Frankreich & Allemagne

Historically, the French and the Germans are the same people. The Carolingian state was divided between Charles the bald, Lothar and Louis the German. Lothars' state became the disputed area of Alsalce-Lorraine and other boarderlands, whilst Charles's became France, and Louis the Germans' well, Germany. What does this whole debate about Luxemburg achieve? Just because they speak French, it doesn't mean that they can be considered either French or German. Cultures grow and change - you can't always trace back to the roots and place them in old categories. I would agree with Temujin's quote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 [QUOTE=Temujin]obviously the term "occupation" completely evades your mind here. there were no Alemanni settlers in Luxemburg whatsoever (ditto northern italy & central france despite battles being fought there) which means Luxemburger are and were not Alemanni EVER. end of story. if you go on i take it as a personal insult.

i'm taking this serious because 1. i AM Swabian-Alemannic and 2. there are some freaks on the web who claim stuff like Alemanni at one point unified all of Germany (German tribes) under Arminius (Hermann as they call him inaccurately) and other nationalist stuff like that. btw, today, there are still Franks & Alemanni today. something like German as an ethnical term does not exist in fact (as opposed to French). modern Germany was never subject to a single ruler and centralized in the same way as France until the 3. Reich. of course there was a "german unification movement" in the 19th century, which should however more accurately be called pan-german nationalists. of course if i say i'm alemanni that doesn't mean i'm pure allemanni because we have hard evidence of Celtic, Roman and Alemanni presence here, as opposed to Luxemburg.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Except that pretty well everywhere when a people migrate, some of them stay behind. Even when a population is 'displaced' or 'expelled' its rare for complete ethnic cleansing to take place.

tell that to the Steppe tribes that inhabited modern Ukriane & Southern Russia or to the natives of New England...i'm really not in the mood in further debatting about your inaccurate non-violent perception of history...

because Ukraine is overhwelmignly Slavic while it was inhabited by Turkic tribes for centuries. look at the Crimean Khanate which alone was really long time around there and even nowadays the Turkic element of the Crimea is really negligable.

none of the (German) passages you posted say anything about the settlements in modern Luxemburg. "nahmen Elsa� (Alsace), Schweiz (Switzerland) und das Voralpenland (=southwest germany) in Besitz". no mention of Saar and Moselle area. the second scan even mentions: "die [Alemannen] vom Ober- und Mittelrhein nach Gallien vordrangen."  = they [Alemanni] entered Gallia from the upper and middle rhine. so it confirms that they crossed the rhine into modern Luxemburg, because Gallia = west of the rhine. that prooves they were not native to the area.

I also have the Penguin Atlas, but it's not always accurate, please post the maps of the Hun empire which includes all of Eastern Europe as a reference for reliability...

because Ukraine is overhwelmignly Slavic while it was inhabited by Turkic tribes for centuries. look at the Crimean Khanate which alone was really long time around there and even nowadays the Turkic element of the Crimea is really negligable.

 In ancient times Ukraine was more probably inhabited by people speaking Slavic and Iranian languages than Turkic. Such populations like the Sarmathians are mentioned until the late Empire. Some of the later Turkic elements which got into Ukraine though survived even until today, as you can see the Gagauz in the southern Moldova and the southwestern Ukraine. Their survival as an enclave, their Christian religion, rather suggests it is about assimilation.

Edited by Chilbudios - 15-Sep-2007 at 07:28

Originally posted by Chilbudios In ancient times Ukraine was more probably inhabited by people speaking Slavic and Iranian languages than Turkic.

nonono, the area of Ukriane that we talk about was not Slavic until after medieval times, i'm not talkign about western and northern ukriane but south and east ukraine. plus, we also know modern Kazakhstan was inhabited by Iranic Sakas but nowadays they are clearly Turkic.

Such populations like the Sarmathians are mentioned until the late Empire. Some of the later Turkic elements which got into Ukraine though survived even until today, as you can see the Gagauz in the southern Moldova and the southwestern Ukraine. Their survival as an enclave, their Christian religion, rather suggests it is about assimilation.

the only surviving Iranians are the Alans which survived in the Caucasus.



Edited by Temujin - 15-Sep-2007 at 12:17

nonono, the area of Ukriane that we talk about was not Slavic until after medieval times, i'm not talkign about western and northern ukriane but south and east ukraine. plus, we also know modern Kazakhstan was inhabited by Iranic Sakas but nowadays they are clearly Turkic.

You actually said Ukraine (not a specific area of it) and I've focused on an area where a Turkic group survived until today (the Gagauz). Though I've mentioned southwestern Ukraine, their habitation area is rather South than West, therefore I am not sure how your geographical specifications would render my example as irrelevant. Not to say that modern Kazakhstan does not even border Ukraine, therefore after reading this paragraph of yours I have no idea about what do you want to discuss about. For instance, there are Tatar groups living in many urban cities of Ukraine. Talking of which, there's a large group of Tatars in Donets region. As evidence for their assimilation, a significant percent of them (I don't know the real number) speaks or declares Russian/Ukrainian as mother tongue.
After Scythians and other such populations commonly believed to speak an Iranian language (like the Sarmathians) the first mentions of other populations in Ukraine are the Antes (possibly also the Sclavenes), Huns, Kutrigurs, Bulgars and the like which could mean a presence of both Slavic and Turkic elements (and possibly still the survival of some Iranian elements and Caucasian in the east). The scarcity of written sources and the rather non-convincing archaeological evidence cannot draw a border between these linguistical groups and certainly cannot estabilish a "primacy" in settling.

those are individual examples

All examples are individual, the general is always an inference. I haven't seen though any example (evidence) of extermination/displacement. When the Iranian and Turkic populations which lived in the territory of the actual Ukraine were mass-exterminated/banished? Chronicles, archaeological evidence, anything?

what are you talking about? many Steppe tribes vanished from history almost without trace, the Ukrainian/south Russian steppe was always a transition point for many tribes. you cannot generalize history like that. i mean why did some tribes made a lasting impression and others dissappeared almost without a trace? those events have to be carefully analized and examined. the pontic steppe was for most historical time onyl sparsely populated and steppe tribes retreat to other areas when being hard pressed rather than to submit to the newcomer. but we also have examples of assimilation and integration of nomads with urban popualtion, but you cannot draw a general rule from that. neither Iranians and Turkic people made a lasting impression on the pontic steppe, only in more recent times, under ekaterina II of russia was the pontic steppe populated by slavic and otehr settlers, i guess you heard of the famous Potemkins villages before.

I don't think you actually understood my point. I don't deny they vanished,  I deny they were exterminated/forcefully moved in a general fashion. I deny the main drive behind the change of languages or cultures is the killing and the exile. I say they were rather culturally assimilated, especially in the earlier epochs, as it's impossible to imagine any systematized cleansing of a territory lacking a proper political control (there are mass exiles in the modern era like that of Circassians, which inhabited also territories in the actual Ukraine).

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios You actually said Ukraine (not a specific area of it) and I've focused on an area where a Turkic group survived until today (the Gagauz). Though I've mentioned southwestern Ukraine, their habitation area is rather South than West, therefore I am not sure how your geographical specifications would render my example as irrelevant.

youc an check my original message, i said Ukraine AND southern Russia,a dn i mentioned Turkic tribes, i think that gives a good impression that i'm talking about the Steppe area and not modern political entities.

Not to say that modern Kazakhstan does not even border Ukraine, therefore after reading this paragraph of yours I have no idea about what do you want to discuss about.

it was you who brought up Scythians & irianian elements, other than that migration into urkaine happened mostly from the central asian steppe, so you cannot ignore the area of modern kazakhstan in this discussion.

For instance, there are Tatar groups living in many urban cities of Ukraine. Talking of which, there's a large group of Tatars in Donets region. As evidence for their assimilation, a significant percent of them (I don't know the real number) speaks or declares Russian/Ukrainian as mother tongue.

you need 19th cenutry sources & evidence, after Communism everyone had to speak Russian and Communists did resettle a lot of people during and after ww2.

After Scythians and other such populations commonly believed to speak an Iranian language (like the Sarmathians) the first mentions of other populations in Ukraine are the Antes (possibly also the Sclavenes), Huns, Kutrigurs, Bulgars and the like which could mean a presence of both Slavic and Turkic elements (and possibly still the survival of some Iranian elements and Caucasian in the east). The scarcity of written sources and the rather non-convincing archaeological evidence cannot draw a border between these linguistical groups and certainly cannot estabilish a "primacy" in settling.

Bulgars only became slavic after settling beyond the Danube. the other tribes you mentioned were Turkic or did not lived on the steppe.

All examples are individual, the general is always an inference. I haven't seen though any example (evidence) of extermination/displacement. When the Iranian and Turkic populations which lived in the territory of the actual Ukraine were mass-exterminated/banished? Chronicles, archaeological evidence, anything?

as i said, when pressured Steppe tribes are more likely to retreat rather than to stay and be assimilated, also Steppe tribes never were much populous. the only significant border in modern Ukraine is between Galicia and the rest of Ukraine, and thats not the border bewteen slavs and turkic people. so since the people on both sides of the old border are identical, it is logical to assume that no mixing took part, otherwise there would be slight differences.

I don't think you actually understood my point. I don't deny they vanished,  I deny they were exterminated/forcefully moved in a general fashion. I deny the main drive behind the change of languages or cultures is the killing and the exile. I say they were rather culturally assimilated, especially in the earlier epochs, as it's impossible to imagine any systematized cleansing of a territory lacking a proper political control (there are mass exiles in the modern era like that of Circassians, which inhabited also territories in the actual Ukraine).

from what you wrote i take it you don't know what assimilation means. what you described is (forceful) converting of other cultures to another culture. assimilation means merging of two cultures = creation of a new culture with elements of both, NOT the extinction of one culture in favour of another one, what you said above. Bulgars are a perfect example of assimialtion, you can still clearly see Turkic elements. compare that to Ukraines and you get your own answer: Ukraine is NOT turkic, therefore no assimilation but displacing...