times?
You seem to view moldovans as a subset of romanians. This is not the case.
>you're both descended from Latin speaking Dacian tribes.
No quite. Romanians call themselves the way they do because they were once part of the Roman empire. Yet, the roman empire did no reach the territories of Moldova. Thus, it is why we developed our own nation, language and ethnicity from the dacian/germanic/celtic/slavic/iranian/tatar tribes around us, that got absorbed in time. It's why historically we never identified as romanians.
>you both speak romanian
And it's only because the founders of Moldova who migrated from Hungary, spoke romanian. Except language, there is absolutely nothing that unites us. And even the kings didn't identify as romanians. Romanian identity was born in the 19th century with romantic nationalism.
Did Spain really get conquered by Habsburgs or was it just personal union?
>Tell me what's the beef you have with Denmark. Under which circumstances did you declare independence ?
Well, Sweden and Denmark have never really belonged to eachother for more than a few years at most. We've always been independent! However, Denmark and Sweden have always been bitter enemies, because they both wanted to control the Baltic. This has led to a lot of fighting. Sweden and Finland, against Denmark and Norway.
We hold a world record of wars fought between eachother, and we've mostly been equal. Denmark have taken Stockholm, and Sweden has taken Denmark.
In the end, Sweden 'won' since we got Skåneland and the western shred that belonged to Norway. Skåneland being the parts that belong to Denmark on the OPs map.
He messed up, and died, and made Russia a world power.
He really shouldn't have messed up. But except for that royal fuckup, he wasn't.. Bad. In fact he was a pretty good king.
No idea what most people think. "Muh autocracy" or something probably
But who owns all of Scandinavia, historically?
I'm not really versed in scandinavian history, but i know most vikings, including the ones who would settle in Norway and Sweden were danes. What were they, infact?
>But who owns all of Scandinavia, historicically
I don't understand the question
>Danes would settle Norway and Sweden
Norwegians are former Swedes who were pushed west into the mountains by the Sveas and the Geats/Goths
Northern Sweden allready had inhabitants, mostly kinds of Finns and Sami.
I mean what tribes/ethnicities used to inhabit Scandinavia until the danish kingdom took over
>Norwegians are former Swedes who were pushed west into the mountains by the Sveas and the Geats/Goths
Interesting, can you recommend any books about the Sveas/Geats, who they were and what language they spoke, etc
Moldovans aren't a subset of romanians no matter if it's a nationalist perspective or not. Transylvanian romanians historically identified as romanians and the popular term for their country "Romanian land".
It's been like that since forever, because romanians used to originally inhabit Transylvania, Wallachia and the south of danube, under roman occupation, before they spread out to Poland, Albania and Greece
>I mean what tribes/ethnicities used to inhabit Scandinavia until the danish kingdom took over
>Taking over anything
To my knowledge, no tribe or anything has been completely eradicated. Also, Denmark has only ever taken over Norway.
Also, I really do not know a lot about tribes myself. They're mostly just the cause of why places are called what they are.
Sweden has four.. Parts of the country. Götaland (Goth name) Svealand (Svea name) Skåneland (Formerly Danish) and Norrland (Northland, literally)
So yeah, the tribes are mostly just naming inspiration, and that's all I know about them.
Also, the Sveas outcompeted the Goth kingdom in the viking age or somesuch, so they're.. Not really that relevant.
It isn't in any way Childish to call Moldova a subdivision of the main Romanian nation.
Same language. Same genetics. Most of the old kingdom of Moldavia is located within Romania without a hitch, whilst Moldova itself mostly sits on the Vlach territory known as Bessarabia, not Moldavia, which was sometimes under control of the Moldavian king.
Moldova is one part of a great survivor nation. They shouldn't be so defensive about their origin.
Isn't the swedish language closely related to norwegian and danish? I know for a fact they are part of a dialectal continuum, which is why i asked about the tribe's origins to make our how the swedish ethnogenesis happened.
Very closely related. We understand eachother! But that's not really because we conquered eachother. Probably because back when we were Vikings, we intermixed a lot with eachother.
We're all from the same branch- Proto-Nordic. Germanic and shit.
For reference, Iceland hasn't had that much itneraction with the Nordic, and what they speak is closer to proto Nordic than what we're speaking in Scandinavia
>Let me tell you about your country
First, the romanian nation was barely present in Moldova. Like i said, the nobility spoke romanian. In the 17th century about 1/3 of the country was populated by various slavs.The fact that they managed to impose the romanian language was a mere coincidence.
Second, the romanian nation itself was born in the 19th century. And long before that, in the 17th-18th centuries, moldovan intellectuals acknowledged the fact that they are not part of the greater romanian nation, even if they spoke a somewhat similar language. I suggest you look into the works of Grigore Ureche, Ion Neculce, Miron Costin and Dimitrie Cantemir.
> whilst Moldova itself mostly sits on the Vlach territory known as Bessarabia, not Moldavia, which was sometimes under control of the Moldavian king.
It was under the control of moldovan kings from the 14th century to the 19th century when it was annexed by Russia. Bessarabia was a southern region within Moldova. During the treaty of Bucharest with the turks, Russians wanted to annex Bessarabia (the historical southern part), but russian diplomacy were tricky enough and convinced France, which was also present at the signing of the treaty, that Bessarabia was infact the entire eastern half. Which is why it was called that way within the Russian empire.
Ausfailian here, wanting to ask any Spainanons what the deal is with Aragon? I hear stuff about it being an autonomous community or whatever but what does that mean? I just assumed that once the Iberian kingdoms united they just sort of became Spain and that was it.
Also, what do Spaniards think of the Portuguese?
I once met a girl from Moldova and she told me the history of the country. what I remember is:
-Moldova was one of the few States to have the ethnicity written on passports
-they were suffering Romanians on one side and Soviets on the other side. They stoled land, woods and coast from Moldovans
-the end of Communism was terrible, with striking poverty and mafia
-now Italians and Germans go there for cheap labour and treat women like shit.
