Where is Poland?

[Traitorfish]

Actually, far from anachronism, I'm using an even more modern conception of Europe than the dated, 1990s version you're using. People who still think that Europe extends to the Urals, or that Russia is a part of Europe in any meaningful way, are indeed living in the distant past. Europe extends at best to Romania, Moldova, Latvia & Estonia. Even Ukraine and Belarus are only barely part of Europe in the 21st century -- I would personally exclude them from any meaningful understanding of Europe in this day and age.

Wait, when did 19th century Slavophilia become non-contentious popular opinion, let alone a distinctly "modern" one?

 

[Leoreth]

All right so you think that part of Europe has more in common with China or India then with say Poland or Finland?

It's obviously a smooth transition.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

@ Mise: And dont forget the French. In what meaningfull way are they part of Europe anyway?

 

[Traitorfish]

Given the history of the French state, re: the Bretons, Basques, Catalans, Alsatians, etc., the question is more likely to be how we can contrive an argument by which the rest of Europe turns out to be part of France.

 

[Domen]

It's true for most countries that it is influenced by things both west and east from it.

What you are saying is basically "relative to Poland, Poland is at the center". Duh.

Nope! Leoreth - you did understand me wrongly (or deliberately pretended that you did not understand what I meant).

I wrote "Eastern" and "Western" cultural influences (instead of "eastern" and "western") for a purpose - by Western I meant the German / Latin Christian (the Papacy, the Empire) world (and also the Polish southern Slavic neighbours - the Czechs - who, after all, were responsible for bringing Christianity). By Eastern I meant Russo-Byzantine influences. By "Oriental" I meant both direct and indirect (via Hungary and Moldavia) Turkish and Balkan cultural influences.

There was no similar cultural diversity / mix of cultures in states located to the east and to the west of Poland.

That diversity of influences was even visible in the armament and organization of Polish armies.

 

[Leoreth]

Since French cosmopolitaine culture was clearly influenced by Northern (Norman) and Southern (Occitan) cultures, it's clearly in Central Europe.

Leoreth - you did understand me wrongly (or deliberately pretended that you did not understand what I meant).

No, I deliberately ignored that your argument was begging the question and then proceeded to demonstrate why it's a fallacy.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well his all point is that Russians are different but so are French. We all know that...

 

[Leoreth]

Well his all point is that Russians are different but so are French. We all know that...

Sure, we could define a Eurasian subcontinent whose eastern border is the Rhine. No one's denying that, but unless you're seriously saying that this is your perception of Europe, I don't see why it's relevant.

 

[Domen]

and then proceeded to demonstrate why it's a fallacy.

So apparently you did not proceed to far, because you did not demonstrate anything.

What you are saying is basically "relative to Poland, Poland is at the center".

I divided Europe for 9 geographical regions basing purely on geography (see the previous page).

At the moment I only addded another argument, stating that also from the perspective of cultural influences Poland can be considered as being "between West, East and South-East (aka Orient)", historically speaking. And I explained what this mean in my post above (West = Western Christendom, i.e. the part of Europe which emerged from the Frankish Empire; East = Russo-Byzantine world; Orient = Turkey, Balkan region, Hungary - which was also influenced by Turkey).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Sure, we could define a Eurasian subcontinent whose eastern border is the Rhine. No one's denying that, but unless you're seriously saying that this is your perception of Europe, I don't see why it's relevant.

Its relevant becouse it shows how feeble the argument is...

 

[Leoreth]

You labeled two things "Eastern" and "Western", conveniently meeting in Poland. Then you concluced that since these things meet in Poland, Poland is in the center.

But there's no reason to label these things "Eastern" and "Western" in the first place. It might make sense to label these things as such from a Polish point of view, but then you end up with the circular reasoning I mentioned before: "from a Polish perspective, Poland is at the center".

And even if it made sense to label ethnic/cultural/religious groups as such in the past, Mise's whole argument rests on the question whether it makes sense to continue to do so now.

You could just as well say that medieval Sicily was defined as the "meeting point" of southern Arab, eastern Byzantine and northern Norman Europe and therefore is in Central Europe.

Its relevant becouse it shows how feeble the argument is...

Which argument? Mise is arguing that there are people who perceive Europe differently than what the textbook definition says. Part of his argument is that you can subtract Russia from your definition of Europe and still and up with a working definition of a continent. Nobody perceives Europe as ending at the Rhine so that's beside the point.

 

[Traitorfish]

Although quite a lot of them perceive it as ending at the Channel...

 

[Domen]

Mise's whole argument rests on the question whether it makes sense to continue to do so now.

