Ask a Ukrainian

[Aleksey_aka_al]

There's a cultural strata in South Russia (and wider than that) speaking a tongue which is closer to the typical Ukrainian language than the standard Russian, mostly small-town and village dwellers. They consider themselves Russian and they share the same identity which in the context of Ukraine would be called Ukrainian but is unnamed for its bearers here; they may call themselves "Khokhols"; historically this cultural strata is called Malorussky; Cossacks are part of it. There are also similar people in Ukraine who speak variety of tongues which are not proper Russian or Ukrainian and consider themselves Russian.

Originally, the modern Russian language and the associated identity (linked to Rossiya and historically called Velikorussky) came from the city and evolved with the city. While the Malorussian or Ukrainian were rural. Malorussky and Ukraine are two different views (and names) on mostly the same land and ethnicity.

If you go deeper than that, you'll find lots of tongue, culture and identity varieties of Russians. Which all cease and dissolve in Russia because of urbanization, standard education and mass media.

Ukrainians and Belarusians have not ceased because they became state, national entities, after the Soviet revolution, and remain that way. However, the modern Belarusian identity is very different from the Ukrainian one in how it treats its history and relation to Russia. Most Belarusians would agree that they are Russky in the general sense but not Rossiyane.

Modern Ukrainist ideologists and politicians work hard to separate everything Ukrainian from everything Russian. It started with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and became deeply nationalistic and absurd in the 00s during Yushenko, since they forced the ideas such as of genetical difference and ancient (up to prehistorical) origin of Ukraine. Pravy Sektor and people who shout of killing Muscovites are mostly of the generation which was educated in the 00s.

PS: My matriline grand parents are from Ukraine, so...

 

[Tahuti]

Well, some Ukrainians are considered 'Little Russians' aren't they?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Small Russia and Big Russia were terms similar to "Magna Graecia", with "Small" meaning the heart and the historical center of the Russian people. The term "Small Russia" originated within the population of Western Rus under a foreign rule.

 

[Snorrius]

Well, some Ukrainians are considered 'Little Russians' aren't they?

During Tsar Russia the common discourse was that Russians have three branches: Great Russians (modern day Russians), Small Russians (Ukrainians) and White Russians (Belorussians) (names are historical, White, f.e. have no connection to White race or something). Soviet government unfortunately decided to support erroneous ideas that Ukrainians and Belorussians are not Russians but sepate entities. Blessfully, after collapse of USSR Russia is gradually losing Soviet mythos and returns to correct discourses again.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Nope, most Poles there got "relocated" after WW2. Plus, the locals probably hate Poles almost as much as they hate Russians.

Why are they polophobes?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Why do some of the European localities have guys with a national Ukrainian haircut being slayed on their coat of arms?

 

[madviking]

Stepan Bandera: yes or no?

 

[Domen]

There's a cultural strata in South Russia (and wider than that) speaking a tongue which is closer to the typical Ukrainian language than the standard Russian, mostly small-town and village dwellers. They consider themselves Russian and they share the same identity which in the context of Ukraine would be called Ukrainian but is unnamed for its bearers here; they may call themselves "Khokhols"; historically this cultural strata is called Malorussky; Cossacks are part of it. There are also similar people in Ukraine who speak variety of tongues which are not proper Russian or Ukrainian and consider themselves Russian.

These people are fully or partially descendants of Ukrainians, who already became Russified in terms of identity (if you say that they identify as Russians), but still managed to preserve their Ukrainian language. Here is the distribution of ethnic Ukrainians according to the first All-Russian census in 1897:

Map shows % of Ukrainians among total population of each province in 1897 census (but only regions with 10% or more Ukrainians):

In the region of Kuban Ukrainians were not absolute majority (47.4%), but were still slightly more numerous than Russians (42.6%) there.

=================================================

According to official data from the All-Russian census of 1897, ethnic structure of Kuban was:

Total population (in 1897) - 1,918,881 people, including:

Ukrainians - 47.4%
Russians - 42.6%
Circassians - 2%
Karachays - 1.4%
Germans - 1.1%
Greeks - 1%
Others - 4.5% (including Armenians, Kabardins, Abkhazians, Nogays, Belarusians, etc.)

