deadcat said:
"The chancery languages of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Ruthenian (reffered to as Old Belarusian by Belarusians and as Chancery Slavic by Lithuanians) and Latin.
True. Lithuanians didn't have their own writings, so they used others insted (Slavic and Latin). And it should be mentioned, that at that time the people who could write and read were less than 1% of the country. So that written language was used very little, and only for chancellery purposes (mostly: trties with other countries and rulers, diplomatical mail, and very few decrees for the land inside).
Latter Polish writings will be also be used. But from that time of writings you will be unable to find any fiction, culturial writings.
deadcat said:
The Ruthenian language was chosen for inner laws and such because of more developed Eastern Slavic culture and writting by the time;
True and false.
The reason was vey simple - the only people able to write in Lithuanian controlled territory were slavs and we by our selves didn't have any writing at that time. So slavs were used.
About stronger culture - how can you calculate it? If for any cristian (ortodox or not) anyone who worship sun, holy forests looked like barbarians (and yes, if writing and churches means bigger culter - when it was bigger in other lands).
deadcat said:
It is stated that King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Alexander I could understand and speak lithuanian, after him there are no valid evidences.
Now we are talking about the united kingdom period (and it's from 1569! remmeber Lithuania as a stable state was united in about 1251. For 300 years all Lithuanian Dukes spoke in Lithuania language).
And yes - in united Lithuanian/Poland kingdom, a lot of of our noble mans started to use polish language - they looked at it like to a progress (and the culturial influence was really big at that time from Poland). But ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE of the country (those were > 90%) were peasants and they used Lithuanian language only (and no any writing at any language). For two hundred years lithuanian language will we used and saved by peasants
deadcat said:
Also, at the time nationalism was not present, and the nobles who migrated from one place to another would adapt to a new locality and take local religion and culture. Therefore those Lithuanian nobles who moved to Slavic areas took up their culture."
Actually in the times, of Lithuanian expansion, there wasn't such thing like colonisation of other lands, sometimes even the same disctrict governors there left in power if they agreed to accept their new dukes.
The number of noble peoples moved to rule other lands were at small numbers (to one bigger town/center of some district only 20 people... it isn't a big movement and no impact of culturial loss to the fatherland
).
deadcat said:
"Ethnically at the start of the country Lithuanians made 70% of population. With the acquisition of new slavic populated territories, this part decreased to 50% and with the acquisition of even more lands to 30%.
That guy who wrote this was smoking herbs, or just was guesing on his own imagination. By the way numbers could be correct if you looked from the other side: the land which was governed by lithuanian Dukes was populated by slavs mainly, so while the territory grew, the percentage of Lithuanians in the land was going down. But in Lithuania disctrict (which was bigger than it is now) - the majority of population was (and still is) lithuanian.
If the man who wrote this sentence wopuld be right - in these days, in any village you could find a lot of speaking russian language people, but it isn't so - you could find only lithuanians (even in second largest city of now adays lithuania it's strange to hear if somwone on the streets speaks russian).
By the way those numbers (50%, 30%) could be right only on one thing: the percentage of noblemans who spoke Lithuanian (but noblemans were only about 5% of the country).
deadcat said:
You can find a lot of even funny facts in Vicipedia
Like the onle I like the most "first time lithuanian was mentioned in writing was in a XV century" (when a real fact is 1009 year).
deadcat said:
"In 1240 <...> The resulting state was called the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus', and Samogitia.
Some old sources really mentioned about lithuania, as a ruler of slavs (at that time the most slaves ruled in single country were in Lithuania - because all other slavs countries were divided).
But the ideo of calling Lithuanians as slavs ended when Russians had to choose under whom to unite slavic country (there were onlyu two candidates: GDL and Moscow) - they chose a slavic one
Maybe this says anything?
deadcat said:
"The medieval Lithuanian rulers did not develop a written form of the Lithuanian language. The literary Lithuanian language, based on a southwestern Lithuanian dialect, came into use during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, replacing the use of the Samogitian, or western Lithuanian, dialect.
