vae victis

I agree that map is absolute horse manure.
Frankly if we would correct the map based on nationalism, then that map would be more fragmented than Europe is now. There are lots of groups who consider themselves ethnic minorities and expressed their wish for self governance even in the past few years. We had a discussion on this in the Catalonia themed politics thread and in the elections thread as well.
Con-nationalism can exist but the participant nations who are forming the supra-national entity should be let to experience their own nationalism and let that mature so they can appreciate the other would be participants similar sentiments.
This map is just who-belongs-to-what language family mixed in with the notion that we-should-chuck-them-together-even-if-they-would-hate-each-other and plastered with Nazi symbolism.
Yeah, the creator was probably a Paradox-gaming Amerilard.

Hmm. I don't think that even authors of these maps take all this very seriously.

>us wanting to unite with the Swedes

Actually, why? You are very closely related, and you aren't Slavic savages who hate each other just because they can.

>Ossetia isn't included as part of the Iranian world

I don't think that modern Ossetia has anything related to Iranian world at all. They are assimilated to local Caucasian world long ago.

>apparently, Istanbul and much of Asia Minor is Greek,

For some reason. ideas of Greek Constantinople and resurrection of Byzantines is thriving in the heads of westerners.

>Balkans, let alone the ENTIRE SLAVIC WORLD wanting to unite

Yeah. that's fun, especially today. Although Panslavism isn't a meme - real proponents of this idea exist, and some part of population in all slavic countries are ok with it (although in some countries it is very small part).

In 19th century it wasn't even a joke.

Looks like it was made by an American white """"""""""nationalist""""""""""

Why are Slavs and Latins allowed to have a large exclave, but Magyars kept separate from the Finns?

Why doesn't Finland get any bit of Karelia?

Why doesn't Scandinavia get Åland? One would expect the author to be a stormfag with a massive hardon for Germanics and thus inflate their territory as much as possible.

Why does Scandinavia annex the Shetland isles, but not Orkney? The two archipelagos should be either fully Scandinavian or fully Celtic.

Why was the author such an idiot with regards to Brittany? He could give the "Pan-Celtic" state only the traditional Celtic-speaking tip or all of traditional Brittany. Instead, he gives it French administrative "Brittany" which is missing Nantes.

Why doesn't Hungary get its share of Slovakia, carpathian Ruthenia and Yugoslavia?

Why does Greece gain enough territory to become majority Turkish, but doesn't even get Northern Epirus?

Not even Paradox games are to blame for the author's schizophrenia, because he'd have made a slightly more reasonable map if only he had played Victoria II.

>>18128
>Actually, why? You are very closely related, and you aren't Slavic savages who hate each other just because they can.
Remember the Kalmar Union? Remember when Sweden seceded, and the rivalry between our empires after that? That's why us and the Swedes are kinda at each other. The Southern Slavs I believe hate each other because of their religions, and how they write their language in.
>I don't think that modern Ossetia has anything related to Iranian world at all. They are assimilated to local Caucasian world long ago.
They're still very much Iranian. They're not Persian, but Iranian. They speak an Indo-Iranian language, they descend from the Scythians, the Sarmatians, and the Alans, notable Iranian nomads, hell, North Ossetia in Russia is formally called "The Republic of North Ossetia-Alania". Many Ossetians today practice Uatsdin and other Scythian religion (29.4% in North Ossetia-Alania, and an unknown but notable minority in South Ossetia). I'd still consider it part of the Iranian world.
>For some reason. ideas of Greek Constantinople and resurrection of Byzantines is thriving in the heads of westerners.
Really, I'd give up. Moscow is already basically the successor to Constantinople to Orthodox Christians (the third Rome), yet they care so much about Greeks retaking Constantinople. You don't hear anything about Greeks wanting to "retake Alexandria", or "retake Carthage", or Germans wanting to "retake Bohemia + Moravia, Southern Jutland, Prussia and Danzig", they care more about Istanbul and Anatolia. There's no reason to take it aside from its strategic location, and it's not in the interest of Americans to take Istanbul, hell, Greeks don't even like Americans.
>Yeah. that's fun, especially today. Although Panslavism isn't a meme - real proponents of this idea exist, and some part of population in all slavic countries are ok with it (although in some countries it is very small part).
Yeah, if a union between the Southern Slavs failed, if a union between the Eastern Slavs (technically the Russian Empire and Soviet Union?) failed, and a union between the Western Slavs (Czechoslovakia) failed, a union between ALL Slavs would go totally well. Also, keep in mind that this Slavic state would not contain just the modern day Slavic nations, but would likely contain the Russian majority areas in Kazakhstan (which is apparently part of the Slavic world in this map), and Uzbekistan. Yep, that'd go totally well.
>>18131
>Why doesn't Scandinavia get Åland? One would expect the author to be a stormfag with a massive hardon for Germanics and thus inflate their territory as much as possible.
The odd thing is, as much as he is an American with absolutely no real knowledge of European history, he gives the Germanics the other end of the straw. Czechoslovakia gets to keep Bohemia and Moravia, Poland gets to keep Prussia and Danzig, and Flanders is apparently part of the "Pan Latin world". A true "Pan Germanicist" would include Flanders and the German part of Wallonia.

