Altered Maps 3: The rise of the Basque Empire!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah! Nigeria should annex Togo and Benin because of all the ethnic Yoruba in both countries. :mischief:

There's no "Yoruba" state.

How different is Belarussian to Russian?

It's roughly something between polish and russian. The origins of the language are the same as russian, ukrainian and rusyn, that is - ruthenian, but they were under heaaavy influence of polish culture, and, unlike in the Ukrainian case, there wasn't really any opposition to it.

It's completely understandable for Poles, I guess on the same level as Slovakian, perhaps a bit less.
 
Wrong thread btw, use this thread this thread is for altered maps.

Good God is that hypocritical; you've taken up 85% of this thread with your Poland-jacking. How is that part of "altered maps"?

The presence of germanic tribes in Silesia is a hypothese, not a fact.
Anyway, the nation of Germans do not descend from these germanic tribes anyway, while Poles descend from these slavic tribes that've settled in this area.

We do not have any direct knowledge about Silesia belonging to Moravia and to Czechs before Poland. We know that Krakow did belong to Moravia, and it is assumed that if Krakow did, probably the road to it through Moravian Gate belonged to them as well. It's probable, but there are also roads through Slovakia, so it's not certain. And it's only about Upper Silesia anyway.

The same, there are no infortmation on that Silesia belonged to Czechs, apart that there was a conflict between Czechs and Poland when Poland conquered what would later become Silesia, and that some later czech bishop claimed Silesia and Minor Poland as part of Prague Bishopric. The second thing is really far-stretched. The first thing, again, is probable, but not sure, especially since the tribes of Silesia may have been simply allies of Czechs, or that the conflict occured when Poles reached Czech borders south to Silesia.

This is nearly entirely nonsense. The presence of Germanic tribes in Silesia is as close to fact as you can get for anything in the BCs. This isn't even linguistically based; it's based on pottery excavations.

As for Silesia belonging to the "Czechs", it's simply fact that it belonged to Bohemia and Moravia in the 1500s and beforehand. If you want to argue the kingdom of Poland had it some time before then, then go ahead; my knowledge of that time is not terribly good. But before then, it belonged to Germanic tribes.
 
This is nearly entirely nonsense. The presence of Germanic tribes in Silesia is as close to fact as you can get for anything in the BCs. This isn't even linguistically based; it's based on pottery excavations.

Pottery excavations show existance of some culture. But association of that culture with some specific tribe or language is a very different topic. Germans associate them with germanic, Poles with slavic etc.

As for Silesia belonging to the "Czechs", it's simply fact that it belonged to Bohemia and Moravia in the 1500s and beforehand. If you want to argue the kingdom of Poland had it some time before then, then go ahead; my knowledge of that time is not terribly good. But before then, it belonged to Germanic tribes.

Your knowledge of these matters isn't good overall. Silesia belonged to Poland from late X century to half of XIV century. Polish throne was, since late XIII century, claimed by czech Przemyslid dinasty, which was strenghtened by the marriage with the only child (daughter) of king Przemyslaw II, who was assassinated by Brandenburgians in 1296. Waclaw II became the next king of Poland then, but his son, before coronation even, was assassinated, which resulted in a prolonged war of succession. Most of silesian dukes sooner or later under more or less pressure supported the Luxembourg candidature to polish throne, because they, being heirs to Przemyslids, considered themselves heirs to polish throne. But they didn't manage to conquer Poland, and eventually kept only Silesia as the vassals of their "Kingdom of Poland", which eventually led to acceptance of polish crown of Casimir the Great in 1335 or so (I may be wrong), while Silesia was transphered from polish to czech kingdom. Later that was disputed and 1372 it was reaffirmed.
Poland continued to hold some bigger and smaller parts of Silesia for longer and shorter times.
 
Pottery excavations show existance of some culture. But association of that culture with some specific tribe or language is a very different topic. Germans associate them with germanic, Poles with slavic etc.
You can associate them with the Germanic tribes though, since, you know, you can correlate the pottery with other Germanic areas and stuff.



Of course before that Silesia was owned by non-indo-european tribes, so don't talk about the "original" owners, kay?
 
Ostpreussen, Pommern, and Bresslau are bad and should feel bad.

Those areas are mostly Polish now, they, well, the Russians, kicked all the Germans out.

Which was the point of me posting it... ;)
 
You can associate them with the Germanic tribes though, since, you know, you can correlate the pottery with other Germanic areas and stuff

You can, but it'd still be unsure, and I doubt it was ever done in an unbiased way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples

Here, Przeworsk culture is associated with Slavs, not Germans. And it's wikipedia too, equally worthless.