-she told me that they have some words very similar to southern italian dialect, like maritari=get married.
Moldovan girls are beautiful. Seems to me it is a coll country but very unlucky.
Can you confirm Moldovanon?
No. The subject was brought up, but it never really happened. It was just popular discussion with no real reason to merge.
Besides, Sweden has had bad experiences with merging, in the past. The Kalmar Union doesn't sit right with us, mostly because it was a union in name.. With a Danish queen and a Danish capital.
All of it is true, tho i don't really get what you mean by "Ethnicity written on passports". We only have our nationality there and everyone it says "Moldovan".
>she told me that they have some words very similar to southern italian dialect, like maritari=get married.
Also "focu" which is south italian for fire, is an archaic form of moldovan no longer spoken, but today we still say "foc". Moldovan language maintained a lot of features from proto-romanian, while romanian itself was filled with slavic borrowings.
>All of it is true, tho i don't really get what you mean by "Ethnicity written on passports". We only have our nationality there and everyone it says "Moldovan".
Hang on yesterday you claimed to be living in Romania . So what are you a Ruski Moldovnik or a Roman Moldovnik ?
Depends who you generally ask, but generally Poland is a mixed-bag, some like it but most dislike it (incident with occupation of Vilnius, 1 treaty that was supposed to make Lithuania became part of Poland after Vytautas's death etc).
Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth is interesting, generally most people will tell you it was a cruel fucked up occupation by the Polaks and they started polonizing us. While the latter is sort of true that's probably cause of the nobility and the fact that Lithuanian language only came to be in 1547 and was mainly spoken by poor people, so it was looked down upon. Although desu we achieved a lot as the PLC so some find it okay.
About the zmudzini I have no idea, sorry.
the Byelorussian one is probably because majority of the Lithuanian people spoke Ruthenian/Old Belarussian, so Belarus obviously got butthurt and claims they are the true descendants of the Grand duchy, when they aren't even balts by ethnicity.
I live in (moldovan) Romania but conduct business in Moldova, hence moldovan passport.
And since i hate my country but love my region and the country of Moldova, i identify as Moldovan.
Cause there was no Lithuanian language until 1547 and slavs made up a majority of the Duchy later on in the XIVth century, so we just sticked to it so the slavs would be pleased etc.
The secretary of state at the time (Willamette H. Seward) thought it would be a good way to weaken both Russia's and Britain's commercial influence by removing Russian territory from North America and putting pressure on Britain's Pacific colonies.
The zirgagalva is basically that 1 foreign swear word we know etc. Much like let's say with westerners and "cyka", we have "zirgagalva" instead, we don't hate you though, braliukai.
The polonization didn't really affect the modern Lithuanian that much outside of getting angry at the Polaks for placing Polish street names in Vilnius.
The empire was falling apart and a lot of them allied with the russians so in order to keep eastern anatolia they had to be removed. The turn of events really sucks though because they were known to be the best minority in the empire.
>Cause there was no Lithuanian language until 1547
Interesting. I always thought that smaller baltic tribes merged together in the 13th century to form the lithuanian people, but i never knew the language came 2 centuries later. Do you have any more information about the causes of the late development?
>Smaller baltic tribes merged together
Actually most tribes were just fucked by the Teutonic & Livonian order and the bigger ones merged but you're still right.
The reasons why the language didn't developed for so long sadly I have no idea, probably cause we were more busy of saving our religion from catholics rather than creating a language. Although, the Old Prussians had their very own language but it was rather short-lived.
>The reasons why the language didn't developed for so long sadly I have no idea, probably cause we were more busy of saving our religion from catholics rather than creating a language
So what language did the people themselves speka then
We don't have a lot of sources for that, but we know that Prussians, Yotvingians, Selonians, Curonians and Semigallians had their very own languages, which were later probably used by other Balt tribes, then they were pretty much abandoned for Ruthenian.
When are you gonna start speaking irish
No we don't hate the danes, we have no reason to do so. Many Icelanders have close relatives in Denmark and icelanders tend to go on vacation in Denmark quite often. Based in my own experiences, I think some of the "hate" stems from the fact that in the icelandic schoolsystem learnig the danish language is mandatory. Due to the fact that Denmark once ruled over Iceland.
I'm not quite sure. But I think it was because the settlers saw the giant glaciers when they arrived and just called it Iceland.
An Autonomous Comunity is a Spanish region with a fair share of self-gobernment, similar to an America State or a German Land.
The pic shows the Spanish Autonomies plus the two cities of Ceuta and Melilla which are also autonomous.
The history is more complex, but to keep it simple, Aragon was a pyrenaic pricedom born during the Reconquista, which was merged with another one (Catalonia) and formed a whole Crown that expanded to Valencia, the Baleric islands and even to Greece and Italy as the Crown pursued a Mediterranean Empire.
The marriage of the Catholic Kings united the Castilian and Aragonese Crown, thus giving birth to what it can be called Spain but the diferent realms keep their differentiated administration till the War of the Spanish Succesion in the XVIII Century.
The regional identity subsisted and when the Spanish Constitution of 1978 recognized different Spanish regions the map of the pic was born.
>Also, what do Spaniards think of the Portuguese?
Nothing really. Galicians and Extremadurans do have some relations with them, as they share a border, but other than that, Portugal is pretty absent from Spanish Media.
>Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth is interesting, generally most people will tell you it was a cruel fucked up occupation by the Polaks and they started polonizing us
But wasn't it the lithuanians who proposed Poland for the creation of the commonwealth tho?
Actually the Lithuanian council disagreed with the union due to the absurd demands from the Polish (Ukraine becomes part of Poland, both countries will be ruled by a Polish king).
The Lithuanians wanted to propose a more "equal" union so both sides came to an agreement that the council would be 1 instead of 2, the leader would be chosen both by Lithuanian & Polish noblemen etc. We still gave in Ukraine tho. This union was mainly made cause we were getting cucked by the Russians and we needed a tough ally so Poland seemed like the right one, but also our noblemen wanted more rights much like the Polish ones.