>>18136
>Remember the Kalmar Union? Remember when Sweden seceded, and the rivalry between our empires after that?

But this happened very long time ago. Now even non-related countries in Europe slowly going into somewhat-united state of EU (at least try). Do modern Danes and Swedes really remember all this union thing?

>They're still very much Iranian. They're not Persian, but Iranian. They speak an Indo-Iranian language, they descend from the Scythians, the Sarmatians, and the Alans, notable Iranian nomads, hell, North Ossetia in Russia is formally called "The Republic of North Ossetia-Alania".

Technically yes, but their modern culture is more like Caucasian/Russian mix. I don't want to make assumptions, but looks like modern Ossetian is related to Iranian culture even less than modern Irish-American to Irish.

Fun fact: manager of Russian football team, Cherchesov, is Ossetian.

>Yeah, if a union between the Southern Slavs failed, if a union between the Eastern Slavs (technically the Russian Empire and Soviet Union?) failed, and a union between the Western Slavs (Czechoslovakia) failed, a union between ALL Slavs would go totally well

Yes, idea is pretty shitty. But some people believe in this.

Some kind of union technically possible between Eastern Slavs because they are culturally close, but not in current political condition after that Ukraine thing. Although in far future or in alternative timeline it is possible. Union between Eastern and Western looks like fantasy, and any union between Southern Slavs and anyone looks crazy.

>>18139
We're taught this in school, well, at least where I live in. Although Swedish-Danish relations have been getting a lot better over the last few decades, us Danes, and even Norwegians to an extent, have been at it with the Swedes for a long time, Sweden seceded from the Kalmar Union in the early 16th century, and wars went on all the way to the Napoleonic wars, and after that, Sweden forced Norway into a personal union with them.
>Technically yes, but their modern culture is more like Caucasian/Russian mix. I don't want to make assumptions, but looks like modern Ossetian is related to Iranian culture even less than modern Irish-American to Irish.
It's a mix of Iranian, Caucasian, and (partly) Russian. It's enough for Ossetia to merge with Iran, I'm not saying it should merge with Iran, but it's Iranian enough to join a pan-Iranian state.

>>18136
>They speak an Indo-Iranian language, they descend from the Scythians, the Sarmatians, and the Alans, notable Iranian nomads
Or not.
The speculation that Scythians spoke Indo-European language stands on four pillars, and all of them are wonkier then the others. One being is the Ossetian argument, which goes like this:
>How do we know Scythians spoke Iranian language?
<We know because Ossetians are their descendants.
>How do we know Ossetians are the descendants of the Scythians?
<We know because Scythians spoke Iranian language.
The argument is built on a presupposition which is needed for the argument to fit. This is called circular logic and as such has to be discarded as an argument.
The funny thing the Ossetians probably are the descendants of Scythians. Just like many other nation, everyone from the Caucasus to the Oka and from the Vienna basin to the Volga (and even further east).

>>18150
Well, we do know the Ossetians descend from the Alans, who were very much Iranian.

>>18152
>we do know the Ossetians descend from the Alans
Nod really.
We do know that Ossetians are sometimes called Ossi (which could make them East German as well...) and the Alans called themselves As. Supposedly because even this isn't sure.
We also do know that the Alans in the 12-13th centuries and the modern Ossets say "Good day!" the same. But if we didn't know anything about Hungarians only that they have a greeting Szervusz! and that on the area of pre-1920 Hungary were not one but two Roman province we could conclude Hungarians descend from the Romans!
>who were very much Iranian.
Maybe.
On the other hand there were a tribe of Turkomans called Alan and al Biruni said they were living with the Pechenegs.

