Formation of European countries

File: 1505224550640.jpg (37KB, 615x310px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 615x310px

>germany
>800
lad, i...

>>3380660
I... I panicked. I didn't know what to choose.
So many dates.

Also I don't know if you're aware but you just posted my OC. Nice coincidence.

So Germany should start with this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_the_Fowler

>>3380650
Why the fuck would you date Portugal from the foundation of the country as a province of Asturias?

File: 1505193347511.jpg (183KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 640x640px

>>3380661
>you just posted my OC
nice, all is forgiven then

Lithuania should be marked 1918.

>>3380669
East Francia wasn't Germany
Neither was HRE

File: europe map.png (114KB, 1236x1245px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1236x1245px

>>3380669
>>3380675

>>3380678
Should it really? It's really difficult to estimate where one nations begins and other ends. I decided to use the date when single nation consolidated as one. Which is why some of these dates are surprisingly old or recent.

>>3380650
Can't wait to hear what the Greeks think of this map.

I don't think anyone is concerned that this map lacks Kosovo.

>>3380682
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany
This is the foundation of Germany

>>3380679
1871 feels so wrong.

>>3380690
1990 my guy

File: big_mistakes.png (521KB, 974x1041px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 974x1041px

>>3380695
Look I know how we all feel but let's not be too cruel here.

Germany should be 1701 (foundation of Prussia).

Generally a lot of countries are way too early, for example why the fuck is Czechia 870?

File: europe map.png (116KB, 1236x1245px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1236x1245px

>>3380706
Duchy of Bohemia? I guess it's either that or 1993 like Slovakia but I know that even if these early medieval states had to ask the Emperor for the crown they were still pretty independent and very often fought against him.

>>3380650
>moldavia 1359
>Romania 1862

Retard

>>3380650
Either you put 1065 for Spain (foundation of Kingdom of Castille) or 1516 (foundation of Kingdom of Spain). 1479 Makes no sense whatsoever.

>>3380733
Slovakia should be 1939

>>3380751
Slovakia should be 1990

File: europe map.png (118KB, 1236x1245px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1236x1245px

>>3380744
1516 makes more sense.

>>3380751
Puppet state.
It's right there with Kosovo.

Nations are more of a current state of affairs, than any stable guide to anything.

What is the claim for norway being older than its neighbours? surely those sources would be early cloister or church, and those would not likely start in norway.. especialy with a christian church in Ribe, just north of todays Germany, since 600 or so

>>3380767
Nordic states were hopeless. It's just impossible to know anything for sure. Iceland was less problematic. And I thought there were more viking kings. Looks like historians know which line can be called "Swedish monarchs" which Norwegian etc.

>>3380650
>>3380682
>>3380733
>>3380764
Russia is that young? I thought they're older than Polacks.

>>3380650
France was founded as a country in 843 by the treaty of Verdun. Clovis conquest of the Gauls is something else.

>>3380778
Kievan Rus is basically a cluster of eastern slavic tribes which was later conquered by the Mongols. Russia came later. I don't know why Russia looks like some kind of Slavia Prime.

>>3380788
If you are strict, then 987 is the founding year of France, the year the Capetians became Kings of France. Before that France was just part of different Frankish and Carolingian empires.

>>3380775
...I dont understand that, it seems like a contradiction.

Historians do know a lot about the lines of kings, but is that the measure? The date on Denmark is the year of a certain rune stone, that declares the whole nation united under christ. Its about a state-religion, and tells us that christianity had some hold at that time, and that there was deffinately some 'denmark'-like thing in the world. What I wonder is, how do you get norway to be older than that? Same monks for sources, seems to me..

Iceland is a bit more problematic than you think, btw.. It was a colony in the sense of the monarchs, so a state within the kingdom.

Much of the known history of iceland is dug up and figured out around late 1700s in denmark, as happened with norway, and they both claimed some level of independence around 1814.

Roughly at the same time, sweeden becomes a national state, rather than a traditional monarchy, with a brand new bloodline on the throne. Nobody counts that as any birth of sweeden, nor should they, it was just Napoleon making a mess of things.
On the other hand, the three kingdoms were united under one flag for a while, during the Kalmar union. Was that an end of a nation, a birth of one?
I guess you could say norway existed between somewhere in the long long ago, and somewhere in the 900s. Then again in 1400s for a little while, then again in 1800s until today.

Point> everywhere is a mess. Nations are a new measure. It does not work retroactively.

File: icc.png (31KB, 290x717px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 290x717px

>Ireland
>1921
???

>>3380682
Slovakia was a German puppet state during WWII
Finland has been a Grand Duchy under the Russian tsar since 1809

>>3380650
Romania appeared first in 1600, faggot.
We were united under different names before that.

>>3380683
desu Germany is a younger country than Greece. If Germany somehow started at the 8th century because of the HRE then Greece was around since the Dorian invasion

Nice map, Anon.

As someone from Czechia, I appriciate that you went for 870 and not 1993

>>3380847
>We were united under different names before that
Lmao and Europe was united under different names a bunch of times, doesn't mean EU was founded 27BC

>>3380861
>As someone from Czechia
hard to believe since almost everyone from czech hates the name czechia

>>3380879
It's bizzare how Czechs hate that name.

