Latvia wants the euro

Because you didn't seem to understand the difference.

My point is that the UK succeeded in creating many mini britains. That's successful imperialism and colonisation.

Of course they are, by virtue of making up a large chunk of russian territory and population, and being ruled by russians for several hundred years. But they're still different people. I don't only care about tartars, it was just an example. Russia isn't exactly 'brotherly nations'. It's russians conquering their nieghbors, it's not like they all chose a union They do have mini republics though, I like that.

I'm not serious with everything I say here, like wanting a Swedish empire. Have I ever said that I supported european colonisation of america, or norman conquest of britain? I think not. Don't be prejudiced here.

Napoleon and the nazis are examples of the exact opposite of the russians; they always focused more on quality. how could they hold off against numerically superior enemies? Because they were really high quality, that's why. The german army, was the best of its time, as was the napoleonic french.

expect that they didn't really. The soviets were worn out by heavy losses and (*)(*)(*)(*)ty infrastructure and industry (not that russia had much to begin with). The US on the other hand had it's whole industry (40% world gdp) geared for war, and didn't suffer much at all during the war. Combined with nukes, better industry, and a good airforce and navy the allies could have easily won over the soviets. The USSR was subsidised by the allies during the war also; on their own they'd be dead.

Obviously the numbers are just to show that russians are more into quantity and swedes are into quality... I thought that was obvious.

that proverb does indeed apply to us somewhat.

Britian pwned india because they were more quality, and for the same reason we owned russia. But one can't keep going like that, being vastly numerically inferior that is, for any longer period of time, especially not when the other side starts going a little better on quality. It catched up to us, that's what happened. In the battle of poltava the russians were twice as many as the swedes by the way, it's not like it was an even battle..

I'm actually not a big fan of nazi slogans. But indeed, small as we are neutrality was the best option for us.

Are you saying it's not true? slavic peoples were behind germanic peoples, simple as that. in spite of having numerical superiority it did take a while for them to get even.

Rurik was swedish, does that bother you in some way? there were finno-ugric peoples in gårdarike so it's hardly suprising to find their DNA there. Also, normans didn't exist in rurik's time.. By the way, just look at the name; sounds very norse doesn't?

name some people who aren't bandits, robbers, murderers, and rapists? All peoples fit into that category. just so happens that the vikings were better at it than the russians. For all their wealth and strength, as you claim they had, the russians ended up being ruled by vikings. hmm..

 

Never mind. Feel free to provide your version.

You point was –
“Not all empires disintegrate. And the UK, in some ways.”
But it’s not true. Cause the true British Empire has already died. Now UK became US’s very junior partner. The British Commonwealth of Nations is not the British Empire it is the voluntary interstate association of sovereign states. They do not coordinate well with each other and each member has its own agenda and interests.

Well I’m afraid that the every country, maybe except for Tuvalu or something has the same history. Some nations mixed with others, some nations conquered / assimilated others. Should we revise the human history?

Hehe. Another funny crap. I told you read something about Russian commander Suvorov, Russo -Turkish wars, The Patriotic War of 1812 etc.

In 1799 Suvorov smashed the superior forces of the French.

In 1812 Napoleon and the Grande Armée about 600 000 soldiers decided to invade Russia. On June 1812 Russians had only 200 000 but screwed Napoleon as hard as they screwed you in the battle of Poltava in 1709. Napoleon wasted all his army and it was a fatal blow.

Also read about the Brest Fortress, the Battle of Moscow etc. And check out the correlation of forces.

Yes, Napoleon was a great commander. Nazis had a strong army. But the life showed that they were bad strategists. They lost their empires, wasted their ppl and finally screwed themselves. This is obvious.

Well I know that every geek can start and win a war quick and easy but only in internet.
IRL we have another situation.

USSR had a good air force and navy as well + strongest army and huge combat experience. The Soviet army had a good chance to reach La Manche. + US had no the means of delivery of nuclear bombs to industrial regions of the USSR and to Moscow. And in 1949 USSR became a nuclear power as well.

Yeah, it was a great allegory for preschool institution

You can tell this myth that you owned Russia to your grandma. I think she will have fun.

You see in the 14th, 15th centuries the Grand Duchy of Moscow the basis of the Russian Empire was a little-inhabited, poor and small state. At that time the Russian Empire did not exist. There were many weak princedoms but the Grand Duchy of Moscow united these princedoms and became the Tsardom of Russia. The Tsardom of Russia had a lot of strong enemies like your country, Tatars, poles etc but Russians created a strong and huge empire. Sweden have failed.

In the battle of Poltava you got a fatal blow. Russians screwed you completely for 2 hours. Russians lost about 1300 killed. You lost from 7000 to 9000 killed + about 3 000 captured. Your demoralized army fled but Russian commander Menshikov with 9 000 men got your army at Perevolochna and the Swedish army 12 000 – 15 000 men capitulated.

The surrender was a contributing cause to the Russian victory in the Great Northern War. The Swedish continental army had ceased to exist, leaving the remaining defenses of the Swedish Empire hopelessly outnumbered. Strategically, Russia now had taken the offensive, while Sweden would be hard pressed to muster a new army to defend itself. General Lewenhaupt was imprisoned and died in Russian captivity in 1719. King Charles did nothing to have him released, but fled to Bendery in what was then Ottoman Empire.

So it goes…

Yes.

I meant that you gave a no-where supported crap when said - “and continuing pwning them until they finally managed to fight back in the 18th century. So some thousand years of owning our slavic neighbors.” – What are you talking about? Lol. And which some thousand years? You really have probs with math.

