Why are Balts romanticized more than Slavs?

[Universe]

Only Prussians are romanticized, for obvious reasons. The rest of Baltic people aren't.

[cass]

. It is probably the European region that receives the least tourists annually so that says a lot, people don't tend to remember or consider them.

You are totally wrong. Comparing to the number of inhabitants they are popular tourist destinations. Especially Estonia which is simply flooded by Fins and Swedes.
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/ind....ARVL/rankings

[Peterski]

Only Prussians are romanticized, for obvious reasons. The rest of Baltic people aren't.

What are these obvious reasons? Being the supposed ancestors of Germans from East Prussia? So why aren't Polabian Slavs romanticized as ancestors of Brandenburgians and Mecklenburgians?

Ireland because they were part of British history and involved in a lot of that so they moved to other countries in the British Empire including the US where they had a large and very influential diaspora. Also Ireland had connections with countries like France and Spain with their mercenaries fighting in both armies. They also had a big influence on English literature among other things. I personally know very little about Slavic countries especially things like their mythology. I know nothing about that.

Irish and Scots are romanticised due to people's perceptions of the plucky Celt fighting off the evil Anglo-Saxons (Sassenachs).

All the things you mentioned are not special or unique to Ireland enough to warrant being less obscure, except maybe the parts about proximity to the English-speaking world and large Diaspora.

Not exactly mercenaries, but Polish troops fought with Napoleon in places as distant as Spain, Italy and Haiti. Mercenaries proper probably did not fight further west than Germany (during the Thirty Years' War).

Lithuania was once a huge country, Ireland was never bigger than the island (unless you argue that Scotland is an Irish kingdom too, but that's not exactly true).

Balts and Slavs are even more parts of German history than the Irish are of British history.

[Grace O'Malley]

What are these obvious reasons? Being the supposed ancestors of Germans from East Prussia? So why aren't Polabian Slavs romanticized as ancestors of Brandenburgians and Mecklenburgians?



All the things you mentioned are not special or unique to Ireland enough to warrant being less obscure, except maybe the parts about proximity to the English-speaking world and large Diaspora.

Not exactly mercenaries, but Polish troops fought with Napoleon in places as distant as Spain and Santo Domingo.

Belts and Slavs are even more parts of German history than the Irish are of British history.

I'm surprised the Balts and Slavs would be more a part of German history than the Irish were part of British history. Ireland was part of the UK for starters and the UK still has 6 counties of Irish territory today. I also think that the Irish were a large part of US culture and US films and books made the Irish well known just look at things like St Patrick's Day and Halloween. Irish also had a large presence in places like Australia. Ireland for its size is a very well known country.

How else would you explain it?

[Peterski]

I'm surprised the Balts and Slavs would be more a part of German history than the Irish were part of British history. Ireland was part of the UK for starters and the UK still has 6 counties of Irish territory today. (...)

How is that surprising? All of East Germany were once Slavic and Baltic lands:

[Grace O'Malley]

How is that surprising? All of East Germany were once Slavic and Baltic lands:

I don't know. I'm not much aware of the history but I am aware of British and Irish history. Irish and British history is very intertwined even before the Normans came to Ireland. I thought the question was why Ireland and Irish history was much more well known? I think it is fairly obvious because of the influence of the US and the UK around the globe.

[Peterski]

Irish and British history is not necessarily that well-known in continental Europe.

There is a divide between Continental European and "Anglosphere" points of view.

What is known about British history is mainly British policies towards the continent.

[Grace O'Malley]

Irish and British history is not necessarily that well-known in continental Europe.

There is a divide between Continental European and "Anglosphere" points of view.

What is known about British history is mainly British policies towards the continent.

I've met plenty of Europeans here and they all appeared very knowledgeable about Irish and British history especially about things like Britain's involvement in Ireland and the potato famine etc. I just don't think much is known about Baltic people in the general population. It is a fairly small area and you never hear much about them. Possibly on the European mainland they might be better known?

[Peterski]

I've met plenty of Europeans here and they all appeared very knowledgeable about Irish and British history especially about things like Britain's involvement in Ireland and the potato famine etc. I just don't think much is known about Baltic people in the general population. It is a fairly small area and you never hear much about them. Possibly on the European mainland they might be better known?

Well I'm pretty knowledgeable about history in general (all of Europe and beyond), so I guess it is hard for me to tell what is "very knowledgeable".

Knowing something about Britain's involvement in Ireland and the potato famine is not "very knowledgeable" to me.

Knowing stuff like Niall of the Nine Hostages, that counts as very knowledgeable. I don't think an "average Joe" in the continent heard about him.

[pulstar]

I thought that the Lithuanians/Latvians were seen as "the Irish/Scottish of the East", something like that.

I always thought that goes for Slovenians.