Youngest ethnicity in Europe?

[Wulfhere]

If I hadn't restricted the question to Europe, a very good answer would be the Palestinians, who have only formed their identity within living memory, in opposition to Israel. But, as I say, I'm only talking about Europe here.

[Peyrol]

All the "tribes" who came in Europe in the first Middle Age...i would say Magyar.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Dutch would be my guess. They only split off from the Deutsch around 400 years ago or so I think.

[Wulfhere]

All the "tribes" who came in Europe in the first Middle Age...i would say Magyar.

The Magyars appear to have formed a nation quite early, around 1000, which is earlier than most European nations.

[Wulfhere]

Dutch would be my guess. They only split off from the Deutsch around 400 years ago or so I think.

Conceivably, yes.

[Peyrol]

The Magyars appear to have formed a nation quite early, around 1000, which is earlier than most European nations.

Haven't built a state don't means automatically the non-existence.
For example, Kingdom of Italy was formed first time in 600 a.d., and was broken and rebuilt several times (this actual, 1861-now, is the 7th), where Slovenja formed only in 1991 (while ethnic slovenian exists for centuries).

[Kosovo je Sjrbia]

probably Albanians and Bosnians because they're people who were born by a recent mixture (XV-XVI centuries) of dinarids and turks.

[Wyn]

Estonians? Their ethnic identity dates to the 18th century, according to Wiki:


Although Estonian national consciousness spread in the course of the 19th century during the Estonian national awakening, some degree of ethnic awareness preceded this development. By the 18th century the self-denomination eestlane spread among Estonians along with the older maarahvas.

Karl is going to shit icy Nordic venom when he sees this.

[Wulfhere]

Haven't built a state don't means automatically the non-existence.
For example, Kingdom of Italy was formed first time in 600 a.d., and was broken and rebuilt several times (this actual, 1861-now, is the 7th), where Slovenja formed inly in 1991 (while ethnic slovenian exists for centuries).

Yes, I know. And the Italian ethnicity post-dates those kingdoms by quite some time. To find out when it emerged, you need to find out when the Italians started calling themselves Italians, rather than Romans. The time of Dante has been proposed elsewhere.

[Ushtari]

probably Albanians and Bosnians because they're people who were born by a recent mixture (XV-XVI centuries) of dinarids and turks.
Source?

[Wulfhere]

probably Albanians and Bosnians because they're people who were born by a recent mixture (XV-XVI centuries) of dinarids and turks.

Yes, any nation that is the cultural offspring of Turks, such as Albanians or Bosnians, is clearly very recent.

[Wulfhere]

Estonians? Their ethnic identity dates to the 18th century, according to Wiki:



Karl is going to shit icy Nordic venom when he sees this.

Interesting.

[Ushtari]

Yes, any nation that is the cultural offspring of Turks, such as Albanians or Bosnians, is clearly very recent.
Source?

[Labeat]

probably Albanians and Bosnians because they're people who were born by a recent mixture (XV-XVI centuries) of dinarids and turks.
Serbs are mixed because of their loyality to ottoman empire and familiar relations with them during ottoman occupation period.

[Peyrol]

Yes, I know. And the Italian ethnicity post-dates those kingdoms by quite some time. To find out when it emerged, you need to find out when the Italians started calling themselves Italians, rather than Romans. The time of Dante has been proposed elsewhere.

I concorde, but i put a back a little.
Carolus Magno and Longobard kings referred to italians yet as "romans/latins", while the first who talk about "italiana gente" in a letter to Emperor of Germany was king Arduino D'Ivrea of Italy (955-1015).
I would put our modern ethnogenesis abput in this time (900-950 A.D. circa).

[Odoacer]

probably Albanians and Bosnians because they're people who were born by a recent mixture (XV-XVI centuries) of dinarids and turks.

Uh, what? There were Albanians fighting against the Turks, so the Albanians are obviously older than the Turkish conquest of the Balkans.

[Wulfhere]

I concorde, but i put a back a little.
Carolus Magno and Longobard kings referred to italians yet as "romans/latins", while the first who talk about "italiana gente" in a letter to Emperor of Germany was king Arduino D'Ivrea of Italy (955-1015).
I would put our modern ethnogenesis abput in this time (900-950 A.D. circa).

Yes, sounds very reasonable.

[Labeat]

Yes, any nation that is the cultural offspring of Turks, such as Albanians or Bosnians, is clearly very recent.
Source!!!

[Wulfhere]

Source!!!

For what?

[Äike]

Estonians?:

Not really. Even our national flag is among the 10% oldest flags in the world. Already in pre-medieval times, the Estonians knew who they are. If any foreign enemy came, then all the different counties united against the enemy.

I would say that the English are a considerably younger ethnicity than us. A subgroup of the Estonians, the Seto people are the oldest ethnicity in Europe.

Back to the topic: My guess would be the Kosovars.

[Labeat]

For what?
For your ignorant sentence about us.

[Guapo]

Source!!!

Ushtari.

[Wulfhere]

Not really. Even our national flag is among the 10% oldest flags in the world. Already in pre-medieval times, the Estonians knew who they are. If any foreign enemy came, then all the different counties united against the enemy.

I would say that the English are a considerably younger ethnicity than us. A subgroup of the Estonians, the Seto people are the oldest ethnicity in Europe.

Back to the topic: My guess would be the Kosovars.

Again, you need to provide documentary evidence of ethnic identity. Without it, you are relying on pure guesswork and wishful thinking.

We have a very clear reference to the English people from Bede, writing in 731. And that's probably not even the oldest. Pope Gregory recognised Ethelbert of Kent as King of the English in 600.

[Peyrol]

Again, you need to provide documentary evidence of ethnic identity. Without it, you are relying on pure guesswork and wishful thinking.

We have a very clear reference to the English people from Bede, writing in 731. And that's probably not even the oldest. Pope Gregory recognised Ethelbert of Kent as King of the English in 600.

I would put english ethnogenesis in 650-700 circa.

Like this text, that call english "Engla", that is the antiquate form for english

"Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum sended"

[Wulfhere]

I would put english ethnogenesis in 650-700 circa.

Like this text, that call english "Engla", that is the antiquate form for english

"Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum sended"

Indeed. Self-identifaction by name, the same name throughout history, is a very good test of identity.

[Äike]

Again, you need to provide documentary evidence of ethnic identity. Without it, you are relying on pure guesswork and wishful thinking.

We have a very clear reference to the English people from Bede, writing in 731. And that's probably not even the oldest. Pope Gregory recognised Ethelbert of Kent as King of the English in 600.

Estonians are mentioned in Old Norse Icelandic Sagas and in the Heimskringla.

[Wulfhere]

Estonians are mentioned in Old Norse Icelandic Sagas and in the Heimskringla.

Which date to no earlier than 1000 and up to two or three centuries later.

[Äike]

Which date to no earlier than 1000 and up to two or three centuries later.

Slightly off-topic, but I have to troll you back.

The English < Scandinavian vikings < Estonian vikings = The English < The Estonians

Think about that for some time...

[Peerkons]

Not really. Even our national flag is among the 10% oldest flags in the world. Already in pre-medieval times, the Estonians knew who they are. If any foreign enemy came, then all the different counties united against the enemy.

I would say that the English are a considerably younger ethnicity than us. A subgroup of the Estonians, the Seto people are the oldest ethnicity in Europe.

Back to the topic: My guess would be the Kosovars.

So is Latvian flag, which was used first in 1280. But Baltic people started to call themselves "Latvians" only in 16th century.
Of course, in Northern Crusade, the tribes united against crusaders.
Unfortunately, Livonians were conquered first as they were weak so they fought along with Germans against Baltic people. The last who surrendered were Semigallians, who were conquered ~90 years later than Livonians, about half of them wanted to save their Baltic-paganic identity, so they merged with Žemaitians.
It is a shame, that we didn't had united country as Lithuanians and that we didn't merged with them. Now we would have common history with them, not with these Estonian wannabe nord fuckers.

[Wulfhere]

Slightly off-topic, but I have to troll you back.

The English < Scandinavian vikings < Estonian vikings = The English < The Estonians

Think about that for some time...

Nah, can't be bothered. Explain yourself, or not, as you wish.

[Wyn]

Not really. Even our national flag is among the 10% oldest flags in the world. Already in pre-medieval times, the Estonians knew who they are. If any foreign enemy came, then all the different counties united against the enemy.

I would say that the English are a considerably younger ethnicity than us. A subgroup of the Estonians, the Seto people are the oldest ethnicity in Europe.

What point (specifically or roughly, whichever) would you date the Estonian ethnicity to? And I mean the Estonian ethnicity, no intellectual dishonesty, if possible.

[Äike]

Unfortunately, Livonians were conquered first as they were weak so they fought along with Germans against Baltic people. The last who surrendered were Semigallians, who were conquered ~90 years later than Livonians, about half of them wanted to save their Baltic-paganic identity, so they merged with Žemaitians.

That's not true. The Latgalians were actually extremely happy when the Germans arrived and instantly became their loyal subjects. As the Latgalians had suffered from Livonian and Estonian raids for a very long time, thus German rule stopped that.

Afterwards, united German, Latgal(+other alien Baltic tribes) and Livonian forces started attacking the Estonians, who fought until manpower ran out. We still managed to completely kill our bitches, the Swedes, though. :p

[Äike]

What point (specifically or roughly, whichever) would you date the Estonian ethnicity to? And I mean the Estonian ethnicity, no intellectual dishonesty, if possible.

The 13th century, when united Christian forces(Danes, Swedes and the Germans) of Northern-Europe invaded Estonia to put an end to the Estonian vikings constantly raiding Scandinavia and halting German trade.

A certain chieftain(Lembitu) from the independent Estonian county of Sakala united all the counties and gathered an army which had men from all the counties and an united Estonian force marched against the Christian invaders. With such a great foreign threat, the different counties left their disputes aside and became one Estonian force against the invaders.

[Wyn]

The 13th century

In which case the English are not a considerably younger ethnicity, but a considerably older one. Many centuries older, in fact.

[Äike]

In which case the English are not a considerably younger ethnicity, but a considerably older one. Many centuries older, in fact.

If I talk about ethnicity, I talk about people who are composed of one single ethnicity.

The English have a split identity/ethnicity of being a mix of Celts and Anglo-Saxons.

For instance, the Seto people were completely the same people as they are now, at the time when the Anglo-Saxons, nor Germanics at all, existed yet.

[Wyn]

If I talk about ethnicity, I talk about people who are composed of one single ethnicity.

The English have a split identity/ethnicity of being a mix of Celts and Anglo-Saxons.

For instance, the Seto people were completely the same people as they are now, at the time when the Anglo-Saxons, nor Germanics at all, existed yet.

The English are a single ethnicity (first referenced in the 7th century), but genetically/ancestrally we have a strong Celtic component. The ethnicity of the English however, clearly, by your own admission, predates that of the Estonians by hundreds of years. So our ethnicity is vastly older.

In fact, the claim you make now renders this claim:


I would say that the English are a considerably younger ethnicity than us.

contradictory. If your 13th century ethnicity is 'considerably older' than ours, where does ours begin?

I expect proof for all of these explanations, by the way. Primary sources only (I will use primary sources to back up my claim, if you so request).

[Wulfhere]

If I talk about ethnicity, I talk about people who are composed of one single ethnicity.

The English have a split identity/ethnicity of being a mix of Celts and Anglo-Saxons.

