Skip to comments."The Slavs were not born to rule but to serve. This they must be taught."
Posted on 05/10/2013 3:35:44 PM PDT by Ravnagora
Painting of Kaiser Wilhelm II by Max Koner 1890
Aleksandra's Note: It never ceases to amaze me how decades, and in this case an entire century, of cataclysmic change can run its course through the world and the history of its nations and peoples, but some things truly don't change. For the Serbs, "Deja Vu" has become a constant common denominator in the course of their history.
This important bit of history from a 100 years ago should serve as a reminder to the Serbs that the passage of time, even a full century of time, really means nothing when it comes to the political realities they face today in 2013.
However, as is the case with taking anything for granted, especially the Serbs, the great and powerful Emperor of Germany was in for a rude awakening...
When His Majesty Emperor Francis Joseph demands something, the Serbian government must give way, and if it does not then Belgrade will be bombarded and occupied until the will of His Majesty is fulfilled. And of this you can be certain, that I stand behind you and am ready to draw the saber whenever your action makes it necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at heroesofserbia.com ...
I have noticed the Slavs (and the Ukrainians) seem to produce a lot of really pretty girls.
In all fairness, these attitudes prevailed over much of Europe. To paraphrase an expression of the times, “The only way to deal with a Russian is with your boot on his back; and the only way to deal with a German is for your bayonet to be at his throat.”
There was this thing about the Vikings in the Medieval period and they did get around ~ of course they were trading baubles for things of value ~ .....
Exactly what Dems think of blacks and “hispanics”.
Civilization may yet depend on the Slavic Orthodox peoples.
specially femens types wink wink
Some things never change. Battle of Grunwald, 1410
Actually, some things do change:
(by the way, the Lithuanians, and Lipka Tatars, neither of which were Slavs, had a lot to do with the Polish victory over the Teutonic Knights in 1410)
The Ukrainians are also Slavs.
This attitude goes back to 1331 when Wladyslaw the Dwarf was defeated by the Teutonic Knights.
I guess seeing so many hot female tennis players whose names end in “kova” or something similar may have influenced me.
Well this Polish Slav will tell the Kaiser to kindly “Kiss My Dupa”.
For the most part most of the nobles in Spain today have Breton sentences for surnames!
For a variety of reasons most historians give the credit to '"French knights" ~ which simply wasn't the case.
Note, for a very long time the various kingdoms and principalities fronting the Bay of Biscay were what amounted to a regional super power. The differences from their life and that of the people further inland were stark. The modern nation states we know so well were for the most part pastoral or agricultural, peopled mostly by slaves or near slaves ruled over by a dissolute gang of drunken, brawling nobles of unsavory sexual hygiene and behavior.
The Ukrainians have several major ethnic backgrounds but they speak a slavic language and eat kielbasa. That’s all it takes.
Both of those views are news to me. I've always had the impression that the Reconquest was an off-and-on series of battles, fought over centuries, mostly by Spaniards. I see no evidence to the contrary in the Wikipedia account. Do you recall the names of historians who claim that the Spaniards were not responsible?
Ever wonder where it came from?
Here's all you need to look for ~ a noble name with the words for a military assignment in the middle, beginning or end ~ in BRETON.
For instance, a name with SA, meaning flag in Breton, might be linked to LINAS, a word meaning LINE ~ a SALINAS was the knight who held the flag on the left or right of the advancing formation of mounted knights.
Even looks Spanish doesn't it?
Look for almost any name that begins CA, CAR, KA, KER ~ all of them are Breton ~ that 'ker' has to do with a common affectation among Bretons for centuries to refer to 'house of' ~ and then whatever else their name was ~ in Celtic!
Some of the nobles adopted French surnames of course ~ as names of war, the French in those days having a reputation for brutality in combat.
All you have to do is remember that the Google.com Welsh translator does a fair job translating Breton as well ~ which will help you dig your way through Breton and French histories.
Brittany and Cornwall both got out of the country business in the 12th to 14th centuries ~ one of the reasons the English and French hog the credit.
Now, who was a Spaniard? Was it the Moslem noble whose family had lived there 500 years or the farm boy with the big horse and heavy sword from Brittany?