I already speak Irish, the general population most likely never will, but it's hard to say. If we do it'll be a shitty Dublinised version and not the proper regional dialects most likely.
>What were "The Troubles"?
A conflict between Irish nationalist and British unionist communities in Northern Ireland with the involvement of the security forces in the latter half of the 20th century.
>Will North Ireland every rejoin the mother country?
Hard to say. If it does it will be on economic rather than ethnic grounds and will depend heavily on the fate of Scotland and decisions made in England.
I don't think it will happen in the next 30 years anyway, after that, who can say.
I can understand a desire of independence from an organisational (smaller countries are supposed to be more stable and manageable when not under foreign threats) and to some extent political (fuck the government, really) point of view, but rejecting the country you're from comes with rejecting other crucial things like its history, its culture and even the people themselves. From that alone, I see independence movements within Spain as nothing short of loathsome.
The fact that the places that want out are also the richest ones just makes things worse, as everyone gets fucked over to some extent.
PS: Being Basque doesn't make you any less normal, it just adds a spin to your identity and upbringing.
Well, as a Basque, I cannot tell you what the view of a "normal Spanish" is, but as the Basque Nationalism/Independentism has been mediatized by the Terrorism, I would guess that its a not so good one.
More recently, has the terrorism of ETA is gone and the Catalan issue is way more important than ever the Basque Nationalism is mostly ignored, or put as example of what a responsible, moderate nationalism should be as opposed to both Terrorism and Catalan Independentists.
thank for the answer.
maybe she was referring to Communist Moldova, where it was specified if you were ethnically Russian, Romanian, German, Jewish, Gipsy, or just plain Moldovan etc.
Or maybe my memory is fawed.
Also, how are thing in Transnistria now?
Karl XII was. Competent king and commander but Sweden could never, ever equal Russia in the long run. In the drive for control of the Baltic, Russias victory was certain from the start.
Karl XII is not viewed as a king of real venerance in Sweden since he cocked it up. Some right wing groups hold him in high esteem.
Gustavus Adolphus is a more interesting character and is generally more discussed than any other historical king.
There is no enmity between any scandinavian nations today.
What would be the point of such a union in a globalized world? Neither nation needs it and we do not at all view each other as anything but neighbors. We share the same culture but so does most of western europe.
Grand unions are a bad thing since the larger the union, thenmore diverse the opinions. Politically, Denmark are a lot more right than Sweden. We don't mix at all politically. Danes view Swedes as cuckolded by feminist movements and Swedes view Danes as backward and stupid.
Any Scandinavians care to discuss Hunnic control/vassalization of some of Scandinavia?
Wallachia was a foreign name for Romania. Moldovan kings already dropped off that name early in moldovan history, while Wallachia continued to be called by it's inhabitants "Romaniora".
> Rogat Universa Ungaria, obtestatur nobilissima Transylvania, orat Dalmatia, obsecrat Romaniola sive Valachia inferior
Hungary demands it, the noble Transylvania implores invokes it, Dalmatia begs it, Romaniola or Wallachia inferior begs it
> Vlachia inferior, quae Romandiola et Romaniola dicitur est provincia annexa Transylvaniae, quae olim Dacia dicebatur...
Wallachia inferior which is also called Romandiola and Romaniola is a province annexed to Transylvania which was once part of Dacia
Romanians already acknowledged that their homeland was defined to Wallachia's borders and Moldova had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Where do you think this Turkic/Hunnic DNA came from then? Was it always a minority?
I can't help but notice how the actually defined Hunnic empire has very little of this DNA compared to pretty much all of Sweden, suggesting that the source is something other than the Huns.
I have no explanation but the Huns seem highly unlikely.
The Spaniards are eternally butthurt we ruined their unified Iberia dream. Aragon was originally one of the christian kingdoms formed during the Reconquista, while modern Spain descends mostly from another one of these kingdoms, Castille, who engulfed first Leon, and then Aragon.
t. Alberto Barbosa
This paper says the Huns were in Scandinavia, and I would suggest that the Huns played a part in Viking expansion.
> defined Hunnic empire has very little of this DNA compared to pretty much all of Sweden
> It is argued that the Huns, as a historical fact, were present in Scandinavia in the early fifth century. Their impact was to generate an ‘episodic transition’ that opened up a whole new set of social, religious and political strategies, in Scandinavia in particular as well as in Barbarian Europe in general, and gave rise to a new Germanic identity in the aftermath of the Roman Empire.
1. it was just personal union, Habsburg Phillip married Joanna (the daughter of Isabella I and Ferdinand V, the guys who united Castile and Aragon into Spain). When her older siblings died, she become heiress of Castile and Aragon.
2. it wasn't violent collapse, Charles V. abdicated and divided power between his brother who was king of Bohemia and Hungary and was already running family business in HRE and his son who was living in Spain.
btw I'm Czech, ask me anything
What sort of answer is that?
According to your very own map, what we define as the Hunnic Empire today has little to no Hunnic DNA whereas Scandinavia does. Clearly the source is something other than the Huns.
I have nothing to add because the argument from your part is inconclusive and doesn't make any sense.
>is belgium boring as they said?
There isn't much to do except if you like parties. Me and my friends most of the times meet up for a smoke
>are flanders stupid?
Depends where and who. I've had my fair shares of stupid Jews and rest
>do you love your fellow belgian muslims?
Between indifferent and dislike, been called a kike sometimes and every time by a Muslim. Otherwise had some meh/good experiences with them in uni. Older generation is also more sympathetic. I used to go to Borgerhout (Moroccan neighbourhood) with my mom to a great kid's shoe store by soembody who should be 50-60 today. Then there is another old man who always come talking with us when we kids in front of the synagogue.
>Are you from Antwerp?
Yes, raised as modern ortho
That paper and Peter Heather support the the fact that Huns influenced Scandinavia.