But let's say Ossets descended from Alans and Alans are Iranians. This doesn't make them Sarmatians or Scythians - and proving these two peoples were Iranians - because Alans are more likely related to Sogdians and Khwarazmians and came from the east from the Caspian and not north of the Caucasus and the Black sea.

>>18168
Fuck, I meant to upload Australia rather than America twice.

>>18167
Karelia isn't part of Finland

Ingria meme

Free "Nenetsia" and "Komiland" (oh really?) but no Ukrainian south in Russia.

Sami in Murmansk.

And multiple other fun things, but I'm too lazy to read his text.

>>18167
He also speak Hungarian fluently. According to him. Funny guy.
So it's obvious he has the assburgers and from the description these maps are some fantasy/mind game of his about a future WWIII and it's consequences. What I found preposterous is the African countries uniting instead of fragmenting which is a worldwide trend. No way all those xenophobic tribes who eyeballing each other with racist hatred will unite or even prevail on the other.

>>18139
>that Danish feel when your worst enemy is... Sweden

>>18142
I know you are best buddies, I watched Bron.

>>18173
Is that actually good Hungarian?

>>18176
Yes, that legit.
But he states on his deviantart profile he is proficient in Hungarian.

>>18177
I meant to say, did he speak actually good Hungarian? I also just realized that on that map, Grønland isn't part of the "European federation", yet Kurdistan apparently is.

>>18178
I didn't speak to him and I haven't seen any Hungarian writings there tho I didn't really read the comments anywhere.
The funny guy remark was for that passport and the description. :)

This looks better, at least the Amazigh are represented in North Africa, Circassians are represented, and Ossetians are represented. But it still very much looks like it's made by an American Paradox gamer
>over inflated Kurdistan
>Greek Constantinople and Anatolia, yet Danzig, Bohemia, Moravia aren't German, and Schleswig-Holstein
>Sorbs get an independent state in Germany for some reason
>Balkanization of Iberia and Gaul
>Crimea part of Ukraine

>>18180
What is that in the east from Ukraine?

At least someone splitted Italy though.

>>18185
Don cossacks, it seems.

>>18190
Can Don Cossacks be considered their own ethnic group? I mean, I guess.

>>18194
>Can Don Cossacks be considered their own ethnic group?

It's hard to say. They were ethnosocial group, more social, than ethnic. But they are non-existent as group nowadays, late Empire and then Soviet Union completely destroyed them and assimilated. Modern cossacks are true cosplayers, although some specific culture still remain.

But if we'll take assumption that they exist (on map), Kuban need to be painted as cossack state, not Circassia. Although it is debatable if cossacks and remain of Circassians are truly different people now.

>>18196
Old believers I guess?

>>18198
Old believers are meme. Internet says that they exist, but they are very hard to find. Not much easier than Ingiran separatists or some other obscure people.

>>18198
>>18208
>old believers
Elaborate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers

>>18208
Oh yes, were the Rurikids all just Slavicized Scandinavians?

>>18180
Why do mapfags love the idea of independent Cornwall so much? Half the people living there aren't even really Cornish, just rich old English people who retire and want to live by the sea.

>>18232
I mean, it is one of the six Celtic nations, and the Cornish tongue is seeing a renaissance of sorts. Then again, I'm no Briton, I don't really know much about the Cornwall situation, so don't mark my words.

>>18232
Many areas in Europe have similar problems and that map is very "ugh, bleh" as well.

What the fuck is this? My eyes!

>>18238
That's just silly. Best map is coming through.

>>18242
Also add Estonia, Finland, much of East Volga Russia and Central Asia, and other Fenno-Mongol entities.

>>18243
You just gave me an idea. But won't realise it today. I'm sleepy as fuck now.

>>18241
I'd say the Norse theory is more likely. Most contemporary sources describe them as Vikings, Ahmad ibn Fadlan, Ahmad ibn Rustah, the Slavic Primary Chronicle all describe them as of a Germanic phenotype, practicing Norse paganism, and with Norse armor and weapons. Also, literally all the Rurikid Varangian princes up until Sviatoslav had Norse names. The only ones I see who see the Rurikids are the Turboslavs, hell, I see most people who spout out "WE WUZ RURIK" are from Poland.

>>18246
>The only ones I see who see the Rurikids
Fuck, I meant the only ones I know who see the Rurikids as of Slavic origin.

>>18246
>I see most people who spout out "WE WUZ RURIK" are from Poland.

