The Concepts of Eastern and Western Europe

[Kyriakos]

Re movies, Serbian cinema seems to be good. At least some of the films i saw.

"Time of the Gypsies" (by Emir Kusturica) is easily one of my favorite movies of all time.

I also liked "The wounds", which is about the war of the break-up of Yugoslavia.


Link to video.

Sadly the protagonists are in the habbit of dieing a bit after the movie is made.. RIP

"Look Grandmother, Ustase!"

 

[Domen]

Coming back to etymology of ethnonyms (discussed on previous page):

Slavic word "swoj" / "swoi" ("our person" / "our people") comes from Proto-Indo European "swobho".

Ethnonym "Swedes" also comes from the same PIE root.

Thus "Swedes" mean "our people" and "Swede" means something like "person belonging to us".

 

[Kyriakos]

Coming back to etymology of ethnonyms (discussed on previous page):

Slavic word "swoj" / "swoi" ("our person" / "our people") comes from Proto-Indo European "swobho".

Ethnonym "Swedes" also comes from the same PIE root.

Thus "Swedes" mean "our people" and "Swede" means something like "person belonging to us".

Gustav Adolf changed all that, though.

 

[Domen]

How ??? By introducing "Adolf" to world history, followed by Hitler ???

 

[Kyriakos]

Afaik Adolf was a pretty popular name in the germanic world, up until 1945 for some reason

And regarding Gustavus, his part in the 30 years war (according to a few articles i read) pretty much turned Sweden into the new regional power of the north, following the defeat of Denmark shortly before in the same conflict. Sweden pretty soon would go on to devour lands from Poland and the rest of the north.

 

[Domen]

Except that Sweden did not devour any land from Poland after the 30 years war.

It devoured land from Germany during the 30 years war, though.

 

[Kyriakos]

Except that Sweden did not devour any land from Poland after the 30 years war.

It devoured land from Germany during the 30 years war, though.

Uh, he got a large part of Poland just a few months before he entered the 30 years war. What exactly is your point?

The final inherited war, the war against Poland, ended in 1629 with the Truce of Altmark which transferred the large province Livonia to Sweden and freed the Swedish forces for the subsequent intervention in the Thirty Years' War in Germany, where Swedish forces had already established a bridgehead in 1628.

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

In 1630 Sweden and Adolf entered the 30 years war. In 1629 Adolf takes some land from Poland.

Of course (reading that treaty) it was nothing next to what followed with the new Swedish kings.

 

[Domen]

province Livonia

Yes, Livonia is what is today known as Northern Latvia and Southern Estonia.

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

Gustavus died because he couldn't wear armour. And he couldn't wear armour because he had invaded Poland:

Gustavus Adolphus was killed at the Battle of Lützen (...), Gustavus is reported to have entered battle without wearing any armor, proclaiming, "The Lord God, is my armor!" It is more likely that he simply wore a leather cuirass rather than going into battle wearing no battle protection whatsoever. In 1627, near Dirschau in Prussia, a Polish soldier shot him in the muscles above his shoulders. He survived, but the doctors could not remove the bullet, so from that point on, he could not wear iron armor. Also, two fingers of his right hand were paralyzed.[10]

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Yes, in one period Poland was paying tribute to Bohemia in exchange for Bohemia not laying further claims to that area.

Later Poland stopped paying that tribute, and I don't remember if there was a war, or Bohemia just got over it peacefully.

In any case the truth is that:

The first known states to hold power there were those of Greater Moravia at end of the 9th century and Bohemia early in the 10th century.

Previously when Poland was united, Bohemia lost the fight for Silesia. Bohemia also lost the region of Cracow to Poland, including the city itself (in 999).

Yes, Bohemia lost even Bohemia to Poland in 1002...

After Poland was reunited again in mid-1300s, king Casimir III tried to regain Silesia but he only managed to regain some small parts of it.

Here is what I have found:

In 1335, in the Treaty of Trentschin, Casimir relinquished "in perpetuity" his claims to Silesia.

In the 15th century several changes were made to Silesia's borders. Parts of the territories which had been transferred to the Silesian Piasts in 1178 were bought by the Polish kings in the second half of the 15th century (the Duchy of Oświęcim in 1457; the Duchy of Zator in 1494).

Yes. But later - at the peak of Bohemian power - Czech Premyslid dynasty ended (in 1306) and German Luxembourg dynasty took power:
.............
That switch of power from local ethnic Czech dynasty to foreign ethnic German dynasty was the beginning of Germanization in Bohemia.

The Germanization has started already during the reign of Premysl Otokar I:

Ottokar's reign was also notable for the start of German immigration into Bohemia and the growth of towns in what had until that point been forest lands.

Bohemian Golden Age was during the reign of last kings of the Premyslid dynasty. They were even kings of Poland (Václav II and Václav III). When power switched from Czech dynasty to German dynasty, the Golden Age of Bohemia ended and the country started to decline. The Black Death in 1300s (well, it wasn't the fault of Germans, but still), the Hussite Wars in 1400s, the Religious Wars in 1500s, the Thirty Years War in 1600s, the Silesian Wars in 1700s, etc.

While at the end of Premyslid dynasty there was possibility of some rather interesting dynastic developments - possibility of unification of Bohemia, Poland and Hungary under one crown - these efforts have led to exhaustion of royal treasury without any materialised results.

But it is possible that Charles IV was an exception to the rule.

Indeed, he practicaly fell head over heels in love with Bohemia and the list of his achievements is quite stunning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor Both of these facts have earned him the title of Pater Patriae (father of the country)...

 

[Domen]

The first known states to hold power there were those of Greater Moravia at end of the 9th century and Bohemia early in the 10th century.

Wikipedia forgot here about the tribal state of Vistulans, who were local inhabitants in that region. If such a state existed (most likely it did):

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

But indeed, Great Moravia controlled that area. Later it was independent for some time. Then came Bohemia. And only then Poland.

In 1335, in the Treaty of Trentschin, Casimir relinquished "in perpetuity" his claims to Silesia.

To be precise, in that Treaty, Casimir relinquished his claims not to entire Silesia, but to the following Piast dukes and duchies (listed in the treaty):

- Land of Wrocław
- Land of Głogów
- Bolesław, duke of Legnica-Brzeg
- Henryk, duke of Żagań-Krosno
- Konrad, duke of Oleśnica
- Jan, duke of Ścinawa
- Bolko, duke of Opole
- Bolko, duke of Niemodlin
- Albert, duke of Strzelce
- Władysław, duke of Koźle-Cieszyn

Lands and duchies listed above comprised majority of Silesia - not entire region, though.

But Casimir soon changed his mind (as soon as he signed peace with Teutonic Order in 1343), and another Polish-Czech War for Silesia started in 1345.

It ended in 1348 with the treaty of Namysłów: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Namslau

In the treaty of Namslau in 1348 Casimir again renounced his claims to most of Silesia (excluding still independent duchies and those parts which were already his), but this time he did not relinquish them "in perpetuity" - i.e. this time he didn't guarantee that he was not going to change his mind.

And there was also the treaty of Prague in 1356, which was an alliance between Casimir and Charles IV, as well as exchange of territories:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Układ_praski

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk%C5%82ad_praski

In the 15th century several changes were made to Silesia's borders. Parts of the territories which had been transferred to the Silesian Piasts in 1178 were bought by the Polish kings in the second half of the 15th century (the Duchy of Oświęcim in 1457; the Duchy of Zator in 1494).

Not all parts of Silesia reunited into Poland are listed here. There were also:

- Duchy of Namysłów-Kluczbork-Byczyna (reunited in 1341 by King Casimir) ---> lost again in 1356
- Land of Wschowa (reunited in 1343 by King Casimir) ---> remained in Poland

- Duchy of Siewierz (reunited in 1443) ---> remained in Poland
- Duchy of Oświęcim (reunited in 1457) ---> remained in Poland
- Duchy of Zator (reunited in 1494) ---> remained in Poland

- Duchy of Opole (acquired in 1645 by King Władysław IV) ---> lost in 1666
- Duchy of Racibórz (acquired in 1645 by King Władysław IV) ---> lost in 1666

The Germanization has started already during the reign of Premysl Otokar I

OK but German immigration is not the same as Germanization.

Unless you want to tell me that there is currently Turkization of Germany.

German immigration into Bohemia and the growth of towns in what had until that point been forest lands.

And to Poland first German immigrants came during the early 1200s. In Poland initially they also settled mostly in sparsely inhabited lands - for example in Silesia first German immigrants colonized the Sudetes (south-western part of Silesia), which before their arrival had been sparsely populated and forested.

 

[Domen]

Yes, Bohemia lost even Bohemia to Poland in 1002...

Yeap, but Bohemia "proper" was controlled (or ruled, or occupied?) by Poland only in period 1002 - 1004.

On the other hand, Moravia and Slovakia remained under Polish control much longer - until 1029.

While at the end of Premyslid dynasty there was possibility of some rather interesting dynastic developments - possibility of unification of Bohemia, Poland and Hungary under one crown - these efforts have led to exhaustion of royal treasury without any materialised results.

And also a little prince called Elbow-high did not like Czech Premyslid rules in Poland and did not want to give up in his efforts.

BTW - another time when Bohemia, Poland and Hungary were under one crown, was during the Jagiellon Dynasty.

And then during the Habsburg Dynasty, but in case of Poland only its southern part - Galicia.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

You post in my mod thread from time to time. (MPM)

If the Polish nationalist on paradox forum called Iwanow is the one you are referring too, then yes. Iwanow says stupid things and his arguments are bad. Domen's argument structure is sometimes lacking but I appreciate his arguments and what he has to say.

I remember that's one of the better mods. And speaking of mods, I remember I frequented lukew & Dafool's D&T mod. How are those kids doing?

As for Iwanow and Domen, I lumped them together for their ultra-nationalist tendencies. But obviously, Domen is much more knowledgeable than Iwanow.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Ethnonym Slovianie (Slavons / Slavs) most likely comes from Proto-Slavic "slovo" (word / speech).

For example "Slovo Boze" = "Word of God".

Thus Slovianie are these "belonging to the people who speak the language".

Deutsch (Germans) comes from Old High German "duitisc" (people).

Thus Deutsch (but also Dutch) are these "belonging to the people".

Deutschland means "land of the people".

Teutons comes from Proto-Indo-European root "*teuta" (people).

Thus Teutons are these "belonging to the people".

Etc., etc.

Names of ethno-linguistic groups are more boring than some people imagine.

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

Name "Slavs" perhaps comes from Gothic word "slawan", meaning "to be silent / to not speak".

Polish name for Germans - Niemcy - comes from "niemy", meaning "one who doesn't speak".

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

Proto-Slavic word "slava" ("fame", "glory") comes from Sanskrit word "sravah" ("glorious activities" / "famous" / "celebrated"):

http://sanskritdictionary.org/sravah

TL;DR

So what you are saying is that there are two different origins of the root word "slav" with different meanings and somehow sounding the same purely by chance? Then how does one distinguish one from another? Say how does the word "yugoslav" not mean "southern fame"?

 

[Domen]

Yes. Just like word "Germans" and word "germs" also have different origins (at least I think so).

sounding the same purely by chance?

Certainly not "by chance". Read about Indo-European languages. They all have common origin.

English word "garden" sounds like Old Slavic word "gard" and Old Germanic "garth" - but they all mean different things.

"Garden" means place with flowers and such, Slavic "gard" means "fortified town / stronghold"; "garth" means "manor" or "wide open space".

English word "ass" means you know what, while Old Germanic "as" meant "god" (check Asgard). And Polish "as" means "champion".

Slavic "vlad" and Germanic "walt" both come from the same IE root, and both mean "rule". Thus Vladimir (Slavic) = Waldemar (Germanic).