>>3380650
>Frankish Empire => France
>Bulgarian Khanate => Bulgaria
But
>England =/=> Britain
>HRE =/=> Germany
>ERE =/=> Greece
>Wallachia =/=> Romania
>Cossack Hetmanate =/=> Ukraine
>Luxembourg =/=> Luxembourg
?

>>3380883
well it is a new name and it sounds even more similar to chechnya so its understandable not everyone would like it

>>3380879
>>3380883
Calling it Czech Republic is just so inconvenient if you want to refer to the nation in general not just its political system after 1993. And Bohemia refers to just a part of the country.

>>3380885
not op but
>england=/=>britain
since uk is formed by union of scotland and england
>HRE =/=> Germany
ehhhh
>ERE =/=> Greece
byzantines called themselves roman not greek
>Wallachia =/=> Romania
romania=wallachia+moldavia
>Cossack Hetmanate =/=> Ukraine
wasnt really ever independent and also there are bunch of cossacks that consider themselves russian
>Luxembourg =/=> Luxembourg
no idea what happened here

>>3380885
Yes England doesn't equal Great Britain. And Cossacks didn't have an independent country.

>>3380650
Honestly the biggest problem is with the age old question. When did France/Germany separate? I'm not gonna even bother to make sense of the nordic countries. Most of it is half-legend.

>>3380912
frankish succession rules

>>3380913
Well to some it simply created more Frankish kingdoms.

>>3380650
If you're going by medieval states, Slovenia should be 658 or 828, when it was conquered by the Franks. As for Bosnia and Croatia, you used the first crowning. By that merit, Serbia should be 640 ish (exact year unknown), and Bulgaria should be 681.
Also, Montenegro (and Serbia interchangeably) could be 1077, as Rascia and Duklja can be used for both, because they're basically the same thing.

>>3380885
How would HRE by any stretch of imagination = Germany when it included chunks of France, Netherlands, half of Italy, Austria etc and was ruled by "non-Germans" probably most of it's existence and the German stem-duchies didn't have a cohesive German identity to begin with

>>3380926
never said it didn't
those frankish kingdoms evolved into kingodm of france and HRE with lotharingia being absorbed by those two

>>3380928
>was ruled by "non-Germans"
not really, HRE Emperors have been German dynasties.

>>3380934
they were ruled by czechs for some time tho

File: franceinthemaking.png (1000KB, 750x663px) Image search: [Google]

1000KB, 750x663px

>>3380650
>France
>481
How comes? Clovis didn't even conquer France by that time!

>>3380936
Source please, because that is bullshit! Name a single Czech emperor!

>>3380934
Depends on what your definition of German dynasties is
Is Hapsburg german or austrian or what
Is Luxembourg german or french or what

>>3380943
here's one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Bohemia

>>3380949
>>3380943

oops wrong one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

>>3380944
Both are German houses, Austria is just the East mark of the empire. As the name already suggests.

>>3380888
Chechnya is pronounced Chetch-nya
Czechia is pronounced Check-ya
Very different.

>>3380953
Thats house Luxemburg. His mama was czech, but thats it.

>>3380928
>territorial changes
>being ruled by a foreign dynasty
>the national identity didn't exist initially

These are non-arguments and have no relevance to the date when a political entity was established. They can be applied to almost all countries in Europe.

If you want to go further, Germany wasn't established until
>1949 when the Federal Republic of Germany was established
>1990 when they DDR and BRD united, Two Plus Four Agreement
>1994 when the last Russian troops left
>Germany doesn't exist at all because it's still under de facto US occupation and BRD
So take your pick.

>>3380939
That's not France.

>>3380969
>being ruled by a foreign dynasty
what foreign dynasty would that be?

>>3380960
one iotation worth of difference
>>3380961
was born in prague raised there,ruled bohemia

>>3380974
Damn right it isn't, thats why 481 as founding date fro France is a little optimistic.

>>3380650
France should be 843

>>3380969
>>Germany doesn't exist at all because it's a corporation
This

>>3380980
>was born in prague raised there,ruled bohemia
You are not a horse just because you are born in a stable.

>>3380969
Alright, if it's all arbitrary and all that matters is that there was something roughly there some time in the past you can just as well mark French starting from celtic Gaul I guess or Gallic empire of the third century or something
Why not

>>3380978
I was merely quoting the anons argument. I don't thing the Habsburg or Luxembourgs should be considered "foreign"

>>3380989
Horse is a species, German is a culture (arguably)
Epic argument though, well meme'd

>>3380989
ehhh i guess

>>3381003
>When you are born the heir of a noble German house and you grow up in Prague, this makes you somewhat 100% genuine >Czech. Wen you become emperor afterwards that makes the Czechs somehow the Emperors of the HRE
Yeah, right.

File: Shepherd-byzanz_1000-enhanced_1-1900x1500.jpg (548KB, 1900x1500px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1900x1500px

>>3380650
Russia is much older than on your map.

File: 34o23534534.png (114KB, 1236x1245px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1236x1245px

I guess it's impossible to choose one perfect date but I guess Verdun was like the first brick.

>>3381023
I'm sorry, are you under the impression that there's such a thing as a German race or something?