Poles are strange people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism

>>18248
Let's keep in mind that Polacks say that EVERYONE who has a foot on Polish soil is automatically Slavic. They say that "the original Vandals were Slavs" and provide shitty evidence. They say that the "Huns were Slavs" and provide shitty evidence. They say "Genghis Khan was a Slav" and then provide shitty evidence, although they do have the point that some of Genghis' grandchildren were Russians, his remains had Mongoloid haplotypes, he lived in the steppe, and he was a redhead with small eyes, typical Mongoloid features. The Tatars? Slavenski. The Rigveda? Slavenski. They also deny that Slav comes from slave, because the Swedes, Anglo-Saxons, even the Arabs enslaved them. They have such an inferiority complex that even Afrocentrists want nothing to do with them, and call Polacks "native Albinos".

>>18249
And speaking of retarded Polacks and Paradox games, this map. Just this map. I think I'm going to throw up after this. Bleh.

>>18249
Frankly Germanics are the leading masters in that. Everyone else are dwarfed by them.
Btw Slav really ain't coming from the Latin word for slave even if I say so sometimes in arguments with Slavs but these occasions are less and less because there's no point, so this only reduced to the level of banter with Northern Hungarians. If I remember correctly the Sclaveni is always mentioned together with Antes who were (most likely) also Slavs and their name can't be connected with to word slave.
Also Latins rather used the word servus, didn't they.

>>18252
Yes, Germanics are very ethnocentric, according to them, the ancient Greeks were Germanic, the Indo-Europeans were Germanic (wasn't around 40% of Germanic vocabulary non Indo-European?), the Scythians being Germanic (apparently, they have a Celtic connection, they're mentioned in Irish mythology), the Zulus were Germanic, the Germanics were the first to discover America, showing ancient sculptures in a non-Germanic civilization with blue eyes, and everything with blue eyes is Nordic. Australia? Germanic. Indonesia? Germanic. Kosovo? Germanic. Kazakhstan? Germanic. Swahilis? Germanic. Aboriginal Australia? Germanic. If you deny my Hyperborean theory, and deny that not every culture was Germanic, fuck you. Celts are also very ethnocentric, they once said that megaliths in New Zealand are of Celtic origin, but they're still not as ethnocentric as us Germanics, the Slavs, and the Negroes.
where's the greater Hungary + other Fenno-Mongol and Turkic states map?

>>18249
>Let's keep in mind that Polacks say that EVERYONE who has a foot on Polish soil is automatically Slavic.
Where do you see that? Except from couple of niche meme sites and youtubers I have rarely seen it being promoted.
Was this common view among poles on kc main(may it rest in eternal peace)?

>>18255
Eh really, just the Turboslavs.

>>18249
>They also deny that Slav comes from slave
I thought it was the other way around? Can't remember where, but I read that slave came from Slav due to them being commonly enslaved.

>>18263
Every race wants to claim (insert famous religious or political figure here) for their own. The reasons why I bring up Slavs in particular is that I've been seeing these videos that aim to debunk modern mainstream history, as they claim that ever since the Protestant Reformation, the original chronicles have been EDITED by modern historians, and they do this with highly academic sources on Turboslavism, how the Rigveda was Slavic, how Genghis Khan was actually a Russian redhead, how the Vandals and Huns were actually Slavs because they lived in Eastern Europe (let's keep in mind the Slavs didn't migrate from modern day Belarus and Poland until after the Germanic migration period), how there were giant Bosnian pyramids, etc. This YouTube channel called NewEarth in particular spews out shit about Hyperborean survival, and how all civilizations were linked or something. Although part of it is very much true, much of it is very, very misrepresented, or straight out bullshit. You might want to check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/user/everhungriescatgang

>>18254
>where's the greater Hungary + other Fenno-Mongol and Turkic states map?
"Keeping calm is the secret for a long life!"
I'll have time during weekend. Probably won't be like you think it will be.
The thing is sometimes I've no time, sometimes I've no energy, sometimes I've no motivation, sometimes I just forget things.
Oh and that's Great-greater-greater Hungary. That map - btw - is a joke on the old Hungarian phrase/meme: "That time when three seas washed Hungary's shore!" - meaning when Hungary was great and relevant. It refers the time of Louis I the Great. It's false ofc because:
1. Poland wasn't part of Hungary
2. Poland didn't even have a shore at that time.
So this map is a parody/caricature of that.

>>18260
That sounds plausible tho. They had their own name what they referred to themselves and that was associated with them.