You gave another no-where supported crap ^. Can’t say that I like all this crap about so-called racial superiority but the Slavs had often screwed Germanic ppl. and screwed them as hard as Russians screwed the Teutons, Prussia, your motherland, third Reich etc. Not long ago there were just small, poor, puppet, second-rate German princedoms (excepting for Prussia), the easy prey for strong neighbors. And did you hear about so-called The Thirty Years' War. There were killed over 8 000 000 ppl. Only Germans lost over 6 000 000 men, 1/3 of its population. In my view only untermenschs had made such slaughters and showed such a monstrous cruelty. It seems even red Khmers were much more humane ppl than members of this war. + See above about numerical superiority

Do you have any prove of this?

Negative. But I don’t like when someone gives no-where supported information.

Lol but where is the Scandinavian trace / haplogroup?

Congrats. You made a mistake again. Western ppl called Scandinavians, which in the 8th -11th centuries sacked Europeans countries – Normans, the kind of a collective name. Russians called them Varyags. According to the no-where supported myth Rurik came to Rus in 862.

All nations did it. But according to chronicles Vikings were exceptional bastrds.

Well, Russians readily hired bands of these barbarians. As the good consumables for wars. I think it was a good deal. When Russians wasted this hired scum they could take another hungry band of barbarians quick and easy just like a new working girl.

Lol. I told you that it is just no-where supported myth. There are no any strong arguments who was Rurik by nationality – Norman, Slav or someone else. + DNA test showed that assumed direct descendants of this semi - mythical personage (Rurik) have a Finno-Ugric haplogroup. Also some experts believe that Rurik was just another mythical personage.

 

It's not merely my version, it's the dictionaries definition too. Empire and superpower are, to put it as simply as possible, two different things. I'm going to use merriam-webster for this.

A superpower is: an extremely powerful nation; specifically : one of a very few dominant states in an era when the world is divided politically into these states and their satellites

an empire is: a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit

Can you see now that they are not the same? I don't know what other help I can offer you to make you understand the difference.

Which is why I said in some ways. And what I meant by that is that the brits have turned many of their colonies into mini britains which loosely support her. It's is, as I've said before, not the native americans that run canada, but the white europeans. It's still colonies in the way of non natives running them, and that's in a way successfull imperialism.

No of course not, but genocides are part of history as well but that doesn't make them any less evil. My point is that it's a bad thing when a people take over another and make them lose their culture and traditions. I'm not denying that it has happened.

I'm not saying that russians are idiots incapable of making good strategic and tactical decisions, I'm saying that russia in general has focused more on quantity over quality. Of course there are brilliant russian generals, and of course countries that focus more on quality aren't immune to making mistakes.

Both sides were very worn by war, but the US hadn't had been invaded by nazis and it had the world by far biggest economy behind it. I'm very certain they would have won. A bloody war for sure, but an allied victory nontheless.

when I said owned I meant it in the pwned way. Russia was, despite it's size and population, not very powerful for a long time.

Russia had the advantage of having less civilized nieghbors to the east which she could expand into. Sweden, being surrounded by equally advanced peoples, didn't have that alternative.

well no (*)(*)(*)(*)? It's not like I was denying that. But again, it was 30k swedes vs. 75k russians. hardly a fair battle. I could tell you about the battle of Narva nine years earlier where russians once again had more men, this time thrice as many men and twice as many cannons (10K men and 35 cannons for sweden, vs 32K men and 70 cannons for russia) but it ended with around 600 swedish wounded and around a thousand wounded, and a whopping 9000+ russians killed and over 20.000 captured. If we want to speak of epic pwnage, this is the battle we should be talking about. Both battles are very good examples of what I mean when I talk about quality and quantity, and how one can't keep doing it forever.

Roughly a thousand years. You know, when people say 'a thousand years' in this context they are really saying 'around a thousand years' and they expect people to understand that because it would be incredibly silly if they had to be exact and say that if was 'nine hundred fifty five years and two months a week and two days ago'. I'm also taking some poetic license when I say pwn. It's refering to the historical general backwardness of slavic people in comparison with their germanic nieghbors and germanic expansion and influence in slavic lands.

I'm not talking about any racial superiority by the way as I don't think one can call slavs and germanics different races in any meaningful way. They are however different groups of people, which is another thing, and it's also very obvious. What's also obvious is that the slavic group was clearly slagging behind the germanic group for quite a while. It is true that slavic people later on pwned some germanic groups but for most of history, and it is to this time that I'm referring, slavic peoples were losing the fight against germans who settled their lands and slavic culture got very influenced by germanic and european culture.

It's commonly accepted that he was a varangian, a viking. And the vikings going to russia were mostly from sweden. But seriously, just look at his name. It means famous ruler. -rik is germanic and is found again in swedish 'rike' which means realm, just like german 'reich'.

And I don't like people revisioning history to fit their slavic nationalism stuff.

DNA isn't completely reliable in this case I'd say. Firstly, rurik and his descendants would probably have intermarried with the locals. Secondly, just because he's a viking doesn't mean that he has to have 'viking blood'. let me explain that: in sweden there's sami people and they once lived far more to the south and covered more of sweden. It's very possible that norsemen and samis intermarried and that sometimes someone who was samic 'by blood' could just somehow end up growing up as a viking. in appearance there really isn't much dfference between samis and swedes. So what we could have, hypotethically, is that Rurik was a viking, but descendant from a vikingised sami. understand what I'm saying here?

Normans is actually a specific ethnicity that emerged in the first half of the 10th century in normandy by vikings mixing with the frankish and gallo-roman people there. sorry.

And what enabled us to be such exceptional bastards if not that we were superior in some ways?

yeah yeah, go ahead and compare it to whatever you wish, it still doesn't change the fact that vikings ended up ruling russia for a while.

i've already adressed this. But suffice to say, it gotta be very annoying for russians to have kept being ruled by rurikovich until the 15th century (or something like that, I don't really care) huh? Sons of the famous ruler, from sweden.

 

Lol. Tyvm for your ref. Very informative. But if you think that US is not the empire but the superpower why you gave the example that US is the empire? >

And if you think that US is the empire why you began the debate about difference between the empire and the superpower? Wtf?