For instance, the Seto people were completely the same people as they are now, at the time when the Anglo-Saxons, nor Germanics at all, existed yet.

That's not what we're talking about, though (even if it were true). At best, Estonian ethnic identity dates merely to the 13th century, then appears to have been dormant for a few hundred years, rather begging the question as to whether the modern identity has any connection with the medieval one. But even if it does, that's still pretty young.

[Äike]

The English are a single ethnicity (first referenced in the 7th century), but genetically/ancestrally we have a strong Celtic component. The ethnicity of the English however, clearly, by your own admission, predates that of the Estonians by hundreds of years. So our ethnicity is vastly older.

In fact, the claim you make now renders this claim:



contradictory. If your 13th century ethnicity is 'considerably older' than ours, where does ours begin?

I expect proof for all of these explanations, by the way. Primary sources only (I will use primary sources to back up my claim, if you so request).


That's not what we're talking about, though (even if it were true). At best, Estonian ethnic identity dates merely to the 13th century, then appears to have been dormant for a few hundred years, rather begging the question as to whether the modern identity has any connection with the medieval one. But even if it does, that's still pretty young.

So, who are you two? Celts or Anglo-Saxons? :p

[Wulfhere]

So, who are you two? Celts or Anglo-Saxons? :p

Both. Next question?

[Äike]

Both. Next question?

So you aren't a single ethnicity, but a split of two? Thanks for the answer.

I am part of a same ethnicity, which only has a Finnic background.

[Wulfhere]

So you aren't a single ethnicity, but a split of two? Thanks for the answer.

I am part of a same ethnicity, which only has a Finnic background.

You still don't appear to be able to grasp what an ethnicity is. And in any case, are you trying to claim that no Scandinavians or Slavs have ever entered the Estonian bloodstream? Poppycock!

[Wyn]

So, who are you two? Celts or Anglo-Saxons? :p

We are Englishmen, and as such have - most likely - both for ancestors. Our ethnic identity dates to around the 7th century or perhaps slightly before.

Now, there's the small matter of you backing up the claims you've been making with primary sources. To get the ball rolling, I'll post an early reference to the English ethno-national identity:


Praeterea omnes, ad quos haec eadem historia peruenire potuerit nostrae nationis [...]
Moreover, I beseech all men who shall hear or read this history of our nation [...]


Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum
(Ecclesiastical History of the English People)
c. 730

I look forward to the many primary sources you no doubt possess that definitively prove the English ethnicity to be of post-13th century origin.

[Peerkons]

You still don't appear to be able to grasp what an ethnicity is. And in any case, are you trying to claim that no Scandinavians or Slavs have ever entered the Estonian bloodstream? Poppycock!

Nope.
The Balts.http://forumbiodiversity.com/images/smilies/evilgrin.gif

[Panopticon]

I think these threads need to be a little more specific. Ethnicity doesn't require a national state, and you can't base how old an ethnicity is on when they became a nation. The threadstarter seems to confuse ethnicity with nationality. One can't say that Kosovars for example are young as an ethnicity as they simply aren't, they're not ethnic Kosovars either, for the most part they're ethnic Albanians, as a nationality "Kosovar" is pretty young however.

Thread should be renamed "Youngest nationality in Europe?" Going by the threadstarters usage of the word ethnicity.

[Äike]

You still don't appear to be able to grasp what an ethnicity is. And in any case, are you trying to claim that no Scandinavians or Slavs have ever entered the Estonian bloodstream? Poppycock!

Well, England was Celtic before the Anglo-Saxons, but Estonia has never been inhabited by the Scandinavians or the Slavs. We are the original inhabitants here, not some kind of newcomers like the Anglo-Saxons are to England. But the Estonians did have very tight ties with the Scandinavians since 2000 BC, thus we have some Scandinavian ancestry, I guess, especially the coastal areas. But you are quite wrong about the Slavs, the Estonians hadn't even met the Slavs before the 10th century and they had nothing to do with this region anyway.

The Germans have more to do with Slavs than we do as Eastern-Germany was taken from the Slavs and the first German town that was founded next to the Baltic sea in the 11th century.

Thus the conclusion is, saying that Germans are Slavs makes more sense than saying that the Northern-Europeans are Slavs, my chauvinistic friend.

[Raikaswinþs]

For what?

for your dubious remarks about Bosnians and Albanians being the offspring of Turks (even if that was true, they could feel that you were trying to imply that it was something negative or something to be ashamed of)

Most European nations and ethnicities in the way they are understood today are
Romantic inventions, as nationalism itself is nothing but a XIX century thing.

But the peoples themselves are much older than that, and the formation of a culture such as the Albanian, in which the Turkish element is only one of the components, along with many others , needs hundreds when not thousands of years to develop

[Wulfhere]

I think these threads need to be a little more specific. Ethnicity doesn't require a national state, and you can't base how old an ethnicity is on when they became a nation. The threadstarter seems to confuse ethnicity with nationality. One can't say that Kosovars for example are young as an ethnicity as they simply aren't, they're not ethnic Kosovars either, for the most part they're ethnic Albanians, as a nationality "Kosovar" is pretty young however.

Thread should be renamed "Youngest nationality in Europe?" Going by the threadstarters usage of the word ethnicity.

I've made it clear I'm not talking about states. A nationality doesn't require a state.

[Äike]

Nope.
The Balts.http://forumbiodiversity.com/images/smilies/evilgrin.gif

Thanks to the Livonians, Estonia remained 100% Estonian for a quite long time. No Balts ever lived here before the 17th century.

The Livonian people were like a barrier between the alien Baltic people and the native Finnic Estonians. This resulted in the destruction of the Livonian population.

At the same time, the modern Latvian people are more Finnic than they are Baltic, by ancestry at least. Culturally, they are quite foreign to the remaining Finnic people, the Estonians and the Finns + other small ethnicities.

[Wulfhere]

Well, England was Celtic before the Anglo-Saxons, but Estonia has never been inhabited by the Scandinavians or the Slavs. We are the original inhabitants here, not some kind of newcomers like the Anglo-Saxons are to England. But the Estonians did have very tight ties with the Scandinavians since 2000 BC, thus we have some Scandinavian ancestry, I guess, especially the coastal areas. But you are quite wrong about the Slavs, the Estonians hadn't even met the Slavs before the 10th century and they had nothing to do with this region anyway.

The Germans have more to do with Slavs than we do as Eastern-Germany was taken from the Slavs and the first German town that was founded next to the Baltic sea in the 11th century.

Thus the conclusion is, saying that Germans are Slavs makes more sense than saying that the Northern-Europeans are Slavs, my chauvinistic friend.

You still don't get it, do you? I'm talking about ethnic identity, not ancestry.

And in any case, I think Estonia has had some pretty close connection with Slavs in more recent centuries, has it not? Like being ruled by them for hundreds of years, for example. Little things like that.

[Äike]

We are Englishmen, and as such have - most likely - both for ancestors. Our ethnic identity dates to around the 7th century or perhaps slightly before.

Now, there's the small matter of you backing up the claims you've been making with primary sources. To get the ball rolling, I'll post an early reference to the English ethno-national identity:



I look forward to the many primary sources you no doubt possess that definitively prove the English ethnicity to be of post-13th century origin.

This isn't the question.

I said that the English compose of several different ethnicities, while the Estonian people only have a Finnic ancestry, we are the native inhabitants of this region.

[Wulfhere]

This isn't the question.

I said that the English compose of several different ethnicities, while the Estonian people only have a Finnic ancestry, we are the native inhabitants of this region.

Eh? How can the English, a single, very long-established ethnicity, comprise several different ethnicties? Do you actually know what the word means?

[Äike]

You still don't get it, do you? I'm talking about ethnic identity, not ancestry.

I'm talking about the split-ethnicity of the English, while at the same time, many other Europeans don't have a split-ethnicity, but a single ethnicity.

You shouldn't have trolled me. :p


And in any case, I think Estonia has had some pretty close connection with Slavs in more recent centuries, has it not? Like being ruled by them for hundreds of years, for example. Little things like that.

I wouldn't say that the Estonians nor the Finns have anything to do with the Slavs.

[Äike]

Eh? How can the English, a single, very long-established ethnicity, comprise several different ethnicties? Do you actually know what the word means?

The Anglo-Saxons are Germanic, not Celtic. My Celto-Germanic friend.

[Wulfhere]

I'm talking about the split-ethnicity of the English, while at the same time, many other Europeans don't have a split-ethnicity, but a single ethnicity.

You shouldn't have trolled me. :p



I wouldn't say that the Estonians nor the Finns have anything to do with the Slavs.

Why don't you find out what the word "ethnicity" means before embarrassing yourself further?

[Wulfhere]

The Anglo-Saxons are Germanic, not Celtic. My Celto-Germanic friend.

See my previous post.

[Äike]

Why don't you find out what the word "ethnicity" means before embarrassing yourself further?


See my previous post.

I'm fighting fire with fire, do you have a problem with that?

[poiuytrewq0987]

Macedonians. Their formation was in 1946-something. :D

[Wyn]

This isn't the question.

I said that the English compose of several different ethnicities, while the Estonian people only have a Finnic ancestry, we are the native inhabitants of this region.

1. You have claimed that the English ethnicity is 'considerably younger' than the Estonian one.

2. You have claimed that the Estonian ethnicity is of 13th Century origin. Thus, you have an idea of when the English ethnicity dates to and, according to your claim, it is 'considerably' later than the 13th century. You have offered no source or even an explanation for these claims.

3. The English do not compose of several different ethnicities. We are English, and the English ethnicity can be shown to have existed from the 7th century onwards. Celts have, to varying degrees, been absorbed into this ethnicity, but our ethnonym (English, from OE Englisc) and ethnicity remains the same.

[Wulfhere]

I'm fighting fire with fire, do you have a problem with that?

If you want to make a fool of yourself, be my guest. But all intelligent discourse appears to have ground to a halt here, now.

[Wulfhere]

Macedonians. Their formation was in 1946-something. :D

Or even more recently. Yes, good one.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Macedonians. Their formation was in 1946-something. :D

http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/alexander-the-great-valerie-ornstein.jpg

HOLY SHIT! TIME MACHINE! :eek:

[Äike]

1. You have claimed that the English ethnicity is 'considerably younger' than the Estonian one.

It depends how you look at it. From one viewpoint, we were here in Estonia, before the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons/Germanics even existed.


2. You have claimed that the Estonian ethnicity is of 13th Century origin. Thus, you have an idea of when the English ethnicity dates to and, according to your claim, it is 'considerably' later than the 13th century. You have offered no source or even an explanation for these claims.

3. The English do not compose of several different ethnicities. We are English, and the English ethnicity can be shown to have existed from the 7th century onwards. Celts have, to varying degrees, been absorbed into this ethnicity, but our ethnonym (English, from OE Englisc) and ethnicity remains the same.

Okay, I'll correct myself. While the Estonians are composed of only one meta-ethnicity, the English are Celto-Germanic mutts, composing of several meta-ethnicities.

Blame Wulfhere for pissing me off. :p

[Äike]

http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/alexander-the-great-valerie-ornstein.jpg

HOLY SHIT! TIME MACHINE! :eek:

I think that he is talking about the Slavic FRYOMANS who are actually Bulgarians who think that they're Hellenic Macedonians.

[Panopticon]

I've made it clear I'm not talking about states. A nationality doesn't require a state.