Here (spoiler) a graph based on 1897 census in Kuban (it shows rounded percentages: 43% Russians, 47% Ukrainians):

Spoiler :

And according to Paweł Sulatycki's book "Kubań", published in 1930 in Warsaw, national composition of Kuban in 1930 was as follows:

Total population (in 1930) - 3,357,000 (population density: 35 people / 1 km2).

Ukrainians - ca. 60%
Russians - ca. 30%
Circassians - ca. 3.6%
Turko-Tatars - ca. 2.1%
Germans - ca. 1.1%
Armenians - ca. 0.7%
Others - ca. 2% (including Poles, Czechs, Greeks, Georgians, Moldavians, etc.)

Religions of Kubań in ca. 1930 according to Sulatycki were:

Orthodox - 92.24%
Muslim - 5.38%
Protestants - 0.97%
Catholics - 0.38%
Others - 1.03%

There are also similar people in Ukraine who speak variety of tongues which are not proper Russian or Ukrainian

In areas like Kuban, etc. - where both Russians and Ukrainians were in proportions close to 50/50 - mixed marriages (Russian-Ukrainian) were frequent.

So no surprise that today many people cannot decide, whether they identify as Russians, or as Ukrainians, or as both.

Borderlands between two ethnic groups "A" and "B" are often full of mixed "AB" families, descending partially from group "A" and partially from group "B".

Especially in "liberal" Soviet times marriages between Ukrainians and Russians must have been very frequent, especially since national identities were weak at that time, and both cultures (Russian and Ukrainian) were quite similar to each other. But since 1991 we are gradually witnessing the increase of both nationalisms (Russian and Ukrainian) and many people in Eastern Ukraine once again tend to adopt stronger, and sharper, national identifications.

So families who 30 years ago identified as Russian-Ukrainian are now being forced to choose only one national option - either Russian or Ukrainian.

That mixed, "Russian-Ukrainian" identity, popular in Soviet times, is something similar to "Yugoslav" identity, which emerged in Yugoslavia.

For example in 1981 census, "Yugoslav" nationality was declared by 1,216,463 people (or 5.4% of entire population of Yugoslavia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...ic_of_Yugoslavia#Demographics_by_Ethnic_Group

So as many (or as few - depends how you look at this) as 5.4% of entire population of Yugoslavia listened to Tito's desire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavs#Ethnicity

When the term Yugoslav was first introduced, it was meant to unite a common people the same way the Germans united with Bavaria and other regions of Germany. In the book "A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples" by Fred Singleton, it states that Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks are one and the same people. "Once the South Slavs had settled in the Balkans they also became separated from each other, partly because of geographical obstacles, and partly because of the historical circumstances of foreign occupations."[22] Josip Broz Tito expressed his desire for an undivided Yugoslav ethnicity when he stated, "I would like to live to see the day when Yugoslavia would become amalgamated into a firm community, when she would no longer be a formal community but a community of a single Yugoslav nation."[23]

But in the end the project to merge all nations of Yugoslavia into one nation, failed. Even though >5% of population became convinced.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Some Russian users here fall very well within the category of "fully or partially descendants of Ukrainians", you might noticed.

If Malorussky are not Russians (or Rus') by default, I wonder what Russian is then. Probably some unseen tundra dwellers. Since even Moscow region was very much of the same rural culture you could describe as Malorussian or confuse with Ukrainian, as late as XIX century.

Those percentages mean nothing because they have no distinct perceivable subject.

 

[Domen]

When we discuss Ukrainian ethnicity and the question why it is different from Russian, we can't forget about demographic history of territory of modern Ukraine. The first key event in demographic history of Ukraine was the Mongol invasion in the 13th century. Mongol invasion and occupation, followed by Tatar slave-hunting raids during the next centuries, caused very severe depopulation ("population bottleneck") of the territory of modern Central and Eastern Ukraine.

For example population of the city of Kiev declined from at least 50,000 in 1230 (and the urban area of Kiev at that time was as large as 380 hectares - compared to 430 hectares for Florence 50 years later, in 1285) to only 808 households and around 5,000 inhabitants in year 1570 (first Polish census of households in Kiev - one year after the city became part of Poland). Kiev was destroyed by foreign invaders not only in 1240 during the Mongol conquest of Rus, but also several times later. When Kiev was under Lithuanian rules (since 1363), it was captured and plundered few more times (in 1416 Kipchaks under Emir Edygey burned the city and slaughtered most of its inhabitants; in 1449 Tatars plundered Kiev; in 1482 Khan Megli Girey captured Kiev and enslaved entire population).