The true British Empire died in the 20th century.
The Commonwealth of Nations is not the British Empire. It is the voluntary interstate association of sovereign states. They do not coordinate well with each other and each member has its own agenda and interests.
The totally lame example even if you use the reservation “in some ways.”

Absolutely

Yes I agree, but sometimes this is a good thing. For example take this good old tradition > the Sati >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)
Fortunately, by the end of the 18th century, this practice had been banned in territories held by some European powers.
The Portuguese banned the practice in Goa by about 1515. [20] The Dutch and the French banned it in Chinsurah and Pondichéry, their respective colonies. The British, who by then ruled much of the subcontinent, and the Danes, who held the small territories of Tranquebar and Serampore, permitted it until the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)

 

No f k.
Lol. you say – “hardly a fair battle”, well imagine that a boxer from the flyweight division sent a challenge to a heavyweight. And when heavyweight screwed him, he cry ‘ F ! It was the unfair play! He weighs more than me!’
Do you find this funny? Me too. Yes Russians had a numeral superiority, but the war is not the chess when opponents have equal quantity. Yes it’s funny that your king knew that Russians had a numeral superiority, but he was a bad strategist and due to his ambitions he decided to invade Russia, and as a result f ed up and lost his army. So, I think you can’t say that it was the unfair play. Your king wanted it – he got it. + Menshikov with 9 000 men got your army at Perevolochna and the Swedish army 12 000 – 15 000 men capitulated.
No doubt in the battle of Narva you screwed Russian army completely and Russians got a hard lesson. Peter I told that Swedes were his teachers. But you won the battle but lost the war. And it is the true epic pwnage.

Cool story indeed I gave you many examples that Russians have often screwed the superior forces of opponents. See above.

I think in this case any prediction is not a gratifying labour. Before WWII many Russians (including top commanders) thought that the Red army will fight only on the foreign land and will screw enemies quick and easy. Nazis planned to screw USSR for some months. And there were much more competent analysts than you and me. But whatever ‘cause the history doesn't like a subjunctive mood.
Though I guess there was a window-dressing as well. And top commies and Nazis got the “correct” “victorious” reports.
+ So-called Soviet authority screwed USSR itself.

Lol so, you think that Sweden and Poland’re not a civilized countries. The Tsardom of Russia had pretty civilized and strong neighbors / enemies. Even Kazan, Crimean and Astrakhan khanate were pretty developed, aggressive and strong neighbors.
+ There was no united state Russia in the 14th, 15th. Just a lot of small, poor and weak Duchies and the Duchy of Moscow was not the exception. The region destroyed by the Tatar yoke and internal wars. Sweden definitely had much better conditions / startup capital than the Duchy of Moscow.

 

Absolutely correct, but after all, Russia screwed your country. I mean it seems you had great hopes of Swedish Empire but you f ed up.

Really? I thought it was just f k up.
As I told - There is no any strong evidence who was this semi - mythical personage Rurik by nationality.
+According to no-where supported myth, Rurik did not conquer Rus. The people of Rus invited Rurik of their own free will like you invited Bernadotte. So, according to your logic you have been pwned by Frenchmen?

Yes, but I glad that Germanic neighbors ‘re very progressive people.
They organized religious wars, witch-hunting, the monstrous slaughters like the Thirty Years' War. So as I told even red Khmers were much more humane ppl than members of this war. + For a long period of time, they could not establish a strong united state. There were just small, poor, puppet, second-rate German princedoms (excepting for Prussia), the easy prey for strong neighbors. Or due to ridiculous ambitions of dull rulers they lost their lands and ppl as your country did. + Launched two mass slaughters (WWI, WWII). + they were fooled by those mad demagogues Nazis and as a result they lost millions of their people, their country was destroyed completely and their widows served winners (as working girls) for can of tinned stewed meal.
Well progressive ppl indeed.

Yes, far back in the past the Germanic tribes pressed the Slavic tribes but after all the descendants of the Germanic tribes were losing the fight against the descendants of the Slavic tribes who took their lands.

Can’t say that it’s a bad thing when you adopt somebody’s progressive methods / culture. Every nation did it. The modern European nations took Roman law, antique culture, Arabic (Indian) numerals, even the religion of one small Semitic tribe etc.

 

Not long ago it was commonly accepted that the sun revolves around the earth.

Seriously, I told you that it is just no-where supported version /myth. There is no any strong evidence who was this semi - mythical personage Rurik by nationality.
Some experts think that he was a Slav from the tribe of Obodrits. And his name was Rarog / Рюрик (Falcon). Some experts think that he was a Prussian.
+ there are a lot of other versions that he came from Sweden, Denmark etc.
Also some experts believe that Rurik was just mythical personage.

Hahaha. thief crying stop thief. This is obvious that you prefer another sort of nationalism. >

I really have fun when I have read this nationalistic delirium ^
p.s. you can go into reverse again. Just say that it was your another allegory or sort of Aesopian language. But it’s clear who is a true dense nationalist here

The male’s Y- chromosome descends from fathers to descendants practically without changes.
But this is the interesting version about the Saamis trace.

Yes I know it. But I’m afraid you missed my point. Also the term “Normans” was a kind of collective name for all Scandinavians (Danes, Swedes, Norwegians). in the 8th -11th centuries. This kind of collective name was mainly used in the Western Europe. Russians mostly called Scandinavians - “Varyags”. Though, according to chronicles, sometimes Russians have used the term “Normans” (North + Man) - “Murmans” as well. And according to the no-where supported myth Rurik came to Rus in 862.

Hahaha well, the great achievement indeed. I guess that the descendants of members of Al Qaida might say the same thing (joke). But, no doubt Vikings were good warriors and sailors.

I’m afraid that it is not the fact but just no-where-supported myth. See above

It gotta be very annoying for every nation, when someone constantly gives the no-where supported information (fable).