Of course before that Silesia was owned by non-indo-european tribes, so don't talk about the "original" owners, kay?

The first historical and sure owners of Silesia are Slavs, and that is the culture that survives until today.
It's not me who's started all this dispute.
 
Squonk said:
You can, but it'd still be unsure, and I doubt it was ever done in an unbiased way.
Unbiased means "not made by nationalist eastern europeans" (to be fair that's redundant)

Squonk said:
Here, Przeworsk culture is associated with Slavs, not Germans
And there's "hypothesis" that the Bulgars were indo-european and that Rus' was originally a slavic ethnonym. Doesn't make either of these hypothesis any more credible. Less credible because they're made with a nationalistic bent.

Squonk said:
The first historical and sure owners of Silesia are Slavs, and that is the culture that survives until today.
Not the first ones, and hardly the same people. Ethnic nationalism didn't even come into being until the nineteenth century or so.
 
Unbiased means "not made by nationalist eastern europeans" (to be fair that's redundant)

Including German, however

And there's "hypothesis" that the Bulgars were indo-european and that Rus' was originally a slavic ethnonym.

Nobody believes in the first thing today, and in the second - nobody but Russians.

Doesn't make either of these hypothesis any more credible. Less credible because they're made with a nationalistic bent.

As if german hypothesis that germanic tribes were inhabiting these lands before Slavs had any less nationalistic bent than slavic hypothesis that they did not.

Not the first ones, and hardly the same people. Ethnic nationalism didn't even come into being until the nineteenth century or so.

yes, the first sure. I didn't say a nation. I've said a culture, which, of course, evoluates
 
Squonk said:
Including German, however
Germans haven't been nationalistic for the past 60 years. The whole WW2 thing kinda killed that, and they're not even as remotely moronic as you Eastern Europeans.

Squonk said:
As if german hypothesis that germanic tribes were inhabiting these lands before Slavs had any less nationalistic bent than slavic hypothesis that they did not.
Well sure, because the Germanic tribes are not the same thing as Germans. You're dealing with migratory peoples here, anyway.
 
How different is Belarussian to Russian?

Not to different, similar to the difference to lets say a danish person and a swede. Those are ethnic belarussians which are a minority in Belarus. Comparing Slavs to Germanic equivalents won't work out to well but Belorussian to Polish is roughly Danish to German as we influenced them alot.

Some part of my family that used to own a huge factory in Moscow (before the Soveits kicked them out, imprisoned them and sent them to some part of siberia) lived in Belarus and were quite wealthy. The descendents of them i've met around 6 years ago, and the interesting thing is, they speak English at home, because their polish and russian were not good enough to communicate with each other.

Good God is that hypocritical; you've taken up 85% of this thread with your Poland-jacking. How is that part of "altered maps"?

Because it was direct conversation resulting from maps, this convo is carried on from another thread.
 
Germans haven't been nationalistic for the past 60 years. The whole WW2 thing kinda killed that, and they're not even as remotely moronic as you Eastern Europeans.

Why you picking on Poles for being nationalistic because people we have no association with to the far south of us hate each other and are uber-nationalistic? Generalization more than anything. Only time i see poles being somewhat nationalistic is when they go under the attack of some ignorant westerner.
 
Why you picking on Poles for being nationalistic because people we have no association with to the far south of us hate each other and are uber-nationalistic? Generalization more than anything. Only time i see poles being somewhat nationalistic is when they go under the attack of some ignorant westerner.

Because you're nationalistic too? A nationalist party is mainstream in your country?
 
Germans haven't been nationalistic for the past 60 years. The whole WW2 thing kinda killed that, and they're not even as remotely moronic as you Eastern Europeans.

But Germans repeat the stance of german historiography from before ww2.
Many Germans are nationalistic today as well, as shown by attitude towards Poles and other minorities, and successes of NPD.
 
But Germans repeat the stance of german historiography from before ww2.
Uh, what? German historiography has gone through several phases, from that Sonderweg horsedroppings to what we have today. I'm unaware of strong ethnic-nationalistic viewpoints being seriously accepted.
 
I think when comes to nationalism Serbians are much worse then pulls bring up anything and Serbs are the best or have the best thing.
 
At the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure this past weekend, we spent a long time waiting for a member of the Serbian royal family in exile to finish up a speech on how Serbia was an invaluable partner in the fight against breast cancer. Took a long time before we actually got to run. Pissed me off. Biden's talk was shorter and to the point, at least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom