Map of European Peoples - 2000 AD

[aherne]

The earliest and also easiest map I've made, follows exact ethnic borders (no approximations on natural regions yet).

[Talvi]

Hard to say if it is exact. For example : Eastern Estonia may be Russian infested but that does not mean there arent any Estonians there, there are plenty.

[Gaztelu]

This has already been done:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26945

[poiuytrewq0987]

Hah... FYROMians as Bulgarians on that map... yeah, that'll sit well with them LOL.

Also LOL at Yugoslavian

[Comte Arnau]

Simple maps are for the simple-minded.

[Wyn]

The Sami are not Finnic, nor are the Irish British.

[aherne]

Hah... FYROMians as Bulgarians on that map... yeah, that'll sit well with them LOL.

Also LOL at Yugoslavian

Ethnicity is not about feelings, remember? An ethnic group is a scientific clustering of humans based on a combination of linguistic AND cultural AND racial bonds.

[Pallantides]

You forgot the Saami
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iUdtBwg0Xio/S2_KIW-6wqI/AAAAAAAAAHk/SmL9Jjg3L5Q/s400/sameland.gif

though they are not really a majority anywhere expect in some parts of Finnmark.

[aherne]

Hard to say if it is exact.

I've compiled this map based on a COMBINATION of ethnic maps I've found. Here is the methodology behind the clusterings:
- if groups speak same languages or languages part of a continuum, then they are one ethnic group. Exception to that rule are Bulgarians, who ARE connected to Yugoslavs by a continuum, but the racial-cultural differences (other aspects of an ethnicity) are evident, enough to have them split.
- if more than 50% ethnics speak another language in their homeland, that people is considered assimilated and doesn't appear on the map (ex. Basques, Irish, Welsh, Bretons, Lapps).

Yet, my views have somewhat changed in the clusterings I've provided:
- Iberians should have been split into Iberians and Occitans (Catalans being an Occitan group). Differences between the two are enough to have them splitted.
- Lithuanian and Latvian should have been split.
- Romanian and Aromanian should have been split.
- French should have been split into French and Occitans. The problem is that both used to be connected by a narrow continuum in Central France.
- Insular and Continental Scandinavians can be split on linguistic grounds, but cultural and racial unity leans heavily towards unity.
- what "Italians" means exactly is a matter of debate. Italian "dialects" are languages in their own right, connected by no continuum. Theoretically, they should have been split into Lombards, Piedmontese, Venetans, Emilians and so on. I've clustered them together because of strong cultural and racial bonds (in the sense that Italians, as a group, have their own looks).

This entire map is driven by a desire to bring unity and consistency into the subject. This is its great strength, compared to other maps provided.

[aherne]

You forgot the Saami
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iUdtBwg0Xio/S2_KIW-6wqI/AAAAAAAAAHk/SmL9Jjg3L5Q/s400/sameland.gif

though they are not really a majority anywhere expect in some parts of Finnmark.

I don't forget anything. It was two reasons why I excluded Lapps in my map:
1. they are not a majority in Lappland
2. people of Lapp origin speak mostly non-Lapp languages

[Gaztelu]

Ethnicity is not about feelings, remember? An ethnic group is a scientific clustering of humans based on a combination of linguistic AND cultural AND racial bonds.

What do you mean by racial bonds?

[poiuytrewq0987]

Ethnicity is not about feelings, remember? An ethnic group is a scientific clustering of humans based on a combination of linguistic AND cultural AND racial bonds.

If we're doing that then Vardarska is more "Yugoslavian" than it is Bulgarian today. The pure fact you made the region Bulgarian only because you heard from Bulgarians who say they are Bulgarians and not from objective study is well... dumb. :tsk:

[Zephyr]

Aherne, different peoples group in different ways.

You are applying the logic of Romania+Moldavia to the rest of Europe.

The logical error is in the fact that the separation of Romania and Moldavia is pretty much like the former separation between the 2 Germanies (FRG+GDR).

Romania (including Moldavia) doesn't border any "cousins" anymore. It's isolated now, unless you consider the gap between Valachians and Moldavians similar to the gap between Britain and Ireland or between Portuguese and Basque.

[aherne]

What do you mean by racial bonds?

Looks specific to an ethnicity. Visual clues one belongs to the tribe...

[Boudica]

Confused.. So poles were in italy?