 

Superpower and empire aren't mutually exclusive. The US has been an empire, and began it's superpower/great power era while it still was. I never said it wasn't both.

Because, as I've said, you didn't seem to see that there was a difference between 'superpower' and 'empire'.

Of course the british empire is voluntary nowadays, but my point is that it's voluntary because canada and new zealand have had their populations swapped with brits. The success in the british empire lie not in that they managed to keep their empire through force but that they swapped the population so the colonies wanted to keep close ties voluntarily. I did after all say 'in some ways', and that was important. Also, not every member, quite the opposite actually, of the commonwealth are white countries but there are economic reasons to be a member. Hence why mozambique, a former portuguese colony, joined iirc.

Indeed, but I'd rather prefer that the indians would be influenced by, as opposed to conquered by, the europeans to stop the bad things about their culture. Good things from other cultures spread on their own due to being good, and I think that if enough of that seeps into the indian society such practises that run counter to it will eventually die off. I thus prefer the cultures to solve it themselves, by looking at others and by inspired.

I'm well aware that sweden is a lightweight and russia a heavyweight. An analogy of a lone tiny swede fighting a gang consisting of a dane, a pole, some german ,and a russian -all of them except the dane are really big guys in comparison, especially the big russian guy- but the swede kicks everyone except the russian unconscious. He strikes a powerful blow to him too, nearly knocking him out, but alas, -worn out by the long fighting- the swede does not dodge the russian's powerful blow and it struck down.

I'm really standing by the fact that swedes were high quality. In terms of land and people the swedes would be an ant and the coalition against us would be like a bear, but yet we almost killed that bear. Sure, war is war and I'm not denying that, and sweden lost, I'm not denying that either, but we were bloody good fighters and strategians; no one can deny that.

Sweden and poland are to the west of russia. I've never said that they are uncivilized, where di you get that from? What I mean is that the tartars, even thoughy they were very strong during the middle ages, didn't advance in the same pace as europeans and were thus eventually easy prey for the russians. All of siberia and the comparatively uncivilized peoples that lay beyond it were open for you. And yes, we had a better starting positions, but not better position if one looks at the long term (although it depends on what we are measuring).

Regarding Rurik, I think we might just settle for saying that we both perhaps prefer different versions, for whatever reason

I'm talking about civilization and development, not progressivism. The latter was, lacking, in europe dueing the middle ages.. Also, germanics are not the same as germans. But anyways, they hath done evil, but so have everyone else to. Probably a lot more effiecient evil over here though due to our technology but thats' not my point at all. My point is that we have this technology and overall civilization. Speaking of germanics in comparison to slavs now of course. However.. slavs did their own share of evil once.. But nevermind that, listing up evils serve no purpose.

Indeed. First the germanics were there, but then came slavs and pushed them over the elbe(?), but during the middle ages the HRE expanded east again and the teutonic order germanised the baltic somewhat, later sweden took over the baltic coasts. But then, the russians came and shoved back germanics to the modern german border. History sure is interesting.

Au contraire, it's a very good thing to adopt good things from others. But that's not my point. My point is that it says something of the culture that is always adopting others' ideas, and it says something of the culture from which everyone borrows ideas.

Isn't that a bit like saying that 'english' refer to people living in angeln http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angeln? Just because english means anglish that doesn't mean that english still refers to people comming from angeln, even though it originally did. In the same way normans, northmen, while originally referring to norse, now means a particular ethnic group consisting of mixed gauls, romans, franks and viking, located in an area along the northern french coast now known as normandie.

Again, I'm not serious whan I use such terms. I keep forgetting that it's hard to spot sarcasm on the internet.

 

Why would this happen? Not saying it wouldn't happen, but why would the adoption of the euro hit Latvia's economy?

 

Some experts believe that after adoption of the euro import goods from the EU will be cheaper, since importers do not have to spend on the conversion. It means that imported goods will be a little cheaper and thus more competitive compared with Latvian. + There is a strong possibility that prices can go up it was everywhere, etc.
However there are many arguments for adoption of the euro as well.

 

http://i033.radikal.ru/1104/13/cfba57e1b17f.jpg
So, why you began the debate about difference between the empire and the superpower?

Despite all this verbal prestidigitation like 'in some ways' etc the Commonwealth of Nations is not the British Empire. The totally lame example.

Yes, that’s right. Every nation has the right to live according to their traditions and culture. No doubt good things from other cultures spread on their own due to being good, and colonialism was much worse than Sati, but I think that sometimes it’s necessary to stop some good old traditions like slavery, Sati etc.

You told - ‘It's refering to the historical general backwardness of slavic people in comparison with their Germanic neighbors’
According to the Russian explanatory dictionary the term “progressive” also has the meaning – advanced, developed, eager for progress, civilization.
The Germans are the descendants of the Germanic tribes. But let’s talk specifically about Germanics.
The really civilized nations, the contemporaries of Germanic tribes, considered that Germanics were ignorance barbarians. For example Caesar described them as savage barbarians, robbers born.

I’m afraid there are many facts that refute your arguments. See above.

Yes they did.

History repeats itself, and that's one of the things that's wrong with the history. (&#1089

That’s right, but I think that every one has both these things in its history. Maybe except for some tribes in the jungles of the Amazon.

 

Well, no doubt you had screwed some parts of this “bear” – Denmark and Saxony (they both had resumed operations against Sweden only after Russians had screwed you in 1709) and then Russia had the pleasure of a delightful tete-a-tete with Sweden. But Russia screwed your country completely. Russia took Svenska Ingermanland, screwed your army in the battle of Lesnaya in the battle of Poltava, in the Battle of Storkyro, took Riga, Tallinn (Revel), Kexholm and many other towns, screwed your navy in the battle of Gangut, and in the battle of Granham, realized a landing near Stockholm etc.
So, as you can see, after the battle of Narva Russians constantly screwed you.
+ At the same time, in the 1710-1711 Russia was at war with Turkey. And in the 1707-1709 there was Bulavin rebellion, the war of Don Cossacks against Russian state. According to some sources there were about 20 000 rebels.