Then why do you keep bringing up the dates when some ethnicity had their first state? Such as for example Kosovars, while Kosova is a young nation, the Albanian ethnicity isn't and statehood is mentioned here often as a factor in if an ethnicity is young or not. Some of the arguements used to decide if a nationality is young or not are only valid if nationality does require a state.

[Wulfhere]

It depends how you look at it. From one viewpoint, we were here in Estonia, before the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons/Germanics even existed.



Okay, I'll correct myself. While the Estonians are composed of only one meta-ethnicity, the English are Celto-Germanic mutts, composing of several meta-ethnicities.

Blame Wulfhere for pissing me off. :p

Have you heard of hybrid vigour? Perhaps that's why the English have been so successful. It only works, of course, if both races in question are noble ones, as both the Germanic and Celtic races are. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[Wulfhere]

Then why do you keep bringing up the dates when some ethnicity had their first state? Such as for example Kosovars, while Kosova is a young nation, the Albanian ethnicity isn't and statehood is mentioned here often as a factor in if an ethnicity is young or not. Some of the arguements used to decide if a nationality is young or not are only valid if nationality does require a state.

I never brought up any such dates and never even mentioned Kosovo.

[Wyn]

It depends how you look at it. From one viewpoint, we were here in Estonia, before the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons/Germanics even existed.

This would not - does not - make the Estonian ethnicity older than the English ethnicity. Yours is of 13th Century origin, as you have admitted.


Okay, I'll correct myself. While the Estonians are composed of only one meta-ethnicity, the English are Celto-Germanic mutts, composing of several meta-ethnicities.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity. The English ethnicity is of 7th Century origin - this is demonstrable. Celts, to varying degrees, have been absorbed into the ethnicity, but the ethnicity itself dates to the 7th century.


Blame Wulfhere for pissing me off. :p

What? Come now, it's not Wulfhere's fault you're an idiot.

[Panopticon]

I never brought up any such dates and never even mentioned Kosovo.

Meh, guess that wasn't you, sorry :D

[Wulfhere]

Meh, guess that wasn't you, sorry :D

No probs. :D

[Raikaswinþs]

I think that he is talking about the Slavic FRYOMANS who are actually Bulgarians who think that they're Hellenic Macedonians.

Oversimplification of the same sort than Estonians being Latvians that believe to be Scandinavians. Wasn´t expecting that one coming precisely from you :confused::( see, probably they are something more than just Bulgarians ... they are probably a blend of people stablishedin the area through millenia. They might have some greek on them too.They might even be Slavized Illyrians-greeks-thracian.... (With the arrival of the Slavs, the remaining Paionians and Thracians were Slavicized) See Hiszpania does not occupy the whole peninsula, and the portuguese don´t seem to be bothered because of our name :P

Even though Portugal is a much older nation that Spain is :thumbs up

[Ushtari]

I think that he is talking about the Slavic FRYOMANS who are actually Bulgarians who think that they're Hellenic Macedonians.
Macedonians were an illyrian race

[Peerkons]

Moldovanians.

[Peyrol]

Moldovanians.

They aren't ethnically Romanian?

[Sturmgewehr]

if you ask me that would be, Bosnians or Bosniaks whatever they call themselves, Slavo-Macedonians, Torbeshs, Pomaks and Romani People

[Lurker]

Macedonian - a modified Bulgarian. The runner up is Moldovan, a modified Romanian.

[Ushtari]

if you ask me that would be, Bosnians or Bosniaks whatever they call themselves, Slavo-Macedonians, Torbeshs, Pomaks and Romani People



As for bosnians

No, Bosniaks are not Serbs. The fact is, historically and culturally, Bosniaks have much more relation and similarity's with Croats then Serbs. The fact is, Hungarian sources in the middle ages described Bosniaks as Croats, observe that this is not proof since its just a own interpretation during a historical time. Many people perceived different people as the same, when they in fact where totally different people. But this reinforces the theory about Bosniaks having more influence from Croats then Serbs since Bosniaks where Catholics and their ruler used the title Ban instead of the Serbian Zupan.

It is commonly known that Bosniaks derived from slavic speaking tribes that migrated to Balkan around 600's. Of course, they most likely have elements of Illyrian blood in them, everybody in Balkan have that. As we all know, we have to little information about Illyrians. Some bosniaks say "we have adopted the Slavic language", of course some may have done it, but you can not prove it. Serbs and Croats can also come with these statements, since sources only say that Slavic-speaking tribes poured into the area, sources do not tell about what happened to the indigenous inhabitants, there you must use logical thinking. The mayby got assimilated or mayby had to flee to the south, no body know. What remains, is the linguistic and cultural part. The Bosniak culture is very similar to slavic, and the language, well its slavic right through.

One thing to consider, we can take Romanian for example. Romanian is a Latin language, but they have preserved alot of substratum words that belong to palobalkan language, wich testifies that proto-romanians before they adopted latin may have been another people who simply adopted the Latin language. So my question for you is, why cant we see anything of this in the Bosniak language? As i see it, they base their whole theory on the word "Bosna" wich have been proposed to be Illyrian. Observe that one word is not enough as a proof, since if that was the case, it would be very clear that Albanians are illyrians, but thats not the case right? Example, albanoi comes from a tribe that lived in central Albania with the city Albanopolis as its seat. People can basically just move there and adopt the word, wich slavs may have done in Bosnia. However, if there would be ancient words or in the culture, or in the linguistic part that could back up the word "bosna", well then it would be more credible. But like now, when they only have one word, its only far-fetched theories.

Unfortunately we have to few sources regarding names of Slavic tribes. Actually, concretely Croat and Serb are just names of two tribes, the rest have only been mentioned as a whole, Sclaveni and Antes. Sclaveni (actually lots of different tribes, but was called during the Byzantine Empire for scleveni) are those who invaded and stabilized them self in Illyria and Greece first, ie including Croatia and Bosnia. Antes went more to the north and later Croats and Serbs came. This led to many other Slavic tribes adopted the Serbian and Croatian identity. So actually, there are no sources of individual tribes of 600's, but only the Slavs as a whole, in addition to Serbs and Croats only. It was recently that small Slavic kingdoms were created around the Balkans. For example, two slavic tribes are mentioned for doing raids in Greece in 700's. Proto-Bosniaks are just as commonly known, descendants of these so-called sclaveni or rather large Slavic Migration Period, which came with the first wave of Slavs(various Slavic tribes). Then there are certainly elements of the second wave, ie Croats and Serbs. But they have with no doubt elements of the natives to, i dont doubt that, all people in Balkan have that. But only because you have elements, it does not give you the right to call yourself Illyrian descendant, since they dont speak the language and can not prove that they have adopted the language they speak today. But if they however would be able to prove otherwise, well then it would be another story.

[poiuytrewq0987]

If you believe Macedonians are Bulgarians in denial then you're buying into Bulgarian propaganda... just because Bulgarians say they are doesn't mean it's true.

Macedonia/Vardarska was, is and always will be Serbian. :thumbs up

[Aramis]

Bosnians came into existence probably somewhen around the 10th century onwards.

Bosnia was first mentioned by Constantine VII as "a district in baptized Serbia".

Later on in the 12th century, Ban Borić, a Slavonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavonia#History) nobleman, took control over the former "district" and became the first known Bosnian ruler. Bosnia became loyal to the Hungarian crown and fought against the Byzanthine empire. The war didn't procede as expected, and Borić was expelled from Bosnia as the hellenic Romans ensured their dominance once again.

Yet the Bosnian throne was succeeded by his son, Ban Kulin, who ensured his land it's independence in times of raging confrontation between West and East, first as a vassal, then ally, and in the end enemy of the Hungarians.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bosniaks started developing in the late 19th/begining of the 20th century, and their ethnic consciousness is much obliged to this man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husein_Grada%C5%A1%C4%8Devi%C4%87).

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Originally Posted by Jäärapää
Estonians are mentioned in Old Norse Icelandic Sagas and in the Heimskringla.

Which date to no earlier than 1000 and up to two or three centuries later.

Well, if it's written documents you're after, Tacitus mentions the Aesti
around year 100 so the Estonians beat the English here.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Why don't you find out what the word "ethnicity" means before embarrassing yourself further?

It's you who seem to have problems understanding the word ethnicity:cool:

[Electronic God-Man]

Yes, I know. And the Italian ethnicity post-dates those kingdoms by quite some time. To find out when it emerged, you need to find out when the Italians started calling themselves Italians, rather than Romans. The time of Dante has been proposed elsewhere.

Don't know if someone has said this in the last 5 pages or so, but most Italians still don't see themselves as primarily Italian. Foremost, they see themselves as Sardinians, Sicilians, Piedmontese, etc.

Their "nationhood" is rather weak in that sense.

[Wyn]

around year 100 so the Estonians beat the English here.

Actually, it would put our ethnicities at identical points of origin, as Tacitus mentions the Angli in his Germania (c. 98). Thus, if Aesti = Estonian ethnicity then Angli = English ethnicity.

But of course not even Karl has claimed that. ;)

[The Journeyman]

Kalmyks.

[Matuo]

I think that Moldovans are youngest nation, because in essence Moldovans are Romanians, just living in a seperate country (seperated since the second world war).

[The Journeyman]

What exactly are we talking about here? The ethnic group which arrived last to make a permanent residency on the continent, or most recently established ethnic group in Europe?

[Matuo]

Well, if it's written documents you're after, Tacitus mentions the Aesti
around year 100 so the Estonians beat the English here.
Aesti could as well refer to Prussians. There is no clear understanding what Aesti means.

[Matuo]

That's not true. The Latgalians were actually extremely happy when the Germans arrived and instantly became their loyal subjects. As the Latgalians had suffered from Livonian and Estonian raids for a very long time, thus German rule stopped that.

Afterwards, united German, Latgal(+other alien Baltic tribes) and Livonian forces started attacking the Estonians, who fought until manpower ran out. We still managed to completely kill our bitches, the Swedes, though. :p
WTF are these lies? Latgalians extremely happy about Germans? Why not Livonians, they were first ones to give up to Germans! First German bitches were exactly Livonians. On Livonian grounds Germans could build their first fortifications, including most famous one - Riga.

Why are you blackwashing Balts all the time?

[Matuo]

Thanks to the Livonians, Estonia remained 100% Estonian for a quite long time. No Balts ever lived here before the 17th century.

The Livonian people were like a barrier between the alien Baltic people and the native Finnic Estonians. This resulted in the destruction of the Livonian population.

At the same time, the modern Latvian people are more Finnic than they are Baltic, by ancestry at least. Culturally, they are quite foreign to the remaining Finnic people, the Estonians and the Finns + other small ethnicities.
All the time lies or phantasies.

Livonians lived along the sea gulf, they didn't live between Estonians and Balts. Baltic tribe Latgalians were southern neighbours to Southern Estonians. Check out map, before you talk nonsense!
Livonians were destructed first and foremost by Germans, not by Balts, you dimwit.

Latvians are Baltic, not Finnic. Estonians are both Baltic and Finnic.

Let's flame war begin? :D

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Matuo and Jääräpää are both right and wrong. The truth lies somewhere in between.

[Matuo]

Matuo and Jääräpää are both right and wrong. The truth lies somewhere in between.
Where am I wrong exactly?

I don't say that Jäärapää is always wrong. I have sometimes agreed with him, and even said that, but he doesn't seem to thank me about that :D He is just always seeking possiblity to write something negative about Latvians. He is one weird guy.

[alzo zero]

Don't know if someone has said this in the last 5 pages or so, but most Italians still don't see themselves as primarily Italian. Foremost, they see themselves as Sardinians, Sicilians, Piedmontese, etc.

