Moderator Action: Posts like these don't meet the RD standard. This is a warning. Further spam / troll posts will earn their author a ban.
A refresher:
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
The Concepts of Eastern and Western Europe
- Thread starter Domen
- Start date
Moderator Action: Posts like these don't meet the RD standard. This is a warning. Further spam / troll posts will earn their author a ban.
A refresher:
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Well, anyway. As I was saying, Britain is part of the Western Europe. Culturally and politically.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Sweden must be also excluded from this "core" of Europe.lies Domen here is the centre of Europe
Here is what French nobleman - Charles Ogier - wrote about Swedish conscripts in 1635:
"I had doubts if those were even humans, they were so feral, dirty, unkempt, entirely raggedy and barefoot. Most of them were just silly peasant juveniles. And those were the Swedes in question, who are being taken away from their fields and plows and forcefully conscripted to the army by the state."
So Sweden is also Barbaricum. Denmark too, because it was similar to Sweden.
If not the fact that this map above was made by English people, they would also count as Barbaricum.
So we are left with "true Europe" being roughly the same as the Frankish Empire APART from dependent areas (yellow):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Frankenreich_768-811.jpg
Spoiler :
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
"True Europe", if you're in the Medieval. We're out of that one for some 600 years. Give or take.
Since we're living in the bright modern times with the neon lights, we should reconsider where goes Europe, and if there's a "true" Europe at all.
Since we're living in the bright modern times with the neon lights, we should reconsider where goes Europe, and if there's a "true" Europe at all.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
But that map posted by Oruc was also about the Middle Ages (it seems so at least).
==========================================
But the same guy - Charles Ogier - wrote about Scottish mercenary infantry regiment under command of Robert Kunigham in Swedish service:
If you can imagine someone even poorer than "barefoot peasant juveniles"...
For some reason Britain always opposed Western European policies of French or German Empires. So how can it be "politically" part of Western Europe?
Feudalism in Britain was totally different to that in France or Germany. Law has also been totally different. So what culture are we talking about?
==========================================
But the same guy - Charles Ogier - wrote about Scottish mercenary infantry regiment under command of Robert Kunigham in Swedish service:
If you can imagine someone even poorer than "barefoot peasant juveniles"...
For some reason Britain always opposed Western European policies of French or German Empires. So how can it be "politically" part of Western Europe?
Feudalism in Britain was totally different to that in France or Germany. Law has also been totally different. So what culture are we talking about?
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Well, I realize the futility of attempting a discussion on this topic with all the usual thread-killers present, but well, I need to procrastinate with something...
All the three you mentioned are by-products of the 40-year long period of their Communist past. Moreover, they're not even factually correct, as I will show below. I'd just remind people that 40 years is *nothing* in terms of the overall history of the countries now branded "eastern Europe"—why should these 40 years continue to define them, even when Communism is long gone?
And what's important here - the immigration itself, or the minority issues it creates?
Western European countries, let's call them the "old West" for the sake of humour, face their issues with Muslim minorities; Central Europeans have issues with their minorities (the Roma). Both suck at solving these problems.
As for immigration, the experience is building up. Right now, Czechia has a net (im)migration rate higher than Germany and Finland, and in bears comparison to countries like Belgium or Switzerland. It is very likely that in the next 25 years, Central Europe will become major recipient of immigrants, especially from Europe's eastern fringes.
And speaking as a Czech, pretty much every school class in Prague and Brno these days include kids belonging to visible minorities, usually the Vietnamese or children of foreigners living in this country. The days when you could walk around Brno for weeks without seeing a single non-white face are long, long gone.
You've clearly never been to the Czech Republic, which probably ranks among the most socialist in Europe
What I mean to say here is hard to prove (but I invite you to Google GINI coefficients and other markers of neoliberal economic policies), but the "knee-jerk" reaction to Communism—the turning to the neoliberal economic dogma— the old Westerners sometimes imagine simply does not exist; definitely not as a defining trait.
I'd say it is the other way round: the communist era instilled in the culture a sort of communitarian outlook and a strong dedication to equality (and equally strong disgust of the political elites who mismanaged it all), including gender equality. Countries like Czechia now have one of the lowest poverty rates and lowest income inequality as well as very good access to basic services. In this they are often much closer to Scandinavia or the old West part of continental Europe than to the supposedly economically liberal economies of the anglo-saxon world.