You mean the great northern war? Well, your rulers lost many battles, lost their ppl and territories. This is obvious that Sweden f ed up completely, but you think that you were good strategists? – tyvm you really made my day.
p.s. But no doubt you were great strategists when you left your imperial ambitions, declared your neutrality, and did not take part in the sh^t like WWI WWII and other conflicts. Respect.

Oops Sry it was my fault, just missed your “to the east”. Have read your phrase like >

However there was a strong and pretty civilized Khanate of Kazan between Russians and Siberia. >
In general, the culture of the Kazan Khanate descended from that of Volga Bulgaria. Cultural elements of the Golden Horde were also present in noble circles. A large part of the urban population was literate. Large libraries were present in mosques and madrassahs. Kazan became a center of science and theology.
Although Islamic influence predominated, lay literature also developed. The most prominent Old Tatar language poets were Möxämmädyar, Ömmi Kamal, Möxämmädämin, Ğärifbäk, and Qolşärif. Möxämmädyar renovated the traditions of Kazan poetry, and his verses were very popular.
The city of Bolghar retained its position as a sacred place, but had this function only, due to the emergence of Kazan as a major economic and political center in the 1430s.
The architecture of the khanate is characterized by white-stone architecture and wood carvings.

In 1521, Kazan emerged from the dominance of Moscow, concluding a mutual aid treaty with the Astrakhan Khanate, the Crimean Khanate and the Nogay Horde. The combined forces of khan Muhamed Giray and his Crimean allies then attacked Muscovy and captured more than 150,000 slaves. Russian chronicles record about forty attacks of Kazan khans on the Russian territories (mainly the regions of Nizhniy Novgorod, Murom, Vyatka, Vladimir, Kostroma, Galich) in the first half of the 16th century.
As you can see Khanate of Kazan was a strong and pretty civilized neighbor as well.

You mean that due to your rulers (good fighters and strategists, according to your statement) you lost something in the 18th and 19th centuries?

 

Yeah, but let’s be clear about one thing –
1.
According to no-where supported myth, Rurik did not conquer Rus. The people of Rus invited Rurik of their own free will like you invited Bernadotte. Rus was an independent country and had its own agenda and interests. So, you gave the totally ridiculous statement >

As I told according to your logic you have been pwned by Frenchmen when you invited Bernadotte?
_______


2.
This is the good and interesting version that Rurik came from Sweden. But, there is no any strong evidence who was this semi - mythical personage Rurik by nationality.
Some experts think that he was a Slav from the tribe of Obodrits. And his name was Rarog / Рюрик (Falcon). Some experts think that he was a Prussian.
+ there are a lot of other versions that he came from Sweden, Denmark etc.
Also some experts believe that Rurik was just mythical personage.
Is it clear?

I’m afraid you don’t understand my point. I told also the term “Normans” was a kind of collective name for all Scandinavians (Danes, Swedes, Norwegians). in the 8th -11th centuries. This kind of collective name was mainly used in the Western Europe. Russians mostly called Scandinavians - “Varyags”. Though, according to chronicles, sometimes Russians have used the term “Normans” (North + Man) - “Murmans” as well. And according to the no-where supported myth Rurik came to Rus in 862.
It’s like western ppl called ppl from the USSR – “Russians” though there were a lot of other nations in the USSR. – The kind of collective name you got it?

Well, if I were in your place I’d say that it was just sort of joke and not the nationalistic delirium as well (FYI it was sarcasm too hehe)

 

You asked me if I could provide an example of an empire that didn't disintegrate and I said the US. Then you said that the US hadn't become a superpower until recently, indicating that you seem to think that empire and superpower are linked somehow, especailly since no one had talkned about supwerpowers before. Look up your post #17 and the previous ones.

Of course it's succesive imperialism. They managed to completely replace the native population and replace it with mini englands. They spread their people and culture, and whilst not maintaining a formal empire the legacy of that empire is rich indeed. And again, I said in some ways.

You seemed to use the word progressive as in the modern american usage, like respecting civil liberties and gay rights and that jazz. Of course progressive means to strive for progress and development, but it has several meanings. The germanic peoples were ahead of the slavic ones for most of history. And yes, the romans called them barbarians and they were indeed not as civilized, but that doesn't mean that the slavs were any les uncivilized. And germans and germanics is like banana and fruits: all bananas are fruits, but not all fruits are bananas.

Yes you did, but my point is that there's not much to be proud over as a bear killing an ant, but there's plenty to be proud over as an ant badly bruising a bear.

If it's a no-where-supported myth, how come it's the most commonly accepted one? I'll just leave it at saying that we both don't know. For all we know Rurik might have just conquered some russians, or been invited by them like Bernadotte. I prefer the former and you the latter. I'm okay with that.

My point would be that using 'normans' in this context would be anachronistic and confusing, like talking about englsin people when referring to angeln people.

 

There is an opinion that the term “Superpower” introduced into practice by William Fox, the professor is much more appropriate one for US than the term “Empire”.

And again, despite all this verbal prestidigitation like 'in some ways' etc the Commonwealth of Nations is not the British Empire. The totally lame example.

We’re talking about gay rights, jazz or we’re talking about something else?
I hope now you realize which meaning of this word I meant?

Yes, Slavic ppl showed their worth later than Germanic ones. But afterwards they often prevailed over Germanics and their descendants.

Yes, of course, but the Germans are the descendants of the Germanic tribes as well.

_______

It seems this is your another allegory or the thing that you called “sarcasm” like>

Well, In my view you just abused Sweden when you said that ‘a bear killing an ant’. If you prefer zoological way take wolverine or polar fox or full-grown and very aggressive skunk, but not an ant.