Oh, and of course Old Slavic "mir" and Old Germanic "mar" are also words which have a common Indo-European origin.

Say how does the word "yugoslav" not mean "southern fame"?

Yugo is a Spanish word, for example. It must apparently also be a South Slavic word, if they named their country like this.

Funny thing is, "yugo" in Spanish means "yoke". So "Yugoslavia" would translate roughly as "Slavic yoke" (check "Mongol yoke").

I don't know what "yugo" means in Serbo-Croatian language, though. Maybe something totally different than "yoke".

 

[Pangur Bán]

The word As is in the English names Oswald, Oswig, Osmund, and so forth.

 

[Domen]

English "pole" means a thick wooden stick. Polish "pole" means wide open space or field.

The same word (even pronunciation is similar), but different meanings.

And I don't thing that ethnonym "Poles" for Polish people comes from "thick wooden stick"...

But "Polanie" most certainly means "people who live in wide open flat space, as opposed to those highlanders up there in the mountains".

And "Polacy" ("Poles" in Polish) comes from those Early Medieval people - Polanie.

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

On the other hand, Polish word "polano" (plural: "polana") means... a thick piece of firewood:

http://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/polano

"Polana" (singular) also means "a forest clearing".

The word As is in the English names Oswald, Oswig, Osmund, and so forth.

So Oswald is "god of woods", Osmund "god of mouth of the river", and so on ???

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

Another example - "no" in English compared to "no" in Polish. It seems to be the same word. But "no" in Polish means "yes" or "OK".

In several other languages there is also "no", such a simple and basic word.

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

Edit:

Old Germanic "garth"

Or maybe it is even Proto-Indo-European, not Old Germanic. I don't remember exactly.

And Polish "as" means "champion".

"Champion" or maybe rather "ace" (a better translation).

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

What does Polanski mean?

 

[Domen]

So what you are saying is that there are two different origins of the root word "slav" with different meanings

Or another possibility is that Gothic word for "not speaking" - "slawan" - originated from ethnonym "Slowianie", who did not speak their language.

What does Polanski mean?

Spoiler :

It is a racial term this time. It means "one belonging to the polishing race of ski jumpers":

No. Etymologically it derives from "slovo", i.e. "word". Slavic 'race' (sic) would then mean something like "a race of people who can speak [the language]".

The notion that the etymological source is "slava" - glory - is a 19th century romantic nonsense.

Indeed it is possible that the theory that ethnonym "Slavic" comes from "glory" instead of from "word" could originate as late as the 19th century.

Maybe among first ones who suggested this theory was British historian Thomas Greenwood, in his 1836 book, "The history of the Germans":

http://books.google.pl/books?id=hXY...YQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Venedi Procopius&f=false

This what Thomas Greenwood wrote on page 600 of Volume (Book) I of his 1836 book:

As you can see Thomas Greenwood also listed Scytho-Sarmatians (whose civilization was destroyed by Huns) among ancestors of Slavs.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, not that i looked into it, but most people seem to argue that Yugoslavia just meant Southslavia. That by itself it is not a really intelligent (and obviously not ancient) name does not mean much given it came about following ww1 and in an international setting.

Besides, Serbia should have just added some more lands to the pre ww1 Serbia, and not commit suicide as happened in the real timeline. They already had serious issues with the Bulgarian population in Fyromia, and some Albanian minority too (not as large as it became later on), so they hardly could use the lands to the west of Sarajevo (and maybe Krainja too).

 

[Domen]

Ok but "yugo" means "south" in which language ???

They already had serious issues with the Bulgarian population in Fyromia

Fyromians = Macedonians who adopted Old Church Slavonic partially from Slavic invaders and partially from Bulgar (= Turkic) invaders.

Bulgars - despite being originally Turkic Nomads - adopted and promoted Old Church Slavonic language in their new Balkan realms.

Albanian minority too (not as large as it became later on)

Now Albanian origin is quite mysterious. But I don't think they came from Albania in Caucasus or Albania on British Isles (Scotland).