As you can see, new EU member states are there on both ends of the spectrum
As for the pro-American outlook, this also differers from country to country. In Czechia, the public is mostly America-sceptic and opposes too much American presence, especially military. Poland is different, as well as the Baltics; but one has to appreciate why—the threats to their security are much higher and the US is seen as the best bet to boost their chances for long-term safety and security.
BUT, Poland and other Central European countries (perhaps with the exception of Czechia now) are firmly pro-European as well, so the notion of Rumsfeldian "New Europe" sticking with America against the "Old Europe" has absolutely not materialized.
One common feature among Central European countries is their strong tendency to reject totalitarianism and authoritarian rule, because those are associated with their unfree past. Where the old Western countries may be more lukewarm on stressing the values of political liberty, Central European politicians will accentuate them, especially when speaking about countries they deem culturally related, i.e. Russia, Belarus, Ukraine.
And right now, the old West Europe is starting to notice, with a great deal of unease, that those "anti-Russian" "easterners" may have been right about Putin all along.
But again, this stereotype has holes in it. Some old West European countries are also pretty Russia-sceptic (Sweden to name just one) and some Central European countries are rather open to Russia at times (Hungary and at times Slovakia).
Nothing is really as clear cut as the promoters of the West-East dichotomy would have us believe. The reality is much more fuzzy and complicated, which is to be expected. Why? Well, because we're merging together. What you have now is not an Iron Curtain-like difference, but rather a spectrum of transitions between the "old West" and the "old East".
Former divisions no longer apply or are much diminished. Older ties, cultural and economic and political, are re-emerging. The term "Eastern Europe" in the sense media use it cannot cope with this at all, it is an anachronism belonging to an era which ended 25 years ago.
Personally, I think the following map (made by the Germans) describes it pretty well:
All the three you mentioned are by-products of the 40-year long period of their Communist past. Moreover, they're not even factually correct, as I will show below. I'd just remind people that 40 years is *nothing* in terms of the overall history of the countries now branded "eastern Europe"—why should these 40 years continue to define them, even when Communism is long gone?
And what's important here - the immigration itself, or the minority issues it creates?
Western European countries, let's call them the "old West" for the sake of humour, face their issues with Muslim minorities; Central Europeans have issues with their minorities (the Roma). Both suck at solving these problems.
As for immigration, the experience is building up. Right now, Czechia has a net (im)migration rate higher than Germany and Finland, and in bears comparison to countries like Belgium or Switzerland. It is very likely that in the next 25 years, Central Europe will become major recipient of immigrants, especially from Europe's eastern fringes.
And speaking as a Czech, pretty much every school class in Prague and Brno these days include kids belonging to visible minorities, usually the Vietnamese or children of foreigners living in this country. The days when you could walk around Brno for weeks without seeing a single non-white face are long, long gone.
You've clearly never been to the Czech Republic, which probably ranks among the most socialist in Europe
What I mean to say here is hard to prove (but I invite you to Google GINI coefficients and other markers of neoliberal economic policies), but the "knee-jerk" reaction to Communism—the turning to the neoliberal economic dogma— the old Westerners sometimes imagine simply does not exist; definitely not as a defining trait. I'd say it is the other way round: the communist era instilled in the culture a sort of communitarian outlook and a strong dedication to equality (and equally strong disgust of the political elites who mismanaged it all), including gender equality. Countries like Czechia now have one of the lowest poverty rates and lowest income inequality as well as very good access to basic services. In this they are often much closer to Scandinavia or the old West part of continental Europe than to the supposedly economically liberal economies of the anglo-saxon world.
As you can see, new EU member states are there on both ends of the spectrum
As for the pro-American outlook, this also differers from country to country. In Czechia, the public is mostly America-sceptic and opposes too much American presence, especially military. Poland is different, as well as the Baltics; but one has to appreciate why—the threats to their security are much higher and the US is seen as the best bet to boost their chances for long-term safety and security.