>>18263
Germanics invented it.
Oh yeah, I remember slovo, especially because Poles call Germany Niemcy and we call Germans német which both supposedly means mute. I suppose we borrowed this word from the Poles as previously we just referred to them as Schwab (very popular) or Bavarian or Saxon (or if they lived on the Hungary they could have nicknames like the Zipsers who lived in Szepes county, now in Northern Hungary).

>>18264

We had much more radical theories when youtube didn't even exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)

Fomenko not only tries to rewrite everything, but uses mathematical methods, statistics and other things (he is mathematician).

>>18265
>especially because Poles call Germany Niemcy and we call Germans német which both supposedly means mute

Russians call them немцы too. Although word германцы exists, but used only for ancient Germanics.

>>18267
That channel is inspired by the New Chronology theory. It's run by Sylvie Ivanowa (a Bulgarian lady) who travels to ancient monuments/sites and tries to prove the Fomenko's points.

>>18238
>Kingdom of Iberia
NO

>>18249
Don't forget /pol/ threads on archaeology and the distant past.
>the Pyramids?
<ancient Aryans!
>terracota army?
<ancient Aryans!
>Sumerians?
<ancient Aryan people who got expelled by (((Akkad))), moved to the steppes and founded European civilization

>>18269
I also love how they just forget about Andorra and Monaco.

>>18269
>>Sumerians?
<<ancient Aryan people who got expelled by (((Akkad))), moved to the steppes and founded European civilization
T-that's true. But they were Hung-Aryans with their agglutinative language of theirs. And they weren't really expelled but fled from Mesopotamia away from the bloodthirsty and murderous Semitic barbarians.

There you go.

>>18274
What is Iberia and Gaul in that map?

>>18275
Oh, that's Africa.

>>18124
This isn't really a shitty map, but here's ALL territories ruled by Muslims at one point in history.

>>18279
These maps showing Ottoman rule (I think they are on Wikipedia as well) are bugging me. The part of the Hungarian Kingdom we call "Royal Hungary" was never under Ottoman rule. They could lead campaigns that far if the Sultans really wanted but the real border was somewhere along the lines in blue.
However it complicates things that in the beginning after the death of Louis II (1526) two kings were elected, a Habsburg and a "national" king whom Suleiman I started to back and his son become the Sultan's kind of vassal/ally eventually but the little king was never crowned and neither of them payed taxes for the Sultan (which would prove them being his subject), the Principality of Transylvania - which formed on the lands of the "national" king - started that.
But. The kingdom itself was torn apart into to pieces between the two kings with claims on the part of the other's.
Again but: at some point Suleiman "adopted" the Habsburg king, Ferdinand and "gave" him the Hungarian kingship symbolically. I don't now how much weight this event put into the practicality of diplomacy tho.
Frankly the only real proofs that area belonged to the Ottomans is Suleiman's own writings which states he owns Hungary and gave it to whoever. But I could do the same "I own the United States of America" still it doesn't make me owner of anything.

>>18280
>>18279
no sweden or UK? :-DDDDD

>>18281
Or France?
Well that map is outdated for sure.

>>18281
Technically, part of the modern-day UK was under Muslim rule! Jan Janszoon, a Dutch Muslim pirate captured Lundy, an island in the Bristol channel that back then belonged to England before the Union of the crowns, planted an Ottoman flag, and used it as a base for raids. This was the same pirate who led the expedition to Iceland, in what the Icelanders call Tyrkjaránið (Turkish raid).

>>18282
And technically, that map includes Septimania and Aquitane, large chunks of France.

>>18279

It is pretty fun that they marked all Ural mountains even to Arctic ocean.

These territories are wild and empty, so marking it as "ruled by someone" is strange even today. What Muslims ruled over them? Some tatar tribes?

>>18290
Yep, Tatar tribes, the Siberian Khanate.

>>18290
And technically, if we count the Tatar yoke, they'd have ALL of European Russia.

>>18279
Muslims ruled southern France?

>>18295
Yes they did! The Visigoths controlled Septimania, and after the Muslim conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom, they gained Septimania. They also raided the Duchy of Aquitane, and controlled it for quite some time, of course, they were pushed back by Charles Martel, and all Umayyad strongholds in Gaul were conquered by Pepin.

>>18267
I heard a similar theory before that Otto III of the """""Holy""""" """""Roman""""" """""Empire""""" rewrote about 300 years of history, so we're actually living in the 1700s right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis
>Come on, it's 1721!