Their "nationhood" is rather weak in that sense.
Italy as a political entity doesn't mean much to me but at the same time I don't have a beef with Rome and with other inhabitants of the peninsula unlike many other Lombards do. Still I know that ethnically I'm not the same as a Sicilian, for example, so I guess that the a real Italian ethnic identity currently doesn't exist, or at best it is forming in this very moment.

[Wulfhere]

Well, if it's written documents you're after, Tacitus mentions the Aesti
around year 100 so the Estonians beat the English here.

Au contraire, because in the very same document (Germania), Tacitus also mentions the Anglii.

[Wulfhere]

It's you who seem to have problems understanding the word ethnicity:cool:

No, look it up.

[Wulfhere]

What exactly are we talking about here? The ethnic group which arrived last to make a permanent residency on the continent, or most recently established ethnic group in Europe?

I'm talking about European native ones.

[Wulfhere]

Aesti could as well refer to Prussians. There is no clear understanding what Aesti means.

Whereas there's no doubt at all who the Anglii are. Oh dear, poor Estonians eh?

[Ouistreham]

Tacitus mentions the Aesti
around year 100 so the Estonians beat the English here.

— Tacitus also mentions the Swedes ("Sviones"), with a strikingly accurate depiction of Swedish socialism:

"Next occur the communities of the Suiones, situated in the ocean itself; and besides their strength in men and arms, very powerful at sea. The form of their vessels varies thus far from ours, that they have prows at each end, so as to be always ready to row to shore without turning nor are they moved by sails, nor on their sides have benches of oars placed, but the rowers ply here and there in all parts of the ship alike, as in some rivers is done, and change their oars from place to place, just as they shift their course hither or thither.

To wealth also, amongst them, great veneration is paid, and thence a single ruler governs them, without all restriction of power, and exacting unlimited obedience. Neither here, as amongst other nations of Germany, are arms used indifferently by all, but shut up and warded under the care of a particular keeper, who in truth too is always a slave: since from all sudden invasions and attacks from their foes, the ocean protects them."

[Äike]

Oversimplification of the same sort than Estonians being Latvians that believe to be Scandinavians.

Well, the FYROMANS speak a language that is very similar to Bulgarian and they're both Slavic.

While a Latvian is linguistically more similar to you, than to any Estonian. We are Finnic people, similar to the Finns and the Latvians are a bunch of Balts, who we aren't similar to. They are newcomers to this (our) region.[/QUOTE]

[Äike]

WTF are these lies? Latgalians extremely happy about Germans? Why not Livonians, they were first ones to give up to Germans! First German bitches were exactly Livonians. On Livonian grounds Germans could build their first fortifications, including most famous one - Riga.

Why are you blackwashing Balts all the time?


All the time lies or phantasies.

Livonians lived along the sea gulf, they didn't live between Estonians and Balts. Baltic tribe Latgalians were southern neighbours to Southern Estonians. Check out map, before you talk nonsense!
Livonians were destructed first and foremost by Germans, not by Balts, you dimwit.

Latvians are Baltic, not Finnic. Estonians are both Baltic and Finnic.

Let's flame war begin? :D

Troll... There's a reason why South-Eastern Estonia had a lot of forts, because only they bordered the Latgals. Most of the Estonians were separated from the foreign Balts by our Finnic kin, the Livonians.

http://www.laugallen.com/baltic.tribe.map-orig.png

[poiuytrewq0987]

Well, the FYROMANS speak a language that is very similar to Bulgarian and they're both Slavic.

While a Latvian is linguistically more similar to you, than to any Estonian. We are Finnic people, similar to the Finns and the Latvians are a bunch of Balts, who we aren't similar to. They are newcomers to this (our) region.[/QUOTE]

Troll... Macedonians speak a language that is similar to both Serbian and Bulgarian. Not just Bulgarian. Now please get out and take your Bulgarian propaganda with you.

[Äike]

Troll... Macedonians speak a language that is similar to both Serbian and Bulgarian. Not just Bulgarian. Now please get out and take your Bulgarian propaganda with you.

Bulgarian is similar to Serbian, I thought that that mentioning Bulgaria was enough.

Saying that the FRYOMANS are Serbs, is wrong, they're more similar to the Bulgarians.

[Ushtari]

FYROMANIAN is an Bulgarian dialect

[Kosovo je Sjrbia]

FYROMANIAN is an Bulgarian dialect

source? ;)

[Peerkons]

Troll... There's a reason why South-Eastern Estonia had a lot of forts, because only they bordered the Latgals. Most of the Estonians were separated from the foreign Balts by our Finnic kin, the Livonians.


MOWL
the border with Latgalians is 3 times bigger than with Livs.:coffee:

You also said that Livonians were inhabiting 1/2 of Latvia :D
Dude, you make no sense at all.

[Ushtari]

source? ;)
http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/7158/fyroman.jpg
http://multitree.linguistlist.org/codes/003

http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/5177/fyroman2.jpg
http://books.google.com/books?id=_kn5c5dJmNUC&lpg=PP1&dq=benjamin%20w.%20fortson&pg=PA431#v=snippet&q=macedonian&f=false

Now, how about you give me those sources i asked for?

[Äike]

MOWL
the border with Latgalians is 3 times bigger than with Livs.:coffee:

You also said that Livonians were inhabiting 1/2 of Latvia :D
Dude, you make no sense at all.

Livonians or no Livonians, the majority of the Latvians are crypto Northern-Europeans/Finnics, that's why you can find very Estonian looking individuals among them.

You have to keep in mind, that the Finnic people were inhabiting areas as far south as Poland and Belorussia before Balto-Slavic immigrants started pouring onto our native lands.

You look like a Balto-Slav, but a large portion of the Latvians do not.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Bulgarian is similar to Serbian, I thought that that mentioning Bulgaria was enough.

Saying that the FRYOMANS are Serbs, is wrong, they're more similar to the Bulgarians.

Cool, I assume you have actually traveled to the region to be so confident of your tripe?

[Guapo]

Cool, I assume you have actually traveled to the region to be so confident of your tripe?

He was born in Kumanovo.

[The Ripper]

Estonians? Their ethnic identity dates to the 18th century, according to Wiki:



Karl is going to shit icy Nordic venom when he sees this.

Going by this logic, the Germans and the Italians are far younger. ;)

[poiuytrewq0987]

He was born in Kumanovo.

So our Estrollian is actually a balkanoid? how surprising.

[Äike]

Cool, I assume you have actually traveled to the region to be so confident of your tripe?

Contrary to you, I am actually European, not American.


So our Estrollian is actually a balkanoid? how surprising.

Fuck off.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Ushtari, there is only one Macedonia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Ethnicmacedonia.jpg/735px-Ethnicmacedonia.jpg

[Peerkons]

You look like a Balto-Slav, but a large portion of the Latvians do not.

What is a Balto-Slav look?
There is no thing as Balto-Slavs.
I agree with the big Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns


The Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns thought, however, that any similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages were a result of an intensive language contact, i.e., that they were not genetically related and that there was no common Proto-Balto-Slavic language.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Contrary to you, I am actually European, not American.

Oh, I bet your dick is big and hard now.

[Peerkons]

Oh, I bet your dick is big and hard now.

Finno-Uralic dick.

[Äike]

What is a Balto-Slav look?
There is no thing as Balto-Slavs.
I agree with the big Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns

No sane person disagrees with there not being a Proto-Balto-Slavic homeland where you and your Slavic brothers came from.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Balto-Slavic_lng.png


Oh, I bet your dick is big and hard now.

...What the fuck?

[poiuytrewq0987]

The Macedonian identity is provincial. The Slavs who lived in Ottoman Macedonia called themselves Macedonian after the region. True story.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Balkan-nations.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/1855_Colton_Map_of_Turkey_in_Europe,_Macedonia,_an d_the_Balkans_-_Geographicus_-_TurkeyEurope-colton-1855.jpg

Just like Bosnians called themselves Bosnian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Bosnia) after the land. :p

[Matuo]

No sane person disagrees with there not being a Proto-Balto-Slavic homeland where you and your Slavic brothers came from.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Balto-Slavic_lng.png
Latvian language is as similar to Russian language as Estonian language is to Saami or Erzya language. Latvian language is as Balto-Slavic language, as Estonian is Finnic-Lapic or Finnic-Mordvian :tongue

[Talvi]

Latvian language is as similar to Russian language as Estonian language is to Saami or Erzya language. Latvian language is as Balto-Slavic language, as Estonian is Finnic-Lapic or Finnic-Mordvian :tongue

Sorry to say but the accent of Saami languages does resemble Estonian, imo. :P

And if the reason why Latvian sounds a lot like Russian is only because of all the loans then I just feel sorry for your language.

Though its not probably so. http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/capnolagina/baltoslav.png?t=1305139211

[Matuo]

Sorry to say but the accent of Saami languages does resemble Estonian, imo. :P
Well, I don't deny that Latvian language somewhere reminds Russian language in sounding. But Russians themselves would say that Latvian language sounds kinda like Estonian. There's even term "Baltic accent".

Latvian language contains sounds that are like in Russian language (all those palatalized sounds, ž, sh etc.). But in Latvian language are also diftongs, which are typical in Estonian language, but are not common in Russian language and Slavic languages in general (like ie, uo etc.). BTW diftongs in general are restricted to Finnic-Baltic and Baltic languages, so there is something common about them. In other Uralic languages diftongs are not typical. Just like in other Indo-European languages.

Uralic languages in general are closer each to other than are Indo-European languages. Because Uralic languages started to split later than Indo-European languages. And so, general distances between Uralic languages are smaller than between Indo-European languages.
For example, Finnish and Estonian languages are closer each to other than Latvian and Lithuanian languages. Estonian and Saami might be closer each to other than Latvian and Russian. So I don't find it unbelievable, that distance between Latvian and Russian is something like Estonian and Erzya, or Estonian and Moksha.

This text is in Moksha language, how much do you understand?

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x251/zemelmete/5_Ushaedumanj_langanza.jpg

I can reveal you a secret - you can't understand Latvian language from viewpoint of Russian language. Maybe you find some similar words, but that's it.

[Magister Eckhart]

Oh you people and your obsession with the Balkans.

The Austrians are the youngest ethnicity in Europe; they didn't start to really as a whole think of themselves as a singular, separate ethnic entity from the Germans until the 1950s, and the whole concept didn't take root as an ethnic outlook until a little after that.

Most of the peoples of the Balkans, on the other hand, self-identified as such already in the 19th century. Austria as an ethnic group is only a little bit older than Palestine.

[Matuo]

What is a Balto-Slav look?
Perhaps by that is meant Central European look. Because many Balts and Slavs tend to look Central-Europaeish. By the way, many Germans, Austrians etc. tend to look like that too.


There is no thing as Balto-Slavs.
I agree with the big Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns
I must disagree this time. Baltic languages have descended from same root as Slavic languages, and are undisputably related each to other. But Baltic languages have received some autochtonous, unknown substrata, that is not found in Slavic languages. And that is the main split between Baltic and Slavic languages IMO.

By the way, in genetic tests you can see as well this split between Baltic and Slavic populations (by that I mean Y haplogroup N1c - Baltic version).

So there has been some unknown force behind forming Baltic languages and populations.

[Wulfhere]

Oh you people and your obsession with the Balkans.