BUT, Poland and other Central European countries (perhaps with the exception of Czechia now) are firmly pro-European as well, so the notion of Rumsfeldian "New Europe" sticking with America against the "Old Europe" has absolutely not materialized.
One common feature among Central European countries is their strong tendency to reject totalitarianism and authoritarian rule, because those are associated with their unfree past. Where the old Western countries may be more lukewarm on stressing the values of political liberty, Central European politicians will accentuate them, especially when speaking about countries they deem culturally related, i.e. Russia, Belarus, Ukraine.
And right now, the old West Europe is starting to notice, with a great deal of unease, that those "anti-Russian" "easterners" may have been right about Putin all along.
But again, this stereotype has holes in it. Some old West European countries are also pretty Russia-sceptic (Sweden to name just one) and some Central European countries are rather open to Russia at times (Hungary and at times Slovakia).
Nothing is really as clear cut as the promoters of the West-East dichotomy would have us believe. The reality is much more fuzzy and complicated, which is to be expected. Why? Well, because we're merging together. What you have now is not an Iron Curtain-like difference, but rather a spectrum of transitions between the "old West" and the "old East".
Former divisions no longer apply or are much diminished. Older ties, cultural and economic and political, are re-emerging. The term "Eastern Europe" in the sense media use it cannot cope with this at all, it is an anachronism belonging to an era which ended 25 years ago.
Personally, I think the following map (made by the Germans) describes it pretty well:
It is always good to read that what is going on now will matter much in a decade or so. I mean iirc in the end of the 90s there was the popular notion of "the end of history".
That worked really great too. See you in the next chapter
That worked really great too. See you in the next chapter
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
Being politically part of Western Europe does not entail a lack of disagreement. Poland-Lithuania was politically party of Central/Eastern Europe too even though repeatedly rolled all over by its neighbours.
Norman invasion.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
What do you mean by "repeatedly" ??? List these repeated instances.
And no, when rolled over by neighbours, it was already a Russian protectorate.
Feudalism was different in Britain after the Norman invasion.
In Britain there was rule "vassal of my vassal is also my vassal".
In France and the HRE there was rule "vassal of my vassal is not my vassal".
Depends which period are you talking about, for example in the 1500s Poland was considered a major centre of culture, civilization and science. It also spread the Renaissance into other countries of the region.
Sweden at that time (1500s and 1600s) was considered a barbarian backwater.
Greece in the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, 2000s has been considered a backwater.
And no, when rolled over by neighbours, it was already a Russian protectorate.
Feudalism was different in Britain after the Norman invasion.
In Britain there was rule "vassal of my vassal is also my vassal".
In France and the HRE there was rule "vassal of my vassal is not my vassal".
Kyriakos said:
Depends which period are you talking about, for example in the 1500s Poland was considered a major centre of culture, civilization and science. It also spread the Renaissance into other countries of the region.
Sweden at that time (1500s and 1600s) was considered a barbarian backwater.
Greece in the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, 2000s has been considered a backwater.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
For those interested in how much progress the former "eastern Europe" has done since joining the EU a decade ago in 2004, I recommend this exhaustive report.
Spoiler :
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
And when it comes specifically to Poland, check this (some data from Marcin Piątkowski's 2013 study "Poland's New Golden Age" - in English):
"(...) In 2012 Poland’s GDP was almost 20 percent higher than at the beginning of the crisis, a peerless performance among all EU 27 countries (Figure 4)."
"(...) Strong performance during the crisis helped Poland become the star performer among all transition economies. Its GDP per capita has doubled since 1989, performance partially matched by the Slovak Republic and Estonia only. Poland’s economic growth was also faster than in any other country on the continent, becoming Europe’s growth champion (Figure 5)."
In reality Poland's GDP growth between 1989 and 2012 (see above) has been achieved entirely in period 1992 - 2012.
This is because in 1989 - 1992 Polish GDP actually declined by 15%, and only since 1992 it started to grow, by 2012 reaching 200% of 1989 level.
In 1992 country's economy was tragic as illustrated by songs from that period (e.g. "Jeszcze Polska" by Kazik).