Only after the Polish takeover of Kiev (1569), population of the city started to grow again, reaching over 15,000 by year 1648 - soon before the Khmelnytsky Uprising. Under Polish rules - since 1569 - population of entire Ukraine was growing very quickly, because Polish nobles and magnates were colonizing it, establishing hundreds of new villages and towns. Settlers were being recruited mostly from areas which are today Western Ukraine and Eastern Poland.

So modern population of Central and East-Central Ukraine has mostly Galician (Red Ruthenian) and Volhynian as well as Eastern Polish (but most of those Poles became Ruthenized) ancestry, and are mostly descendants of Ruthenian and Eastern Polish settlers who settled there after 1569.

When Ukraine was under Polish rules, territories of modern Southern and South-Eastern Ukraine were still largely depopulated steppes (so called "Wild Fields"), inhabited mostly by nomadic groups of Nogay Tatars. Number of Slavic people in that area was very small. That territory was populated by Slavic people only after Russia eliminated the Crimean Khanate and conquered those areas. But this time the stream of settlers was flowing from two directions - from Russia (ethnic Russians) and from Central Ukraine (descendants of Galician-Volhynian settlers from earlier waves of Polish-sponsored colonization).

So Ukrainians emerged due to centuries-long cultural separation of Galicia-Volhynia from Russia by very sparsely populated, war-devastated territories, as well as by political state borders (territory of Ukraine belonged to Lithuania and then to Poland, while the rest of former Rus became part of Muscovy).

Central Ukraine is populated by Ukrainians and not by Russians because this sparsely-populated territory was settled by Galicians and Volhynians (as well as by Eastern Poles, most of whom - with the exception of nobility - later became assimilated, that is Ruthenized, thanks to Orthodox Church, etc.). Number of western settlers who came to Central Ukraine during Polish-sponsored colonization after 1569, exceed the number of previous, indigenous population.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Ruthenian (Rusyn) culture and identity are the closest to the original Rus'. Their persistence in this regard brought them a lot of troubles and oppression from Poles, Austrians, Soviets and modern Ukraine.

 

[Domen]

Today we use "Rusyn" or "Ruthenian" mostly to describe Carpatho-Rusyns, who live in highlands adjacent to the Carpathian Mountains.

But in pre-war Poland censuses distinguished between Rusyns and Ukrainians. Rusyns lived in South-Eastern Poland, near the Carpathian Mountains, but along north-eastern slopes of those mountains (today Carpatho-Rusyns live only along south-western slopes, at least according to official censuses). And Rusyns were actually quite Pro-Polish and Anti-Ukrainian people - they were not nationalistic, while Ukrainians were usually more nationalistic and more hostile to Poles.

Rusyns were considered in the Polish Army to be good soldiers (well, most highlanders in most countries are considered good soldiers).

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

while Ukrainians were

When there are so much kings, khans, czars around looking at each other waging wars through the steppes, Cossacks is what you get.

 

[Domen]

Cossacks are interesting, some people counted them as Ukrainians, some others counted them as a separate ethnic group, and yet some others did not think about them in ethnic terms, but considered them to be a "warrior society", something like Pirates or Vikings, consisting of many ethnic groups. Of course the most numerous ethnic group among the Cossacks were - due to proximity of territory - Ukrainians (South-Western Rusyns), but you could find also people of many other ethnic groups among them (Russians, Poles, etc.). Later Cossacks became defenders of Orthodox Church, so surely most of Cossacks were East Slavs.

One of people who considered Cossacks as distinct from Ukrainians was Polish traveller and geographer Stanisław Plater (1784 - 1851).

In 1825 Stanisław Plater published the book "Geography of the eastern part of Europe", and here is what he wrote there:

(...) Slavic nations border in the south with the Italians and the Arnautians, in the west with the Italians, the Germans, the Lithuanians, the Latvians, the Chukhontsy [Estonians], the Finns, in the north with the Samoyeds, in the east with various nations of the Finnic and the Tatar generations.