>>18299
The sad thing is, at least the Afrocentrists with their claims that every culture (even the Neanderthals) and civilization was black, aren't taken seriously (aside from those Hebrew Israelites and other black cults). People are actually buying Fomenko's crap, just look at the reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/History-mathematical-statistics-Eclipses-Chronology/dp/2913621074/
Apparently the Tatars are actually Slavs, apparently Sanskrit was a SLAVIC LANGUAGE. Apparently, every civilization was of Slavic origin, or were made up.

>>18300
>the amount of WE WUZ in that single paragraph
kek
Also, I doubt many people are taking it seriously. The reviews are good, but that's probably because only kc tier autists who genuinely believe the theory in the first place would actually bother to read his book.

Also speaking of Afrocentric wewuzzery, here's a personal favourite of mine:
https://www.africaresource.com/rasta/articles/the-ancient-celts-and-vikings-were-black-people-by-dr-clyde-winters/

>>18316
Aside from it literally being impossible for sub-Saharan Africans to live in Scandinavia without modern-day Vitamin D medicine, most of their evidence is shit. These people mostly just edit Byzantine photos to make them look darker, you can see those straight noses in "bleck wikangz" and "black keltz". Then again, if we look at actual scholarly sources from those periods:
>Never have I seen a people with a more perfect body than them. They are tall like palm trees, with blond hair and ruddy skin. From fingertips to their neck, each of them has a collection of trees, figures and the like. - Ahmad ibn Fadlan on the Varangians, or the Volga Vikings
>The Gauls are tall of body with rippling muscles and white of skin and their hair is blond, and not only naturally so for they also make it their practice by artificial means to increase the distinguishing colour which nature has given it. For they are always washing their hair in limewater and they pull it back from the forehead to the nape of the neck, with the result that their appearance is like that of Satyrs and Pans since the treatment of their hair makes it so heavy and coarse that it differs in no respect from the mane of horses. Some of them shave the beard but others let it grow a little; and the nobles shave their cheeks but they let the moustache grow until it covers the mouth. - Diodorus Siculus on the Gauls
And I've seen worse. I've seen worse! There's a forum dedicated to all of this crap called "Egyptsearch", an offshoot of it "Egyptsearchreloaded", and a shitty website based on highly academic sources from those forums called Realhistoryww. These people say that basically everyone in Europe, East Asia, Africa, and America were black until Central Asian migrants came storming into Europe massacred the black Europeans, and stole all their history. They say that the "black death" was given its name because that was when the black people were genocided, and replaced with Central Asian barbarians with elongated skulls. I've also seen people, namely this HIGHLY academic source from Catherine Obianuju Acholonu, a Nigerian "historian" that's apparently dead now, that say that Ogham was of sub-Saharan African origin, which is just sickening.
>Ogam (also spelled Ogham) was the earliest form of writing and communication known in the British Isles and in Scandinavia, where ancient traditions insist that it was introduced by the Druids, who, according to the indigenous traditions of the Isles, were Black African dwarfs and magicians.
ᚄᚈᚒᚚᚔᚇᚔᚈᚓᚈ
I've seen people say that the Neanderthals were black, that Ogham was of sub-Saharan origin, that the Vikings were black, that we're steppe barbarians with flattened heads, that "Israel ruled Europe as Celts, Moors, and Vikings", this isn't as bad as Fomenko's New Chronology and Turboslavism, but it's up there.

>>18289
That's liek almost all Occitania. See:
>>18167
>>18180

>>18322
That could be explained by what I said.

>>18279
Also, I did the map. All red coloured territory in that map have a GDP less than half of the USA's GDP.

>>18340
>I did the map
I meant math.

>>18124
Here's another not bad but kind of shitty at the same map, all areas raided or settled by the Norse. One of the main problems of this map is that it includes Norman conquests, like for example, Sicily and Tunisia, both were conquered by the Normans, who at the time were Francophones that likely had nothing left of their Norse descent, aside from legends, like for example, words of Greenland and Iceland. For the most part however, it's accurate.

>>18344
Yes, I haven't seen a map which didn't include the Norman adventure into the western Mediterranean.

>>18348
And by the way, yes, we did raid as far east as Vola Bulgaria, modern day Azerbaijan, Dagestan, and Iran.

>>18349
Not the Danes, they ain't.