[aherne]

If we're doing that then Vardarska is more "Yugoslavian" than it is Bulgarian today. The pure fact you made the region Bulgarian only because you heard from Bulgarians who say they are Bulgarians and not from objective study is well... dumb. :tsk:

Macedonian ethnicity is a communist 1940s creation, exactly like Moldavian. The aim was to prevent these region from ever being reunited with Bulgaria and Romania, respectively. Communists were very good at inventing ethnicities (Karelians is another good example) and judaized scholars of today follow their "teaching" like gospels. There has been absolutely no critical examination of these phantom ethnic groups ever since. Prior to that "discovery", "Macedonians" used the term Bulgarian to describe themselves, belonged to Bulgarian Orthodox Church (with a Pomak minority), spoke various Bulgarian dialects (and still do), looked Bulgarian (I can confirm that because I've been in Macedonia). There is absolutely no reason to consider them different.


The Macedonian language belongs to the eastern sub-branch of the South Slavic branch of the Slavic languages of the Indo-European family of languages. The closest relative of Macedonian is Bulgarian,[16] with which it has a high degree of mutual intelligibility.[15] Prior to their codification in 1945, Macedonian dialects were for the most part classified as Bulgarian[17][18][19] and some linguists consider them still as such, but this view is politically controversial.[15][20][21] The next-closest language is Serbo-Croatian (often known by the names of its standard languages, Serbian, Montenegrin, Bosnian, and Croatian). All South Slavic languages, including Macedonian, form a dialect continuum,[15] in which Macedonian and Bulgarian are sharply divergent from the Serbo-Croatian.[22] The Torlakian dialect group is intermediate between Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_language

[poiuytrewq0987]

Macedonian ethnicity is a communist 1940s creation, exactly like Moldavian. The aim was to prevent these region from ever being reunited with Bulgaria and Romania, respectively. Communists were very good at inventing ethnicities (Karelians is another good example) and judaized scholars of today follow their "teaching" like gospels. There has been absolutely no critical examination of these phantom ethnic groups ever since. Prior to that "discovery", "Macedonians" used the term Bulgarian to describe themselves, belonged to Bulgarian Orthodox Church (with a Pomak minority), spoke various Bulgarian dialects (and still do), looked Bulgarian (I can confirm that because I've been in Macedonia). There is absolutely no reason to consider them different.

More Bulgarian propaganda. The Slavic Macedonians never called themselves Serb or Bulgarian and only identified as either following political trends in the Balkans. When the Bulgarians came to rule Slavic Macedonians, they would call themselves Bulgarians and when the Serbs came, they would call themselves Serbs. The language they speak is not a Bulgarian dialect but rather a distinct language with Bulgarian and Serbian influences. Would you call Slovak a dialect of Polish or Ukrainian a dialect of Russian? :coffee:

However, Vardarska has been part of Serbia since 1912 and therefore it is Serbian whereas Vardarska hasn't been part of Bulgaria since the medieval ages except for short occupation periods in WW1 and WW2.

[Talvi]

Your map is wrong and stupid. Its time for you to admit it.

[Peerkons]

Exactly.

[Comte Arnau]

Yet, my views have somewhat changed in the clusterings I've provided:
- Iberians should have been split into Iberians and Occitans (Catalans being an Occitan group). Differences between the two are enough to have them splitted.
- French should have been split into French and Occitans. The problem is that both used to be connected by a narrow continuum in Central France.
- what "Italians" means exactly is a matter of debate. Italian "dialects" are languages in their own right, connected by no continuum. Theoretically, they should have been split into Lombards, Piedmontese, Venetans, Emilians and so on. I've clustered them together because of strong cultural and racial bonds (in the sense that Italians, as a group, have their own looks).

Well, some wiser considerations.

Going by ethnogeneses, the Latin South-West should be something like this:

http://imageshack.us/m/198/9805/romethnogeness.jpg

[Lábaru]

Ethnicity is not about feelings, remember? An ethnic group is a scientific clustering of humans based on a combination of linguistic AND cultural AND racial bonds.


100% Agree.