Not counting the Morlachs, the Kashubs and the Lusatian Wends, who are few in numbers; entire Slavia is branched into ten main nations, these are: the Russians, the Cossacks, the Rusyns, the Poles, the Slovaks, the Czechs, the Winds, the Serbs, the Croats, the Bosniaks, all of them in total number 55 million heads. Out of all these nations, each of them having their own independent speech, only three can be proud of having an educated language, that is written literature, and these three are: the Czechs, the Poles and the Russians.

(...)

Today Slavic nations live under four authorities, that is: Russian, Prussian, Austrian and Turkish. Under the Russian scepter (both in the Empire and in the attached to it Kingdom of Poland) live the Russians, the Cossacks, the Rusyns and the Poles, in total 38 million heads; under the Prussian rule live the Poles, 2 million people; under the Austrian rule live the Poles, the Rusyns, the Slovaks, the Czechs, the Winds, the Croats and the Serbs, in total 13 million; under the Turkish rule live the Croats, the Serbs and the Bosniaks, 2 million heads.

In terms of languages it is estimated that there are 28 million Russians, 8 million Rusyns, 7 and 1/2 million Poles, 4 million Slovaks, 2 million Czechs, 2 million Serbs, 1 million Winds, 1 million Croats, 1 million Cossacks and half a million Bosniaks. (...)

So Plater distinguished Cossacks as a separate ethnic group (numbering 1 million people at that time, during the 1820s).

On the other hand he counted Belarusians and Ukrainians (both together numbering 8 million) as one group - Rusyns.

Another strange thing is that Stanisław Plater forgot about Bulgarians when describing Slavic nations. It also seems that he underestimated the number of Czechs and overestimated that of Slovaks (or maybe he just confused those numbers, and it should be 4 million Czechs and 2 million Slovaks).

And I'm not sure who are "the Winds" (numbering 1 million) - maybe Slovenes ???

========================================

Nice YT video - "Warrior heritage of Ukrainian Cossacks":


Link to video.

 

[REDY]

And I'm not sure who are "the Winds" (numbering 1 million) - maybe Slovenes ???

I have heard about it first time. I found answer on google. In short, its realy Slovenes.

Spoiler :

Wends

A much older designation in the historical authorities than Slav is the name Wend. It is under this designation that the Slavs first appear in history. The first certain references to the present Slavs date from the first and second centuries. They were made by the Roman writers Pliny and Tacitus and the Alexandrian already mentioned Ptolemy. Pliny (d. A.D. 79) says (Nat. hist., IV, 97) that among the peoples living on the other side of the Vistula besides the Sarmatians and others are also the Wends (Venedi). Tacitus (G., 46) says the same. He describes the Wends somewhat more in detail but cannot make up his mind whether he ought to include them among the Germans or the Sarmatians; still they seem to him to be more closely connected with the first named than with the latter. Ptolemy (d.about 178) in his Geographike (III, 57) calls the Venedi the greatest nation living on the Wendic Gulf. However, he says later (III, 5, 8) that they live on the Vistula; he also speaks of the Venedic mountains (III, 5, 6). In the centuries immediately succeeding the Wends are mentioned very rarely. The migrations that had now begun had brought other peoples into the foreground until the Venedi again appear in the sixth century under the name of Slavs. The name Wend, however, was never completely forgotten. The German chroniclers used both names constantly without distinction, the former almost oftener than the latter. Even now the Sorbs of Lusatic are called by the Germans Wends, while the Slovenes are frequently called Winds and their language is called Windish.