In 1989 Polish GDP per capita was 35% of old EU average (other estimates: 29% and 36%), while in 1992 Polish GDP per capita was no more than 28% of Western European average. In 2007 - already 50% of Western European average and in 2012 - 61%:
"(...) As a result of this impressive economic performance, Poland’s income per capita in 2012 reached 61 percent of that in Western Europe (euro zone-17), more than doubling from 28 percent in 1992. (...)"
And:
"(...) This implies that in just twenty years Poland has managed to offset almost 350 years of economic decline, an unprecedented achievement comparable to the economic success of only some Asian economies such as Japan, Korea and China. (...)"
Let's also add that GDP per capita is not the only indicator of living standards in Poland, as Piątkowski notices:
Check also my graph below:
According to predictions by Wójtowicz & Wójtowicz (2009) Poland will reach average Western European (old 15 EU members) GDP per capita by 2044.
"(...) In 2012 Poland’s GDP was almost 20 percent higher than at the beginning of the crisis, a peerless performance among all EU 27 countries (Figure 4)."
"(...) Strong performance during the crisis helped Poland become the star performer among all transition economies. Its GDP per capita has doubled since 1989, performance partially matched by the Slovak Republic and Estonia only. Poland’s economic growth was also faster than in any other country on the continent, becoming Europe’s growth champion (Figure 5)."
In reality Poland's GDP growth between 1989 and 2012 (see above) has been achieved entirely in period 1992 - 2012.
This is because in 1989 - 1992 Polish GDP actually declined by 15%, and only since 1992 it started to grow, by 2012 reaching 200% of 1989 level.
In 1992 country's economy was tragic as illustrated by songs from that period (e.g. "Jeszcze Polska" by Kazik).
In 1989 Polish GDP per capita was 35% of old EU average (other estimates: 29% and 36%), while in 1992 Polish GDP per capita was no more than 28% of Western European average. In 2007 - already 50% of Western European average and in 2012 - 61%:
"(...) As a result of this impressive economic performance, Poland’s income per capita in 2012 reached 61 percent of that in Western Europe (euro zone-17), more than doubling from 28 percent in 1992. (...)"
And:
"(...) This implies that in just twenty years Poland has managed to offset almost 350 years of economic decline, an unprecedented achievement comparable to the economic success of only some Asian economies such as Japan, Korea and China. (...)"
Let's also add that GDP per capita is not the only indicator of living standards in Poland, as Piątkowski notices:
Check also my graph below:
According to predictions by Wójtowicz & Wójtowicz (2009) Poland will reach average Western European (old 15 EU members) GDP per capita by 2044.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Because Communism definitely has a major influence on current realities in Eastern Europe it doesn't have in Western Europe.
I would agree with this. However, the Communist legacy is still visible to some extent.
In actual practice, Western European countries (i.e. Germany, Netherlands, Sweden) are actually more economically libertarian in a regulatory sense than most Eastern European countries and that the deference towards economic libertarianism is largely ideological. However, in that department, left-wing parties in Eastern Europe are more sometimes more Libertarian than the right-wing parties, Hungary being conspicious example. Overall, Eastern European states have almost universally have less generous welfare states then Western European states.
Besides, to Roma apply different circumstances than to Muslims in Western Europe. Roma live out of town, Muslims live in the big cities. Roma have been a political issue for ages. Muslims only since the 1970s.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
I don't think that they were so much an issue before the 19th or 20th centuries.
Barbaricum usually refers to barbarians. Most of the time it is tied to the Roman Empire and euro stuff outside of it. Barbarian dates further back.
Not sure why you try to antagonise in your own RD thread, but maybe it is not a good idea
Not sure why you try to antagonise in your own RD thread, but maybe it is not a good idea
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Nobody is saying Communism has had no influence and that its legacy is now completely gone. In fact, the shared experience with Communism has indeed become a sort of bonding topic among people from countries which have it.
But it shouldn't be overstated or—which I feel is the issue here—be considered as the chief defining feature of CE countries. It's not. Current realities in countries like Czech Rep., Poland, Slovenia, etc. are shaped by contemporary issues. The lasting legacy of Communism is their overall lower level of development. BUT, you need to keep in mind that income levels and the overall quality of life differs wildly between individual post-Communist countries — on one hand you have countries such as Slovenia and Czechia which are in fact better off than some of the "old EU" countries and their living standards are comparable in all major features to what people in Germany have, on the other hand you have basket cases such as Moldova or Albania. Putting these disparate countries with wildly different individual histories under one term, "eastern Europe", and suggesting they have, because of the shared experience with Communism, more common with each other than the individual post-Communist countries may have in common with individual non-post-Communist countries, is simply foolish; it creates an imagined reality which has nothing to do with the real state of things.