>>3381025
>1000AD
>Russia

>>3381028
fair enough.

>>3381025
That's Kievan Rus though. A common root of all eastern slavic nations.

Congrats to San Marino for being the oldest.

>>3381034
No, just a very distinctive difference between Slavic Bohemians and Germanic Germans.

>>3380982
The baptism of Clovis would actually fit better. It represents in a way the shift from Romanized germanic state to Catholic Gallo Roman Latin language Kingdom which France became.

843 also works though.

>>3380802
>Iceland is a bit more problematic than you think, btw.
It really isn't. We declared an independent state by democratic process in 930, and that government was accepted by the people of Iceland. The colonial period is irrelevant.

>Pappal state 1929
>Greece 1822
>Meanwhile, slavic peoples get the first shit duchy as their founding date.

Admit it OP, you're a slav shit.

>>3381043
I guess back then they were still Franks.

>>3381042
Difference like where they were born, where they live, what culture were they brought up in and what language did they speak? Sure

>>3380650
>481
France's foundation is at the baptism of Clovis in 496 not in 481

>>3381053
>Greece 1822
That's not wrong though?

>>3381065
Those were Franks not French.

>>3381043
>The baptism of Clovis would actually fit better. It represents in a way the shift from Romanized germanic state to Catholic Gallo Roman Latin language Kingdom which France became.
Please nigger, Clovis was conquering Gaulish lands with his Frankish tribe, thats it, France came much later.

>>3380650
Maybe the UK should be set as 1603/1604 for the ascension of James I and VI? While any full union failed, James announced himself as "King of Britain", despite parliament.

>>3381070
If you are putting some proto-slavic duchy as founding dates for the modern slav states you should put for Greece like 1200BC.

>>3381043
>>3381065
And I thought it was the Battle of Alesia and the first French surrender and following romanizations of the Gauls.

File: 34o23534534.png (114KB, 1236x1245px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1236x1245px

>>3381053
You're right about one thing.

>>3381037
"Kievan Rus" was invented in 19th century.
It was called Ρωσία (Rosia) in 10th century by Constantine VII, emperor of Byzantine.

>>3381076
>proto-slavic duchy
Which one?

>>3381074
That's the point, his baptism basically turned the tribe's conquest into a new gallo Roman state ruled by the Franks with gallo Roman clergy and administration, which is basically the definition of early France.

But yes, Verdun is much more clear cut, if you wanted to choose one single date with no debate to be had.

File: Frankish.png (106KB, 1899x736px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1899x736px

>>3381065
>Frank
A middle word for French, deal with it

>>3381083
J'encule ta mère fils de pute

>>3381072
This >>3381090 was meant for you

File: really makes you think.jpg (845KB, 2300x1300px) Image search: [Google]

845KB, 2300x1300px

>>3381090
Can you not infect this thread with your autism?

>>3381035
>Same people ruled by the same dynasty from 9th till 16th century.
>Not the same state.

>>3381083
Top tier meming my friend. However there is a valid point hidden there. All the "muh gaulish ancestors" and "muh true Gaulish blood Frenchman" should be shot on sight and are fucking retards. The Gaulish revival in the XIXth century was a mistake.

File: 34o23534534.png (114KB, 1236x1245px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1236x1245px

>>3381086
fixed

>>3381096
Mongol conquest was a thing you know?

>>3381089
>That's the point, his baptism basically turned the tribe's conquest into a new gallo Roman state ruled by the Franks with gallo Roman clergy and administration, which is basically the definition of early France.
Only that that state encompassed way more than just France, and according to sallic law, Gauls where second class citizens. So thats the Frankish empire and not France. Verdun is the earliest possible date for something like France, 987 likely would be better, because thats when France as a political entity started out.
>my pagan Frankish overlord gets baptized
>we france now

>>3381076
If we are doing proto-history Spain should be 405. That's when the romanized Visigoths founded their kingdom that would later become Castillia.

>>3381095
I'm pretty sure he can't. Fuck this thread anyways.

>>3381097
>The Gaulish revival in the XIXth century was a mistake.
Pseudo-history based on nationalisms and you get retards like >>3381090

>vatican
>1929

>>3380650
>history of country begins only after it became christian
i hate this meme

>>3381103
Fair enough.

>>3381099
>Finland
>1917
Try like 10000BC

>>3380829
Literally an English vassal. Should Britain be 1066?

>>3381106
The only one I'm not sure of is Serbia honestly.

>>3381111
Where?

>>3381087
And is most often translated as Ruthenia because fucking Muscovites have taken over the name, starting with Ivan IV
He even named himself the tsar of all Ruthenias
We wuzers, nothing but that.

>>3380650
spain 1479? bitch spain was first created by the visigoths

>>3381123
No, it wasn't.

>>3381123
It's constantly updated.
Also Spain wasn't united yet.

File: French are Pannonians.jpg (2MB, 3072x2288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2288px

>>3381095

Here is a genetics study proving my point


>>3381108
>retard
So you're calling the University of Michigan that made this dictionary retard as well ? You should perhaps call these people and tell them how wrong they are for saying that "Frank" just mean French


Go ahead, clueless retard

>>3381128
Technically they did rule almost all of the Iberian peninsula and Aquitaine

>>3381101
Russia didn't disappear anywhere during Mongol Invasion. It was still ruled by Rurikids, paid tribute to Golden Horde, but was not part of it.