The Austrians are the youngest ethnicity in Europe; they didn't start to really as a whole think of themselves as a singular, separate ethnic entity from the Germans until the 1950s, and the whole concept didn't take root as an ethnic outlook until a little after that.

Most of the peoples of the Balkans, on the other hand, self-identified as such already in the 19th century. Austria as an ethnic group is only a little bit older than Palestine.

Do the Austrians think of themselves as an ethnicity?

[Magister Eckhart]

Do the Austrians think of themselves as an ethnicity?

Recent historiography says yes. Identification of "Austrian" in opposition to "German" has been on the rise since the Cold War.

[Wulfhere]

Recent historiography says yes. Identification of "Austrian" in opposition to "German" has been on the rise since the Cold War.

Maybe it's true then, and they are indeed the youngest European ethnicity. We can even watch it happening, which should make a fascinating study.

[Magister Eckhart]

Maybe it's true then, and they are indeed the youngest European ethnicity. We can even watch it happening, which should make a fascinating study.

It will take some time for them to gain recognition, of course; the Germans (even non-nationalistic ones) still by and large consider the Austrians ethnically German, even if they are nationally different. It's only been within the last 30 years that Austrian historians have abandoned the "civic nation" as a model and adopted the "cultural ethnicity" model to define the Austrians historically.

[Vereni]

The youngest ethnic group in Europe are Macedonians, they appeared after the Second world war under the influence of the Yugoslav propaganda.

[Magister Eckhart]

The youngest ethnic group in Europe are Macedonians, they appeared after the Second world war under the influence of the Yugoslav propaganda.

If their timeline begins right after the Second World War, the Austrians are still younger. Until the late 1950s, Austrian consciousness was defined in terms of a civic nationalism, it's only been since the 1960s that the thought occurred to historians to think of Austria as its own ethnicity, and only since the 1970s that the notion began attracting appeal outside of the academy.

[Yoyo]

How about Ukraine. There was no Ukraine until 15 or so years ago?

[Albion]

Macedonians. They split from the Bulgarians fairly recently despite what they tell you.

[Magister Eckhart]

Macedonians. They split from the Bulgarians fairly recently despite what they tell you.


If their timeline begins right after the Second World War, the Austrians are still younger. Until the late 1950s, Austrian consciousness was defined in terms of a civic nationalism, it's only been since the 1960s that the thought occurred to historians to think of Austria as its own ethnicity, and only since the 1970s that the notion began attracting appeal outside of the academy.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Macedonians. They split from the Bulgarians fairly recently despite what they tell you.

Macedonians = Bulgarians = Bulgarian propaganda.


It will take some time for them to gain recognition, of course; the Germans (even non-nationalistic ones) still by and large consider the Austrians ethnically German, even if they are nationally different. It's only been within the last 30 years that Austrian historians have abandoned the "civic nation" as a model and adopted the "cultural ethnicity" model to define the Austrians historically.

Can't wait for them to codify Austrian language!

[Magister Eckhart]

Macedonians = Bulgarians = Bulgarian propaganda.



Can't wait for them to codify Austrian language!

"Austrian German" is already a recognised form around the world, as the "Austrian keyboard" settings indicate.

Besides, ethnicity is always defined by the people who self-identify as that ethnicity. If it were the other way round, or if it were dependent on language, you'd be a Serbo-Croat (the language you speak), or, more likely, an "Illyrian".

[poiuytrewq0987]

Serdish ethnicity. I think I am the first Serdish in the world.

Birth of Serdish ethnicity: 22 May 2011

[esaima]

And if the reason why Latvian sounds a lot like Russian is only because of all the loans then I just feel sorry for your language.
Latvian language doesn't sound to me Russian, it sounds me sometimes even like Finnish(maybe because of sounds uo, ie, and because of low L) but mostly it has a sound of its own.Lithuanian is the Baltic language what sounds like Russian(palatalisation?) and it sounds to me even more Russian than some Slavic languages themselves sound to Russian.
But I think sounding similar/not sounding similar doesn't show directly the linguistical closeness of languages e.g Hungarian sounds indeed sometimes like Finnish and foreigners have told so(maybe because of the stress in first syllabus and vowel harmony), sounds of Hungarian and Finnish sound me closer than sounds of Erza or Mari or Udmurt(one can listen their sound at youtube) and Finnish.But in reality Erza, Mari, Udmurt are all certainly closer to Finnish than Hungarian is.


The youngest ethnicity in Europe
I think Moldavians. Their ethicity was initially artificially created by USSR and Stalin (they started to write it in Cyrillic and added many Russian words into it) after occupation a piece of Romania but seems that at the current moment they feel themselves already as non-Romanians although as a close one to the them.

Also it would be interesting to know how old is the self-identity of Luxemburgians? I'v got an impression that in old school encyclopedies they were mentioned as ethnic group of Germans with French culture speaking a German language dialect.Modern books and wikipedia mention Luxemburgian language as a seperate language and then i visited Luxemburg(:cool:) they seemed me, how to say, enough independent to be titeled as ethnicity.They sometimes use their dialect(or language) in writing form as well and it looked at least to my ignorant eye to be pretty distant to be considered as "German language".But I'm not an expert of course.

[Talvi]

Latvian language doesn't sound to me Russian, it sounds me sometimes even like Finnish(maybe because of sounds uo, ie, and because of low L) but mostly it has a sound of its own.Lithuanian is the Baltic language what sounds like Russian(palatalisation?) and it sounds to me even more Russian than some Slavic languages themselves sound to Russian.
But I think sounding similar/not sounding similar doesn't show directly the linguistical closeness of languages e.g Hungarian sounds indeed sometimes like Finnish and foreigners have told so(maybe because of the stress in first syllabus and vowel harmony), sounds of Hungarian and Finnish sound me closer than sounds of Erza or Mari or Udmurt(one can listen their sound at youtube) and Finnish.But in reality Erza, Mari, Udmurt are all certainly closer to Finnish than Hungarian is.



Latvian doesnt sound like Finnish at all. And Finnish L sounds quite different from the Latvian L.

Though sounding similar means nothing. There are some grammatical things that both Russian and Latvian have.

[Albion]

I'd say the youngest ethnicity is one of the recently made-up ones such as the Moldovans (they're Romanian) or the Montenegrins (I don't care whether Montenegro existed centuries ago, it was still simply a petty Serbian kingdom).

[esaima]

Latvian doesnt sound like Finnish at all. And Finnish L sounds quite different from the Latvian L.
Latvian language's pronaunciation is influenced by Finnic pronaunciation, that's for sure.

Though sounding similar means nothing. There are some grammatical things that both Russian and Latvian have.
Yes, the grammar shares some similarities like Estonian grammar may share similarities with Finno-Volgaic languages.

[The Ripper]

Latvian sounds cool. Just listen to this.

ByDYQk5eybU

It sounds like a mixture of Finnic and Slavic. :D

[Matuo]

Listen Udmurt language (a Finnic-Permic language).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9wUZOuj0A&feature=player_profilepage


I wonder what sounds more Russian - Udmurt language or Latvian language :D

[Äike]

Listen Udmurt language (a Finnic-Permic language).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9wUZOuj0A&feature=player_profilepage


I wonder what sounds more Russian - Udmurt language or Latvian language :D

I have heard Udmurt poems, songs and I've heard it being spoken. The Udmurt language has a lot of Russian influence, but Latvian sounds more Russian because it has the same Balto-Slavic origin as Russian. In reality, Latvian doesn't sound similar to many languages except Lithuanian, it has a very unique sound to it. But if you listen to it for some time, it becomes quite clear that Latvian has the same origin as the Slavic languages.

[Thundermark]

First record of "Bosnians" comes from the Byzantines. Emperor Manuel Komnenos had Bosnians in his royal title in 1166 after Hungarians and before Croats, Serbs and Bulgars. Also, in 1155. : " Manuel in Christo Deo fidelis rex Porphyrogenitus, Romanorum imperator, piisimus,semper Sebastus, Augustus…Dalmaticus, Ungaricus, Bosthnicus, Servicus, Zecchicus…”
That is from outside...
In 1189. was issued one of the first south slavic documents - the charter of Bosnian ruler Kulin. In the beginning stands: " In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, I, Bosnian ban Kulin..."
In 1332. Bosnian ruler Stephen II Kotromanich used the term "Bošnjani" ( old word for "Bošnjaci" - Bosniaks) in his charter to Dubrovnik. All rulers of Bosnia till the fall of the kingdom called their people " Bošnjani".
in 1443. delegation of Bosnian king Tvrtko II Kotromanich congratulated Polish king Vladislav for his coronation and in that event it is said that " Bosniaks have the same forefathers as Poles" - " Bošnjakom su isti pradjedovi bili kao i Poljakom".

So, only people with very low intellectual capacity could try to show that Bosnian ethnic identity or , at least , political identity came with the Ottomans. Sorry for the slight off topic but I had to clear this thing out. ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On-topic... Ethnic identities in Europe are mostly related to state formations from the past so if we can even use a pattern to decide which ethnicity is older or newer...this is the way. Smaller ethnic groups are greater problem for determination because they were mostly under the rule of greater ethnic or political factors.

[safinator]

Macedonians

[Tabiti]

Macedonians
FYROM-ians, Kosovars and Montengrians probably.

[HungAryan]

I'd say that the youngest ethnicity in Europe are the Germans of Germany.

[The Ripper]

I have heard Udmurt poems, songs and I've heard it being spoken. The Udmurt language has a lot of Russian influence, but Latvian sounds more Russian because it has the same Balto-Slavic origin as Russian. In reality, Latvian doesn't sound similar to many languages except Lithuanian, it has a very unique sound to it. But if you listen to it for some time, it becomes quite clear that Latvian has the same origin as the Slavic languages.

I think Udmurt sounds way more like Russian than Latvian. Get your ears checked. :D

[Äike]

I think Udmurt sounds way more like Russian than Latvian. Get your ears checked. :D

You have to be joking. It has a large amount of Russian loanwords, but it doesn't sound Russian. It sounds very unique.

[Mordid]

Estonians

[The Ripper]

You have to be joking. It has a large amount of Russian loanwords, but it doesn't sound Russian. It sounds very unique.

Compared to Latvian, the intonation and the sound is closer to Russian, clearly, in my opinion. Latvian is pronounced in a way that reminds me much more of Finnic languages.

Just compare:

Udmurt:

5KDuaSlrkRo

Latvian:

Vrm9EOMzC8o

[Mordid]

Finns

[Waidewut]

Compared to Latvian, the intonation and the sound is closer to Russian, clearly, in my opinion. Latvian is pronounced in a way that reminds me much more of Finnic languages.

Unlike Lithuanian, Latvian language always has the stress on the first syllable, because of Finnic influences.

[Mordid]

Latvians

[Äike]

Unlike Lithuanian, Latvian language always has the stress on the first syllable, because of Finnic influences.

Put all the Balto-Slavic looking individuals into concentration camps, criminalize speaking any Baltic language, restore Livonian and embrace your Northern-European/Finnic roots, instead of being a bunch of Eastern-European Balto-Slavs.

[Hevneren]

I think it would be Austrians, Moldovans and Kosovars, but I could be wrong.