Conclusion from the paper:
> During the fifth and early sixth centuries,there are systematic and recurring traces inthe material culture of Scandinavia that indicate a structured transmission of symbols with affiliation to the Huns.
> In the North they became contextualized in a process of cosmological and institutional invention. This short historical period of the fifth century and the establishment of new institutions for gaining political power might have opened up new ways of thinking and new perceptions of the world, as indicated by the institutionalisation of a new symbolic system.
> This ‘episodic transi-tion’ represents a decisive and conscious religious change that sustained the rise of anew Germanic identity in opposition to the declining Roman West and its new Christian faith.
Ask awa' yon willy woofters
Italian city states were powerful hubs of trade. This lead to an increase of wealth, and thus noblemen could commission works of art, and thus kickstart many prominent artists from the renaissance.
Right I think the case for Gaelic being a national language is overstated. The fact of the matter is, its no longer the 11th century and Gaelic is no longer the predominant language of the lowlands. Scots is. Being more of a dialect than a language now, sadly, but it still holds sway.
However, I'm all for the resurrection of Gaelic in the Highlands and Islands as far more recently that used to be the predominant language of those areas - before the clearances and mass economic migration in the early 20th c.
I think you should speak Hebrew, then we all can recognize our True North, which is our True Enemy.
Scots-English became the main language of the Lowlands long before we united with England.
>Red: 800s AD
>Orange: 1400s AD
>Yellow: Modern Day
>Right I think the case for Gaelic being a national language is overstated
Well then how come you claim to be SCOTland (literally a foreign name for celts) if you don't speak scottish(a celtic language)?
I know that but it doesn't make english the rightful native language of the scots
The independence movement started in the 1920's but didnt really gain much ground until the 70s and 80s as oil was discovered in the North Sea. Infact until the 1920s it wasnt considered overly offencive to most scots to refer to us as northern brits.
A form of English had been used in the lowlands of scotland anyway, Gaelic basically died after the Jacobite rebellions there were restrictions on its use and with the highland clearences most of the highlands population moved to the industrial central belt.
There are some attempts to revive it but i cant see it getting very far. We have the same attitude as all other native english speakers "if they can speak english why should we speak X"
>how come you claim to be SCOTland (literally a foreign name for celts) if you don't speak scottish
>how can you claim to be american if you don't speak american
>how can you claim to be indian if you don't speak indian
>how can you claim to be nigerian if you don't speak nigerian
>how can you claim to be south sudanese if you don't speak south sudanese
>how can you claim to be central african if you don't speak central african republican
>the rightful native language
Considering the people of Scotland are formed through the union of Gaels, Picts, Brythonics and Angles; claiming we all should speak Scots-Gaelic instead of Scots-English is a bit silly.
>Well then how come you claim to be SCOTland (literally a foreign name for celts) if you don't speak scottish(a celtic language)?
Gaelic is itself an Irish language. Dont forget that the Irish are basically our retarded cousins.
Those are completely different cases of countries. If you have american citizenship you're american, or canadian citizenship and you're canadian. These country's identities operate on a different level.
So you speak english day to day? Might as well call your country England, because that's the country named after the people that speak the english language.
But if you're country is literally called in latin "The land of the celts" might as well give actual reasons why the country is named the way it is today.
>minority of angles from the south
And guess under who's culture did Scotland achieve sovereign status? Hint, it wasn't the english
Why is the Netherlands called that and not Dutchland?
>And guess under who's culture did Scotland achieve sovereign status? Hint, it wasn't the english
This is a dangerous point to try to make as nobody can even be sure of when the Picts and Gaels actually joined together. Kenneth McAlpin is usually given credit but he is a semi mythological figure.
>Gaelic basically died after the Jacobite rebellions there were restrictions on its use and with the highland clearences most of the highlands population moved to the industrial central belt.
You mean after the forced population shifts to the industrial lowlands.
English wanted to seize the property of the clans for themselves, so in order to do that, they illegally pushed the native scots to the lowlands and destroyed celtic culture in the process
Not really. Many people like to blame the English for it but the fact is that it was Scottish lords and chiefs that forced the peasents off the land. The main work done in the highlands was crofting which was nowhere near as profitable as sheep farming.
>It was the Scots own fault for evicting themselves so that English mills could have wool to spin
>It was the Irish's own fault for only growing potatoes and then exporting their food to England while starving
>So you speak english day to day? Might as well call your country England, because that's the country named after the people that speak the english language.
but that's fucking wrong, you retard
the name england predates the language by literally centuries
Do you have some crazy romantic notion of Scotland? Do you think we are free from greed and look out for each other in one giant brotherly union?
Greed caused the clearences pure and simple.
>In Gaelic it's called Alba
Of course, i didn't deny that. But how many natives are left that use that name? It is similar to the exonym and edonym of Germany/Deutschland.
But the idea that lies beneath the two names, is that you assume for yourself not the name of the country called by the natives, but of foreigners. Making you a non-native.
>Why is the Netherlands called that and not Dutchland?
It has several names. One of it is nederlands because it means "lower country". While the state composed of all dutch speaking regions is called 'Dietsland"
Scottish is about as Different from Irish, and Scots is from English. Probably less so actually.
Scots have no language, they're an Anglo-Irish pseudo-race that should be just as comfortable speaking English as they would be speaking their bastardization of Irish.
You mean Munich Betrayal? Yes, whenever is subject mentioned. "Should have we accept or fight" is popular meme history topic. However it do not influence current Czech relations with France or Frenchmen in any way.
Mostly Slovaks being butthurt.
Some nationalism, economical and political differences after postcommunist transformation. Czechs and Slovaks never shared one state before and 70 years wasn't enough to create strong historical bound.
Also it was mainly political decision without any referendum (most of people actually disagreed). Strongest party in Czechia ruled Czechia while strongest party in Slovakia got its own country and its leader became PM.
Except Moldova joined the unified Romania long before Transylvania did.
