UK, Britain, England, Scotland

[UtwigMU]

Attaching map of Europe from 800 and 2000 A.D imposed one uppon another.

As you can see Austria and Slovenia are two countries that were formed from ancient Carantania.

[Nowhere]

btw, who thinks that we should restore borders from the beginning of 17th century?

[UtwigMU]

Nowhere: Was that Polish-Lithuanian personal union?

EDIT, yes, what was with Moldavia, Valachia and Transilavania at that time?

[Nowhere]

at the beginning, yes, mostly (polish queen and lithuanian duke/polish king soon).
But that was over 200 years earlier than the map above. btw, it has a little error - that wasn't Republic of Poland. It was called just Republic or Republic of Two Nations. And ACTUALLY word "republic" isn't good for describing this...or even now; but unfortunatelly in all dictinaries there is Rzeczpospolita Polska = Republic of Poland...and that's not the whole image, because we also have word "republika" = republic; and the "rzeczpospolita" is better translated as "commonmatter/thing". Situation in 15th century you can call "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth". That will be close...but not exactly, espacially later, because Poland gained leading role...and at some point, I think, all the territories except Litvia were considered mostly like far provinces.

anyway, at the point in the map above there was more mayor nations than just two...ahhh...good old times when we were superpower

[KvHagedorn]

PanSlavism is alive and well. This isn't the only place I've seen it either.

[Nowhere]

where you see such PanSlavism? In purely historical data?
I mean, you couldn't possibly be thinking that I said seriously about "restoring" old borders, right?

[KvHagedorn]

Just in the general attitude.. more from Utwig than from you. And I've seen other such stuff on other forums.

[UtwigMU]

What Panslavism?

Where did I mention Pasnlavism in positive way?

You may also see the results of Panslavism in today's Balarus (IIRC they aren't restoring their language and have some close union with Russia) and Russia historically claiming Hegemony among Eastern, Western and to lesser extent Southern Slavs during 19th and 20th century.

Result of Panslavism was national disaster for us, as the maps indicate.

The Panslavistic movement here was marginal in 19th century and luckily they didn't achieve much. However since they fell to Serbian pressure after WW1 (at first they strove to achieve a country comprising only of ex Austria-Hungary - similar to what Czech and Slovaks did - however it couldn't gain international recognition), this resulted in marginalization of political significance, Serbian and latter communist dictature, deterioration of culture, linguistic and nationalist pressures and also loss of national teritory.

As per historical borders, that's a historical fact. I was only mentioning Slovenian historical borders.

Also untill 19th century there wasn't any significant movement here that wanted to share borders or common country with other Slavs here. As per Yougoslavia - it was a mistake as history has shown, hower USA and Wilson played great part in creating totally artificial country of nations that never shared history, had different language and religion.

The important movement however strove to unite Slovenian (not Slav) regions into single adminstrative part of Austria-Hungary. Hower when After WW1 Karl I offered that to our leaders, they said: Maestaet, es ist zu spaet (Majesty, it's too late).

The map I posted (published in 1853), sums up the program of that movement. As you can see it's Slovenian regions (no Slav or Panslav regions).

I dare you to quote me mentioning Panslavism in postive way.

Unless you have mistaken nationalism (in the meaning of 19th century) for Panslavism.

However you have shown pangermanistic aspirations many times.

[Nowhere]

I still don't see it here...what we've both said can be found in historical books.
And anyway, Poland then (hmmm...but seriuosly, I don't know how to call in English that country (from that time)...it's usually called "Republic of Poland", but above I wrote that it isn't fully correct translation...so let's call it just Poland - the most influencial part) wasn't driven by something like PanSlavism for sure.
First, it was open to/accepted practically all cultures.
Secondly, I don't really think it was "uniting" anybody purposedly.

There's a possibilty that you're thinking about Sarmats...well, the truth is, the ones who were leading Poland at the time were laughing from this movement even during its greatest prosperity...(hmmm...on the second thought the last thing I wrote hasn't got much sense - of course I was thinking about intellectuals, but then the country had been lead by "sarmat democracy" in many ways )...and besides that wasn't Panslavism really...

[UtwigMU]

As per Panslavism: It's a mistaken construct of 19th century German historians, inspired by Pangermanic movement, who deemed Slavs as people with no history who came from central Russia, that some Slavs adopted and respinned.

Furthermore Panslavism was only popular among haegemonic nations (Russians, Serbs).

On the other hand there is linguistic, material and geographical evidence of Slovenians descendand from Venets. For instance there are inscriptions and geographical names from pre-Roman era that can be read in Slovenian language.

However much of those evidence as well as history of Slovenian Feudal families (untill about 15-16th century rullers of Slovenian regions used Slovenian language.), which were dynastically related to other european dynasties was suppressed amd it was not favorable by official proserbian marxist historians. They have chosen to rather support panslavistic theory to coin up arguments for creation of Yougoslavia.

WRT to my views to Panslavism. That movement was (as history has shown) always a huge mistake. Economic and cultural cooperation (as with (on thesame level as) other states/nations of Europe) yes, we share a lot of common history with Czechs, Slovaks and Croats (they were part of Hungarian crown) and to an extent with Poles (more than with Serbs) OK.

But common Panslav state or any other state with such aspirations: No, never!!!

IMO it would have been better if Austo-Hungary remained as such and separated peacufully into national states when the time would be right.

EDIT: Here's some linkage

Carantanian history, christianisation, loss of independance 745 to Bavarians and subsequently to empire, the right to reject and/or impeach princes imposed by emperor, the ritual of installing leaders, which took place in Slovenian language untill 1414 and homage to empror, which took place untill Maria Theresa and pragmatic sanction....

[UtwigMU]

Brian Ellis or anyone, is there any online reference to Letonnian or Bretonian language?

[Brian Ellis]

You can see any number of references at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...reton+language
and somewhat fewer at

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=letton+language

I don't know much about Letton but I do know that the French Government is doing its best, unsuccessfully, to eliminate all the minority languages, such as Breton and Basque, even to the extent of declaring schools that teach them as illegal. I deplore this, as minority languages often hide a rich literary and spoken culture.

I'm told that Breton- and Cornish-speakers can intercommunicate to some extent (possibly similarly to Friesian- and the English-speakers).

I wonder if US American speakers will understand English, some day?