Yes, but also there's not much to be proud over when after all you lost many battles, lost your ppl and territories and Swedish Empire got a fatal blow. Well, it’s very funny indeed.

_____

I still haven’t seen any strong, irrefutable arguments for your version. You see, we are living in the very informative time (archives, video materials, databases etc) in comparison with 9th century, but we still have many disputable, not clear episodes. And as I told not long ago it was commonly accepted that the sun revolves around the earth. The old chronicle / legend ain’t the conclusive evidence that Rurik was Swede and that he did exist at all. Rurik was the semi - mythical personage like Romulus and Remus. As you remember there were many versions about their origin as well. Also there are many versions about Rurik’origin + the version that it was just myth.
So, this is obvious that you gave the unsubstantiated statement based on one variety of the old chronicle / legend >

_______

Negative. I told that the term “Normans” was a kind of collective name for all Scandinavians (Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians). in the 8th -11th centuries. This kind of collective name was mainly used in the Western Europe. Russians mostly called Scandinavians - “Varyags”, like western ppl called ppl from the USSR – “Russians” though there were a lot of other nations in the USSR.
Is it clear or shall we have another go?

 

My point is that empire and superpower aren't mutally exclusive, nor synonymous. The US has been an empire, and is a supwerpower, and perhaps sometime it was both at the same time.

My point is made, I won't repeat myself.

I'd use sometimes rather than often, remeber that the Uk and US are germanic.

Yes there is considering our small size. I made my point, and I don't need to repeat it.

There's no definitive proof that rurik was mythical, just theories. And the same applies to wheter he was swedish. We aren't scholars, none of us know, let's leave it at that.

And my point is that norman now refers to the people in normandy, and that it's confusing just like it is to rfer to people from angeln as english.

 

So, why you began the debate about difference between the empire and the superpower?

UK isn’t clear Germanic. The Germanic tribes were mixed with Kelts and dissolving their own ethnic identity as Russia isn’t clear Slavic you can find out visible Finno-Ugric, Turkic traces there. No doubt WASPs are basic block of US but US isn’t clear Germanic as well.

The lame example again. In this case the size is less important than the number of population, military & industrial potential of country etc. As you know Russians took with small losses huge but underdeveloped Siberia. Also Sweden had one of the most powerful armies in Europe+ pretty good industrial potential. And check out the correlation of forces in the battle of Lesnaya in the battle of Poltava, in the Battle of Storkyro etc. Yes Russians very often had the numeral superiority, but It doesn’t looks like bear vs ant . Though, maybe when you said bear vs ant it was a thing that you called “sarcasm” again.
________

Brilliant, but you in the very peremptory way gave the pretty ridiculous statement >

Despite the fact that there is no any strong evidence who was this semi - mythical personage Rurik by nationality and version that Rurik was just mythical personage. + According to no-where supported myth, Rurik did not conquer Rus. The people of Rus invited Rurik of their own free will like you invited Bernadotte. Rus was an independent country and had its own agenda and interests and had many conflicts with Sweden. So, the second part of your statement >

looks like another your fault as well.
_____

I told you that the term “Normans” was a kind of collective name for all Scandinavians (Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians) in the 8th -11th centuries. This kind of collective name was mainly used in the Western Europe. Russians mostly called Scandinavians - “Varyags”, like western ppl called ppl from the USSR – “Russians” though there were a lot of other nations in the USSR.
Now, is it clear?

 

Why do you keep asking me that again? I didn't start it, you did. Look up post #17 of yours. I wrote about empires, and you reply with some talk about superpower, obviously confused and igorant that they are not synonymous.

Genetically perhaps, but not culturally. I think it's rather pointless to consider the genetics, as there's been so much populations mixing in europe. I might be genetically celt for what I know, or slav, or finn: it doesn't really show. Large parts of poland and belarus might have baltic-lithuanian genes rather than slavic. etc. Anyways, culturally the UK is germanic. And the US is dominated by germanic culture.

The bear and ant analogy referred to the size and populations of the countries, not the numbers on each side during a battle.

It seems to be that rurik being swedish is the most commonly accepted theory. I briefly read a bit about rurik before I posted that, and everwhere I looked the view seemed to be that he was from sweden, or atleast scandinavia.

You don't seem to get my point. My point is that norman now refers to another ethnicity than norse. I'm not disputing that they called scandinavians normans back then, but I'm saying that you using it now causes confusion. Imagine that we are talking about germany in the 7th century, and you start talking about English people. English people as we know them didn't exist, however the tribe they get their name from, angles, did. and they have always called themselves english. Using norman the way you're doing is comparable to that. I hope you see that it is confusing. A historical name it may be, but it's not a modern one and in fact means something else now.

 

I said that because there is an opinion that the term “Superpower” introduced into practice by William Fox, the professor is much more appropriate one for US than the term “Empire”. But why you began the idle talk about difference between the empire and the superpower when you say the US has been an empire, and is a superpower, and perhaps sometime it was both at the same time. Where is the logic?

Could you give a definition of germanic culture? Just interesting which thing you mean under this term?

As I told In this case the size is less important than the number of population, military & industrial potential of country etc. Russians took with small losses huge but underdeveloped Siberia. + According to some sources there were from 15 000 000 to 18 000 000 Russians and from 1 500 000 to 2 000 000 Swedes in the early eighteenth century. It still doesn’t looks like bear vs ant. Most likely it looks like bear vs wolverine or polar fox or full-grown and very aggressive skunk.
So it goes…

Yes I know about this version but there are many other versions see above. And we still have no any irrefutable arguments who was Rurik by nationality and that he was not just mythical personage like Romulus and Remus . The old chronicle ain’t conclusive evidence
+ I think it is clear that it was your f up when you said? >

Right?