Not to mention modern day Moldova isn't really Moldova at all, it exists for the sole reason Russia annexed Bessarabia from the historical Moldova..
>Scots have no language
They have three
>they're an Anglo-Irish pseudo-race that should be just as comfortable speaking English as they would be speaking their bastardization of Irish.
Scotland is a based country consisting of two cultural regions (more if you count the borders and Orkney+Shetland), is the non-edgy way to put it.
Scottish Gaelic is no more a "bastardisation" of Irish as Swedish is a bastardisation of Danish.
t. Irish speaker who can understand certain Scots.
>Scots have no language
But they do, it's scientifically called gaelic, or scottish in ad-lib communication.
The fact, that they let their own national language that defines them as a people and that defines their state, become a minority, is another thing.
It's a logical assumption m8t. Why didn't the scots just naturally move to the industrial parts because it was seemingly prosperous? because they had no cultural connections to the lowlands after the english took over it.
So who, would even be aware of how industrial the lowlands are at that time, when the divisions between the highlands and lowlands were in huge contrast in terms of population density and ethnic culture? The english, of course.
Which is why the scottish nobility willingly abandoned their language and nationhood to become english and be rich, and then dragged the entire culture behind them. Destroying scottish heritage in the process
>it's scientifically called Gaelic
2. This is what I'm saying, Gaelic is just as much of a foreign language as English. When Scotland has no real indigeneous language it's not worth trying to attach language to nationhood.
>Except Moldova joined the unified Romania
Yeah, with romanian armies on the ground.
And they only did it because Ukraine had territorial claims on it. Moldovans from the Democratic Republic just wanted to escape ukrainian rule, so they voted to be part of Romania. If it wasn't for aggressive ukrainian expansionism, the DMR would remain independent, as most of the population wanted it to be.
>Not to mention modern day Moldova isn't really Moldova at all
There is no historical or non-historical part of Moldova. There was western Moldova and eastern Moldova. Both parts are equally historic. It just so happens that the east managed to get rid of the russian yoke and be independent again, while moldovans from the west are still under romanian yoke
Why did Romania go into WW2?
They already had all the territory they could possibly want.
>after the english took over it.
Highlanders have always had a completely different culture to Lowlanders. Scottish Kings had tried for centuries to bring the Highlanders into line with little success. It's got nothing to do with the English bogeyman.
And what do you mean "took over it" anyway? You mean post-unification?
No its really not.
Firstly before the clearences the population of scotland was split almost 50/50 between highlands and lowlands.
>Why didn't the scots just naturally move to the industrial parts because it was seemingly prosperous?
Because this was the beginning of the industrial revolution. Glasgow which would become the second city of the Empire only reached that height due to the influx of highland immigrants. The industry was just beggining.
>So who, would even be aware of how industrial the lowlands are at that time
Nobody because as stated this was the beggining of the industries.
>huge contrast in terms of population density and ethnic culture
Population i have covered and as for culture you are right, there were huge differences but again the population was fairly evenly split yet you seem to cling to highland culture as the only scottish culture.
>Which is why the scottish nobility willingly abandoned their language and nationhood to become english and be rich
Scottish nobility int he south, the "Lairds" Already spoke a form of english and the culture was pretty similar to the north of England so not much difference. The highland chiefs saw oppertunities to make money, money which could give them an edge on thier rivals, other clans, and so they moved towards sheep instead of people.
>Destroying scottish heritage in the process
Highlander heritage was damaged beyond repair yes but that doesnt cover all of scotland.
American who has lived in every American socio-economic region, sans Pacific Northwest. I'm here to answer all your questions.
>Highlanders have always had a completely different culture to Lowlanders
Weren't the highlanders the only scots left alive after the lowland english take over in the 15th century?
>And what do you mean "took over it" anyway
Ethnic and cultural assimilation. There was a time when the english were a minority in a remote corner of the kingdom, and then one day they occupied half the country.
>Weren't the highlanders the only scots left alive after the lowland english take over in the 15th century?
What could possibly make you think that? There was no take over any land that had been under english rule was before scottish unification.
>Because this was the beginning of the industrial revolution. Glasgow which would become the second city of the Empire only reached that height due to the influx of highland immigrants. The industry was just beggining.
The industry was in the hands of the english. It's only normal for the population that was pretty much the only one practicing agriculture to pioneer an economic revolution like that. When people from the highlands went there, by force or not, they were constrained to learn the language of the ones who were in charge, which were the english. It was a slow painful process for scot culture's death.
>Population i have covered and as for culture you are right, there were huge differences but again the population was fairly evenly split yet you seem to cling to highland culture as the only scottish culture.
Highland culture is celtic culture, therefor inherently scottish. What's the point to practice the traditions without scottish language if you're just an englishman cosplaying as a celt?
>Highlander heritage was damaged beyond repair yes but that doesnt cover all of scotland.
Of course, but the culture of the english survived just dandy. And you are OK with that? Letting your culture befall into another invasive culture's hands?
>There was a time when the english were a minority in a remote corner of the kingdom, and then one day they occupied half the country.
Just because everyone in the Lowlands spoke Scots doesn't mean they were now all ethnically Anglo-Saxon.
English is the official language of India and half of Africa, but I've never seen an Englishman who doesn't melt in the sun.
>There is no historical or non-historical part of Moldova. There was western Moldova and eastern Moldova. Both parts are equally historic. It just so happens that the east managed to get rid of the russian yoke and be independent again, while moldovans from the west are still under romanian yoke
I literally do not understand your logic here.
Russia steals part of Moldavia from the Moldavian government.
The Moldavian government chooses to join Romania.
Later on Bessarabia gets independence and also chooses to join Romania.
Later it gets reconquered by the USSR and has Transnitria tacked onto it to ensure Russian satellite-statehood.
If have any cop on it's clear what has happened.
>Why did Romania go into WW2?
It was neutral before and that kinda backfired with the russians taking eastern Moldova, the hungarians taking a chunk of Transylvania and bulgaria taking a chunk of our sea access.
