@@Onll6456 Nobody on this planet is more aggressive than english speaking people. Ask to native people in Australia, America or try to investigate about how they do behave on holydays when they escape from their nice locations to visit civil countries...
less than 10% of european population is muslim, so not true at all. also muslims are getting less religious with every generation they live in the west ^^ in 40 years islam in europe will go the way of christianity, only used for ceremonial purposes.
there are a lot of fake informations. This video is made by German nationalist. Brits where occupied by Vikings not by Germans. Lower Silesia in Poland was germanized fully 500 years later than this guy showed. False information than Germans where in Poland and Czechia before Slavs. This area was settled by Celts when Slavs came. In Czechia and South Poland Slavs mixed with Celts.
@@Rolando95 seems that in the map it's showed that Angles were continental germans and about that I agree. About lower Silesia, yeah it was *fully* germanized 500 years later and it's literally what this guy shows. About the Celts in Poland I don't think we can actually discover that but it's generally known that the area was inhabited by germans in 1 AD
@@Rolando95yes and I don't know why he didn't separate English Dutch and German people's like he did with the Latins and even italians and friulians, meanwhile latins ethnicity and languege are more closely related to eachother than germanic.
Ethnicity and language are often paired but not always. This is especially true in the past. For example, we can be reasonably certain that if you were from ancient Greece and spoke Greek that you considered yourself a Greek and so did those around you. However, today things have become more muddied. For instance, you may live in America and speak English but be ethnically African.
@@constantinuslefug2874 It is confusing to me the more I think about it. Ethnically you can be French and your nationality/language French, it seems the same for most European countries. Should there not be sub groups for ethnicities? As an example, in France you can take two caucasian French people, would their ethnicity be French or would it there be varying degrees of "sub-ethnicities"?
@@XC20248 I don't quite follow. Assuming that these two Caucasian parents are ethnically French, the child would also be French. Now, perhaps these two Caucasian parents are actually a Danish mother and a Welsh father living in France and speaking French. Their son is raised speaking only French. Is he French? Or Danish? Or Welsh? Well, ethnos is not like DNA. It is an organic, communal thing that is defined by both the individual and the community. If our French community judges all Caucasians who speak French to be French and our hypothetical child considers himself French, then ethnically he would be French and we could not prove otherwise without conducting a genetic study. That's what's so fascinating about heritage. It is both absolutely real while also being difficult to define.
“Romance people/latin people” lol. It is a language group, not an ethnicity. The Iberic peninsula has Iberic ethnicity ( Basque, Galician, Castilian, and Catalan too), Italy has lost its ethnicity from Roman age and are a mixed genetic bunch.
Assuming that you equate ethnicity with language, I’ve found a few mistakes on your video: 1. The spread of German in Silesia is way too fast. German wasn’t a dominant language on most of the territory you marked in 1300. 2. Russinians? What is this? You mean the Rusyn people? I know it’s a difficult issue dating the separation of languages and ethnic groups but 1250 is way too early. They became distinct after centuries of Hungarian rule. 3. Polish language did not reach that far into Prussia in 1300. Significant Polish colonization started at the beginning of the 15th century. 4. Why are Masovians listed alongside Poles? 5. The border between Poles and East Slavs was not stationary from 700 as you present in the video. The modern easternmost reaches of Poland (Rzeszów, Przemyśl) were historicaly part of Red Ruthenia and they were only settled at the time of Casimir the Great from Lesser Poland and to some degree Masovia. (Fun fact: The older border between Poland and Ruthenia rather closely aligns with the Polish dialectal isogloss of mazuration. Some see that Ruthenian influence in that region reinforced the threeway distinction between Polish sibilants and caused them to resist the spread of mazuration, but the discussion is somewhat more complicated.) 6. Writing both Ruthenia and Rus on the map is like writing Germany and Deutschland. Rus’ is the native Slavic name for the entire East Slavdom as well as the mediaval state. Ruthenia is the Latinate rendering of this name, it means the same thing. The areas of Rus which became part of Poland-Lithuania (and Hungary) were referred to as Ruthenia for longer, because Muscovy adopted the Greek rendering Russia (Rossiya) instead. East Slavic languages are very close to each other and they were rather uniform (with the exception of the Old Novgorod language) for longer than, say, West Slavic (which has actually never been one language, the differences between Lechitic (Polish, Pomeranian, Polabian) and Czech-Slovak are ancient and date back to the Late Common Slavic period). From around the 12th and 13th century dialectal differentiation begins in East Slavic, with two centers of linguistic innovation in the south (Ukraine) and the center (Belarus-southern Russia), eventually causing the language to fragment into what we have today. 7. Not really a mistake but there used to be some curious Lithuanian language islands way south in western Belarus, might be cool to include them. Also I must say good work on including the last place where Polabian was spoken by the Drevians near Lüneburg, I must say I didn’t expect you to get this right. This definitely took you a ton of work so don’t feel too bad. I’m sure you’ll correct those the next time you do something related.