>>3381116
The first bulgarian empire was not even slavic speaking. They were turkic invaders that gradually mixed with the locals. If you put that as the founding date, you should also put 405 for Spain. The Goths at least already spoke latin, which would later develop into spanish.

If you put 1516 for Spain, e.g. after they freed themselves from muslim rule, all the balkan countries should have their independence from ottoman empire as founding date.

>>3381117
scandinavian countries, poland, bulgaria to name few

>>3381131
French cuck surrender monkeys and that's all you need to know
Op should just put "we don't talk about France" over France in that map

>>3381123
Nah, considering the shitfest that was the reconquista and the visigothic kingdom in the first place, the emergence of Castille-Leon would be a better date in 1230 (or even the Kingdom of Leon in 910)

>>3381133
Well here we're trying to answer where (more or less of course) germanic tribes changed into nations and what was the first state of such consolidated group.

>>3381127
you are right, the feeling of a same united territory comes from the times of the romans

>>3381128
The visigoth kingdom reigned from southern francia and some parts of north africa.

You cant say that france was a country where it mostly was a bunch of franks dominating romaniced gauls that invaded central europe. The visigoth kingdom might not has been that famous, not even in our history but it was the first entity that ruled over all the peninsula.

>>3381135
It wasn't Russia.

>>3381139
>poland
wrong

>>3381139
960 for Poland is when historians think Mieszko started his rule. 6 years before he was baptized. It's impossible to know which of his ancestors was the one to rule over all Polish tribes.

>>3380778
>>3380790
Russia as we see it is Muscovy, and began when Alexander Nevsky died and his youngest son was granted the least important duchy, Muscovy.

>>3381043
The treaty of Verdun in 843 formalised West Francia as an independent kingdom, it's the birth of the France.

>>3380650
The Kingdom of Italy had existed since the fall of the Romans Empire, and as a costituent kingdom inside the HRE until the Thirty Years War
Anyway, I appreciate the effort but I think you should redo the map

>>3381140
>We don't talk about France

>>3380939
>>3380974
>>3380981
>>3380982
Clueless retard
You go watch some cuckporn done by my fellow countyrman Greg Lansky, you know the guy that use american women and make them fuck negroes
Kek

>>3381155
>The Kingdom of Italy had existed since the fall of the Romans Empire
It didn't. It was bunch of states.

>>3381143
They were a kingdom for 300 years in that region and after the Moor warrior kicked their asses Asturias was founded by a visigoth resistance leader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigothic_Kingdom

>>3381155
Italy is a geographical expression.

>>3381160
No one cares about you and your autistic theories.

>>3381155
Not the same Kingdom.
>Romans
>Osthrofaggoths
>Romans
>Langobardi
>Shitfest of Franks, Romans, Langobardi
>Charlemagne's bitch
>Lotharingia
>"""Kingdom"""" of italy

That's the first time you find the """"Kingdom"""" of Italy

>>3381142
The visigoth kingdom was a good state, was inestability, civil wars and the eventual muslim invasions that fucked it up. They were foederatis in the iberian peninsula, and helped in the battle were attila was defeated against a coalition of huns, franks and other barbaric scumbags.

File: d.jpg (103KB, 276x921px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 276x921px

>>3381148
>>3381149
either way its wrong

>>3381162
>who is Odoacer
If this map is meant to represent when a certain country adopted his current administrative and political structure then Italy should have 1946

>>3381166
Ok, I don't really see the point

I've read that Bulgars had the oldest state in this part of Europe. Serbia might be wrong. Perhaps it should start with 1217?

>>3381174
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_unification

You should put two dates OP. One for when the modern state was found or a direct, legal predecessor of it was founded (like Deutsches Reich to BRD), and one when the earliest proto-historic jurisdiction was found.

File: ncomms6257-f2.jpg (93KB, 946x572px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 946x572px

>>3381167
>No one cares
It's not up to you to decide and this is false, i saw several French flags as well as some Italian and Polish flags using my "theories"

>autistic theories
Not theories but facts

French are related to Ancient Hungarians(Pannonians) from the Bronze Age and it is proved by DNA

>>3381175
not him but italy is a region in europe like greece. Its frontiers were defined with the romans

>>3381175
>>3381191
Seriously nobody recognized that quote?

>>3381187
So? Does that make France 3000 years old?

>>3381121
Polish - Austrian propaganda.
When rightful heir comes back to take his land, they start to invent new words to not give the stolen back.
Word Ruthenia has no sense in historical science because it changed its meaning to many times.

>>3381193
Wow Metternich, you could have said something meaningful though

>>3381099
Ay bruh, there's a realistic biography about a christian missionary in Sweden and other places, the only reason it's not accepted as true is because the biography was the only known source of the kings mentioned, and the earliest out of the two were first mentioned as being king of Sweden in the year 830.

If you don't trust that source, then Adam of Bremen, who is trusted for everything else, details king Ring, who was said to have been made king in the middle of the 930s, and ruled before and then with his son Erik Segersäll

>>3381193
My knowing of italy starts with the roman republic and ends in the renaissance

>>3381178
Whatever my friend
Italy has existed under several and different denominations since 476, with interruptions of course

>>3381145
It was.