The FIRST Lithuanian BOOK writen in lithuanian language was Martynas Mazvydas catechism written in 1547. In the end of XIX century there were even newspapers writen in Lithuanian. And don't forget, at that time 1864-1904 - any lithuanian writing was forbbiden - and if something is forbbiden - so it exists, yes?
And ofcourse, here is the link to vicipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martynas_Mazvydas
deadcat said:
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the use of Lithuanian was confined mainly to the peasantry, but the language was revived subsequently. In 1988 it was declared the official language of Lithuania, as it had been during 1918-40 and the early years of Soviet rule."
About the part of peasantry I wrote, and the only mistake of your statement is 100-200 hudred years - lithuanian language came back to nobles level after 1830 revolt (reason very simple - mainly nobles (some of them called themselves polish people) were punished by Czar and sent to exile).
And after 1830 lithuanian language come back at all levels (and let me point, 1830 is XIX century, not XX).
deadcat said:
"Contemporary Belarusian historians assert that they were not conquered by the Lithuanians, but rather the latter were initially mercenaries at the service of Slavonic princes.
Yes of course not conquered, but if you wanted them to do anything you just got to move with a big army into their country
And to ask it's ruler - "who is the boss?"
deadcat said:
Whichever is true, the entry of the Slavs in the new state – the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was of primary importance for the cultural development of Lithuanians. Monetary system and common law, official language and diplomatic rite were borrowed by them from their new compatriots. Almost all the Lithuanian Grand Dukes of 13th-15th centuries were brought up in the spirit of Slavonic culture, married Slavonic princesses and were, at least during certain periods of their lives,
About that princesses... One of our Dukes (Gediminas) wasn't very good at sword - but was good at diplomacy - and he got really a lot of daughters and sons. So if he wanted to make a stronger peace treaty, he often used marriage as political tool. Other grand duke Algirdas (which made a very big expansion to the slavs lands) - used both tactics - conquer and in the surrender treaty he used political marriages.
So it was nothing about "slavic spirit" it was about political/expansion tool.
deadcat said:
"Therefore the Grand Duchy (Chaucer's Lettow and Ruce) is regarded as a dual state, like Belgium or Canada and is called, ex post facto, Lithuania-Belarus. Radical nationalists, however, deny today's Lithuanians any right to the historical heritage of the GDL and contend that, if not Belarusian by its name, this state was essentially Belarusian. Oddly enough, both constituent people, known now as Lithuanians and Belarusians, called themselves "Lithuanians" in their tongues – lietuviai and litviny, respectively. The native language of the latter, however, was called Russian and the feeling of Russian identity remained quite strong, especially in the lowest classes. "
There are some simple things:
* Belarusia never had an independent state before 1921. At that time (even now) for them it is difficult to find their true nationality. Because if they look back - they will see Lithuania. So they tried (at one time very strongly) to put all history into such a way, that they (Belarusians) were GDL. And didn't care that:
A. the 3rd letter is Lithuania (not russia)
B. that the capital (Vilnius) is in lithuanian speaking lands
C. that till the united Polish-Lithuanian country (1569), all lithuanian rulers spoke Lithuanian and none of them even wrote in russian language, because they all were illiteral.
D. in Lithuanian pagan times - slavics (Belarusian) there cristians-ortodox.
E. after christianize of Lithuania 1387 lithuanians are pure catholic (not ortodox like all slavs).
F. Russian and Lithuanian language have nothing in comon (for us it's another
foreign language).
So all that talking about culture influence are more words than facts and taken from a big despair (polish people can talk about their influence, and that would be truth, but only on very limited "nobel mans level" ).
* And as i have writen before:
"About this thing (political related history): in USSR it was tried to rewrite history <...>.
With Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) it was even worse - russians needed the explanation of anexation(incorporation into Soviet Union) - so they were saying, that balts were slavs, and so on. And I should only to remind, that all writen books, research papers, and other stuf (in USSR) were checked if they fit into political USSR idealogy (USSR, had a very big beurocratic totalitaristic engine)."
