Why are most Europeans such twits?

To their known world , Kievan Rus for Ukraine and Rome for Italians .

I am far from an expert , i just have some friends who are good on the subject (do it as a profession) and i read a lot .

The Swedes could expand and rage wars down to southern Ukraine , they had all the strength and potential , managed to even get a foothold in Pomerania .
There was an era that nobody could challenge them , then their king did something really stupid but not uncommon .

As for the Vikings they were not nomads, the Mongols were nomads and they created an empire from the coast of Korea to eastern Hungary.

Bulgarian Turkomans could expand as much as they like when they lived in Volga region, later they defeated the largest empire in europe, Eastern Romans , other great powers of the era like Persians could only manage to push borders back and forth while western Europeans didn't even think to challenge them so yeah Krum's Bulgaria was a superpower .

Serbs under Stephan Dusan came very close to replace Byzantines as rulers of Eastern Roman empire and they could do so if the guys after Stephan didn't brought their state to it's feet , so yeah Serbs were a super power .

Portugal is an older country than Spain, Spain was created after a marriage united Aragon and Castille , the Portuguese was a small nation with great potential but then their king did too something stupid ( crusade to Morocco) , he got killed and things start going downwards.

Bohemians managed to maintain their Hussitic faith defeating papist crusades again and again when at the same time Papal state was able to force it's dominance everywhere else in the catholic world , if this does not indicate a superpower then what does ?

Hungarians came into the continent looting and burning and nobody could stop them , then they became christian but at the top of their glory Hungary held most of Romania, Serbia and Ruthenia plus the entire Hungary and Slovakia . They were never challenged before the Ottomans .

The Gauls ruled western Europe before the appearance of Rome

Greeks defeated all of their enemies on their way to India even while Alex was completely mad.

I think you are missing the point here , what i posted previously is that most European nations have nothing to prove to anyone and we may both stretch things a bit from either side but the reality is simple .

 

Kievan Rus'=/=Ukraine
Modern Italians have nothing to do with Rome.

Should we also include some random isolated tribe to the list, because they were the strongest in their known world?

Oh, seriously? What about France, England, Spain? Sweeds were relatively strong. Not the strongest.

But they ackted like nomads. Quick unexpected attack, butchering local population and a retreat. Plus they had no state.

Which collapsed after 50 years of it's creation.

And again they were not modern Bulgarians. Modern Bulgarians=mix of slavs and the ones you are talking about.

But they didn't------>doesn't count.
In your world if a nation defeats somebody once it automatically makes it a superpower? "Superpower" is a 20-th century term, relevant only to United States and Soviet Union.

So you still havn't explained why they were worth "strongest" title.

In 20-th century terms "superpower" is a powerful country able to influence any event in the world. Defeating invadors doesn't make you a superpower. And I thought they were defeated at a point....

So barbaric nomadic tribes now count as "superpower". Laughable.

So they have no state and were defeated by the Rome. What makes them so great then?

So how much Alexander's Empire existed? Ah, yes, collapsed after his death.

I am not arguing with that. But saying that "Almost every European nation spent time as the strongest of the know world" is just a sweet lie.

 

Where is Kiev ? note : i do not dispute that there was no Ukraine back then

Yes they do and in any case you go and tell them , they feel like it and act like it and definitelly do not think that they have to prove something

Of course, say the Inca , they did force their will in a large chunk of their continent .

Western Europeans played ball on a different field . it is like searching for the strongest Sengoku clan and then compare them with Brunei , irrelevant .

Normandy was inhabited by Normen and so did Sicily , Norwegian king campaigned in England while they colonised Iceland and big parts of Ireland, not your average nomad.

We are all mixed by this does not stop the nation from understanding it's past , Bulgarians were an enemy to be feared and this is part of their modern consciousness .

Unchallenged expansion makes a superpower , Russians and the Caliphate failed to take Istanbul but this does not mean that they were not dominant nations in large parts of couple of continents.

The Portuguese were able to force their will over large areas of the world including Africa, India ( after the battle of Riu) , Muscat , Indonesia and due to the treaty of Tordesillas a very big part of south America . This is what i call unchallenged expansion.

You can not apply 20th century conditions to 16th century national entities , yeah when you are fighting against Rome you can win all battles and still be Spartacus , it only takes one defeat to lose everything.

Laugh with this guy

Gauls ruled Western Europe for millennia .

So? this does not change how we feel and we totally mean that you can either be a Greek or a Barbarian.

It is not a lie, what i am trying to do is to show that European nations had good and bad times and were able to grow up , we also have historical roots that shaped our psych and character , new nations are still in adolescence trying to find a compass often bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ing themselves with vague rants about "freedom" and "best country ever" .

 

So how is capital location relevant?

They do not. A (*)(*)(*)(*)load of etnicities influenced Italy after Roman Empire collapsed. Saying Italy is relevant to Rome the same way Native Americans relevant to USA. And who cares what they think? If they were acting the same way you would be a part of Italian Empire.

Funny, now you can say that pretty much every nation was the strongest sometime. That is a lie. Do you know the meaning of the world "strongest"? That is "stronger of all". Thus, speaking about pre-colonialism era, you can't define "strongest" country simply because some of them didn't know about each other existance..

So what? You don't call your local football team "the strongest in the world" because you know, that,say, Real would steamroll them with, probably, 10:0 score. Same thing here.

They were populated with different etnicities, Normans just conqured them and used existed structures for creation of the state. They were typical nomads, not much different from Mongols.

There are borders between your nation and a nation, which existed severel hundreds years ago at you current location. That is the Italian case.