>>3381196
there was no such thing as united russia in 11 century you idiot
it was loose decentralized federation of different tribes
and red ruthenia was term used to describe lands around galicia (as opposed to white ruthenia which was essentially belarus)

>>3381195
Franks(Read French) said they came to Pannonia, and it is further proved by the fact that Merovingian DNA is suspected to be related to these Frenchmen from Pannonia


At this point, we just need to compare these Merovingian samples with these Bronze Age Frenchmen to prove that i was right

>>3381220
And? Those are shitty fucking tribes not a country you absolute fucking cretin.

>>3381196
the only succesor to kievian rus is novgorod who also happened to be massacred and burned by muscovites
also title of tsar was inspired by mongolian khans just as it was inspired by byzantine emperors
so no, russia has nothing to do with that ancient state

>>3381225
I didn't say that

I said that our country started when we converted to christianity along with our king in 496

>>3381253
WE

>>3380650
>Slovakia
>1993
nigga that country existed since late 8th century or early 9th. Czechia should have 624

>>3381289
*as Nitrianske kniežatstvo

>>3381216
I see that you don't know the history of Rus' at all.
The territory was divided not between tribes, but between principalities. Principalities were controlled by members of Rurikids family.
One of them (Velikiy knyaz') was the head of whole state of Rus'.
Period of feudal fragmentation started in 12th century.
The titles of independent Rurikid rulers of Galicia in later periods were Rex Russiae and Regis Rusie in Latin.
Red Ruthenia in Polish was Województwo Ruskie.
Ruskie is an adjective from Rus'.
Ruskie is also how Russian people call themselves now.

>>3381289
>Czechia should have 624
yeah yeah and Poland should have 100AD

>>3381289
>>3381309

I still remember when it was called "young Europe"

>>3381300
Can you stop the we-wuzing? Russia begins with Ivan I of Moscow

>After the death of his elder brother Yury, Ivan inherited the Principality of Moscow. Ivan participated in the struggle to get the title of Grand Duke of Vladimir which could be obtained with the approval of a khan of the Golden Horde. The main rivals of the princes of Moscow in this struggle were the princes of Tver – Mikhail, Dmitry the Terrible Eyes, and Alexander II, all of whom obtained the title of Grand Duke of Vladimir and were deprived of it. All of them were murdered in the Golden Horde. In 1328 Ivan Kalita received the approval of khan Muhammad Ozbeg to become the Grand Duke of Vladimir with the right to collect taxes from all Russian lands.

>According to the Russian historian Kluchevsky, the rise of Moscow under Ivan I Kalita was determined by three factors. The first one was that the Moscow principality was situated in the middle of other Russian principalities; thus, it was protected from any invasions from the East and from the West. Compared to its neighbors, Ryazan principality and Tver principality, Moscow was less often devastated. The relative safety of the Moscow region resulted in the second factor of the rise of Moscow – an influx of working and tax-paying people who were tired of constant raids and who actively relocated to Moscow from other Russian regions. The third factor was a trade route from Novgorod to the Volga river.

File: 1505005812521.jpg (14KB, 370x398px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 370x398px

>>3380650
>Italy
>not 753 B.C.

>>3381309
Nitran voivodship was legitime Slovak state senpai

>>3380650
Wrong
Both France and Germany officially spawned in 843

File: 1499976185076.jpg (19KB, 222x293px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 222x293px

>>3380650
>Germany is older than Greece
HREwewuzzers please leave

>>3381339
Tell me more about the solidified kingdom of ancient Greece.

>>3381228
Novgorod was a republic, it could not claim anything.
Novgorod was still second most important city of Russia after so called massacres
and Ivan IV made it into temporary capital during Crimean invasions.
Burning is your fantasy.
But it was truly devastated during Russian-Swedish wars.
At the end of occupation it had only few hundreds inhabitants.

Title Tsar is from Bulgarian and Church Slavonic languages.
Tsar was equivalent of King in Slavic translation of Holy Bible.

This whole thread is evidence of the success that is amerilard education.

>>3380650
For Bulgaria the more accurate year would be 681, accepted by most historians to be the year when Constantine IV signed a treaty with Asparukh. 632 is the year when the state of Old Bulgaria was established, but it was north of Black sea.

File: 1499956738306.jpg (35KB, 552x504px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 552x504px

>>3381345
>HRE
>solidified
The funny part is that the German state that formed Germany wasn't even part of the HRE.

>>3381345
What about ancient greece?
It doesnt need a kingdom

You just want to feel better about yourself, germanic

File: 34o23534534.png (114KB, 1236x1245px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1236x1245px

>>3381366
Eh ok. I thought Serbia was older than Bulgaria on the map which I thought was wrong since I read that Bulgaria was the oldest eastern state. Then I realized I mistook it for Hungary. 30 hours without sleep jesusfuk.

>>3381099
The state of Bulgaria was founded in 681, not 632. They were actually above the Danube at that time.

>>3381384
Fix the German date you retard.

>>3381370
>HRE existed before HRE in the 9th century

What did he mean by this?