[poiuytrewq0987]

In this 1914 map you can clearly see the Serbs dominate Northern Vardarska with ethnic Slavic Macedonians in the south. :coffee:

http://teachers.ausd.net/socialsci/map-Europe-1914.jpg

[Ushtari]

More Bulgarian propaganda. The Slavic Macedonians never called themselves Serb or Bulgarian and only identified as either following political trends in the Balkans. When the Bulgarians came to rule Slavic Macedonians, they would call themselves Bulgarians and when the Serbs came, they would call themselves Serbs. The language they speak is not a Bulgarian dialect but rather a distinct language with Bulgarian and Serbian influences. Would you call Slovak a dialect of Polish or Ukrainian a dialect of Russian? :coffee:

However, Vardarska has been part of Serbia since 1912 and therefore it is Serbian whereas Vardarska hasn't been part of Bulgaria since the medieval ages except for short occupation periods in WW1 and WW2.
Bullshit

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

Its simple, they were called Bulgarians prior 40's by their neighbors and rest of the world. In Albania there lived a minority of Slavs that was called Bulgarians by the Albanians, but in recent times it have been changed to Macedonians? identity crises? It its commonly known that slavo-macedonian is an Bulgarian dialect.

[Comte Arnau]

Another from 1914.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20081224105840!Ethnic_map_%281914%29.jpg

And a pearl from Eupedia. :D

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8590/mapatnicoeuropeo.png

[Zephyr]

Well, some wiser considerations.

Going by ethnogeneses, the Latin South-West should be something like this:

http://imageshack.us/m/198/9805/romethnogeness.jpg

Hm... I think that map is too much post-Reconquest centered, don't you agree? there's a much more complicated substractum.

I would say that Castela is a point of convergence between the East and West. I'd say that Castillians have their own reality distinct from the West, centered in the hinterland.

It's curious to assess that in terms of linguistics, we Portuguese are not so acquainted with Catalan because of centuries of isolationm, but if you put someone who had never had contact with castillian or catalan, catalan will be phonetically easier to discern, you know?

[Wyn]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20081224105840!Ethnic_map_%281914%29.jpg


lol, this is quite funny. Who produced it? What's the origin, I mean - I know it isn't a Photoshop job. :p

[poiuytrewq0987]

Bullshit


http://multitree.linguistlist.org/codes/003


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

Its simple, they were called Bulgarians prior 40's by their neighbors and rest of the world. In Albania there lived a minority of Slavs that was called Bulgarians by the Albanians, but in recent times it have been changed to Macedonians? identity crises? It its commonly known that slavo-macedonian is an Bulgarian dialect.

1. After Serbia retook Vardarska in the liberation wars; the inhabitants of Vardarska were so happy because they considered themselves to be no different to Serbs. Unlike Bulgaria when it illegally annexed Vardarska in WW1 and WW2, there were revolutionary groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_of_Macedonia) that tried to throw off the Bulgarian yoke.

2. It's true that Slavic Macedonians (Macedonian purely in a geographic sense dating back to Ottoman times when the region was called Macedonia by the Ottomans) never identified overwhelmingly as Serb or Bulgarian because ethnogenesis of Slavs in Macedonia never happened. They were just Slavs from the Carpathians living in Macedonia as peasants.

3. Macedonian language, of course, was never offered the distinction because it was the language of peasants in Vardarska and Macedonia. Of course, they're going to consider it a dialect of Serb/Bulgarian, whatever because there was no Macedonian nobility since ethnogenesis never took place.

4. If no Macedonian consciousness existed before the Communist period then do explain the existence of men like Chento (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metodija_Andonov-%C4%8Cento) who tried to fight for a free Macedonia long before Communism ever took place?

5. Vardarska has always been important part of Serbia since time immemorial. It was where Tsar Dusan (unarguably the greatest Serbian leader) was crowned Caesar and Skoplje was the capital of the Serbian Empire. Northern Vardarska should be annexed to Serbia whereas Southern portions can go to either Bulgaria or Greece for all I care.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Another from 1914.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20081224105840%21Ethnic_map_%281914%29.jpg




BAD MAP! Just look at England. :rofl:

[Pallantides]

And a pearl from Eupedia. :D

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8590/mapatnicoeuropeo.png

What sort of crap map is that?

Central Norwegians... Slavo-Germanic.:eek:

[Comte Arnau]

Hm... I think that map is too much post-Reconquest centered, don't you agree? there's a much more complicated substractum.

You mean in Iberia? Well, the current situation of distinct ethnicities goes back indeed to the formation of different Neolatin groups that got expanded thanks to the Reconquest.


I would say that Castela is a point of convergence between the East and West. I'd say that Castillians have their own reality distinct from the West, centered in the hinterland.

Today, yes. But the original Kingdom of Asturias hosted Asturians proper, Gallaecians and Proto-Castilians. Hence why Portuguese, Asturian and Castilian/Spanish are so close linguistically and in other aspects.