With Christian Spain rolled up to the North Coast (The Dead Coast) by the Moslems (7th/8th century AD), they were sitting ducks for fillubsterers from the rest of Europe ~ who arrived and set up Carvajal, Leone and Castile ~ those were the three kingdoms San Cho Noe I is credited with authorizing as he began his invasion from Cornwall ~ hey, he has a Breton name too!!! WOW! He wasn't a Spaniard 'til he got there.
The common denominator was simple ~ on one side the warriors were Christian, and other side they were Moslem. The war lasted from the 7th century to the 15th century ~ a very long war even by Irish standards, but not by Japanese standards (if you need a comparison).
Sometimes the war went one way and sometimes another. At least once other Moslem invaders came in to make a maor push-back against the Christians because the local Moslems proved too week, or too closely affiliated with the Christians to stick to the islamic rules. During other times both the area we call Morocco and Spain were part of a common culture ~ even today they have a special relationship.
(NOTE: Bieber ~ as in Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar ~ AKA El Cid!)
I was just commenting on the German desire for hegemony over the Slavs. Fritz just needs to calm down. Delusions of grandeur and all that.
When dealing with muawiyah it is always best to be somewhat skeptical. I can’t say there were no Breton fighting in Spain, but I really doubt there were many if any at all. Just an example of what I am talking about: muawiyah says there this:
“(NOTE: Bieber ~ as in Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar ~ AKA El Cid!)”
The problem is that Vivar probably has nothing to do with the Breton. If it is Celtic, it probably has everything to do with Spain’s own ancient Celtic population which pre-dated any Breton on the continent by centuries:
The Celtic Vaccaei were living in the Vivar region many centuries before El Cid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccaei
You already know that but for some unknown reason you want to sugar coat the Islamic invasion and conquest of Iberia.
When it was over the Christians were reduced to those living North of the mountains along the coast of the Bay of Biscay.
They never recovered sufficiently to mount any sort of military offensive against the Muslims ~ that came from outside, from elsewhere in Europe.
Modern Christian Spain began with Leon and Castile ~ a fairly informative but very brief brief is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile ~ you did notice I didn't refer to San Cho Noe I, but they do refer to Sancho II and Sancho III ~ they came later ~ MUCH LATER.
The Reconquista was in full sway by Sancho III. Galician chronicles demonstrate it began with arrivals from Cornwall ~ and by necessary implication, Brittany.
That's the Galician story. The movement of the Milesians to Brittany took place in the aftermath of the climate anomaly in roughly 535AD ~ they took their Arthurian stories with them which included the chronicles of the British kings ~ in pre Anglo-Saxon times.
Ergo, the Celtic population in Brittany circa 7th Century-9th Century (and so on up to today) was essentially the same as the Celtic population in Ireland, Wales, Britain and Cornwall from roughly 700BC up until modern times ~ there is a short brief at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile which you might want to review to pick up on the words.
here is a basic differentiation in the two main threads called Goedelic and Brethonic to deal with, and if you want to start reading old Breton language texts, they had about 7 standard ways of spelling so you need to get over that.
Now, your alternate history is the Celts in Brittany are DIFFERENT FROM the Celts in Galicia?
'you'll need to 'splain that one!
All celts are not the same but the Milesian Celts are very important in all history of the Celtic speaking peoples. They came from the East and invaded the British Isles from the South and repopulated long gone populations around the Bay of Biscay in the early Medieval period.
The fact a particular valley has a Celtic name today really doesn't mean all that much in Spain since there have been so many Celts who came through or who settled there over the last 3,000 years! Places have a tendency to get re-named. The Bieber link is from Spain to Belgium and Germany ~ the Hapsburg Empire served as an opportunity highway for adept Spaniards who wanted to live somewhere else ~ so they did!
As always you resort to even stranger claims to defend your previous off base claims.
“Vlad, when the Moslems took over an area in their initial thrust they killed off the existing nobles and forcibly converted the peasantry to Islam. Later Jews from around the Mediterranean moved there in fairly appreciable numbers.
You already know that but for some unknown reason you want to sugar coat the Islamic invasion and conquest of Iberia.”