>>3381384
>Italy existing since 754
Does this mean that Greece began existing after Nicaea reclaimed Constantinople from the crusaders?

>>3381384
You should add more dates for the Brits.

File: 21400.jpg (509KB, 789x1099px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 789x1099px

>>3381256
ARE SLAYERS OF HUNS

>>3381398
That's Holy See. And San Marino above.

>>3381115
>Literally an English vassal.
The Kingdom of Ireland was an English vassal, the Irish Catholic Confederation was an independent political entity

File: 1000px-Flag_of_Prussia_(1892-1918).svg.png (114KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1000x600px

>>3381392
>hurr

>>3381399
If only they left the union. So close.

File: R14kkDj.png (13KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 657x527px

>>3381402
now I feel stupid

>>3381403
Wasn't Ireland a collection of kingdoms before England got to them?

>>3381323
>Principality of Moscow
was just a small part of Great principality of Vladimir.
Official title of Ivan I was Great Prince of Vladimir Moscow.
Moscow is called Great principality only in historiography, was not called such by contemporary Russian people.
Great Prince of Vladimir was the main title.
The struggle for it was within one family of Rurikids.

>>3380660
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Francia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany

>>3381468
>East Francia
>Germany

Not the same thing, not even the same name

>>3381216
In fact, 11 century was exactly a period when Rus was relatively centralized (and at its peak of power) under the rule of Yaroslav the Wise, the fragmentation process started in 1054, when Yaroslav has divided the land among his sons, but Rus continued more or less as a single entity up to the death of Vladimir Monomakh in 1125.
In a century, by the time of Mongol invasion in 1230s it has split in about dozen of independent principalities.
In any case Rus was hardly a tribal confederation in 1000, at least no more so the the kingdoms of the Western Europe

>>3381515
Is dividing your empire among the sons the ultimate way how to ruin your country?

From a linguistic point of view, we can't really speak about anything verifiably Russian until the advent of the Mongols, which served to split Rus' into what would become 'Russian' and what would become 'Ruthenian' (i.e., Belarusian and Ukrainian). Prior to that, of course, we have quite a lot of texts that some people will call "Old Russian" but that are properly called Old Rusian (one s!) or Old East Slavic. These texts all contain forms that are more or less equally diagnostic of all the modern East Slavic languages (Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian). After the Mongols come, texts from Northeastern Rus' start to diverge from texts from more westerly Rus'.
It's important to make a distinction between the Rus' and Russia. While Russians might have an excuse for being lazy about making this distinction, we're speaking English and it's easy to be precise with our terminology. In the 11th and 12th centuries, who exactly the Rus' were depended a lot on who was writing the chronicles, but it seems on the basis of the ways they talk about location that many of the chronicle writers located Rus' in the south and west of Old East Slavic speaking lands, and not really in the north or east. Of course, this certainly has something to do with the fact that our earlier chronicle writers were working in southern and western regions. While the arrival of the Mongols might be dated as the 'starting point' for Russian, it's really just when things started to diverge, and it took some time for notable linguistic differences to show up in texts. That's the beginning of Old or sometimes Middle Russian, and for many linguists, the beginning of "Russian" as a useful term we can apply to the past.

>>3381577
In Russian, there's a distinction between drevnerusskij and starorusskij "Ancient/Classical Russian" and "Old Russian", and while they correspond to Old East Slavic and Old Russian in the way they're used, the first term has the pernicious effect of erasing the history and heritage of Belarus and Ukraine and propping up some really nasty linguistic and cultural narratives denigrating non-Russian East Slavs.
So, the short of it is, yes, there were Rus' before the Mongols, and we refer to them as Rus' because it is both not helpful and also harmful to refer to them as Russian.

Kiev Rus /=/ Russia

>>3381558
I always considered Rurikids inheritance system to be particularly autistic, it is as if it was designed with a sole purpose to fuck the country up
English wikipedia calls it a case of agnatic seniority inheritance, but it was more complicated than that and the princes was constantly chanhing their titles and seats durring their life

>>3380899
Ukrainians larping as cossacks are the same as Turks larping as Varangian guard. For most of the part.
>>3381087
Ah yes, Muscovities claiming "Russia" as it's name means that they were truly those Russians/Kievan Rus/whatever from 8thC. Just like 16thC Prussians were the same as 10ThC Prussians, just like modern Macedonians are the same as Alexander's Macedonians, etc.

File: 1473847201566.png (6KB, 846x48px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 846x48px

>>3381003
>German is a culture (arguably)
What is this? Are all Czechs this butthurt 72 years after the war?

>>3381480
>Not the same thing
The direct predecessor, also a country of Germans.

>By the middle of the 10th century, the kingdom had become usually referred to as Kingdom of Germany or the Holy Roman Empire, therefore making it the earliest stage in the development of the modern German state.

>The east–west division, enforced by the German-Latin language split, "gradually hardened into the establishment of separate kingdoms",[2] with East Francia becoming the Kingdom of Germany and West Francia the Kingdom of France.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Francia

>>3381598
More on this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rota_system

File: liberation of Czechoslovakia and dead Kraut.png (1MB, 773x807px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 773x807px

>>3381642
Are you?
Literally the only reason why did G*rms of all kinds united is that they hated the Whites more than they hated each other.