It's curious to assess that in terms of linguistics, we Portuguese are not so acquainted with Catalan because of centuries of isolationm, but if you put someone who had never had contact with castillian or catalan, catalan will be phonetically easier to discern, you know?

Phonetically, Catalan and Portuguese are richer than Castilian because they preserved much of the medieval phonology, while Castilian simplified it in the Middle Ages, adopting sounds that are alien to the rest of Romance languages, like their j and z.


lol, this is quite funny. Who produced it? What's the origin, I mean - I know it isn't a Photoshop job. :p

Völkerkarte von Sudosteuropa, L. Ravenstein.


What sort of crap map is that?


Tell that to Eupedia! :p

[Nglund]

BAD MAP! Just look at England. :rofl:

That's Greater England, and I'm in for that kind of thang mate ;).

[W. R.]

Hm, to be honest I wondered what name you would give to the Czechoslovakopolish nation.

But you seems to believe that Poles and Czechoslovaks are ethnoses on their own! Truly unexpected move. :)

[Wyn]

Völkerkarte von Sudosteuropa, L. Ravenstein.

Well, the cartographer behind it was hilariously ignorant regarding Britain and Ireland. Unless by 'Englander' he meant, for some reason, 'English speaker.'

[Olavsson]

What sort of crap map is that?

Central Norwegians... Slavo-Germanic.:eek:

Was just going to ask about the same. What are they basing this on?

[aherne]

Well, some wiser considerations.

Going by ethnogeneses, the Latin South-West should be something like this:

http://imageshack.us/m/198/9805/romethnogeness.jpg

Fair point. Iberian, Occitan and French are pretty well established taxons (with relatively clear borders, ethnocultural unity within). Romance dialects of Italy are far more problematic. Venetan is somewhat intelligible with Tuscan (very similar vocabulary), but its grammar is almost as different as Romanian. Emilian is by far the least intelligible dialect with intelligibility to Tuscan almost equal to Romanian (very little) even though it's located between Venetan and Tuscan (so it should gradate into each, if there really were an Italian continuum). Absence of Italian continuum prove that "Italians" are nothing more than an umbrela term for various Romance languages located in geographic Italy. Still, even during Middle Ages, these groups all knew they were Italian (probably because of close economic relationships, and an intellectual movement which sought solace in unity during Roman Italy). Living all inside one geographic unit has bound these people together, even though they did not form a real ethnic group.

[Ibericus]

This looks much like a linguistic map rather than ethnic. But Occitan and Catalan are two different langauges anyways. Never in history have been nations based on languages. Occitania has never existed, for example.

[aherne]

Hm, to be honest I wondered what name you would give to the Czechoslovakopolish nation.

But you seems to believe that Poles and Czechoslovaks are ethnoses on their own! Truly unexpected move. :)

There is no such thing as Czechoslovakopolish. The split between Poles and Moravians goes back to 1000 AD, when two kingdoms emerged in West Slavic areas (Poland and Moravia). Poland lasted for 700 years and resulted into a well established ethnic unity, but Moravia was quickly crushed by Germans and Hungarians and profoundly colonized by both. In German Moravia (Czech lands), German minority in 1900s was about a third (an enormous minority). In Hungarian Moravia (Slovak lands), Hungarian minority was equal if not greater.
Also, these peoples speak mutually unintelligible languages and are separated by clear geographic boundaries (Carpathians). There is no continuum uniting both. Never has anyone considered they formed one people.

[Comte Arnau]

Fair point. Iberian, Occitan and French are pretty well established taxons (with relatively clear borders, ethnocultural unity within). Romance dialects of Italy are far more problematic. Venetan is somewhat intelligible with Tuscan (very similar vocabulary), but its grammar is almost as different as Romanian. Emilian is by far the least intelligible dialect with intelligibility to Tuscan almost equal to Romanian (very little) even though it's located between Venetan and Tuscan (so it should gradate into each, if there really were an Italian continuum). Absence of Italian continuum prove that "Italians" are nothing more than an umbrela term for various Romance languages located in geographic Italy. Still, even during Middle Ages, these groups all knew they were Italian (probably because of close economic relationships, and an intellectual movement which sought solace in unity during Roman Italy). Living all inside one geographic unit has bound these people together, even though they did not form a real ethnic group.

Regarding Northern Italy, you have to take into account the huge influence from Tuscan since centuries before the political unification. Venetian could have been even more open to central/southern influences, given its important Adriatic spread.