[Mordid]

Norwegians

[Unurautare]

The question is more complicated than it seems. New "ethnic identities" have been formed in the XIX century due to the French revolution and new countries being formed,Germans <-> Germany,but their culture has existed for hundreds of years in Europe.
I consider Hungarian identity to be quite old,not new,because they existed in Europe for ~1000 years(and Hungarian medieval culture/identity was formed before they got in Europe,and finally Pannonia,just like the Bulgars when they got in current day Bulgaria and formed the country almost 1400 years ago,and even if the Magyar language and people were majorly influenced by their neighbors they kept their separate identity ).
The Finnish language lasting to this day is some sort of a historic miracle since I'd expect them to be assimilated by the Swedes or Russians,it's obviously that none of their former masters invented the Finnish identity(although Russians may have gave it a boost right after the conquest of Finland to separate them more from the Sweden). Finnish identity is sort of a puzzle to me,but I read that the 1st book ever written in Finnish dates from 1543 *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abckiria .
The most obvious XIX century new ethnic identities I was talking about earlier are German and Greek. You might say "but greeks are ancient" I agree but in ancient times there was no Greece,only city-states that were at war with each other most of the time, while in medieval times they called themselves Romaioi(Romans) and had a greco-roman identity. The ancient Greek identity is just not the same culture and identity as the present day Greeks which formed in the late Ottoman Empire,it would be like someone would put an absolute equal between ancient Romans and Italians.
The German and Greek identities are more or less "natural" - based on people that share similar culture and history with no major outside "help".

Now for the fake(artificially created by a foreign power(s) for a certain purpose) "new ethnic identities":
*Ukrainian(late XIX century in the Habsburg and Austro-Hungarian Empire to create a 5th column in the East Slavic identity of the Russian Empire AND continued during USSR when non-"ukrainian" lands were added to the Ukrainian SSR);
*Moldovan as being separate from Romanian(late XIX Russian Empire, XXth century USSR),although partially-successful at best because most Moldovans from the Rep.Moldova still consider themselves Romanian *I'm from romanian Moldova so I specifically know what I'm talking about;
*Croat(besides the religion difference "Serbo-Croatian" is the same language,a sort of parallel to this situation could be Pakistan-India relations),Slovene,Bosnian identities mainly created during the Habsburg empire and continued in socialist Yugoslavia;
*FYROM created by communist Yugoslavia to claim Greek lands in the south,although I support their independence for selfish reasons(they are the only ones that give minority rights to the "vlahs",all the others in the Balkans just want to assimilate everyone else,especially the Greeks claiming everything to be Greek :thumb001:);
*Transnistrean(early USSR name for the region was the "Moldavian ASSR",created to lay claims to Romanian lands + re-created in the early '90s after the USSR fell by the Russians,now called Transnistria Republic);
*Montenegrin(considering it's the birthplace of medieval Serbia. I believe it's current existence is due to Westerners that wanted to cut Serbia down to size);
*Kosovar(it's in the process of being created,after the fake country with no past history has been born thanks to the USA).

There might be others but I think I talked about the most recent ones in continental Europe.

[Mordid]

Romanians

[The Ripper]

What is puzzling about Finnish identity, Unu?

[Onychodus]

hobbits and elfs
http://rt.com/news/prime-time/russia-general-census-2010/

[Mordid]

Russians.

[Unurautare]

What is puzzling about Finnish identity, Unu?

That a lot of Finns look White but speak an Asian-related language.I would have expected your people to be "Germanicfied" at least(because of the occupation and settlement of Swedes and Germans),not the other way around.

[The Ripper]

That a lot of Finns look White but speak an Asian-related language.I would have expected your people to be "Germanicfied" at least(because of the occupation and settlement of Swedes and Germans),not the other way around.

Ok. :coffee:

[Unurautare]

Ok. :coffee:

You asked. :coffee:

[The Ripper]

You asked. :coffee:

Indeed. And you replied. In your quest to unriddle the Finnish puzzle, I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Finns

[Äike]

Indeed. And you replied. In your quest to unriddle the Finnish puzzle, I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Finns

Fixed. ;)

[Albion]

That a lot of Finns look White but speak an Asian-related language.I would have expected your people to be "Germanicfied" at least(because of the occupation and settlement of Swedes and Germans),not the other way around.

Indo European is spoken by Pakis. Doesn't mean we're related to them.

Finnic may have been spoken over a large area of Europe once before IE displaced it.
It may have been the original native language family of North and East Europe, with Basque-related languages (Vasconic) spoken in Atlantic Europe and other languages in Southern Europe.

[Albion]

That a lot of Finns look White but speak an Asian-related language.I would have expected your people to be "Germanicfied" at least(because of the occupation and settlement of Swedes and Germans),not the other way around.

[Unurautare]

Indeed. And you replied. In your quest to unriddle the Finnish puzzle, I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Finns

OK, the part with the ancestors of modern Finns and Estonians being mixed with ancient Europeans seems plausible,but part of my puzzlement was also why weren't you assimilated by the Swedes(or Russians)? Were Finns fully Christianized late in history? or the Swedes never attempted any major cultural assimilation(besides Christianity)?

[Waidewut]

Put all the Balto-Slavic looking individuals into concentration camps, criminalize speaking any Baltic language, restore Livonian and embrace your Northern-European/Finnic roots, instead of being a bunch of Eastern-European Balto-Slavs.

Only when you eliminate the 10 000 Russian Orthodox Setus, give Tallinn to it's original owner Denmark and replace Estonian with Swedish, as your official language, my Baltic friend :)

[The Ripper]

OK, the part with the ancestors of modern Finns and Estonians being mixed with ancient Europeans seems plausible,but part of my puzzlement was also why weren't you assimilated by the Swedes(or Russians)? Were Finns fully Christianized late in history? or the Swedes never attempted any major cultural assimilation(besides Christianity)?

First of all Finns and Estonians are (ancient) Europeans.

Finns were partly Christianized already before Swedish conquest in the West, the eastern regions came under Christianity during the medieval era. Finns were not some pariah group in the Swedish kingdom, but equals, with their own representatives to the king. Some early Swedish kings even learned the Finnish language. During Sweden's Great Power Era, the clergy and the nobility became swedified. After that, Finnish remained the language of the peasantry. The Russians encouraged development of Finnish culture and identity after Finland became a Grand Duchy in the Russian Empire. Only towards the end of the Russian period did russification begin, and it only strengthened Finnish identity. The Russian population in Finland has always been low, and has reached its current number from the 1990's onwards.

In light of current genetic studies, Swedes have more Finnish admixture than vice versa.

[Osweo]

Compared to Latvian, the intonation and the sound is closer to Russian, clearly, in my opinion. Latvian is pronounced in a way that reminds me much more of Finnic languages.

Just compare:

Udmurt:

5KDuaSlrkRo

Latvian:

Vrm9EOMzC8o

The girls DO sound Russian. BUT, this is a 'lesson', and I suppose from the imagery that we are looking at young Russophones learning their ancestral tongue. They've probably been speaking Russian all day, and perhaps it's even their mother tongue. They'd sound 'Russian' even if we were looking at them in an ENGLISH language class, I'd bet!

I know what their northern cousins of the Komi sound like, and the Udmurt in this video seems much more Russian sounding. Any better videos, of fluent older people, perhaps?

Latvian sounds like Finnic to my ignorant ears, though.

[Stars Down To Earth]

The youngest ethnicity must probably be the Slavic Macedonians, along with the Bosniaks (who are mostly Islamized Croats and Serbs).

Also, non-ethnicities like Lichtensteiners and Luxembourguese.

[Äike]

Only when you eliminate the 10 000 Russian Orthodox Setus, give Tallinn to it's original owner Denmark and replace Estonian with Swedish, as your official language, my Baltic friend :)

You don't get my point, do you?

Finnic Northern-Europeans predate Balto-Slavic Eastern-Europeans in Latvia by thousands of years.

While you can't draw parallels with Estonia and the Swedes/Danes, they are recent here.

[The Ripper]

You don't get my point, do you?

Finnic Northern-Europeans predate Balto-Slavic Eastern-Europeans in Latvia by thousands of years.

While you can't draw parallels with Estonia and the Swedes/Danes, they are recent here.

This was your point: Estonia > Latvia. Its simple. Whenever you can, you denigrate others to make Estonia look better. Its pathetic and fit for someone insecure in his identity.

[Osweo]

You know, Karl, Byrnecres would KILL to be a member of your ethnicity, without her own people's history of lording it over others, enslaving them, invading hundreds of countries around the world, assimilating native cultures out of existence, dominating world politics and using its economic clout to fuck the entire world over... :p

[Äike]

The girls DO sound Russian. BUT, this is a 'lesson', and I suppose from the imagery that we are looking at young Russophones learning their ancestral tongue. They've probably been speaking Russian all day, and perhaps it's even their mother tongue. They'd sound 'Russian' even if we were looking at them in an ENGLISH language class, I'd bet!

I know what their northern cousins of the Komi sound like, and the Udmurt in this video seems much more Russian sounding. Any better videos, of fluent older people, perhaps?

Latvian sounds like Finnic to my ignorant ears, though.

Here's the thing. I have heard Udmurt being spoken by ethnic Udmurts, live, not from a video. The Ripper probably hasn't.


This was your point: Estonia > Latvia. Its simple. Whenever you can, you denigrate others to make Estonia look better. Its pathetic and fit for someone insecure in his identity.

What? Everyone else except me can be cunts on this forum? I can't fuck around with people, like I am being fucked with(sometimes) without being criticized?


You know, Karl, Byrnecres would KILL to be a member of your ethnicity, without her own people's history of lording it over others, enslaving them, invading hundreds of countries around the world, assimilating native cultures out of existence, dominating world politics and using its economic clout to fuck the entire world over... :p

Byrne... who?

[Osweo]

Byrne... who?

You know, American lady member!

Here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/member.php?u=2794)!

[Äike]

You know, American lady member!

Here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/member.php?u=2794)!

I never knew that she knows anything about Estonia, interesting.

[Stars Down To Earth]

I never knew that she knows anything about Estonia, interesting.
Byrnecres would love to be an Estonian, no doubt. It must be her highest dream to be a victim of racist imperialism, to be a loser in history, to belong to a poor little nation that has been colonized. She would be exploited, not an exploiter! She would finally achieve her highest dream of being a "Honorary Non-White". Then, maybe then, would she stop having that painful gnawing sensation, that horrible feeling of White Guilt. :tongue

Plus, Estonians are pretty. It's only a bonus to the liberal's self-pity. She would definitely kill to be an Estonian Kerli or Riina, suffering so very beautifully at the hands of evil Russian colonizers.

[turbogirl]

Romanians

HUH??!:confused:

[Unurautare]

HUH??!:confused:

Mordid trolls a lot,notice it was after I wrote my post. :)

[Mordid]

HUH??!:confused:

Icelandic.

[Äike]

Byrnecres would love to be an Estonian, no doubt. It must be her highest dream to be a victim of racist imperialism, to be a loser in history, to belong to a poor little nation that has been colonized. She would be exploited, not an exploiter! She would finally achieve her highest dream of being a "Honorary Non-White". Then, maybe then, would she stop having that painful gnawing sensation, that horrible feeling of White Guilt. :tongue

Plus, Estonians are pretty. It's only a bonus to the liberal's self-pity. She would definitely kill to be an Estonian Kerli or Riina, suffering so very beautifully at the hands of evil Russian colonizers.

Hahahaha and this is coming from a Scotsman! :D

Your ethnicity doesn't exist, you all speak the language of your historic masters, English. Your country also doesn't exist, you live in the UK and Scotland doesn't exist on the world map.

If some people are the losers in history, then they are Scots.