But I am not sure with whom Mise was arguing - because my division of Europe into 9 regions was not based on things like culture, historical heritage or religion, neither was it based on ethnicity or language (but some other users here proposed, that ethno-linguistic Slavic world = Eastern Europe).

My division was based chiefly on pure geography.

A good modern division of Europe based on other criteria than geography and historical heritage, would be the EU and the rest of Europe.

You can of course in an imaginary way call the European Union "Western Europe" and the rest of Europe "Eastern Europe".

But perhaps it is better to simply say, that Poland is in the European Union, while Belarus or Ukraine are not.

So the answer for the question "Where is Poland?" should be - "in the European Union", or simply "in Europe".

But if you are asking about geography, then Poland is clearly located in the geographical center of Europe (i.e. Central Europe).

You could just as well say that medieval Sicily was defined as the "meeting point" of southern Arab, eastern Byzantine and northern Norman Europe and therefore is in Central Europe.

Rather "between Europe, Africa and Asia" - since Byzantine Empire was mostly in Asia, while Arab states were mostly in Africa and Asia...

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

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12314788&postcount=252

Northwestern(1), Southwestern(2), Western(3), Central(4), Southern(5), Northern(6), Northeastern(7), Southeastern(8), Eastern.(9)

(1) British Isles, Iceland, western areas of Norway
(2) Iberian Peninsula, Balearic Islands
(3) France and the Low Countries, maybe western part of Germany
(4) already mentioned (Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czech state, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, etc.)
(5) Italian Peninsula, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Malta
(6) Sweden, Denmark, eastern parts of Norway
(7) Finland, Baltic states, northern part of Russia
(8) Balkan region, Greece, Romania, European part of Turkey
(9) Ukraine, Belarus, most of Russia, western part of Kazakhstan

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Which argument? Mise is arguing that there are people who perceive Europe differently than what the textbook definition says. Part of his argument is that you can subtract Russia from your definition of Europe and still and up with a working definition of a continent. Nobody perceives Europe as ending at the Rhine so that's beside the point.

Actually, far from anachronism, I'm using an even more modern conception of Europe than the dated, 1990s version you're using. People who still think that Europe extends to the Urals, or that Russia is a part of Europe in any meaningful way, are indeed living in the distant past. Europe extends at best to Romania, Moldova, Latvia & Estonia. Even Ukraine and Belarus are only barely part of Europe in the 21st century -- I would personally exclude them from any meaningful understanding of Europe in this day and age.

He bases his argument in "meaningful understanding". I call that feeble and absurd.
Just like I wouldnt exclude Nazi Germany from Europe for lack of its meaningful understanding its absurd to do that with semidemocratic Russia.

 

[Domen]

its absurd to do that with semidemocratic Russia.

Of course. The fact that nowadays Russia does not enjoy the full scope of modern democracy, does not exclude it from Europe...

LOL - democracy was not even the most popular political system in Europe for most of its history, but only during the last 30 years... Before WW2, vast majority of states in Europe were not democratic states. Before 1914 democracy was also by no means the main political system in Europe...

Many of the democratic states which emerged or regained independence after WW1, quickly became non-democratic.

After WW2, democracy became the main political system only in half of Europe - while in the other half it was not.

Calling "democracy" as part of some Pan-European heritage (among such things like Christian morality or Greco-Roman culture) is wrong.

Triumph of democracy in Europe happened too recently to clasify it as already "heritage". It is our present achievement, not heritage.

I would personally exclude them from any meaningful understanding of Europe in this day and age.

So you want to make frequent and arbitrary changes in the boundaries of Europe, basing on the current situation?! LOL - then probably you should exclude Switzerland from Europe as well, because it has a very specific form of political system and because it didn't join the European Union...

But this is in my opinion silly - such thing like "adjusting the borders of Europe" in order to fit to current situation...

And why should Great Britain be in Europe then? After all, they did not adopt Euro as their currency - unlike most of Europe. So Britain should be excluded from Europe as well? Especially, that Britain has such anachronism like monarchy (even if it is just a show, without real decision-making power).

I think that only France and Germany should be allowed to be called "Europe" - they are the only "showcase" European states...

 

[timtofly]

Why don't we just call Europe "Roman" and declare peace?

 

[Domen]

Or let's even call it "Roman Polanski" and declare peace.

 

[Traitorfish]

So, no.

 

[Mise]

I'm talking about today, not about what happened 1,000 years ago, or 70 years ago, or 20 years ago.

Yes, the line arbitrarily drawn 2,000 years ago in the Urals apropos of nothing can indeed be arbitrarily changed to match modern perceptions of what Europe is today.

 

[Traitorfish]

Whose perception has Europe ending before at the Belarussian border? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely confused.