Those who maintain the theory that the original home of the Slavs was in the countries along the Danube have tried to refute the opinion that these references relate to the ancestors of the present Slavs, but their arguments are inconclusive. Besides these definite notices there are several others that are neither clear nor certain. The Wends or Slavs have had connected with them as old tribal confederates of the present Slavs the Budinoi mentioned by Herodotus, and also the Island of Banoma mentioned by Pliny (IV, 94), further the venetae, the original inhabitants of the present Province of Venice, as well as the Homeric Venetoi, Caesar's Veneti in Gaul and Anglia, etc. In all probability, the Adriatic Veneti were an Illyrian tribe related to the present Albanians, but nothing is known of them. With more reason can the old story that the Greeks obtained amber from the River Eridanos in the country of the Enetoi be applied to the Wends or Slavs; from which it may be concluded that the Slavs were already living on the shores of the Baltic in the fourth century before Christ.
Most probably the name Wend was of foreign origin and the race was known by this name only among the foreign tribes, while they called themselves Slavs. It is possible that the Slavs were originally named Wends by the early Gauls, because the root Wend, or Wind, is found especially in the districts once occupied by the Gauls. The word was apparently a designation that was first applied to various Gallic or Celtic tribes, and then given by the Celts to the Wendic tribes living north of them. The explanation of the meaning of the word is also to be sought from this point of view. The endeavour was made at one time to derive the word from the Teutonic dialects, as Danish wand, Old Norwegian vatn, Lation unda, meaning water. Thus Wends would signify watermen, people living about the water, people living by the sea, as proposed by Jordan, Adelung, and others. A derivation from the German wended (to turn) has also been suggested, thus the Wends are the people wandering about; or from the Gothic vinja, related to the German weiden, pasture, hence Wends, those who pasture, the shepherds; finally the word has been traced to the old root ven, belonging together. Wends would, therefore mean the allied. Pogodin traced the name from the Celtic, taking it from the early Celtic root vindos, white, by which expression the dark Celts designated the light Slavs. Naturally an explanation of the term was also sought in the Old Slavonic language; thus, Kollar derived it from the Old Slavonic word Un, Sassinek from Slo-van, Perwolf from the Old Slavonic root ved, still retained in the Old Slavonic comparative vestij meaning large and brought it into connection with the Russian Anti and Vjatici; Hilferding even derived it from the old East Indian designation of the Aryans Vanila, and Safarik connected the word with the East Indians, a confusion that is also to be found in the early writers.

 

[LamaGT]

Are Ukrainians in general Anti-Polish?

Not in general. But the Galician nationalists are.

Isn't there a significant enough Polish minority living in the city?

Compared to how it was before, it's very small.

Why are they polophobes?

They perceive them as oppressors of the Ukrainian people. Today the relations are tame, but those who care about historical grievances don't like them. After all, Bandera killed plenty of Poles too.

Stepan Bandera: yes or no?

Nope. He's not liked by most people anyway.

 

[Domen]

I have heard about it first time. I found answer on google. In short, its realy Slovenes.

Thanks Redy! I also haven't heard about this before. Suggestion that Winds = Slovenes was a pure guess (because Slovenes were still missing).

During Tsar Russia the common discourse was that Russians have three branches: Great Russians (modern day Russians), Small Russians (Ukrainians) and White Russians (Belorussians) ... Soviet government unfortunately decided to support erroneous ideas that Ukrainians and Belorussians are not Russians but sepate entities.

Well, you know, Russians are a branch of East Slavs, East Slavs are a branch of Slavs, Slavs are a branch of Europeans, Europeans are a branch of humans, etc. We are all "branches" . Whether you call them Ukrainians or Small Russians (which, by the way, was considered as offensive name by some Ukrainians) doesn't really matter, because it isn't going to change their opinions, or their culture, or their language. In fact when Soviets officially recognized "Ukrainians", it was better for peaceful coexistence between Russians and Ukrainians. Especially that - it seems so to me at least (but maybe I'm wrong in this part) - Soviets considered Ukrainians mostly as geographical term (people living in Ukraine, no matter what language they spoke), rather than ethnic or national term.

Surely Ukrainians have many things in common with Russians, but Austrians have even more things in common with Germans, yet when you call them Deutsch today, they can even beat you. Dutch and Deutsch also used to be citizens of the same Empire, but their paths separated centuries ago.

So the common heritage of Kievan Rus doesn't really matter today, because a lot of things happened between 1240 and 2014.

Some Russian users here fall very well within the category of "fully or partially descendants of Ukrainians", you might noticed.

Angela Merkel falls very well within "partially descendant of Poles". So did one of Top Pre-War German Archaeologists, who influenced Nazi racial theories.

So as you can see, your descendants don't really matter for who you are. You can be of Jewish descent and an Anti-Semite at the same time, etc.

Of course I'm not saying that having a Russian identity when you have partially Ukrainian ancestors is something bad. Don't get me wrong.

 

[Snorrius]

Well, you know, Russians are a branch of East Slavs, East Slavs are a branch of Slavs, Slavs are a branch of Europeans, Europeans are a branch of humans, etc. We are all "branches" . Whether you call them Ukrainians or Small Russians (which, by the way, was considered as offensive name by some Ukrainians) doesn't really matter, because it isn't going to change their opinions, or their culture, or their language.