I'll bring you an example. The Czech are a bunch of Slavs who lived in the Holy Roman Empire for a very long period of time, but they were still not losers enough to start speaking German as their native language, like the Scots did with English.

Finland was under Swedish rule, but the Finns don't speak Swedish as their native language, they speak Finnish.

lol, look at your non-existent national identity/language before making an arse out of yourself in public. :p

[turbogirl]

Icelandic.

What about poles in Prussia? Joke :)

[turbogirl]

Mordid trolls a lot,notice it was after I wrote my post. :)

Now I see ;)

[Monolith]

Zeropeans?


Zeropean = Americanized European, liberal, anti-national, supporter of EU-rocracy, euro-mondialism etc.

They don't speak one language but are surprisingly homogeneous.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/MXZqPbqFRpzgfp9nzY6OWWgvo1_500.jpg

[Mordid]

Croatians.

[Magister Eckhart]

Zeropeans?



They don't speak one language but are surprisingly homogeneous.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/MXZqPbqFRpzgfp9nzY6OWWgvo1_500.jpg

So, hipsters?

[Sagitta Hungarica]

There cannot be put an equality between ethnicity and nationality. Ethnicity is closely related to the common language spoken by a large group of people, while nationality is related to the existence of a large group of people on a common territory. Also talking about large time-continuity, over hundreds and thousands of years regarding most current European ethnicity and nationalities is unscientific. People mixed way-too much in Europe, and most national identities are very recent (the start of the Enlightenment, and Romanticism). Usually the language spoken is a solid method to determine how long a certain ethnicity exists from, since an ethnicity lives in its language. Most modern European languages don't sound at all as the ones spoken in early and middle Medieval times, most had changed artificially from up to down (from the intellectuals towards the peasantry).

I consider Romanians a much newer nationality, than Valachs or Moldovans, who had existing states from the middle Medieval period, while Romania exists from 1859. Moldova has a much earlier state-tradition as Romania, and also their national identity, as being Moldovans is earlier than being Romanians.

Ukrainians are also strong candidates for one of the earliest ethnicties, since they exist as a separate state from the 20th century, having mostly Russian, Gallician, Ruthenian ancestry.

Austrians also are very recent, being mostly German ethnics, with a Hapsburg upper-class consciousness.

Slavic Macedonians also developed their national identity in modern times, being mostly of Vlach, Bulgarian and Serbian origin, only the territory they live on today has any resemblance to ancient Macedonia.

Greeks are also young, because there was a way-too large time gap between ancient and modern Greece. Also the language spoken by Greeks in ancient, medieval (Byzantine) and modern times is very different from one another.

Slovak identity appeared also very recently, them having a Tót (these people were loyal to Hungary, having many archaic Hungarian words in their language), Silesian, Ruthenian, Moravian and Czech background.

Italians, are a nationality, and not an ethnicity, that are built by many ethnicities, that have own languages-dialects, but which are rather close to modern Italian standard language.

The Baltic nationalities, such as Latvians, Estonians, Finns, Lithuanians also developed a national identity in modern times, and states also, but their languages have a much older, Medieval equivalent, especially Finns and Estonians.

Belorussians also are very recent nationality, being mostly of Russian origin.

The same can be said about Montenegrins, who are mostly Serbians, but who have a strong regional identity.

[The Alchemist]

I'd say one of the east-european countries, but i'm not sure. On the contrary, i'm very sure that the oldest ones are Germany and Italy.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

I'd say one of the east-european countries, but i'm not sure. On the contrary, i'm very sure that the oldest ones are Germany and Italy.

Both Germany and Italy exist only from the second half of the 19th century.

[The Alchemist]

Both Germany and Italy exist only from the second half of the 19th century.

I know it :)

[The Alchemist]

Opsssss, i misuderstood the meaning of the thread, i thought it was about the age of most people...I know that in Germany and Italy there's the lowest percentage of new-born babies. Sorry for my misunderstanding :(

[Queen B]

Slavic Macedonians also developed their national identity in modern times, being mostly of Vlach, Bulgarian and Serbian origin, only the territory they live on today has any resemblance to ancient Macedonia.

Τheir country share a tiny bit of Ancient Macedonia (1%)
Their country share a percentage of what borders Macedonia had during and after Roman times.


Greeks are also young, because there was a way-too large time gap between ancient and modern Greece. Also the language spoken by Greeks in ancient, medieval (Byzantine) and modern times is very different from one another.

First of all there is no gap, there is a continuity . Also, although the Greek language evolved, is not ''very different''.
I - a modern Greek - can still read , and understand (not every single word, but get a general glimpse of what is it about ) ancient Greek.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Τheir country share a tiny bit of Ancient Macedonia (1%)
Their country share a percentage of what borders Macedonia had during and after Roman times.

First of all there is no gap, there is a continuity . Also, although the Greek language evolved, is not ''very different''.
I - a modern Greek - can still read , and understand (not every single word, but get a general glimpse of what is it about ) ancient Greek.

That's your opinion, but there is hardly any evidence from what I read.

[Queen B]

That's your opinion, but there is hardly any evidence from what I read.

Hardly any evidence? The Greek element during Roman empire, and Byzantine (Greek) empire, and under the Ottoman empire, is undisputable.
How there is NO evidence?

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Hardly any evidence? The Greek element during Roman empire, and Byzantine (Greek) empire, and under the Ottoman empire, is undisputable.
How there is NO evidence?

As you said, the Greek element, but it wasn't the dominant identity during all these empires. There was however a Roman, Byzantine identity. Only the alien Ottoman identity woke up in the local populations the opposition to it, and the search for their heritage. Thus the Greek revivalism occurred.

[Queen B]

As you said, the Greek element, but it wasn't the dominant identity during all these empires. There was however a Roman, Byzantine identity. Only the alien Ottoman identity woke up in the local populations the opposition to it, and the search for their heritage. Thus the Greek revivalism occurred.
What? Wasn't the dominant identity? !!!!!

First of all,under Roman empire, some Greek cities,didn't even didn't pay taxes because of having partial independence. yes, as being Greek.
As for Byzantine empire, it was practically a Greek empire.And that's why its known as such.Because although it was named as Eastern Roman empire, it was differentiate by Roman empire, exactly because there was the Greek culture dominant. The emperors were Greeks, the official language along with Latin, was Greek, the culture was Greek.The govermental language changed into Greek. That's why there is not a huge-o-long Roman empire until 1453, but rather the Roman, and then the Byzantine.
And even at the era of Ottoman empire, some Greek cities , of Modern Greece, were NOT under Ottoman empire (Ionian islands), some managed to have municipal-self Goverment (Athens and Rhodes), or being virtually independent (Mani, part of Crete and Epirus)
And even under all these hardships, Greek language and identity continued, and lived on.

[Peyrol]

Both Germany and Italy exist only from the second half of the 19th century.

It seem that also Hungary exist from 1919...:)

[Sagitta Hungarica]

It seem that also Hungary exist from 1919...:)

At least give a quick search on wiki before writing nonsense ;)


As a federation of united tribes, Hungary was established in 895


It accomplished an enormous transformation into a Christian realm during the 10th century. This state was well-functioning and the nation's military power allowed the Hungarians to conduct successful fierce campaigns and raids from Constantinople to as far as today's Spain.


Saint Stephen I became the first King of Hungary after defeating his paganist uncle Koppány

Hungary transformed from a thousand year-old monarchy into a Republic state-form in 1918.


The success of the 1918 Aster Revolution in Budapest brought Mihály Károlyi to power as prime minister and later as president of the first republic of Hungary. A devotee of Entente. Károlyi ordered the full disarmament of the Hungarian Army, leaving Hungary without any national defence.

[Peyrol]

At least give a quick search on wiki before writing nonsense ;)







Hungary transformed from a thousand year-old monarchy into a Republic state-form in 1918.

Also Kingdom of Italy was estabilished first time in 500 a.d. (1861 is the 5th kingdom, not the first as you wrote:laugh:).

So, please stop with bullshits about "non-existent" Germany and Italy.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Also Kingdom of Italy was estabilished first time in 500 a.d. (1861 is the 5th kingdom, not the first as you wrote:laugh:).

So, please stop with bullshits about "non-existent" Germany and Italy.

What you forget to mention is that in 500 there wasn't an Italian ethnicity yet existing. The name designated the Italic Peninsula, and its ruler was Odoacer, who was a foreigner (not-Latin). After that there appeared several so called "Italian Kingdoms", but what they had in common was that they were founded and ruled by foreigners (Germanics), and they adopted the Italian name, only to designate the geographical name of the Peninsula. The Ostrogoths were replaced by the Lombards, by the Franks, and then by the Germans (Holy Roman Empire). Only later in the beginning of the 19th century the French founded another Kingdom of Italy, but yet again, it didn't belonged to the united Italian nation, it was just a satellite state of Napoleon Bonaparte. Matter of fact neither of these self-titled Kingdoms of Italy had ever united the entire Italian Peninsula, until the second half of the 19th century, when for the first time the Italian nationality ruled the united Italian Peninsula. That should be considered the birth of Italy, as an ethnic Italian state.

[Unurautare]

Countries in Europe usually have three periods of existence: Ancient,Medieval and Modern.

Ancient: Rome,eventually leading to the Roman Republic(509 BC) and the Roman Empire.

Medieval: The Italian states(5th-6th century onwards).

Modern: 1861 - Italy

Hungary only has Medieval(end of the 9th century until the early 16th century,after that being annexed by foreign powers) and Modern,1919 or 1921 whichever you consider appropriate.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Countries in Europe usually have three periods of existence: Ancient,Medieval and Modern.

Ancient: Rome,eventually leading to the Roman Republic(509 BC) and the Roman Empire.

Medieval: The Italian states(5th-6th century onwards).

Modern: 1861 - Italy

Hungary only has Medieval(end of the 9th century until the early 16th century,after that being annexed by foreign powers) and Modern,1919 or 1921 whichever you consider appropriate.

Again you only heard things form here and there, but basically you don't know exactly the details, and the historical context (then why do you feel the need to speak about things that are over your head?). Hungary never ceased to exist entirely (except 1711-1867, minus the 1848-1849 period when Hungary managed to recover some of its independence), only the united Carpathian Basin bordered Hungary ceased to exist. Between 1538-1867 the Kingdom of Hungary (knows also as Royal Hungary) kept existing, only it was under the rule of the Hapsburg emperor. Between that period all Hapsburg emperors were also Hungarian kings in the same time. But an independent Hungary still existed between 1538-1570, called the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, which constantly fought to reunite all lost Hungarian lands. This transformed in 1571 into the Principality of Transylvania, which was also a Hungarian state, which even if payed tribute to the Ottoman Empire, still benefited of large autonomy, and played an important role in many major European events (such as the 30 Years War). In parallel in the southern lands of Hungary the Ottomans occupied it, and these lands were part of their Empire between 1541-1699. After that this land entered directly under Hapsburg rule, and unless the Kingdom of Hungary in the north, this region never benefited of autonomy, and Hungarians weren't allowed to preserve their national culture. Meanwhile in 1711 the Hungarian state of Transylvania was integrated into the Hapsburg Empire, thus from this point all Hungary was fully occupied. However in 1867 the Austrians transformed the Hapsburg Empire into The Austrian-Hungarian Empire, in which Hungary once again reunited its historical lands (the entire Carpathian Basin). Hungary besides having an Austrian emperor basically existed as a separate state in this Empire, having own Parliament, judiciary system, government.