Okay, let’s look at your bizarre claims here:
1) “You already know that but for some unknown reason you want to sugar coat the Islamic invasion and conquest of Iberia.”
You show me EXACTLY where I have done that. Show me EXACTLY where I have EVER done that. You WILL fail because I have never done any such thing in any thread I have ever posted in in my entire life. How, in good conscience, can you just make stuff up like that? Seriously, how can you just flat out lie like that?
2) I am to infer that you are claiming that because the Muslims conquered Spain and (according to you) wiped out the nobility that that had something to do with El Cid’s real name? Seriously?
That doesn’t even work for you because anyone who knows about the Arab Muslim conquest of Spain knows that the Vivar region was under Muslim domination for a little over a century and the native Christians not only remained Christian but didn’t lose their place names in the local dialects.
“When it was over the Christians were reduced to those living North of the mountains along the coast of the Bay of Biscay.”
No. The FREE Christians lived in the mountains and foothills, but plenty of unfree Christians - still speaking their own language and learning Arabic too - remained where they were.
“They never recovered sufficiently to mount any sort of military offensive against the Muslims ~ that came from outside, from elsewhere in Europe.”
That is completely false. Pelagius, in Spanish: Pelayo, the founder of the Kingdom of Asturias was from Gallaecia (Hispania Gallaecia) and launched the Reconquista in about 722. He was a Visigoth FROM SPAIN.
“Modern Christian Spain began with Leon and Castile ~ a fairly informative but very brief brief is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile ~ you did notice I didn’t refer to San Cho Noe I, but they do refer to Sancho II and Sancho III ~ they came later ~ MUCH LATER.”
All irrelevant of course as I already showed. Pelagius started the Reconquista and he was a native Spaniard.
“The Reconquista was in full sway by Sancho III. Galician chronicles demonstrate it began with arrivals from Cornwall ~ and by necessary implication, Brittany.”
The Reconquista started in the early 8th century - and was started by a native Spaniard a VISIGOTHIC prince. And I just don’t see any reason to believe your claims without some sort of documentation. You can easily search for what I posted online. Post some evidence for what you’re claiming.
“Now, your alternate history is the Celts in Brittany are DIFFERENT FROM the Celts in Galicia?”
So you’re claiming Brythonic and Continental Celtic languages are the same?
I have no doubt that most ancient Europeans shared the same DNA, but that doesn’t mean they all shared the same language.
Thanks for the information, though I’m in no position to evaluate the accuracy of much of it. With etymological explanations especially, it’s often hard to separate fact from speculation.
Thanks for your responses and for supplying a different point of view and alternative explanations for some of the things mentioned.
Remember, linguistic differences are more a matter of geography and history than of some inborn characteristic.
Only the more primitive Germanic Angles, Saxons, Danes and rough Bavarian mountaineers imagine the people around the Bay of Biscay to have not had a history of their own.
Pelagius, even the most fawning records, is credited with having Gallitian ancestry ~ and only some credit him with having initiated the Reconquista. The Moslem records refer to him and his followers as "30 wild donkeys" ~ certainly something far short of number of folks needed to do something about the the Moslem occupation.
I have to take exception to your belief the folks in Northern Spain spoke 'Spanish' ~ that language became dominant there by the mid 1500s, but before that Galician was dominant ~ and that's a Celtic language, not a rough German tongue.
For the roots of modern Spanish you have to look to both Latin and Gallo and, of course, Ladino!
Regarding religious matters, the Moslems and Christians worked out the old 'follow the local noble' standard after several centuries of conflict ~ in the beginning they just chopped off heads. The local Arien Christians were not highly respected by the Christian knights moving in from Brittany and Cornwall ~ probably why that brand of Christianity is not known in the region today.
Glad to help.
“Come on now ~ tell us that genetically identical people are not genetically identical.”
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
“Remember, linguistic differences are more a matter of geography and history than of some inborn characteristic.”
Everything I said is true.
“vladimir998, now, now ~ you are buying into the ENGLISH imputed archaeological version of history ~ which is simply not the same as the GALICIAN documentary version.”
Are you drinking this early?