Read the post of your opponents more carefully. I know it’s difficult but it’s possible.
I told that the term “Normans” was a kind of collective name for all Scandinavians (Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians) in the 8th -11th centuries. People from 8th -11th centuries mostly from the Western Europe did use this name, though even in some old Russian chronicles we can see the name Murmans though Russians mostly called Scandinavians - “Varyags”.
The Normans was kind of collective name like western ppl called ppl from the USSR – “Russians” though there were a lot of other nations in the USSR.
Got it?

 

Then the question become why just randomly brought up the talk about superpower as it obviously didn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. I gave the US as an example of an empire that didn't disintegrate, and you start talking about superpowers. Obviously you don't seem to understand what the two words mean.

Germanic culture that has evolved from the cultures of germanic people. Eh, you know, the culture of germanic peoples. I include england and US in that because they are dominated by anglo saxon and other germanic cultures.

Siberia isn't comparable to Sweden. But your point about industrial and military does just reinforce my point as sweden obviously had more of that than russia per capita. And fine, sweden can be a wolverine rather than an ant if you insist.

No, because your preferred theory regarding ruriks ethnicity doesn't seem to be as commonly accepted as the one I prefer. However, since we are not scholars and don't actually know much about this, I think we can leave it at just saying we prefer different versions. And no, based on the information I had avaible at the time, I can't say I (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up that sentence.

I know that, you've been repeating it for the last three posts now I think. They called scandinavians normans in the 8th-11th cent. we agree on that. But you said that rurik might have been a norman, and norman doesn't refer to scandinavians anymore, but to the people living in normandy. You can talk about what norman used to mean, but you can't change that it doesn't mean that anymore. I take it you were speaking normal modern english when you said that, and in normal modern english norman does not refer to scandinavians anymore, but to french. Understand? So when you said 'rurik might have been a norman' you must realise that norman points to normandy, not to scandinavia. I'm sorry, but that's english for you, and we aren't still in the 8th-11th century and the meaning of the word has changed. enough

 

Being tied to Greece > Being tied to Russia

 

Negative. But obviously you don’t seem to understand that the term “Superpower” is much more appropriate one for US than the term “Empire”.

Congrats. You made another fu… hmm… funny statement. It is considered that the term “Germanic culture” means the culture of Germanic tribes and it gave us many wonderful achievements like these ones >

Germanic “long” house


Germanic comb


And, not only different tribes but also different cultures did mix with each other. The antique culture, Rome, Christianity etc did exert huge influence on the all European nations and this is the unquestionable fact.

Lol. No doubt Sweden had a strong army and industrial potential and Sweden was pretty hard with Saxons, Poles, etc. But as you can see, after the battle of Narva Russians constantly screwed Swedes. So, it’s just does reinforce the point that your rulers were bad strategists made many f k ups and due to their criminal self-assurance, ambitions and impotence you lost your Empire and become a small puppet country. So, Russia was a grave digger for your Empire (in 1809 Russians screwed you again and took Finland). Sry.

Negative. I prefer neither of them because we have no any irrefutable argument who was Rurik by nationality and that he was not just mythical personage like Romulus and Remus . The old chronicle ain’t conclusive evidence. Yes we are not scholars but why you in the very peremptory way gave the pretty ridiculous statement ?>

+ it was another fault (f k up) when you said >

‘Cause Rus was an independent country and had its own agenda and interests and had many conflicts with Sweden. You can disprove it?

I suppose there will be many next posts about that because some ppl can’t understand some things. Though I glad that you agree with the statement that they called Scandinavians - Normans in the 8th-11th centuries. We have a big progress here. I think after a few next posts everything will be clear.

 

Is sweden a kingdom or a country? When you say that 'superpower is a better term for the US than empire' you're showing that you have no clue what either means. See, superpower and empire, and country and kingdom, are not mutually exclusive. It's like asking wheter a banana is yellow or curved.

Germanic peoples are an indo-european ethnic-linguistic group of northern european origin, identified by their use of germanic languages. It's used to refer to ethnic groups who speak a Germanic language and claim ancestral and cultural connections to ancient Germanic peoples. Nice pics there, but they are from the bronze age and germanic culture also includes the culture of germany and scandinavia, and partly UK and US up til the present so I'll doubt you'll win on trying to portray germanics as primitive. I'm well aware that there's been latin, greek, and christian influences.

Why are we still speaking about this? It's facts. I know that russia beat Sweden in the end, but my point is that in spite of Sweden's small size both in terms of numbers and area we deserve to be proud for being able to hold off soo many much bigger enemies for so long. As for you taking finland, I guess that was the best anyways. The era of nationalism was comming which would mean that Sweden would probably experience the hellish ethnic tensions other mutlicultural empires did had we kept finland. Now, because of that, we are very good friends with the finns, and unlike as with the russians, our nieghbors doesn't not hate us.

I already explained why. That Rurik was swedish seems to be the most commonly accepted view, and I, which haven't spent any time researching Rurik, read only briefly and that told me he was Swedish. I don't care wheter there's good evidence or not, because I think the fact that most people seem to think Rurik was Swedish speaks for itself.

Why would I want to disprove it?

You don't seem to get it. I have not denied that they called them normans in the middle ages, but you need to realise that you're not in the middle ages now, but in the modern world, and in modern english 'norman' doesn't refer to scandinavians anymore, but to french people in normandy. Do you understand yet?

 

Great I glad that you got it. I hope it’s clear that you began the absolutely idle talk about the difference between the empire and the superpower? But never mind. Sometimes, when someone makes mistakes he does try to divert the debate from its course and launch the absolutely idle talk just like that

So what? As I told UK isn’t clear Germanic. The Germanic tribes were mixed with Kelts , the blood, culture of both groups did mix with each other. Also the antique culture, Rome, Christianity etc did exert huge influence on the all European nations and UK is not the exception. +No doubt WASPs are basic block of US but US isn’t clear Germanic as well. The huge smelting furnace for many nations and cultures.