That's why I hate the term; it makes people think about this part of the world in wrong ways.
By what metric? I am pretty sure that in relative terms (i.e. taking into consideration the overall lower income level) the Czech welfare system is equally or more generous than welfare systems in the old West. This applies to other services as well: in England, you get nose-deep into debt if you want to get a higher education; in Czechia, higher education is free.
Umm, no. There are places in many cities in the Czech Rep. which look very similar to poorer immigrant neighbourhoods in France or England. Many of the social issues and cultural clashes countries like France or the Netherlands experience with the Muslims are very similar to those involving the Roma here.
Sure, there are differences, but what I am trying to say is that minority issues are not unknown in the "other" part of Europe.
And again, immigration is on the rise and is likely to speed up as CE countries achieve higher living standards and create the sort of incentives for the immigrants to seek. I don't think that this source of difference from the old West is going to last for very long.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
I wasn't trying to antagonise. I assumed that you were just going to agree with me!
======================================================
BTW - why do we even need Eastern Europe if:
"Asia starts behind the Elbe River" - Konrad Adenauer
But he forgot to mention on which side of the Elbe River it starts.
I wasn't trying to antagonise. I assumed that you were just going to agree with me!
I never can agree with deutero-slavs. Merely proto-slavs and third-romans
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
By Proto-Slavs you mean Macedonians, I presume.
BTW - Third Romans are more like Second Constantinopolitans.
===========================================
Proto-Slavs were Scytho-Sarmatians of Ukraine, but not nomadic south-eastern tribes of Scythians - rather northern tribes, who were farmers:
http://www.livius.org/people/scythians-sacae/
Note that Sarmatians (who came from areas around the Caspian Sea) conquered Scythians and assimilated into them - forming Scytho-Sarmatians.
This can explain why there are over 30 words of Sarmatian origin in Slavic languages.
And these over 30 Sarmatian words are almost all related to culture, religion and spirituality.
Later Huns destroyed Scytho-Sarmatian in the steppe zone. Remnants of steppe zone nomads escaped to neighbouring forest-steppe zone farmers.
Physical appearance of Scythians and Sarmatians:
Link to video.
Note that Ancient Scythians and Sarmatians were mostly mesocephalic - just like Early Medieval Slavs, but unlike dolichocephalic Scandinavians.
Check also this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=524794
================================================
Sarmatian language was of course one of Iranian languages. However, I don't think that the original Scythian language was Iranian.
Today the only surviving language closely related to Ancient Sarmatian, is the language spoken by Ossetians of the Caucasus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetian_language
BTW - Third Romans are more like Second Constantinopolitans.
===========================================
Proto-Slavs were Scytho-Sarmatians of Ukraine, but not nomadic south-eastern tribes of Scythians - rather northern tribes, who were farmers:
http://www.livius.org/people/scythians-sacae/
Note that Sarmatians (who came from areas around the Caspian Sea) conquered Scythians and assimilated into them - forming Scytho-Sarmatians.
This can explain why there are over 30 words of Sarmatian origin in Slavic languages.
And these over 30 Sarmatian words are almost all related to culture, religion and spirituality.
Later Huns destroyed Scytho-Sarmatian in the steppe zone. Remnants of steppe zone nomads escaped to neighbouring forest-steppe zone farmers.
Physical appearance of Scythians and Sarmatians:
Link to video.
Note that Ancient Scythians and Sarmatians were mostly mesocephalic - just like Early Medieval Slavs, but unlike dolichocephalic Scandinavians.
Check also this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=524794
================================================
Sarmatian language was of course one of Iranian languages. However, I don't think that the original Scythian language was Iranian.
Today the only surviving language closely related to Ancient Sarmatian, is the language spoken by Ossetians of the Caucasus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetian_language
Similar threads