>There was no take over any land that had been under english rule was before scottish unification.
Im talking about the english takeover of the lowlands, like the map here illustrates >>507887
Sorry, i should have clarified that when i was talking about the english i didn't mean english rule, but the english people within Scotland itself.
>Just because everyone in the Lowlands spoke Scots doesn't mean they were now all ethnically Anglo-Saxon.
But they literally invaded their way into the lowlands into pictish territory. Ethnic celts were natives there prior to them invading and establishing northumbria.
Im not goin gto bother argueing with you anymore this isnt going anywhere.
You seem to believe there was total english control like those reptilian thoerists so im clearly wasting my time.
Please tell me about my people and thier history.
>The Moldavian government chooses to join Romania
Wasn't really a choice when you had half the world's powers on your head pushing you towards union with Romania because it would create a stronger buffer state against Russia's expansion into the balkans that France could control. Then the moldovans were tricked into thinking they'll still have their own government and live with the romanians under a confederation, only for them to get annexed by Romania and become it's province 3 years after the union. Otherwise they got back 3 of it's provinces back from the russian annexed eastern Moldova, and they had high hope and enthusiasm that they'll manage to get the rest back as well.
>Later on Bessarabia gets independence and also chooses to join Romania.
To avoid ukrainian occupation. Within Romania itself Bessarabia was poor and people were starving, the region having undergone like 3 famines in just 20 years of romanian rule.
>Later it gets reconquered by the USSR and has Transnitria tacked onto it to ensure Russian satellite-statehood.
The moldovans didn't want Transnistria. It was more or less shoved down their throats so Ukraine could get the provinces they were wishing back when DMR was independent.
>The moldovans didn't want Transnistria. It was more or less shoved down their throats so Ukraine could get the provinces they were wishing back when DMR was independent.
I know, that's what I'm saying here. Transnitria is just the pinnacle of Russian imperialism in Moldova.
>annexed to Romania
By this logic Wallachia also got annexed to Romania, but that is not what happened. Romania is a new country created from the princes of both parties. With the creation of nation states there's simply no point in being different.
Apologies if i sounded aggressive. It wasn't my intention. I just really can't grasp how people from Scotland do not recognize that celts = natives and anglo-saxons = invaders, along with their language and everything they stand for.
And before the angles came there, they stumbled upon Pict lands. They and Dal Riata merged together harmoniously, which meant that Scotland inherited Pict lands. Even without this factor, the angles came from the bumfuck of nowhere while the celts were the natives who waged war against them, because they were invaders.
> Transnitria is just the pinnacle of Russian imperialism in Moldova.
Hopefully once they bring it back under their control they can swap it back with Ukraine for it's former territories
>By this logic Wallachia also got annexed to Romania
Wallachia is an international name for Romania. The english call it Wales for example, because the etymology is the same, but the welsh themselves call it Cymru. It isn't like Germany's example where you had no german state and small statelettes instead united under the stronger province. Romania straight up just expanded it's territories as history advanced. The 1859 union marked the beginning of the modern romanian state and identity, is true however.
>Why should we? All contributions to present romanian literature and philology were done by moldovans, who identified as part of the moldovan nation. We also have no common language or history.
Is this the East European WE WUZ
You're a brainwashed idiot in either case, enjoy your lack of stable government and hole in your government budget, I hope Putin senpai will be gentle with you.
LOL, okay, Slovenia may be small and we were part of other empires for the big part of history. But Czechia was a superpower during the early middle ages.
Still, I can't write the whole history of my nation - as small as my nation can be - in a single post. Is there anything in particular you want to know about?
Also, I'll be dumping maps of Slovenia and its neighborhood as I post.
Btw we were superpower even in A-H, due to the fact that czechia was probably the most industralized area of mainland
Europe, Habsburgs had to keep us in check. And thanks to Czech not really warmongering nature, we didnt
stand up for ourseleves as much as Hungarians did (thus made Austria to be A-H, despite being less important in terms
of resources and location than Czechia)
Too bad our competent dynasties were killed off and then habsburgs came.
>In romanian its always been called "Tara Rumuneasca/romaneasca"
>There was no romanian ideninty untill 19 century.
Romanian sure,rumuneasca seems to have existed along those plains for a while.
OH WAIT,its basicaly the exact same shit,except the way words are spelt changes with times.
P.S I don't give a shit about who moldova belonged too.But don't come qqing to me about "Muh romania had no identity untill 19th century"
It did,still has.Its been like that for a while.All off you retards have the whole "muh wallachia" bullshit stuck up your arse whenever you try to bring up the "Romanian,identity"
Changing the U to an O dosen't mean shit.Now go back to sucking Stephans dick.
Some time between the 6th and the 7th century, a number of tribes came to the Alps from an area around Greater Moravia (what are today Czechia and Slovakia), with a smaller number of tribes arriving across Pannonia. At that time, the Pannonian basin was still settled by Slavs, so our ancestors were the link between the Western and Southern Slavs - it's why we may be grouped together with South Slavs today, but we are close to the Slovaks as well.
After our ancestors settled here (well, here and in other regions; see the map), the northern group, the Carantanians, were part of a Slavic union with the Western Slavs until the union collapsed and they had their own independent duchy - Carantania. Another duchy existed in Carniola at that time and it was for a long time subordinate to Carantania.
With the threat of the Avars in the east, our ancestors looked for help in the west; going under Bavarian and later Frankish rule. This is when the process of Germanisation slowly began.
Even though our ancestors became vassals to the Germanic nobility, they were not totally subordinate. They still kept some privileges, namely a social class known as kosezi (singular - kosez). These were free men, a class of warrior-farmers who owned their land, did not have to pay tribute to the feudal lords and who had the right to bear arms. They were also involved in the process of electing the new duke, one of the earliest democratic processes in Europe (save for Greece) which was also an influence for Thomas Jefferson when he was writing the American constitution (inb4 we wuz dukes).