Have the poles ever lived in the area which is now Kaliningrad oblast? I know they lived in the southern/western part of Old Prussia which was much larger than this russian part we see today. However, baltic prussians, germans (since the 12th century), and lithuanians had inhabited the current area of Kaliningrad region. Most of that area, even part of todays Poland was called Lithuania Minor. In the 18th century, many lithuanians died during the plague, and were replaced by germans from Austria. Lithuanians still dominated the northern part of region until the end of wwII. It was a main center of lithuanian language and culture (alongside neighboring Sūduva region), when lithuanian was banned in moskovian empire. But on this map I see it was ethnic german/polish land from the start of 15th century...
so on this map I see Kaliningrad oblast of Russia was entirely ethnic german/polish land from 15th century forward... Even baltic prussians were not extinct at the time, not to mention lithuanians. They lived there up until wwII. Also Northeastern part of Poland was originally lithuanian/baltic, even today there is lithuanian majority in small parts of the region, and they even have some official local status. But this map just shows ethnic line by current 1920 LT-PL state border line already in 13th century when it was ethnic baltic sudovian/lith land, part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Well, everyone always wants to erase us from history. We're used to it. Even on those fake ethnic maps, where half of ethnic Lithuania and our capital are always marked as polish/russian. Now, with the start of the war, monuments of Lithuanian writers are being taken away in Tilžė (Tilsit, or Sovetsk, Kaliningrad region), and the last Lithuanian schools are being closed in Belarus in September. Anyway. About Koeningsberg.. Sadly it Illegally became part of russia, and now it's naZi ruSSian military missile base in the middle of Europe. This time we may not survive if the ruskie come..
@@kiauraskaminas8038 Yes, that is also incorrect on the video. You're completely right, I just forgot to mention it in my comment. Poles were never indigenous in the current Kaliningrad Oblast, maybe some settlers in very small numbers or some burgher immigration to Königsberg, as it was our vassal after all. But definitely doesn't justify making it Polish on the map. And you're also right about the northeasternmost part of our country being historical Lithuania (Sejny etc.).
@@kiauraskaminas8038 Also very interesting are the possible linguistic traces of the Yotvingians in western Belarus. It seems that even some grammatical suffixes might have been borrowed into the local Slavic dialects. I have a research paper by Kuraszkiewicz on the topic, but I have yet to read it.
yea i have heard that western belarusian dialects have features of lithuanian. I don't know about yotvingian elements on belarusian, but i've recently read some article about local lithuanian dialects of Lazdūnai (if I remember corectly) in Belarus had some features of yotvingians and even prussians, when researchers talked with locals in some period of 1970s or 80s. There were still many villages around the place full of lithuanian speakers (despite the fact that in official soviet cencus made at similar time, it was... litarally 1 lithuanian woman in the area, and according this video the whole Belarus are slavic from the year 1600, which is nonsence in my personal opinion..), worth mentioning they don't prounounce 't' and 'd' sound as 'ts' and 'dz' as other liths in BY and southeastern LT which was very interesting for researchers. Also they found many archaic features non existing in modern LT. Later it was forbidden by soviet authorities for scholars or linguist to go to Belarus from LT even to speak to local people. I can only gues why, but at least for me its obvious.