Well, go and read up on "superpower" definition then. You are free to start with Wikipedia.

So what? There were a lot of countries, which can do the same. A lot of them military, politically and economically were stronger than Portugal.

Than stop calling some middleage countries "superpowers".They were not. Using "superpower" before middle of 20-th century is stupid. Using "the strongest in the world" before colonialism is stupid either.

They kinda formed a state.

No state, no nation, no common political will. You joking, right?

So you were never "the strongest in the world".
There were India and China, for one. Feels are irrelevant over here.

It is. Again "the strongest" is a lie for 3/4 examples you gave. As I said, I am not arguing that you have nothing to prove to anybody.Feel free to go the passes you desire.

 

So you dont know any and all you base this on is some who you think are european remarks on internet?

yeah to use your logic " Whay are americans so stupid? It probably takes just 1 canadian with a pen to conquer USA"

As I have lived in both there are huge extremes in USA as europe and in general there is little to no difference.

 

Go shoot up a school to prove your courage and freedom!

 

More gas being passed?

 

Duw - there's witty!

 

Ohhhhhh lolo, your sense of humor is lacking....

 

Some say. Others tell the truth!

 

You mentioned 3 of its neighbors but left Romania out. Remember how Romania together with the Russians and some Bulgarians pushed mighty Ottoman Empire off the continent for good in 1878? That's when we buried the Ottoman Empire (not formally yet but economically and militarily it was the final blow - its dissolution came soon).

It was only British diplomatic intervention and their war ships patrolling the Eastern seas, siding with the Ottomans that prevented their empire stretching on 3 continents from being taken over completely. The British were desperate of Russia becoming a world superpower if it engulfed the Ottoman Empire. Russia would have been on 4 (*)(*)(*)(*)ing continents. And it all started when Russia asked the Kingdom of Romania for help and we broke the whole Balkan Front, giving freeway to Constantinople.

 

Yes and Vlad Tepes did that as well but Romanians only had a couple of good people like Vlad and Stephan si Mare (sp?) .

 

Stephan the Great

In the times of those 2 you mention Romanians were split in 3 different countries so resources were divided. The influence of nearby empires but also bad internal politics has prevented a unification for centuries, as each empire was trying to maintain a strong influence in one of those small states as an extra bonus against its rival empire.

Those you mention were indeed great leaders who accomplished a lot with very few resources and men, winning battles against the Ottomans that were sometimes 1 to 5 by making use of terrain and traps.

 

55 million people died. That makes you change your attitude. We've been at war with each other for the better part of 2000 years. In continental Europe I would imagine there is not a single family who didn't suffer a lost in that War. Never mind the mentally ill people who returned. Or injured. It's better this way I feel. I was in a war zone as a child for roughly a year, and no matter how brutal they make it in the movies, it's much worse in reality. Britain's and US's losses in WW2 were smaller. And since Britain actually lost more people in WW1 the "great war" is considered the major war of the 20th century. We suffered way more losses in WW2 because some maniac took charge and the rest of us stood buy. Being noisy about war is basically political and social suicide now and that's a good thing IMO.

Never mind the social destruction this war caused for every country. France is considered now the country of weaklings and people who'd give up, while most people forget (or don't know) that French troops remained in battle till 1954. Some of the most horrifying stories can be found if you read French-WW2-veterans life stories. Germany is now the country of Anti-Semitic and racist people (a Nazi basically), and all the scientists, philosophers, writers, etc. who came before are completely ignored. As a German or Frenchmen you're now as second class citizen for the rest of your life because of WW2. The follow up of WW2 destroyed most eastern countries. I was born in Yugoslavia. After WW2 the communists would "clean" the country by executing another million people out of the roughly 20 million living there. These numbers are so much bigger than what Britain or the US had to deal with it's just hard to forget or ignore.

 

I was about to answer your nonsense, although I'm very sure my answer would have been a bit too complicated for you given the highly intellectual capacity you showed in your post, when I realized that you're banned. Possibly for a reason? Possibly for being a twit? Just a notion though.
I could add something along the lines of "Americans...gotta love 'em", but I'll leave at that.

 

I like to think we're more twot than twit. One isn't an oik!

 

Joey Barton is European.
End of discussion

 

Europeans are probably shameful about their past...
Before, in Europe, we were lying to people in order to make them think that their country where perfect, where always a victim during wars, never an agressor etc, etc... Now, people in Europe know all the bad thing that they does in the past - they don't want begin again.
Even if, in my opinion, it's now to extremist - a lot of people are shameful to be French, German, etc, etc... Because of the past of their countries, we tend to forget all the great things about our past and it's sad!... It may be one of the reason why Europe is now a continent decay.

 

Europe's death sentence was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the defeat of Communism. Socialist infiltration lead to political correctness gone amok, Europe is a place where it is bad for a native to proudly and publicly display their culture but at the same time Muslims are allowed to scream "Death to the infidels" without repercussion.

 

European nationalism is very common. One gets less of it in Blighty as one is less crass.

 

I think a lot of people the world over are "twits". A depressingly large number of folk believe any rubbish the authorities tell them and blindly vote for the same party time and time again.

 

Some might argue that calling so many folk twits is twittish in itself. Why so elitist when you don't have the grunt to back it up?

 

Europeans are so weak and fragile that Obama has to spy on Europe just to keep y'all safe.

 

Obama is merely doing that to learn stuff like humour and irony. Mark my words, he will teach those yanks a few things

 

Obama is just making sure we all do as we're told.