>>18350
Nope, not the Danes. The Varangians, who are mostly considered to be of Swedish or Geatish origin did. They successfully attacked Gorgan and Mazandaran in northern Iran, and under the forces of Prince Oleg of Novgorod, they captured Abbasid Bardha'a in modern day Arran, Azerbaijan. Sidenote, a hundred years earlier, western Vikings under the forces of the Dane Hastein (and also the legendary Swedish king Bjørn Jernside) raided Morocco, captured Nekor, and stayed their for a week, and also burned the two grand mosques at Algeciras.

>stayed their
There.

>>18353
I'm actually going to throw up. Apparently, these people recognize minority languages in Iberia and Gaul like Breton, Basque, and Asturian, yet apparently, Italy is all Italian, with no exception. Apparently, Scotland annexed Northumbria, and there's no difference between lowland Scots (A Germanic language VERY similar to English) and Scots Gaelic (A Celtic language). None of Russia's federal subjects in the Volga and the Caucasus are represented. Apparently, Macedonian is a separate language from Bulgarian, and Montenegrin is a separate language from Serbian. Did you mention that the first map right there uses pre-WWII borders?

>>18361
There's a lot of Russians right there in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

>>18363
There are ~20% of Russians in Kazakhstan now and ~3% in Uzbekistan.

In past there were much more (up to 50% in Kazakhstan, for example), because these lands were mostly unpopulated steppes where it is easy to became a majority. Most of cities were created as military/trading outposts, and local nomads rarely lived in cities at all. But in USSR times local population became dominant in cities, and anti-russian politics in 90s forced most Russians to move from Central Asia. Russians as ethnic group also have bad birth rate and negative population growth from 70s.

I guess now only Kazakhstan can be considered as country with somewhat relevant Russian minority, but demographic and migration trends will change it in near future.

>>18363
Indeed. Russia had her fair share of colonization but they needn't cross the seven seas. I think they have similar frontier culture like the US had during her eastward expansion. Check Dersu Uzala.
Beside what he said >>18364 punitive labor camps was also used to conquer Asia - but I would guess these were used in harsher environment where simple colonists wouldn't go with much enthusiasm - and many prisoners settled in their vicinity. Check Crime and Punishment.

>>18365
>I think they have similar frontier culture like the US had during her eastward expansion

Yes, that's true. It isn't even an US frontier, but real colony like with European powers. Actually, everything east from Urals is colonial land, but no one want to admit it (because Russia didn't had evil colonialism of course).

>punitive labor camps was also used to conquer Asia
>Crime and Punishment.

It was mostly second wave, first were traders/raiders/fugitives. People who run from serfdom, bandits or just people who had nothing to do at homeland but was aggressive enough. Technically, cossacks (both Southern and Siberian) were these people, unorganized group of criminal-like men. Government also sent expeditions (mostly for fur, establishing outposts and grabbing money from locals) - they mostly used that type of people too.

Some notable people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yermak_Timofeyevich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerofey_Khabarov

Fun fact: most of Far Eastern lands and some part of Eastern Siberia are colonized by Ukrainians. There are plenty of Ukrainian last names, and some people even preserve local culture.

Although in commie times relatively wild and free spirit of Siberians was damaged by new waves of industrial migration, so colonial traditions are mostly lost.

>>18365
Speaking of the Russian Empire, picrel. This just cannot happen. I bet there's a larger chance of that Norse raiding empire I posted earlier uniting than this ever happening.

>>18367
>most of Far Eastern lands and some part of Eastern Siberia are colonized by Ukrainians

edit: not fully colonized, of course, but had large share of Ukrainian population there. It was 30%+ in Russian Empire times, and in some parts of region they were majority.

Nowadays they mostly identify themselves as Russians though, at least in census, so official average share is 3-4% now.

>>18368
But Romania is not Slavic.

>>18371
It was technically part of the First Bulgarian Empire, but that was mainly Turkic until later years.

>>18368
So the bulk of the population was in Székely-majority cities, while the sparsely-settled countryside was mostly Romanian?

>>18367
Given how the conquest of North Asia happened at the same time as the conquest of America with very similar methods and results, I believe historians should give it more emphasis and review it as a chapter of that period's European expansion - just on the opposite direction. These eastward and westward movements then met each other in America's northwestern coast. In this sense North Asia could be considered "New World" rather than Old World.

>>18368
>Trinidad and Tobago
why?

