Hello, /his/,
Let's talk about this duchy, I find myself to be deeply fascinated by it. Throughout the history, something that was once big has dramatically receded to a country that barely anyone knows. >Yet how "Lithuanian" was it?
>Today, the language under the name of "Lithuanian" as we know of is only spoken by 3 million people.
>The territory they had at it's peak embraced such today's countries as Belarus, Ukraine, Poland and Russia, which obviously are slavic.
>If we are objective and competent enough, we know that Lithuanian language is indeed related to slavic, yet not as close to it as some may think.
>Surely, after forming a Commonwealth with Poland, Lithuania got badly polonized and thus made more slavic
>But let's look at the King Mindaugas back from 13th century, or the early Gediminds back from a century or so later:
What language did they speak in? Was it a language somewhat similar to today's Lithuanian?
Or was it some sort of a Slavic language, based on the fact, that the Duchy at its peak consisted of massive regions, in which Slavic languages were widely spoken?
>What language did they speak in? Was it a language somewhat similar to today's Lithuanian?
The "Lithuanian" language itself only came to be in 1547, majority of the country spoke Ruthenian and Polish, some Dukes would speak German (such as Gediminas) since they were diplomats or of the such.
So yeah, majority of the country spoke mainly Ruthenian, a.k.a slav.
Any more questions?
>>827417
Grand Duchy of Lithuania is indeed a very interesting subject to discuss. As far as Lithuanians go, they were originally a pagan tribe which was quite good at waging war. As Ruthenian principalities next to it became weakened due to fragmentation and Mongols, Lithuanians managed to add them to their state. That's where the fun part starts.
Some historians, particularly Belarusian ones (though there aren't many of them because official Belarusian history basically starts and ends with WW2) outright deny Baltic factor in Grand Duchy because supposedly Lithuanians assimilated with predominantly Slavic population quickly and WE WUZ REAL LITVINZ. Ukrainian historian Hrushevsky viewed Grand Duchy as a new stage in development of Ruthenia and downplayed Lithuanian elements.
That's just oversimplifying things, however. It is true that pagan Lithuanians did accept dominating and more developed Ruthenian culture just fine but Lithuanians did bring a lot of their own innovations into the mix, namely army structure and centralization - the latter being a constant weak spot of Ruthenia prior to that. Subtelny says it was more of a symbiosis of both Ruthenian and Lithuanian elements than anything, and I think it's a perfectly valid idea. One can't even really say that Lithuanians "conquered" those lands - locals viewed them favorably, especially since they chased Mongols off - it was more like incorporation.
Now as far as the language goes, I'm not too sure about that. Generally at that period common folk and elites spoke different languages, and there were both "written" and "spoken" ones. I know that many Lithuanian statutes were originally written in Ruthenian, however, which is also known as Ancient Ukrainian/Ancient Belarusian language because it's the same shit.
>>827505
Wuz Belarusians Litvinz?
>>827417
The slavic lands were only held by and independent Lithuania for a relatively short time, and during the PLU and the PLC today's Lithuania would've spoken Lithuanian and the ruthenian parts would've spoken (You guessed it) Ruthenian
>>827517
>Wuz Belarusians Litvinz?
Depends what you mean by that, majority of Lithuanian dukes and rulers were of Lithuanian/Baltic descent, not Slavic. So the Byelorussian "WE WUZ LITVINZ N SHIET" probably comes from the lack of national identity in Belarus, not saying Belarus is irrelevant completely, my theory is they want to just distance themselves from Russia. Basically, Belarus can "technically" be called litvinz blyat but not entirely.
>>827417
>we know that Lithuanian language is indeed related to slavic, yet not as close to it as some may think.
It's Baltic language holding several interesting, archaic properties hence why its used to make reconstructions of old IE languages.
But back to the point - modern Lithuanian is in at large NOT the language Lithuanian rulers spoke at least since the conquest of Ruthenia.
>>827517
>though there aren't many of them because official Belarusian history basically starts and ends with WW2
Talking about Belarusian history reminds talking about Ukrainian history a bit.
The problem starts in the fact that people who see themselves as successor of Rus states are spread out between 3 different eastern slavic nationalities which leads to funny situation where all of them accuse each other for being non-country, non-slavic, non-rus etc. For Belarus it's the least visible because of current political situation here but let's forget about it for a while.
So you have all that Ukrainians and Belorussians are actually totally 100% Russians in denial memes from one side and Russians are totally mongols and not real Rus on the other.
But as I've said due to political situation in Belarus, they don't take part in this shitflinging too intensively.
>>827505
>The "Lithuanian" language itself only came to be in 1547, majority of the country spoke Ruthenian and Polish, some Dukes would speak German (such as Gediminas) since they were diplomats or of the such.
Polish nonsense. As it is their revisionism with Belarusians that modern Lithuanians are Samogitians and true Lithuanians are Belarusians.