The resilience of Greek ethnicity in the southern edges of the Italian peninsula is definitely overstated. They were never ethnically Greek territories in the first place, but rather Greek coastal settlements in an overall Italic territory and anyway they were fully Romanized by the times of the Social War. Griko-speaking communities in modern Italy are remnants of the Byzantine domination after the Gothic War.
The Latins (Latin: Latinus (m.), Latina (f.), Latini (m. pl.)), sometimes known as the Latials[1] or Latians, were an Italic tribe which included the early inhabitants of the city of Rome (see Roman people). From about 1000 BC, the Latins inhabited the small region known to the Romans as Old Latium (in Latin Latium vetus), that is, the area between the river Tiber and the promontory of Mount Circeo 100 km (62 mi) southeast of Rome. Following the Roman expansion, the Latins spread into the Latium adiectum, inhabited by Osco-Umbrian peoples.
@@maiorproposita9957 that isn’t the modern Latin group. The Latin were fused into the romans. The modern Latin group are “Latin descending languages speaking populations”, the Latin derives from the Latin language. The two Latins only have the word in common
@@maiorproposita9957 the Latins in Europe descended from the Romans, yes. Romans loved to mingle with differe cultures. But that’s not it. Regarding Sicilians and Sardinians they are obviously connected to ancient Romans, but even to Iberic people (Spain) and the moors as they were under them for a period of time. They also are connected to Northern Africa. In northern Italy they are connected more to Celtic, Gaelic and Slavic tribes. Regarding ethnicity ancient romans were a mixed genetic bunch. Modern studies confirmed that Italians are too with a 97% identical to ancient romans. The further you go from Rome the less this perceptual becomes: 95% in Sicily or Lombardy and 3% in Romania. Current Spain has relations to ancient romans too, but they have more to the Iberic people and other Iberic peninsula ethnic groups. A Spanish guy is both part of the Latin and the Iberic (randomly picked) group. One is a language group and the other is the ethnicity. Even if romans mingled with all types of people it doesn’t mean everyone is the same. They mingled with ancient Egyptians too, but they are neither part of the language groups and not the ethnic group as they share too little with the romans. Turks too, when they conquered Anatolia they mingled with the ancient people living there. If the ancient people mingled with romans and had a somewhat 7% of romans blood, that was diluted when they mingled with the Turks. In fact modern Turks in Anatolia share only a 0,7% of genetics with romans. They are neither part of the ethnicity nor the language group.
In Spain, there is no Catalan group, basque are together with Navarran, galicia should be together with Asturians....BUT, all in all is the same people, together with Portuguese, and part of south France and Italy.
@user-zg6mm1vr4b that is a lie. Poland was not occupying territories around Lviv. They were held by Poland legally, in accordance with international law. Stop lying. Anyway, you really claim that the border from 1945 is exactly the same as Eastern border of Poland in middle ages? Funny.
@@eqramer Stalin drew the border along the "Curzon line". Lord Curzon was the British Foreign Secretary who proposed the border between Poland and Soviet Russia in 1920. Then the Poles seized the lands of Western Ukraine and Belarus. But in 1939 Poland was again divided by the Russians and Germans, who agreed to the border along the "Curzon line". She also remained after the end of the 2nd World War. To compensate the Poles, Stalin cut off the lands of East Prussia to them, which Poland prefers not to remember.
@user-oc3im9fe9q Curzon line does not cover the section of border between Poland ans Ukraine in Galicia section! and believe me, yes Poles do remember that Stalin took away half of Polish prewar territory and he gave Poland only half of its equivalent from land that he stole from Germany - not from good heart (he was a beast worse than Hitler) but to catch Poles into the trap - he hoped that Poles fearing German revange would be also tied up with Soviet persecutors.