But these privileges were slowly withering away and our lands were slowly being lost. Due to Germanisation, centuries of deaths due to the plague, as well as Turkish raids (whih, as some claim, took as many as two hundred thousand Slovenes), the Slovene populated area shrank to what it is today.
Nigger,do ye tink I care enaugh to try and "Hide the fact that the country got no history" (P.S there's one.You are just word playing.Piss off)
Altough,I do agree that the pinacle off the romanian identity is WITHIN the borders off the wallachian borders.But,how the fuck are you loldovians THAT diferent then romanians?Same language?Check.
Closest in genetical output?Check
Basicaly united with eachother off freewill?Check
Now again,I don't give a fuck about whoevers shithole is better.Both the countries are shithole.The only exception is,moldova stayed a 3rd world shithole whilist romania advanced to 2nd world shithole.
And stop it with the bullshit semantics "No significant history or identity"
It existed,withing the borders off wallachia.
Altough,I can't disagree with the fact that wallachia spent most off its history doing jackshit and sucking ottoman dick or being bussy being invaded my mongols and turks from the asian steppes and either hiding or sucking whoevers dick for protection.
P.S Im aromanian if you wanna talk about not having a "History" my people are fiting in that category off "Can't into record keeping"
>Closest in genetical output?
>Basicaly united with eachother off freewill?
Totally false. Well, in part at least.
In the 1857 ad-hoc elections when both romanians and moldovans needed to pronounce their verdict in the matters of union, the moldovans clearly voted no. Of course this wasn't convenient for the romanian unionists, so they did heavy propaganda all around Europe for support of their cause. Then they cried at foreign courts, long enough so they can get not only their official support, but a second round of elections in regards to the union. Of course this time, the unionists won, magically. So Moldova had no choice under such international pressure to give up it's own sovereignty. Then followed the confederation status where both were suppose to have separate parliaments, and then the annexation of Moldova to Romania, which was against the treaty the european powers agreed on.
If anything, it was anything BUT the will of the moldovan people to join Romania. And today romanian Moldova where i live is the poorest region of them all thanks to romanian excessive fiscal and administrative centralization.
P.S It was also romanian politicians that aromanians don't have a state of their own in the balkans. They had the chance to give you one after the first balkan war, but they blew it because they couldn't give a shit about you.
Not really. Before Swedish conquests during 13th century, Finns where mostly divided into tribes that inhabited different regions around the country, with each tribe having its own chief. There where no central authority, till Swedes and Novgorod came along.
Doesn't matter if i make up my mind of not. History and facts talk by themselves. And so far it doesn't seem that romanian authorities are interested to teach this subject to kids in school. Neither that, and not even the 1866 moldovan secessionist movement which was put down in blood.
If romanians start implementing this information in the curricula, they will lose any kind of hope the romanian moldovans will put into the so called state of Romania
About Sweden and Novgorod, what was the point of them taking the Finnish lands? Were there a lot of good resources there? Was it good for trade businesses? Also, how did they go about taking them, and how did they rule them?
It's true, he was inspired by the Carinthian ducal coronation.
In every župa (municipality; we call it občina today), the villagers voted on who they wanted for their new duke. Their leader, župan (mayor; we still use the term today) then counted the votes. All of the župans gathered on the field near the Maria Saal church (Gosposvetsko polje is what we call that field), where every mayor spoke out, telling who got the most votes in his župa. This is analogous to the modern elector system in the USA.
Well, both wanted to add Finland to their sphere of influence. There where good hunting and fishing grounds as well as the excellent access to Nordic Sea, which was used heavily for trading.
Swedes mounted several Crusades during the early 12th century to spread Christianity among then Pagan Finns and by the 1400s they had established total dominance over southern and western parts of the country. Novgorod spread during the same time period , taking control of the east Karelia. Neither Swedes nor Novgorodians really sought to improve their subjects position. Swedes in particular collected heavy taxes from the peasants.
>Jefferson himself was inspired by slovenian people when he wrote the american constitution?
is there actually any evidence for this? Because it sound like the sort of thing Slovenian people would say to make their irrelevant little country sound important.
Elections had been going on both in England and the British colonies in America for centuries before the American War of Independence.
Dutch guy here, I know a thing or two about Dutch history.
Croats as a slavic tribe, aren't Serbs, we however coexisted with the Serbs since our names are known (like Czechs and Moravians), even in the Urheimat before moving to south-eastern Europe. The reason some Serbs call us today catholic Serbs is because a large portion of the croatian population are people that moved from the south-eastern parts that neighbour majorily Serb inhabited regions and they settled in wide parts of Croatia, they speak the same language as the Serbs and have the same surnames as the Serbs, their language also became our literary standard. I am from Croatia proper and speak a core Croatian dialect, kajkavian (there is also one other old-Croatian dialect, namely chakavian, those original Croats are today sadly a minority). To be honest although I do not consider them catholic Serbs, they are a very different people than we are. Today those people are in power and actual northern original Croats, like myself, are considered a cultural minority in their own country.
Is shtokavian bosnian core or croat core?
>western shtokavian and eastern shtokavian
it is serbian core.
Krauts as in Germany?
It didn't really exist until quite a while after Napoleon. The relations with the various German states before that ranged from okay to bad. We really had a nice Hanseatic league thing going with many North German cities until Holland went to war to break the Hansa monopoly in the Baltic (with succes). After the Burgundians died out the Austrian Habsburg lads took over and the south saw a couple of popular revolts against their rule, especially when Protestantism was thrown in the mix. Around 1672 two German states aided France and England with invading the Netherlands but all four failed and the status quo returned without any aggressive action against those two states.
Anglos have been friends and allies on and off since the high middle ages. The count of Flanders was a vassal of the king of France nominally but it grew so rich because of the English wool trade and cloth manufacture that is usually had a pro-english course
During the 15th century Burgundy grew and became an enemy of France while maintaining close ties with England, a number of loans, marriages and mercenary forces firmly cemented the alliance and Burgundy and England actually had plans to join forces and invade France in the late 15th century, had this happened France might not have been around right now.