Only the written form of it came into existence in 1547, there are various sources confirming people spoke Lithuanian as attested by chronicles and names/placenames.
Vytautas writes to Emperor Sigismund in 1420 (Codex epistolaris Vitoldi. Pars I, Nr.861)
...in terra Samaytarum, (...) que eciam est et semper fuit unum et idem cum terra Lythwaniae, nam unum ydeoma et uni homines.
Samogitia which is and always was one with Lithuania, because the same language and the same people.
Sed quod terra Samaytarum est terra inferior ad terram Lythwanie, ideo Szomoyth vocatur, quod in lythwanico terra inferior interpretatur. Samoyte vero Lythwaniam appelant Auxstote, quod est terra superior respectu terre Samaytarum.
Because Samogitia lies lower than Lithuania it's called Žemaite which in Lthuanian means lowland. Samogitians call Lithuania Aukštaite which means highland because higher land than Samogitia.
Jogaila to the papal legate in 1421 (Lites ac Res gestae inter Polonos Ordinemque Cruciferorum. tomus tertius. Posnaniae, 1856)
"Samogitia and Sudovia (...) are an important part of the Lithuanian Principality and belong to the principality;
...
The inhabitants of this land speak Lithuanian. And they do not have any other language than Lithuanian.
...
Samogitia, that is, in Lithuanian - Lithuania lower."
>>827505
>some Dukes would speak German (such as Gediminas) since they were diplomats or of the such.
You're an idiot. Dukes would have scribes in their estate who would write letters for them, it doesn't necessarily mean that they spoke that language, it is known that throughout times there were Greek/Tatar/German/Latin/Polish/Ruthenian scribes in estate depending on whom the correspondence was.
>>827417
This is a great historical example, when at the beginning country was ruled by strong kings. And then came the aristocracy and controlled elective kings.
They were just eaten.
What certainly is waiting for the whole of Europe in the future.
Will come a new king from the East. Just trust me.
>>827623
>Will come a new president from the USA.
fix'd it for you
>>827569
I see where you're coming from but talking about Belarusian history can only evoke copious amounts of sadness, in my opinion. They don't have a strong identity at all, and it goes beyond simple problem of political situation. Officials (and in Belarus all power is Lukashenko and Lukashenko is all power) try to create a Soviet time capsule where any show of national identity is shunned while nationalist, what few there are, try to do national building with apathetic population and attempts to claim Polish/Lithuanian/Ukrainian historical figures as their own.
Maybe now something can change, though, who knows. It's clear that their state model is no longer sustainable.
>>827417
It was so Lithuanian that modern population lives mainly in Belarus.
Everything aside, Belarus is a really sad country.
>Be an integral part of Lithuania
>Lithuanian dukes were still Lithuanian so you don't have any national elites at all
>Not even eventually polonified Ruthenian szlachta and cossacks like in Ukraine
>Develop to be a definite separate nation, with its own territory and language
>Yet have absolutely zero national self-awareness, perhaps even worse than Bosnia, and unlike Ukraine which has always been fighting for self-determination in some way or another
>Short period of national revival in the early 20th century gets rekt by Russkies
>Short period of national revival in the 90s gets rekt by Russkies, retarded commie elites and your own citizens not having any feeling of national belonging
>Belarusian language is nearing Gaelic in its spread
>Life off refining cheap Russian oil and slowly waiting for the end
>Official history basically starts with WW2 and ends with WW2
>Unofficial is claiming WE WUZ LITVINZ and trying to find great Belarusian people besides Kalinovski
It's like watching a small constantly sick child dying of cancer.
>>827831
This.
Relevant-
>>827417
>Lithuania
Didn't they change the name to "Myanmar" or something? The flag looks really familiar.
>>827895
Nah, that's Burma.
Lithuanians are the only successful African colony.
>>827831
Who cares, now they are culturally Russians, can identify themselves as Russians and be proud of Russian history.
Russia, Ukraine and Belarus should have been one country after 1991.
>>827924
I'd leave Ukraine aside, atleast the western region.
>>827924
Go to bed, Ivan.
>>827944
It's only 6 pm in Moscow now, too early to go to bed.
>>827930
It would be completely irrelevant country with no industry and access to sea.
I've heard some stories about Ukrainian nationalist in Lviv in 1990s, but personally I've never experienced any anti-Russian intonations in Lviv before 2014. So I really doubt there would be any major separatist movement, if Russia, Ukraine and Belarus was one country
>>828005
>Not being actively hated automatically means Ivan is invited
>>828030
>bring a country to a civil war because "muh russian occupants! we wuz bandera n shiet!"
>>828049
>invade and occupy a neighboring country because "muh yanukovych! we wuz crimea and shiet!"
>>828067
>invade and occupy
More like annex. There were no resistance against Russian troops in Crimea. Invasion and occupation implies active warfare and thousands of dead.
>>828075
No, it doesn't.