@@eqramer Make no mistake, in Russia it is known that there were two versions of the "Curzon line". Option "A" with the transfer of Lviv to Ukraine and option "B", with its abandonment to Poland. The Poles, of course, do not remember the first option. Which is not surprising. However, even with Lviv, these were not "native Polish lands", since Lviv belonged to Austria-Hungary until 1818. Therefore, Stalin annexed lands ALREADY INHABITED by Belarusians and Ukrainians to Ukraine and Belarus. And if you are disgusted by Stalin's "gift" in the form of East German lands (with Danzig), then give them to Germany. I think it would be fair. And you can take the Lions away from your allies, the Ukrainians. The Russians will definitely not object to this! Figure it out for yourself, with these bestial Galicians.
Incorrect map. Before the Balkan Wars, there was a Turkish population in the Balkans. There is also a Turkish population in some Greek islands and Cyprus.
The true bulgar are supposed to be turkic their ancestors are also found in today's Russia. Modern southeastern Bulgarians are Slavic with a touch of turkic ancestry. They supposedly had turkic elites like the Rus people had viking elites ruling them.
@@sbj1277 so you mean that the turkic bulgars they were only the ruling class but the population of the first bulgarain empire was slavs is this true? And can you discuss more about this topic
The Germanic language group was close to extermination but recovered and ended up with a language in it’s ranks that would spread all over the world 🏴
Albanians were not the majority in kosovo during the middle ages. The serbs were the majority until the 17th century when they migrated north under pressure from the turks. The albanians then moved in from north albania
@@Edarnon_Brodie ,,Ethnicity - the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent.'' ~Oxford Languages. ,,Ethnicity refers to the identification of a group based on a perceived cultural distinctiveness that makes the group into a “people.” This distinctiveness is believed to be expressed in language, music, values, art, styles, literature, family life, religion, ritual, food, naming, public life, and material culture'' ~Encyclopedia Britannica. What is your source?
En el norte de España estan la etnia vasca,gallega y la catalana no son éticamente española como dicen algunos, supongo. In the north of Spain there are the Basque, Galician and Catalan ethnic groups, they are not ethically Spanish as some say, I suppose.
It doesn't make sense to put "Friulians" and not other ethnicities of nowadays Italy like Venetians, Sicialian, Lombards, etc... you can't follow modern nationalism to define medieval ethnicities
Nothing mention for albanians before 1200- not even one word The term " Albanian " existed at middle age Many ancient Greek cities- Appolonia Epidamnos Antigonia etc existed in albania( Illyria back then )
You can show that Turkey is divided ethnically, but are you saying that Europeans are not divided? This must be some kind of joke. Europe is already a combination of many ethnic groups. Okay, you separate this with maps, but it is not enough. You have to explain this by dividing the segments and ethnic races within the map, just like Turkey. This is cruel because
They are germans. Scots are very different to the english, they were forced to speak english in countless wars and such. Austrians are literally bavarians that left bavaria and called their new country eastern realm. You can be Berliner and are German because of that. Franconian and German because of that. Bavarian and german because of that. With austrians its the exact same thing. The Austrian State simply isnt inside of germany. Its like saying that people from Manchester arent english anymore the second they leave the country as a city state (an example). The war in 1866 is called Bruderkrieg or Deutscher Krieg. "War between Brothers" and "German war" or "War between Germans". Austrians viewed themselves as germans for almost a thousand years. Swiss People are just germans, french, and italians (and some other romance/germanic groups) that formed a country between them. Nothing else. Up until the late 1900 they viewed themselves as ethnic germans. All this "we swiss/austrians are not germans" started after ww1 and ww2 respectively.
the truth now that I realize the slaves have assimilated a lot of peoples, Gothic Burgundians Vandals Germans Turks and Romanized Illyrians and Thracians I would have liked to know what would have happened if those peoples had not been assimilated by the slaves
Moors doesn't make sense. The majority population was the muwallad (muslim romans) while sirian arabs where the elite and amazigh only start to have some impact after the almoravid invasión in the 12 th century.
many mistakes on Polish-German Border - Surely Lower Silesia wasn't fully germanized in 1300. Lower-Silesian dialect of Polish language existed there until 19 century.