Personally, I just call them Russians. The reason is that modern-day Ukrainians are not nation. They are no-nation. A nation must have some defining features which define her as such and distinguish from other nations. Ukrainians (I use this term here as citizenship's marker) do not have significant culture of size enough for their numbers, nor they really use "their" language (they use Russian a lot and Ukrainian is similar to dialect using in Germany - yes, it is used, but it is not a language of nation's culture).

So, when Ukrainians defy Russian culture and being Russians, they are becoming nobodies - a nonation similar to many African nonations which are separate nations de-jure but not yet became full-pledged nations. Actually, Ukraine have given us a strong anti-racial case: it have shown that to be an African state a country do not necessary needs to be situated in Africa and populated by black people. A country in Europe populated by white people can degrade to African level too within short time.

In fact when Soviets officially recognized "Ukrainians", it was better for peaceful coexistence between Russians and Ukrainians. Especially that - it seems so to me at least (but maybe I'm wrong in this part) - Soviets considered Ukrainians mostly as geographical term (people living in Ukraine, no matter what language they spoke), rather than ethnic or national term.

Exactly opposite. It is during Soviet rule Ukrainianness was promoted. There were a lot of Ukrainian schools (with Ukrainian language), a lot of books were published in Ukraine language, and idea of Ukrainins as separate ethnicity was developed. But well, Soviets tried a lot of strange things which turn out to be non-working.

So the common heritage of Kievan Rus doesn't really matter today, because a lot of things happened between 1240 and 2014.

Sure, especially considering that Ukrainian nation was invented in late 19th century and Russian one just a little earlier. A concepts of nations and nation-state are both quite young.

 

[Domen]

Ukrainian nation was invented in late 19th century and Russian one just a little earlier. A concepts of nations and nation-state are both quite young.

Well, my opinion on this matter is a bit different - that the concept of nation is older. And some people agree with me.

Check for example thread "The concept of Polishness in the Middle Ages" on this Polish forum:

Page 1:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=113550

http://translate.google.com/transla.../www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=113550

Page 2:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=113550&st=15

http://translate.google.com/transla...rg/index.php?showtopic=113550&st=15&sandbox=1

If concepts of nation-states are (allegedly) from the 1800s, then tell me why in 1512 in Cologne, the Reichstag officially changed old name "Holy Roman Empire" to new name "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". Looks like they were 300 years ahead of their times. But no, that was quite common then.

Of course Germans were not the only ethnic group in the HRE at that time, but they were the most numerous of all its ethnic groups.

Russians were not the only ethnic group in the USSR, even though they were majority - but Russia became continuator state of the USSR due to that:

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

The first set of circumstances arose at the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991. One of this federation's constituent republics, the Russian Federation, was declared the USSR's continuator state on the grounds that it contained 51% of the population of the USSR and 77% of its territory. In consequence, Russia agreed that it would acquire the USSR's seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.[2] This was also accepted by the rest of the former states of the USSR; in a letter dated 24 December 1991, Boris Yeltsin, at the time President of the Russian Federation, informed the Secretary-General that the membership of the Soviet Union in the Security Council and all other United Nations organs was being continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.[3] All Soviet embassies became Russian embassies.

On similar grounds - being majority of population and the most important group - Germans declared the HRE as their own nation-state in 1512.

Many people when talking about the SU say "Russia" and when talking about Soviets say "Russians". Many also associate the HRE with Germans.

 

[Snorrius]

Well, my opinion on this matter is a bit different - that the concept of nation is older. And some people agree with me.

Word "nation" is older then concept. But it must be said there are two concept of nation: first one is nation as political entity, second one is as "blood thing" as extension of tribe. I used word nation in first meaning and it is heavily depends on culture. From "blood" point of view there is no difference between Russian and Ukrainians at all. From cultural point of view the difference is that Ukrainians now is nonation which may or may not become nation in future (probably not).

If concepts of nation-states are (allegedly) from the 1800s, then tell me why in 1512 in Cologne, the Reichstag officially changed the old name "Holy Roman Empire" to new, "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". Looks like they were 300 years ahead of their times. But no, that was quite common then.

Whatever meaning they meant (probably to show most of their population is of German region) HRE certainly was not nation-state nor in first nor in second meaning of "nation". Actually, it did not survive the age of nation-states.