>>18386
>So the bulk of the population was in Székely-majority cities, while the sparsely-settled countryside was mostly Romanian?
I'm guessing this question was addressed to me.
Almost. It's little bit too complicated for the morning to answer in depth so I might revisit this topic later this day or on the weekend.
In Székelyföld both in towns and in the countryside in the villages and farms everywhere the almost exclusive (some places 100%, in most it's over 90) majority are the Székelys. It can be discussed further if they are Hungarians or not, and this is part of the problem actually.
Outside Székelyföld the small settlements (villages, homesteads) by that time are dominated by the Romanians.
In towns outside Székelyföld the composition of the population is very colorful with mostly the Hungarians dominating, usually with a hair of a majority (barely over 50%). And we're talking about big towns, like Nagyvárad or Arad.
Beside these two ethnicities Germans and Jews were in notable number.
Due to the mountainous terrain, Transylvania is divided into two habitable valleys, and a bunch of small sub-valleys. Most of these places aren't suitable for big settlements. Most butifel landscape.
Also it's good to know that Transylvania today isn't Transylvania by itself. It's Transylvania and the Partium, these are the eastern lands from the Great Hungarian Plain which was governed by the Prince of Transylvania from the 16th century when the Principality came into existence. Most big towns outside Székelyföld (and ofc the German towns of South-Transylvania) is situated here.
Whew, I wrote quite a lot despite I didn't want to.

>>18386
>Trinidad and Tobago
Oh God, I haven't noticed.

>>18388
>sparsely-settled countryside
Also the countryside wasn't settled sparsely but in many small settlements relatively close to each other.

>>18386
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_attempts_by_Poland
Apparently, Poland-Lithuania technically colonised Trinidad and Tobago.

>>18392
Well at least they tried to colonize something nice and not fucking Franz Josef Land...

>>18401
Technically, the Austro-Hungarians colonised it, and the USSR just declared it Russian territory after Austria-Hungary lost the war. I guess there is some value to it, as it has a strategic air base in the arctic, and the Cold War was basically resumed after the Donbass war.

>>18404
How did the Cold War "resume", and how is the tension between Russia and NATO today a "Cold War"?

>>18404
A TV-personality of ours, a humorist primarily, visited the island some years ago. When he arrived looked around, inspected the constant snow-storm and the barren rocks around then said: "Yes, this is our colony..." So true.

>>18407
Is it actually possible to live there? People actually live in Svalbard, the arctic island of Norway, so I'm guessing it's possible to live in Franz Josef land.

>>18409
What in the name of Tengri is this.

>>18421
Well, European part of Turkey is weird. But at least no flag for Luxemburg while Liechtenstein got hers, this is always a boon.

>>18422
I guess European Turkey just sank. Seriously, what the fuck is this.

>>18427
>European Turkey just sank
Global warming finally arrived
>what the fuck is this.
I think map with flags and little gay animay characters.
No Kosovo? No Kazakhstan? No Scotland and Wales? No Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican? Or the Caucasian countries are the problem? Or the inconsequential use of capitalisation?

>>18428
But why gay anime characters?

>>18429
How long have you been on the Internet, friend?

>>18428
>inconsequential use of capitalization
What really triggered my autism was "British". Calling every country by a noun or every country by an adjective would be fine but mixing them is inconsistent.

And for some reason Iceland seems to be on a different map projection.

>>18429
I guess it's like an animay version of Rule 34 for some people out there.

>>18431
>British
Oh yeah.
Btw the drawer only used capitalization for countries starting with I or R. But then, there's:
>italy
I bet this map was created by the sole purpose of pissing off autists.

>>18269
If a "Kingdom of Iberia" is bad enough, then look at this monstrosity.

>>18568
What's that map about? Ruled by Romance/Latin language nations at one point in history?

>>18570
Yes. Basically, some Italian guy in an IRC chat said once that "How powerful would a modern-day Roman Empire be?", and then it later derailed to every nation ruled by Italy, and then every nation ruled by Latins at all, and said how it'd be a "hyperpower".

>>18579
>hyperpower
Siestapower.

>>18580
I mean, it literally controls all of Latin America, most of the USA including some of the most powerful states like Texas and California, all of Canada, most of the Sahara, much of sub-Saharan Africa, most of southern Europe except the west and East Slavs + Germany, England and Wales, the southern Caucasus, the Levant, Iraq, and Bahrain (giving it a lot of Gulf oil), plus Sri Lanka and Indochina. Basically a hyperpower, I doubt even the super caliphate that Danish guy posted can rival it.