It's by far more complicated than that. Basically, I think the best method is to mix DNA's haplogroup + language + and that's maybe the most important ingredient and by far the most forgotten by universitarians READ ANCIENT HISTORIANS. From the Greeks to the pre-"enlightment" era, aka 1650. Chroniques, annales, everything is basically true even if false in some details. Thus, according to that, the germanophile school of history should be put at its rightful place : a lesser one. Neither Goths, Franks, Flemish, Austrians, Vandals and south and west actual germans are "germans" (nordic). Vast majority of western Europe belong genetically to R1b, which is NOT "Celtic" but GAUL. (use "celtic" for Gaul should be as stupid as using "Athenians" for Greeks). TLDR, actual Germany is a genetical mix between Gallic r1b in south and west, nordic I1 in north and slavic R1a in east. For Romania, Greece or Turkey, I think only a genious could resolve this bread of mistery and confusion))
This is partly true but they were heavily heavily persecuted and continuously murdered for centuries under Turkish rule in a period known as Tourkoukratia
Completely wrong.... Ethnicity is not official language... Eventhough because celt languages were used even after the Roman conquer of Europe. Beyond this, l In last Roman centuries legionars were scandinavian (or German if you prefer this word)
There are a lot of fake informations. This video is made by German nationalist. Brits where occupied by Vikings not by Germans. Lower Silesia in Poland was germanized fully 500 years later than this guy showed. False information than Germans where in Poland and Czechia before Slavs. This area was settled by Celts when Slavs came. In Czechia and South Poland Slavs mixed with Celts.
Boy you forgot Saxon and Anglo were a thing. Viking is not an ethnic group. Stop watching Netflix and go read some books made by mindfully people. For Poland I don’t know, I’ll check
Yet again even for Poland you don’t know…. With some quick research, although I found some different informations, it is agreed that from the 13th century (1200´s) Silesia Germanic. I won’t even bother checking is your last claim in right or wrong. Remember kid, best way to never be wrong in life is to shut the fuck up when you don’t know. It’s better to ask.
2100 dont forget high levels of miscegenation between Europeans and non Europeans creating a new ethnic groups and mixed race popoulations much like that of mestizos and cape coloureds
How its wrong? This map explains where people who spoke that specific language lived in where at that year. Its accurate to this day where the people who speak that language live in.
We split up. We develop different habits. Our language changes slowly. We even write a book that contains OUR ultimate truth. Our language is slowly changing even more... But do you really not remember that we once had the same mother? that WE were the same? There is no them and they, there is only Us....
Turkey is not true. You said "Armenian/Greek genocide" yeah i know propaganda about never happened Armenian genocide but Greek genocide? Yeah some fights happened in both Turkey and Greece (If you say this is a genocide well you need to say what happened to Turks living in Morea) in population exchange (you said this expulsion, i dont know this word much) but saying this is a genocide? Anti Turkic propaganda in west is really bad and poor and still successful, even UK (the country that makes genocide propagandas in WW1) doesnt recognize this and when you look reports of US generals you can easily understand this is a propaganda like this reports are far more after from "genocide" , 1910 Armenian population research (made by Armenian church) says there is only 1 million Armenian in all of eastern Anatolia but US reports says 1,5 million Armenians are "genocided", according to this all of Armenians are dead but he speaks about what happend to Armenians. It is obvious, really bad propaganda but successful because of poor western education system (dont try to deny this, americans dont even know Africa is a country or continent). You eat a lot of western propaganda but you dont really know Turkeys populations in today. You need to add little Kurdish population in some place and little Zaza population in another place. You need to make south eastern Anatolia a mix because populations are not fully Kurdish or not fully Turkish. But the worst part is you make Hatay a fully afro-asiatic? What? You really know nothing about Turkey.