“Only the more primitive Germanic Angles, Saxons, Danes and rough Bavarian mountaineers imagine the people around the Bay of Biscay to have not had a history of their own.”
I have no idea what your point is. As usual you are talking about something entirely different than I am.
“Pelagius, even the most fawning records, is credited with having Gallitian ancestry ~ and only some credit him with having initiated the Reconquista.”
He was a Visigoth. All sources agree on that. Did he have some native blood? Could be. By that point that could mean plenty of Italian blood too. And he did start the Reconquista.
“The Moslem records refer to him and his followers as “30 wild donkeys” ~ certainly something far short of number of folks needed to do something about the the Moslem occupation.”
Okay, so you just criticized me for relying on “the ENGLISH imputed archaeological version of history” while you’re relying on the Muslim version of history? Can you say hypocrite?
“I have to take exception to your belief the folks in Northern Spain spoke ‘Spanish’”
I never claimed they spoke Spanish. You are truly a mess. Why do you just lie like that? Seriously, you need to apologize. This is at least the second or third time you have made something up out of thin air. Why do you think it is okay to lie like that?
“that language became dominant there by the mid 1500s, but before that Galician was dominant ~ and that’s a Celtic language, not a rough German tongue.”
And you’re still lying about what I said.
“For the roots of modern Spanish you have to look to both Latin and Gallo and, of course, Ladino!”
Irrelevant. You’re still lying.
“Regarding religious matters, the Moslems and Christians worked out the old ‘follow the local noble’ standard after several centuries of conflict ~ in the beginning they just chopped off heads. The local Arien Christians were not highly respected by the Christian knights moving in from Brittany and Cornwall ~ probably why that brand of Christianity is not known in the region today.”
(sigh) You are so grossly misinformed that it is stunning. The Visigoths were Arian. They became Catholics during the reign of Reccard I in 587 (he died in 601). The country was solidly Catholic before the Muslim invasion in 711.
Spain was easily invaded and taken over because, in reality, there was no Spain, only poor peasants and thuggish gangs ~ city life was long over.
The only highspot in the whole region was the seacoast on the Bay of Biscay ~ that's well reported in in almost anything that mentions King Ad ~ or St. Gildas, and Welsh genealogies.
“Again, you forget all about the worldwide catastrophe of 535AD which, by 541 AD had left virtually all of Western and Northern Europe devastated, and to a substantial degree, depopulated, in poverty, and without effective government.”
I’m not forgetting anything. What you’re doing is throwing around kitchen sinks.
“Spain was easily invaded and taken over because, in reality, there was no Spain, only poor peasants and thuggish gangs ~ city life was long over.”
No. Spain was easily defeated because NO ONE at the time in Western Europe could compete with Arab and Berber Muslim armies on the plains. They were expert horseman while the Visigoths were mostly foot soldiers.
“The only highspot in the whole region was the seacoast on the Bay of Biscay ~ that’s well reported in in almost anything that mentions King Ad ~ or St. Gildas, and Welsh genealogies.”
None of which has anything to do with what we’re actually discussing, Kitchen Sink.
And you still need to apologize for outright lying.
Sorry Jack, there are sources out there or anyone to read ~ if they can read Spanish. Try it someday, you'll like it.
“Vlad, your problem is you aren’t very smart;”
Alright, let’s say that’s true. How then do you explain the fact that you aren’t smart enough to get your facts straight, and that you also aren’t smart enough to not lie?
” are unable to carry on a decent conversation for very long;”
That’s a hilarious complaint considering the fact that you repeatedly lied. Is lying decent?
“and worse, you accuse anyone who uses factoids different from your own of lying.”
No, I accuse liars of lying. Here are just two examples of your outright lies:
1) I have to take exception to your belief the folks in Northern Spain spoke Spanish
2) You already know that but for some unknown reason you want to sugar coat the Islamic invasion and conquest of Iberia.
Now, you are clearly a liar. You lied - as I just showed above. Why you stoop to lying I don’t know, but it is what you do.
“Sorry Jack, there are sources out there or anyone to read ~ if they can read Spanish. Try it someday, you’ll like it.”
And you’re still a liar.
You might find this book review interesting:
Thanks very much for this information, Dragonfly!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.