Wrong again. This comb is from the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD. The long house is from 5th century AD roughly.

Germanic tribes’re primitive barbarians in comparison with Romans and some other nations a long period of time. And this is the unquestionable fact. But you can console yourself Slavs and Finno-Ugrians had the same problem. And I glad that you realize that there were Latin, Greek, and Christian influences.

I really appreciate Sweden courage. But your statement is contrary to the fact >

Because after the battle of Narva Russians constantly screwed “bloody good fighters and strategists”.
And it’s really funny that you talk about good fighters and strategists small Sweden and big guys Russia and its allies. How do you think Hitler and Nazis were good strategists or stupid idiots when they launched a war against 3 big guys UK, USSR and US?

+1000 Great statement indeed.
I fully subscribe to the above.
It seems we go back to the beginning of our conversation that often imperial ambitions are the mixed blessing (sh^t) especially in the 21th century.

___________

Appeal to “most people” and “most commonly accepted view” is a good thing but as I already told now there are many other popular versions that Rurik was Finno-Ugr, Dane, Obodrit, Prussian, mythical personage like Romulus and Remus etc. And the old chronicle is not the conclusive evidence. That’s why I prefer neither of them because we have no any really irrefutable arguments there.
+Sry, but this statement looks like ridiculous, no-where supported crap >

Because Rus was an independent country and this is the unquestionable historical fact. Though I have fun when I have read it.

Excellent.

Congrats old man you have showed not only your incompetence in this matter but also your inability to understand pretty simple things.
Yes we are not in the middle ages now and I know about French ppl in Normandy.
But we’re talking about Rurik’s ethnicity, so, I hope you heard something about Normanist theory aka Norman theory?

Norman Theory
a tendency in historiography, whose supporters regard the Normans (Varangians) as the founders of the state of ancient Rus’.

The Norman theory was formulated by German scholars, including G. S. Bayer and G. F. Miller, who worked at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the second quarter of the 18th century. A. L. von Schlözer, who came to Russia at a later date, also supported the theory. Evidence for the Norman origin of the ancient Russian state was provided by The Tale of Bygone Years (The Primary Chronicle), which contains an account of the summoning of the Varangian princes Riurik, Sineus, and Truvor to Rus’ in A.D. 862…..
In the middle of the 18th century, the theory was criticized by M. V. Lomonosov, who pointed out that it was untenable from the standpoint of scholarship. In the 1930’s and 1940’s, Soviet historiography overcame the influence of the Norman theory. A number of Soviet historians and archaeologists, including B. D. Grekov, B. A. Rybakov, M. N. Tikhomirov, S. M. Iushkov, and V. V. Mavrodin, established that among the Eastern Slavs of the ninth century the obshchina (peasant commune) system had declined to such a degree as to permit the development of the internal prerequisites for the emergence of the state….. The presence in ancient Rus’ of Norman-Varangians does not contradict the fact that the state in ancient Rus’ took shape as the result of an independent socioeconomic evolution. The’ Norman-Varangians left almost no imprint on the rich material and spiritual culture of ancient Rus’. Those who settled in Rus’ merged with the native population and became slavicized.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia © the Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.


So, if you still can’t understand why I gave the term “Normans” I can recommend you good vitamins that could improve brain function. If you really need one don’t hesitate to contact me.

 

sauer, are you trolling me or are you actually being serious?.. We were talking about empires. You said all empires disintegrate sooner or later, to which I replied that the US was a case of an empire that didn't completely disintegrate. And to that you reply that superpower is a more fitting name than empire when describing the US. To apply it to another scenario so you might understand: It's like if I say a banana is surved and you say 'no, it's yellow'. That shows that you think that curved and yellow are somehow in the same category. Likewise, superpower and empire simply are not in the same category. Ironically, I think what you said applies more to you. You can just admit that you didn't really know what superpower and empire meant.

As I said, we're not talking genetics but culture. English culture is mostly germanic with few traces of celtic influences left. even though christianity and greco-roman culture influenced germanic europe it still remained germanic. A culture is still a culture even if it changes and gets influenced.

Fair enough, but when I said bronze age I meant it to mean just 'old, early, and primitive'.

And greeks and romans were primitive for several thousand years when the egyptians and mesopitamians were civilized. What's the point?

We were good strategists mostly, hence why we were soo successful. But as I've said, even with superior equiment, tactics etc. one can only hold the line for a limited amount of time when faced against opponents with far more manpower and resources. As for the nazis: No, they were pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ty strategists in the WW2, but I blame that on Hitler. Had germany been wise they would have taken out the UK before taking on the USSR. And while they were doing that japan should attack USSR in siberia. After they were dealt with, the US would likely be defeated. But, as hitler were the guy in power -and could overrule the smarter and more experienced german generals- germany suffered some major mistakes.

Indeed they are. But as I said, the key is to make the conquered area loyal to you before nationalism arrives. That's what the US did: they sent lots of white settlers were there were previously indians, and thus there could be no native population that could achieve independence. I think that's what russia did to parts of tartaria, and what china is doing to tibet. Pragmaticcaly speaking, it's a really good move.

The fact remains that Rurik being Swedish seems to be the most commonly accepted view.

I never denied that Rus was an independent country. What I said was that Rurik was swedish, and most people seem to agree with that.

You wrote "...there are no any strong arguments who was Rurik by nationality – Norman, Slav or someone else." You were writing in modern english when you wrote that I assume, and in modern english norman does not refer to viking-age scandinavians. It's really that simple. Rurik was not, and could never be a norman, because normans didn't exist at that time. It would be another thing if you had said 'rurik could be a scandinavian (called norman by that time)..' but you didn't do that. You never acknwloedged that Norman has a different meaning in modern english, and that you were using an archaic meaning. You are simply trying to tell me that the word means something it does not. You're arguing agaginst the dictionary for heaven's sake!