The most important advantage Hungary had compared to many European modern states is that the Hungarian nation was already created long time before it was ripped into three pieces. They had a centralized view (Hungarians in all regions fought for one common ideal: the reunification of Hungary, as in the times of Matthias Rex), they had a common language, no matter which region they lived in. Basically only the independent Hungarian state disappeared (in the border of the Carpathian Basin), but the Hungarian nation lived on, constantly fighting for independence.

[Peyrol]

What you forget to mention is that in 500 there wasn't an Italian ethnicity yet existing. The name designated the Italic Peninsula, and its ruler was Odoacer, who was a foreigner (not-Latin). After that there appeared several so called "Italian Kingdoms", but what they had in common was that they were founded and ruled by foreigners (Germanics), and they adopted the Italian name, only to designate the geographical name of the Peninsula. The Ostrogoths were replaced by the Lombards, by the Franks, and then by the Germans (Holy Roman Empire). Only later in the beginning of the 19th century the French founded another Kingdom of Italy, but yet again, it didn't belonged to the united Italian nation, it was just a satellite state of Napoleon Bonaparte. Matter of fact neither of these self-titled Kingdoms of Italy had ever united the entire Italian Peninsula, until the second half of the 19th century, when for the first time the Italian nationality ruled the united Italian Peninsula. That should be considered the birth of Italy, as an ethnic Italian state.


Ok, i assume that as piemonteis, in the panmagyar vision of Europe i'm a italianized french.

For sure :laugh:

[Mordid]

Italians

[Peyrol]

Italians

Śląskiej http://www.faccine.eu/smiles/1145789830-Felici (4).gif

[Mordid]

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/7/73/JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg/618px-JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg

[Peyrol]

What you forget to mention is that in 500 there wasn't an Italian ethnicity yet existing. The name designated the Italic Peninsula, and its ruler was Odoacer, who was a foreigner (not-Latin). After that there appeared several so called "Italian Kingdoms", but what they had in common was that they were founded and ruled by foreigners (Germanics), and they adopted the Italian name, only to designate the geographical name of the Peninsula. The Ostrogoths were replaced by the Lombards, by the Franks, and then by the Germans (Holy Roman Empire). Only later in the beginning of the 19th century the French founded another Kingdom of Italy, but yet again, it didn't belonged to the united Italian nation, it was just a satellite state of Napoleon Bonaparte. Matter of fact neither of these self-titled Kingdoms of Italy had ever united the entire Italian Peninsula, until the second half of the 19th century, when for the first time the Italian nationality ruled the united Italian Peninsula. That should be considered the birth of Italy, as an ethnic Italian state.

Lol, if a state to be independet has to have a national dinasty, then England is a colony of Hannover (and before, of Scotland and Normandy) :laugh:

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Lol, if a state to be independet has to have a national dinasty, then England is a colony of Hannover (and before, of Scotland and Normandy) :laugh:

In early Medieval times it is improper to talk about nations. The European nations as we know them today developed much later. Of course some completed their national identity earlier, others (most) later.

[Unurautare]

In early Medieval times it is improper to talk about nations. The European nations as we know them today developed much later. Of course some completed their national identity earlier, others (most) later.

OK,so Hungary proper is from 1921 and Italy from 1861,thanks for clarifying.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

OK,so Hungary proper is from 1921 and Italy from 1861,thanks for clarifying.

As I said. You repeat the same lies, even if I posted a long, explicit message where I proven that there is continuity of Hungary since 895 in the Carpathian Basin until today. Hungary is one of the earliest surviving European states. Hungary didn't started as a Republic (even your 1921 is an erroneous date, since it became a Republic in 1918), but as a federation of tribes, and not much later transformed into a kingdom (year 1000).

[Unurautare]

As I said. You repeat the same lies, even if I posted a long, explicit message where I proven that there is continuity of Hungary since 895 in the Carpathian Basin until today. Hungary is one of the earliest surviving European states. Hungary didn't started as a Republic (even your 1921 is an erroneous date, since it became a Republic in 1918), but as a federation of tribes, and not much later transformed into a kingdom (year 1000).

By your logic we still are the Roman Empire. *Român

[Sagitta Hungarica]

By your logic we still are the Roman Empire. *Român

In the first place you need to have a logical sense to say what it is or isn't logical. You just ain't got none, poor you.

[Unurautare]

In the first place you need to have a logical sense to say what it is or isn't logical. You just ain't got none, poor you.

You've been annexed in the past,there was no Hungary until at the end of World War 1,it was either a Turkish pasalic or a Habsburg domain(or both). Poor you indeed.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

You've been annexed in the past,there was no Hungary until at the end of World War 1,it was either a Turkish pasalic or a Habsburg domain(or both). Poor you indeed.

I already disproved these lies of yours on the previous page. Read again. And again if understanding comes hard. And again...

[Unurautare]

I already disproved these lies of yours on the previous page. Read again. And again if understanding comes hard. And again...

So the Sultan was a Hungarian ruler also? lol! Get your facts straight=> direct occupation by foreigners with foreign rulers.

[Sagitta Hungarica]

So the Sultan was a Hungarian ruler also? lol! Get your facts straight=> direct occupation by foreigners with foreign rulers.

Transylvania submitted to the Hapsburg Empire only in 1711, that was the last bastion of autonomous Hungarian land. But the Kingdom of Hungary (Upper Hungary) always existed, even under Hapsburg rule. The Hapsburg Emperor also held the title of King of Hungary. Hungarians even had a national Diet (parliament), seated in Pozsony during Hapsburg rule. Hungary never ceased to exist, but was under foreign rule in different time periods, after the lost Mohács battle. But I already told these facts in a more explicit manner in my previous posts. I swear you act like a stubborn, dumb mule.

[Unurautare]

Transylvania submitted to the Hapsburg Empire only in 1711, that was the last bastion of autonomous Hungarian land. But the Kingdom of Hungary (Upper Hungary) always existed, even under Hapsburg rule. The Hapsburg Emperor also held the title of King of Hungary. Hungarians even had a national Diet (parliament), seated in Pozsony during Hapsburg rule. Hungary never ceased to exist, but was under foreign rule in different time periods, after the lost Mohács battle. But I already told these facts in a more explicit manner in my previous posts. I swear you act like a stubborn, dumb mule.

Transylvania was never properly part of the Hungarian Kingdom(except during Austro-Hungary,and then even the Szekely historic area was disbanded and special Szekely privileges were revoked by the Hungarians),that said even the rest of the Hungarians there are sensibly different from those in Hungary(I think you can agree).

Notice the special case of Transylvania. Here are the rulers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulers_of_Transylvania It was more of a vassal state,after Hungary fell it was more or less independent until the Habsburg annexed it.

Notice the big difference with Croatia,which was directly under the Hungarian kings:

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


Same case with "Slovakia" which was directly annexed and under the Hungarian Kings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_Slovakia#Principality_of_Hungary

[Sagitta Hungarica]

Transylvania was never properly part of the Hungarian Kingdom(except during Austro-Hungary,and then even the Szekely historic area was disbanded and special Szekely privileges were revoked by the Hungarians),that said even the rest of the Hungarians there are sensibly different from those in Hungary(I think you can agree).

Notice the special case of Transylvania. Here are the rulers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulers_of_Transylvania It was more of a vassal state,after Hungary fell it was more or less independent until the Habsburg annexed it.

Notice the big difference with Croatia,which was directly under the Hungarian kings:

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


Same case with "Slovakia" which was directly annexed and under the Hungarian Kings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_Slovakia#Principality_of_Hungary

There never existed Slovakia. Show me Slovakia on any map before the 20th century. Slovakia exists by stealing the Hungarian region called Felvidék. Transylvania became a state only in the late Medieval period, and before it was the eastern, border region of the Hungarian Kingdom. It always had Hungarian rulers, which were backed by both the Hungarian, Székely and Saxon aristocracy of Transylvania. After the Homecoming of the Magyars Erdély or Transylvania was ruled by Gyula, the uncle of Saint Stephen, the founder of the Hungarian Kingdom. Erdély finally united with Hungary in 1003. But even before this it had a Hungarian ruling caste, as into the beginning of the 20th century.

As you see, it is always very easy for me to dismantle your statements, because you aren't equipped with a baggage of history knowledge regarding Hungary.

[Unurautare]

@Sagitta Hungarica As I said before on another thread: go check your eyes. Your fail is too strong is you can't see 1) I've written "Slovakia" and 2) the article itself is called "/List_of_rulers_of_Slovakia".

PS stop bs me with your homecoming SF-fantasy magyar blable,you are a bunch of Asian immigrants that came from Siberia.

Arpad:

http://biega.com/photoalbum/arpad.jpg

[turbogirl]

[QUOTE=Unurautare;577194]Transylvania was never properly part of the Hungarian Kingdom [QUOTE] Transylvania was part of Hungarian Kingdom, since that kingdom settled till tourks conquer it.

[Unurautare]

Transylvania was part of Hungarian Kingdom, since that kingdom settled till tourks conquer it.

But not directly part of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom(it had it's own rulers etc.),and the Turks didn't conquer it,they also had it as a vassal state.

[Unurautare]

Look at this coat of arms of Hungary from 1915(Austro-Hungary,only then Hungary had direct control of Transylvania). The historic coat of arms of Hungary in the center,and the conquered territories' coat of arms(notice Transylvania as separate from Hungary,and as I stated earlier it had it's own rulers and was more of a vassal state to medieval Hungary).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Coa_Hungary_Country_History_med_%281915%29.svg

[turbogirl]

Yes, I knew Transylvania had some sort of governor or vojevoda, but it was a part of Hungarian Crown. And yes, you're right, after dualism Transylvania loose its autonomy.

[HungAryan]

The Kingdom of Hungary

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Kingdom_of_hungary_europe.png



Now let's see Transylvania...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania_(1570%E2%80%931711)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_II_Sigismund_Z%C3%A1polya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_II_R%C3%A1k%C3%B3czi


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


All Hungarians, with the exception of the Báthory-s, Habsburgs, Michael the Brave (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Misu_Popp_-_Mihai_Viteazul.jpg/440px-Misu_Popp_-_Mihai_Viteazul.jpg) and Catherine of Brandenburg.

[Osweo]

Slovakia's existence is merited by the continued existence of millions of Slovaks.

The Kingdom of Hungary failed to Magyarise them, so loses rights to the land. Same for the lands lost to other countries. Pretty pictures of old maps have no place in contemporary discussion of European nationalism, as they deny NATIONS.

NEXT, please!

[HungAryan]

Slovakia's existence is merited by the continued existence of millions of Slovaks.

The Kingdom of Hungary failed to Magyarise them, so loses rights to the land. Same for the lands lost to other countries. Pretty pictures of old maps have no place in contemporary discussion of European nationalism, as they deny NATIONS.

NEXT, please!


http://theborg.me/wp-content/uploads/fuck-you.jpg

[Wulfhere]

On this question of the boundaries of Hungary, why on earth would you want to increase them to such an extent that Hungarians become a minority in their own country?

[Caeruleus]

wait a second ... did someone renamed the thread "Is Romania a balkan country" or "Who are the romanians" to "Youngest ethnicity in Europe" !? :) ... Jesus, I'm behind on my forum news ;)

How about changing the name "The Apricity" to "The place where Hungarians bitch around like little girls" :D I think that's a super ideea. I want to see the thumbs up if you agree :thumb001:

[Osweo]

http://theborg.me/wp-content/uploads/fuck-you.jpg

Grow up, or fuck off.