Greeks were living in Minor Asia Pontos Anatolia from antique. Turks were invaders not natives Also turks in mainland Greece They invaded from east Asia. These genocides( turks did) against native people- Greeks Armenians Assyrians Kurds- are historian facts
We know all turkis massacres against ancient native people- arabs armenians kurds Greeks These civilizations mentioned by Greek and Persian ancient authors thousand of yrs before turkis nomadic groups arrived
If you say invaders you can say but you need to accept Englishs are also invaders both in Britain and in America, Greeks are also invaders (Anatolia was controlled by hittites and hittites are also invaders). But it is in past and now is different. We arent living in history. And spot this ww1 propagandas about never happened genocides. I show you source but you are just speaking this propaganda words. No there isnt any official genocide happend in Turkey or Ottoman Empire you need to show source but i already did it and proved it source about Armenian genocide is false. What happend? Armenians are relocated because they are supporting Russians and pillaging villages (of course you dont know this because you dont know anything, you are just speaking what they told you). Relocating is good? Obviously no. But it has reason and it isnt genocide. And what is it? 2 sided tragedy. Why am i telling this? You wont understand anyway. You will still speak "1.5 million armenian is genocidede!!!" and ignore the population count was made by Armenian Church shows there is only 1 million Armenian in Anatolia. You just know what they told you.
@@srd895 Hittites disappeared after 8th cen and do not appears in writing documents. After Alexander expansion to east anatolian people adopted Greek religion culture and language- dominator civilization from 4th cen bc untill 14th cen.- Greek cities names untill today as Anatolia too The difference is that uncivilizated nomadic groups invaded in regular civilizated states and destroyed it When Greeks expanded in Pontos M east Anatolia etc native people adopted everything by a superior civilization thousands yrs before turks Archaeological evidence- temples cities sculptures coins etc are undouptable facts
@@srd895 Armenians refered by ancient Greek authors from 14th cen bc- king Armenos was with Jason and Argonauts in Bosporus ( Georgia) trip 3300 yr before. Nomad invaders destroyed all these civilizations
Inaccurate, for example people in Brittany are French.. they're not less French or more Celtic. Actually Britanny is not the most Celtic region of France, Auvergne is more Celtic than Britanny, yet it's French. French englobs multiple older ethnicities, Celtic Gauls, Italic Romans, Germanic Franks, Celtic Brittons, Iberian Visigoths, etc..
While I agree with the claims of inaccuracy(namely the listing of everyone throughout time in modern scotland as 'scots') this comment is more so inaccurate. The Bretons are Celts, they are Brythonnic to be specific and migrated into the region during the migration era. They speak a Brythnonic language and continue the customs of their ancestors, in spite of French efforts of anti-provincialism (ethnic cleansing) from the minute to the intense, they are a distinct nationality from the French with more in common with the people of Cornwall and Wales than Paris. Up until the last decade, it was still legal in Brittany for French teachers to beat Breton students caught speaking their native Breton language. I recall one of my classmate's pen palls mentioning in one letter how they were smacked by their teacher for speaking their language(this was around 2006) instead of French.
@@dcoulter2685 Now that the option to translate comments from English to Spanish is activated again, I will only say that you say it probably will not happen since the Balkans are a very unpopulated region for their territory Besides that they are probably like the Albanians only that they would not be Muslims that would be the only difference xd
@@messier8888 fair point. Although the Balkans were only underpopulated because the Huns ravaged and genocide the population leaving the land empty for Slavic expansion. Maybe the Illyrians would have prevented that…
This map has full of mistakes. The Anatolia was never Greek. Trojans, Lydians, Lycians were not speaking Greek language either. Their ethnicity is Hattic or Hittites. Hittites is a language belongs to Indo-European but definitely not Greek.
