Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yes, these are all imperial nations, not peoples in the sense of kinship of origin'Poland', like 'Germany', is a modern 19th Century political invention, and so are many of the Baltic states. It's not rocket science to realize they were never cohesive tribes; neither was 'France' or 'Italy' for that matter. They are all conglomerates of different tribes, with invented 'nationalities'. See Bismarck and Garibaldi and others for examples of the rise in 19th Century European 'Nation-State' political organizations. Sicilians are not Milanese, Bavarians are not Prussians, Austrians aren't Rhinelanders, Neopolitians are not Venetians.
And what language did they speak according to your version? In Rus at the times of Vladimir the Great or Yaroslav the Wise?do not think that the Slavic language was widespread in the ancient Russian state, because at that time only about 300 years had passed since the beginning of its spread among the Balts
Agree. I don't understand all that obsession about the time or place of formation of some 'nation' or all that DNA stuff.They are all conglomerates of different tribes, with invented 'nationalities
Yeah, that is one of theories. I read somewhere that it doesn't hold water.Apart from the northeast, they all descended from the steppe people, from the Sarmatians and the Huns, hence their name
At the time of Rus, apparently there was already a mixture of Slavic and Baltic, before the Avar Kaganate Baltic languages.And what language did they speak according to your version? In Rus at the times of Vladimir the Great or Yaroslav the Wise?
This is self-evident. Back in the 18th century, it was an exclusively equestrian knightly culture. Polish hussars put an end to the Ottoman expansion. The ethnonym itself comes from the word "pole"(steppe). Before the Franks, Avars were the main ones there, from them comes the Russian word "barin" (obarin, obrin), by the way it is interesting that nothing of the kind happened from Rus people. It's not known how called rus nobility at all.Yeah, that is one of theories. I read somewhere that it doesn't hold water.
Such a position of a mixed people devoid of history and roots is always beneficial to the imperial elites for using such peoples as slaves and cannon fodderAgree. I don't understand all that obsession about the time or place of formation of some 'nation' or all that DNA stuff.
At the course of all passed centuries people, especially in Europe, have become so intermixed that it hardly really matters.
On the contrary, national and religious bias serves the elites to achieve their goals. It was true for Europe for centuries.Such a position of a mixed people devoid of history and roots is always beneficial to the imperial elites for using such peoples as slaves and cannon fodder
Do not confuse religion and national culture, these are opposite things. Abrahamic religions were the main instruments of empires to enslave peoples. Franks and Arabs did it. These were not folk religions, but internationalOn the contrary, national and religious bias serves the elites to achieve their goals. It was true for Europe for centuries.
They were moving hand to hand. The Poles as an example consider a certain religion as part of their identity.Do not confuse religion and national culture, these are opposite things. Abrahamic religions were the main instruments of empires to enslave peoples. Franks and Arabs did it. These were not folk religions, but international
The tragedy of Poland and many other countries is precisely because of this. In Afghanistan, Muslims kill Muslim Uzbeks and Muslim Uzbeks harbor illusions of Islamic identityThey were moving hand to hand. The Poles as an example consider a certain religion as part of their identity.