After the reformation the Seventeen provinces (or slightly less) found themselves allied with England and a lot of English mercenaries fought in our independence war, at one point an English noble was considered for the position of King of the Dutch provinces but this was later called off and the provinces became a republic.
Relations soured a bit during the 17th century when trade competition led to a couple of (almost exclusively) naval wars which the Dutch won. A few more land wars with France and the said two German states followed which sent the republic in stagnation. Following that a Dutch stadtholder was made king of England (William III). I think his plan was to create a durable Alliance of commonwealth of the two nations and he moved large parts of the Dutch finance industry to London. Then he engaged Spain and France in the Spanish succession war which left Holland bankrupt several times over. England profited from mainland/continental squabbling and seized the premier trading position of Europe, though their GDP per capita did not overtake the Dutch levels until 1780 on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. From 1700-1750 onward the Dutch always tried to remain neutral and the view of the English was not really bad.
I hope this gives you some idea.
In america they have no own culture, they are forced to accept the american in order to assimilate. Force assimilation of people is what made America what it is, and the American how he acts.
In Europe, Roma are left to pursue their own values and traditions openly, without any forced assimilation, forced assimilation is seen as racist, chauvinist and anti-european. Thus they act according to their own values and not according to the values of the state their inhabit.
But I heard of current European(such as Russia) attempts to put gypsies children in school but their parents take them out because they don't want their kids to assimilate into a foreign culture. Also because they need the kids to stay with them and work. Why has this been resolved in America but not Europe?
Is it true that it is illegal to home school your own kids in Sweden because the government wants to make sure all kids are at the same pace?
Sounds intrusive as fuck desu senpai. People should be free to hold school their kids if they want, especially if they can provide similar means of social interaction for the child through extra curriculars.
>Why has this been resolved in America but not Europe?
When Roma migrated to the Americas it happend gradually in lesser numbers. They came to a society that had established values, which taught every immigrant that in order to achieve a life in America, they have to adapt to the values all other immigrants took as their own, before them. A peer pressure by other citizens made the Roma families adapt the same values. This was by no means a bad thing, they felt integrated into a society that is by itself based on the same class of people they were, namely immigrants.
Every new Roma family that arrived, now experienced the same peer pressure, but this time from Roma families that already integrated in the society. Over time for every Roma family that arrived this was a common thing, and eventhough America enforces their own values, your own traditions and beliefs are your own. So no persecutions were ever experienced that would make this class of people think of marginalising from the society they are in (this however was not the case with the Afro-americans and the Latino population, more about it in the next article).
In Europe however, Roma are immigrants since the middle-ages, if not before that. Middle Ages are not known for religious or traditional liberties upon immigrants. Over the course of time, the Roma while persecuted and considered different, marginalised in their own ethnic societies and without the posibility of adapting the values of their host state but also given the same rights, they formed their own values, nomadic ones. It was and is however still their effort to assimilate into the values of the host states (taking on the religion, the names and the practices of the people within which they are living in) nonetheless the values are however still enforced by peer pressure, this time however not by the people of the state they inhabit, but by the established Roma population that settled in Europe some hundred years ago, namely nomadic.
This same phenomenon can be seen in the afro-american population in America. The peer-pressure of accepting their own values of the marginalised population (act of talking, dressing, acting etc.), be it Roma or Blacks (in the future Muslims), has a far stronger impact on a Roma (or the ones mentioned) person, than the state they inhabit could ever have. A reason for that is that historically the state they inhabit is not seen as trustworthy because of the ethnic slures, racism, chauvinism and of course massacres, genocides, persecutions, lynching etc. that were experienced by the Roma (or any other mentioned) people.
In order to reform them, they have to gain trust in the state, trust in the people that have historically marginalised them (and worse).
To any Greeks in this thread:
Does anyone in Greece actually want to see parts of Anatolia under Greek control?
To any Turks in this thread:
Do people in Turkey see Northern Cyprus as a legitimate government/puppet state/satrapy etc?
>mfw weak national unity and try-hard to be special snowflake in the middle of the shit-fest that is the Balkans fucks us over and always taken over
>mfw sufferable history
The f-future's bright kids...
Well mostly Slovak nationalists being assblasted (they had some "valid" complaints though).
And both of our political elites wanted to have their own share of the pie. The split was just retardation and something the people didnt want.
I always want to go back to times of union with Czechs :/
Well there were a lot of indigenous groups here. We classify them accorting to where they lived. The maing groups are Southern (Comechingones, Tehuelches, Pamapas and laterales on Mapuches, to name some), Northwestern (Quilmes, Diaguitas, there are aldo some Inca settlements), and Northeastern (Tobas, Matacos, many groups within the Guaraní family). Most were wiped out during the so calles 'Conquista del Desierto' (Argentine Manifest Destiny) during the late XIX century.
>I always want to go back to times of union with Czechs
That "union" was an unlawful Entente rapechild. Hungarian monarchy or bust, nigger.
As an Amerifat, I never hear anything related to Terrorism in your country. I just did a little digging on the internet and also found very little. How does your nation escape the virus that is plaguing almost every modern Islamic state today? Is it your culture? Policies? Something else?
I saved this a while back from a Moroccan history thread. I feel it is relevant in this thread
You're clearly the retarded one. Scotland comes from "Scottii" the Latin for Irish. The Irish High King Brian Boru's official title in 1014 was "King of the Scotii" and controlled vast lands in modern Scotland directly.
It was the treaty of Northumberland when the Irish Celtic Church lost out to Rome that Scotland broke from Ireland in order for petty lords to swallow up church lands.
By the time of the first crusades almost 100 years later, foreign scholars still didn't differentiate Irish and Scots as two distinct people.
tl;dr you're a retard Angus.
I'm from Portugal, if anyone wants to ask anything.