But Occitan and Catalan are two different langauges anyways.

Same colors are not intended to mean one single language, but closer/interrelated ethnogenesis within the Neolatin metaethnicity.

[Treffie]

And a pearl from Eupedia. :D

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8590/mapatnicoeuropeo.png

What era is this supposed to represent? Who on earth identifies themselves as Celto-Saxo-Frisian in England? :D

[Portukalos]

Well, some wiser considerations.

Going by ethnogeneses, the Latin South-West should be something like this:

http://imageshack.us/m/198/9805/romethnogeness.jpg I don't find this map accurate. Occitans are not an ethnic group but just speakers of south-GalloRomance languages... which is different...

[Boudica]

seriously, lol were the poles in italy?

[W. R.]

There is no such thing as Czechoslovakopolish. The split between Poles and Moravians goes back to 1000 AD, when two kingdoms emerged in West Slavic areas (Poland and Moravia). Poland lasted for 700 years and resulted into a well established ethnic unity, but Moravia was quickly crushed by Germans and Hungarians and profoundly colonized by both. In German Moravia (Czech lands), German minority in 1900s was about a third (an enormous minority). In Hungarian Moravia (Slovak lands), Hungarian minority was equal if not greater.
Also, these peoples speak mutually unintelligible languages and are separated by clear geographic boundaries (Carpathians). There is no continuum uniting both. Never has anyone considered they formed one people.Mmkay.

So, say, Ukrainian and Russian are mutually intelligible while Slovak and Polish are not?.. :chin:

Be that as it may, I'd like to ask where you included Lusatian Sorbs? It's not clear from the map.

[W. R.]

And one more question: why do you believe that between Belarusians and Lithuanians there are Poles?

[aherne]

And one more question: why do you believe that between Belarusians and Lithuanians there are Poles?

It's not a belief. It's a fact. Check other modern maps.

Belarus has a significant Polish Minority:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Poles_in_Belarus_share_2009.png

Lithuania has a significant Polish Minority:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Poles_in_Lithuania_Barry_Kent.png

[W. R.]

It's not a belief. It's a fact. Check other modern maps.I wrote about Belarusian Poles in the first post of the thread "On Belarusian identity", you didn't read it attentively enough. Applying your own logic we must not take into account the identity of the Belarusian Poles, and if we don't, then we will see that between them and Catholic Belarusians there are no difference whatsoever.

And what about the Sorbs again, did you include them in Poles or in Czechoslovaks?

[aherne]

Applying your own logic we must not take into account the identity of the Belarusian Poles, and if we don't, then we will see that between them and Catholic Belarusians there are no difference whatsoever.

As far as I know, Roman Catholic Belarussians ARE Poles.

[W. R.]

As far as I know, Roman Catholic Belarussians ARE Poles.Well, at the end of XIX / beginning of XX century the Catholic Belarusians contributed to what we call "National Rebirth" not less (if not more) than Orthodox Belarusians.

I know what you are going to say now, that all this "National Rebirth" is a Polish intrigue against Russians, amirite? :rolleyes:

Where are Lusatian Sorbs again?

[Kosovo je Sjrbia]

http://teachers.ausd.net/socialsci/map-Europe-1914.jpg

[Zephyr]

http://teachers.ausd.net/socialsci/map-Europe-1914.jpg

I don't think that's quite 2000AD :icon1:

[aherne]

Well, at the end of XIX / beginning of XX century the Catholic Belarusians contributed to what we call "National Rebirth" not less (if not more) than Orthodox Belarusians.


White Russians, like all Russians, were originally Orthodox, then following Union of Brest (1596), Russians living under Polish rule (White & Little Russians) became Uniate Catholics. After the tsar dissolved the Uniate Catholic church in 19th century, most former Uniates joined ranks with Orthodox Church, while a minority of White Russians (who had friendly relations with Poles, unlike Little Russians) joined ranks with Roman Catholic Church. So it seems I was wrong, Russian Roman Catholics (a true oddity), do exist today, but:

According to the historian Anatol Taras, by 1795, around 80% of Christians in Belarus were Greek Catholics, with 14% being Roman Catholics and 8% being Orthodox[1].
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_Greek_Catholic_Church
14% was the approximate size of Polish and Lithuanian minorities, so there were practically no Russian Roman Catholic (1-2% at most, all nobility).


Where are Lusatian Sorbs again?
They are not present on the map because they are mostly Germanized.

[Norb]

English?