@@narekmargaryan4429 Not it is not, the Anatolian languages existed until 6th century locally. In addition, modern Y-DNA results how huge difference between the Anatolian vs Greek DNA pool. The Anatolian pool which are not coming from Turks are the results of ancient Hattic genes.
@@ipekfakeok7756 They were assimilated gradually: Lydian, Carian, Bythanian before AD, Phrygian,Cappadocian, Isaurian Galatian during 1-6th centuries.For this l reccomend you "History of Anatolian languages" "History of Phrygian language" and " History of Thracian languages", videos from Costas Melas.
@@ipekfakeok7756 Come on man I have west anatolian ancestry and I already know that Greeks from the mainland don't look much different from anatolian Greeks, because Greeks from Anatolia are still Hellenic
@@mawdyardie what about the immigration of people from other continents will destroy European culture? Because of the rapid aging of the native European population, immigration is necessary to prevent economic collapse (economies need young, working age people to prosper and grow). Besides that, I haven't seen anything that suggests the endangerment of European languages, music, art, etc. by immigration. Unless it's not the culture you're actually worried about?
the "Romanian" word was only invented at the end of the 19th century by French historians and leaders... The word "Romanian"was invented in France to name the different ethnic groups living in the territories of the principality of Wallachia and the principality of Moldavia in the end of 19th century.... how can the word "Romanian" appear on your map during the Middle Ages?
@@Ticino1478 I know, that's why I made the difference between German and Germanic. German and Luxembourgish refer to the presend day ethnicities, while germanic refers to the broader cultural and linguistic family. Just like you said Germanic isn't an ethnicity, but a type of ethnicity.
Ruthenians is not russians and we (ukranians) know, that we was ruthenians in 15-20 centuries. If we are translate this words in russian language, then it will be русины-Ruthenians, русские- Russians
@garilo7773 Oh and theres a difference between rusich and russki too now yeh? ruthenian was latin for russian. and rusyn is the way the western slavs pronounced russich. and u know where the word ukraine comes from. it means borderland in slavic in case u forgot. where do u get your history from? your politicians? you should turn your TV off and read some real history buddy 👍
Because Ethnicity is also Identity. With your logic, Dutch are also German and Czech and Slovak are also same ethnic group. Its often hard to difference ethnic groups
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 they are, both germanic and Slavic, of course they have different identities, but you cannot see a difference between a Spanish and Portuguese just by looking
@@thierryferreira4825 I can see differences between Germanic tribes, but the difference between Dutch and German is also because Monarchial borders like Spain and Portugal. But over the centuries, the Monarchial borders are also the identity borders and Ethnicity is also definited of identity and modern language
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 I don't think that language and ethnicity are always connected many times they are not this one is a good example, Portuguese and Galicians are literally the same people that got separated politically and developed their own similar cultures, but are of the same ethnicity.
@@hannovermappingbesseronlin4247 how did u colour Kosovo as Albanian in history when it was fully Serbian, from there Serbian ethnicity was created, literally before 15th century there was not albanians there. By this map in Kosovo there weren't any Serbs but somehow Serb ethnicity emerged from who Albanians, this is to simplify for u what absurdity u made
To sum it up Iranian: OG's Uralic: Doesn't know anyone at the party Slav: "How did they get so big?" Celt: Sudden feeling of depression caused by you getting pushed every time Greek: Why does Romance copy from me? Romance: Why don't Greek understand we are relatives? Basque: If I remain quiet, no one will know I am here- German: *m o u n t a i n a o u s t e r r a i n* Turkic: Attack people that has way more population than you, defeat them severely, get assimilated by them, and no one even knows you were Turkic before! (Bulgars, East & South Ukrainans, Crimeans) Afro-Asiatic: Oh land! Let's conquer! *has civil war and loses everything Albanian: Albania actually conquer the worl twice but Albani friendly countrie so they give land back to other countrys Baltic: Instead of killing soldiers, we should do that to ourselves instead!