>>3381705
You're the same guy that celebrated the Prerov massacre yesterday, aren't you?

>>3381711
You're the same guy that thinks having any type of name makes you a Jew, aren't you?

>>3381719
No, that was a Stormfag that joined the thread later.

>>3381139
Bulgaria became Christian in 864 AD and by the end of the century the population was more or less what modern bulgarians are, a mixture of Slavs, Thracians and Bulgars all being orthodox christians. The date given is the date at which the Danube Bulgaria was recognized by the Byzantine Empire, after the battle of Ongal in 680 AD

>>3381719
>>3381726
Anyway, why do you hate Germans so much?

>>3381738
Not him. They're all opressive monkeys.

>>3381750
>They're all opressive monkeys.
Are you serious?
Genuine question, it's difficult to separate memes from honest opinions sometimes.

>>3381783
spain is a thing since 460-70

File: history of Spain.png (442KB, 1205x827px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1205x827px

>>3381823
it's not. stop we-wuzing. spaniards have nothing to do with goths

>>3381577
>'Russian' and what would become 'Ruthenian' (i.e., Belarusian and Ukrainian).
Ruthenia is one of the Latin names for Rus' along with Russe, Ruscia, Rucia, Rus(s)i, Rus(s)ia.
Saying Russians are not Ruthenians is a clear fallacy here.
In 1844 Karl Ernst Claus named new chemical element Ruthenium
thinking Ruthenia is the right Latin name for Russia.
All people of Rus' (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus) used the same words to distinguish themselves:
rusin [singular male]
rusinka [singular female]
rus' [plural]
russkie (lyudi) - rus' (people) [adjectice form]
>Old Russian
Is it a surprise for you that language changes over time?
>equally diagnostic of all the modern East Slavic languages (Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian).
But only Russian language has uninterrupted history. In Ukraine and Belarus written language was replaced by Polish while oral language didn't exist as one, only as few groups of dialects.
> who was writing the chronicles
Most of population from South fled to North
after Mongolian invasion.
Chronicles were written in Church Slavonic and it was the base for Russian literature language, but not for Ukrainian.
Most ancient chronicles were from Novgorod and later rewritten in Kiev.

>>3381838
>Kingdom that dominates the iberian peninsula
>Roman catholic that speaks a branch of latin
>Gets ass kicked back to Asturias
>Reforms into Asturian kingdom
>Begings reconquista of the lost territory commanded by visigoth nobility
>Creates Leon and Castille
>They eventually come together again under Castille
>Castille gets an union with Aragon (another post visigoth-frankish territory)
>Somehow visigothic iberia is not Spain

>>3381738
Not him but you're dirty subhumans that should put to death

>>3381880
Why? What makes you think that? What wrong did I do you?

Would a subhuman create something like this? What are you if this is a subhuman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3l18HTo5rY

Why do you talk this kind of shit as an adult (which I assume you are)?

>>3381783

Germany is 1871. HRE=/=Germany anymore than the Roman Empire 'is' Italy.

Spain in 1516. Or 507 or 1715 if you sperg. But 1479 makes no sense.

I don't know about France, but in 481 Clovis didn't even control a quarter of France. Implying he was "French", lel. I'd say France began with the Capet dinasty, being generous.

>>3380767
It's the year Harald Hairfair united Norway, as it's written in the sagas.

>>3381578
For Russian people Russia and Rus' are synonyms.
But Rus' is ancient exalted form and should be used on special occasions and in poetry.

Famous poetry from 19th century by Nekrasov
Who Is Happy in Russia?
Komu na Rusi zhit khorosho?

>>3381838
t. pablo iglesias

>>3381838
You are the kind of guy that says byzantium is not the roman empire right?

File: 2000px-Red_Zone_Map-fr.svg.png (441KB, 2000x1341px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 2000x1341px

>>3381908
You must still be put to death for the damage done to my country


>>3381912
>Spain 507
>France 900
>Germany 1800

Pablo pls

Your country was created by the French Bourbon, your country started around 1600-1700 and i'm being generous

>>3381951
>You must still be put to death for the damage done to my country
I didn't do shit to your country, neither did any of my ancestors. In fact, the absolute majority of Germans and their ancestors did nothing to your country. Is it hard to grasp that the fact that the Nazis were Germans doesn't make all Germans guilty?

>>3381973
>Is it hard to grasp that the fact that the Nazis were Germans doesn't make all Germans guilty?
Germans knew about the camps. Germans also used people from the east as slave-work and treated them like shit.

>>3381951
not him but france was a desentraliced land with ducats doing their own things until the monarchy started centralising while the spanish were centralised long ago

>>3382004
>Germans knew about the camps.
Yes they did. What would you have done against it?
See what happened if you spread anti-Nazi leaflets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

>Germans also used people from the east as slave-work and treated them like shit.
That was a decision made by the Nazi government, you can't blame that on the entire population.

Still, what the fuck did I do to you that you spout that hatred 72 years later? What's your fucking problem?

>>3382004
I don't get why 'they knew about the camps' somehow passes as an argument in the minds of these morons. What are they supposed to do? Break rank, take out their superiors in a mutiny, and escort the 'undesirables' out of the country across hundreds of clicks into hostile territory? (You) know about the current ongoing shit in Burma, why haven't (You) done anything about it, why haven't (You) bought a plane ticket there to help escort Muslims out of the country? Because it's too far? Because it doesn't affect you personally? Because you simply don't give a shit? Because you have a bias against Muslims? It's essentially the same thing.

>>3381973
>Nazis

I don't care about the Nazis, but since you mention them you must also pay for their crimes too

This polish date is not very precise, I guess safest way out is just using 966 (date of the baptism)

>>3382040
>you must also pay for their crimes too
Why? I didn't commit these crimes.

Are you just trolling or are you serious?

File: Karma.png (45KB, 1116x372px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1116x372px

>>3382075
It is only natural to pay after killing so much people, your karma is EXTREMELY DARK

File: 1505406399754.png (83KB, 1236x1245px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1236x1245px

Look I know it's autistic but I didn't want us left out of the oldboyz club.

>>3382094
I, and more than 99,99% of Germans living today, did absolutely nothing of these crimes you're referring to. Even at the peak of Nazi terror reign most Germans did not take part in the crimes.
The people that did are to be held responsible, which was unfortunately neglected in the first years after WW2, but I as a German and the people of Germany do not bear responsibility for the actions of other Germans from 72+ years ago.
Get that through your thick skull, in case you're not shitposting the entire time.

>>3382112
he's a shitposter from /v/, did the stupid fucking FO4 image not give him away? Don't even bother responding next time.

That feel when my country has a continuity centuries older than any of it's closest neighbors

>>3380847
>Romania appeared first in 1600

You mean "Wallachia"

The name "Romania" as a political entity started to exist in 1862

>>3382119
Not familiar with /v/, and there are quite a few people on /his/ posting that kind of shit, it's annoying. Anyway, you're probably right.

File: 528.jpg (171KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1136x640px

>>3382119
shhhhhhhhhhh you're ruining my fun

There is nothing funnier than a guilt-filled German

>>3382141
fuck off baguette, shouldn't you be Je suis monte! Pardon...ing a room, ruining it for everyone?

>>3382141
>guilt-filled German
Where, in this thread?

File: 1505387281071.png (87KB, 1236x1245px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1236x1245px

ITT: delusional poltard wewuzzers

>>3382183
keked, this one is the most accurate of them all

>>3381384
Btw this is the latest updated version.

File: 71285.gif (995KB, 500x278px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 500x278px

>>3382183

>>3382183
Turkey had like 6 coups in 50 years, you should change it.

>>3380650
Bait map

>>3382183
Ireland should be either 1922 or 1937
Denmark and Sweden are obviously wrong, consider the Kalmar Union at the very least

>>3380650
France was founded in 600 BC by Ambigatos

>>3382183

>changes in governments or political regimes

>The same as the continuity of a state

keked hard

>>3382183
>regime = nation
Double digit IQ confirmed. Back to .>>>/bant/ with you.

>>3382112
Not them, but you should check how debts work.

>>3382045
Stop this this nonsense.
Modern Poland has nothing common with medieval Poland except the name.
And they just stole it.
The correct year is 1918.

>>3380650
>croatia 925
croatia became a kingdom in 925, state much sooner. Also serbia didn't exist in 780

>>3382300
>Modern Poland has nothing common with medieval Poland
Except language and the same land inhabited by Poles 1000 years ago.

>>3382304
A kingdom and a state is virtually the same thing

>>3382300
What? With Poland it's pretty clear. By the 10th century the nation was already formed.

>>3382308
no since the point of this thread is "formation of european countries" and it shows Croatia as 925 and serbia 780 but serbia became a knigdom in 13th century or some shit

File: eternal kraut strikes again.jpg (193KB, 1377x675px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1377x675px

>>3382300
WE

how is serbia formed in 780?

>>3382358
OP is retarded

File: poland1370small.gif (5KB, 277x209px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 277x209px

>>3382306
>same land
>language didn't change over 1000 years.

File: 243.png (33KB, 899x547px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 899x547px

>>3382330
>nation was already formed
Proofs?

File: 1477071542366.jpg (623KB, 1000x987px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 1000x987px

>>3382421
?

File: Rzeczpospolita_Rozbiory_3.png (436KB, 1024x842px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1024x842px

>>3382437
>Claimed lands, but didn't control them.
What does it prove?

File: 1000AD.jpg (563KB, 1600x1143px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 1600x1143px

>>3382490
Hmmm?

SPAIN DATES BACK TO 470 WE WUZ GERMANS AND SHIEEET DEFENDERS OF RELIGION AND FAITH THIS MAP IS A DISGRACE

>>3380650
Croatia was estsblished much sooner then that

>>3382499
>Pomerania
>Starting in the 10th century, early Polish dukes on several occasions subdued parts of the region from the southeast,
>while the Holy Roman Empire and Denmark augmented their territory from the west and north.
Also please tell me why Silesia didn't stay with Mother Poland, but preferred to be a part of Czechia.

>>3382672
Nice try. I won't respond seriously to that bait.

File: Capture.png (32KB, 796x597px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 796x597px

>>3382499
>subhuman try to create a divide into France and Francia

Try harder anglo faggot subhuman