How come the mediterranean of the north was never as cool (historically) as the mediterranean of the south?
How come the mediterranean of the north was never as cool (historically) as the mediterranean of the south?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
>mediterranean of the north
Are you fucking retarded
Hanseatic league and the Moedergenotie were pretty cool tho...
What? It was much cooler. The med is and was way warmer.
>anglo saxons
>vikings
>north sea empire
>normans
>hansa
>denmark-norway
>swedish empire
the north sea/baltic was pretty cool
There are slavs in it
Slavs didn't exist before the medieval period.
If you are east of germany at any time you are a slav.
That culture simply did not exist.
>The earliest mention of the old Slavs comes from the 5th century B.C. in the historic writings of the Greek historian Herodutus. According to his writings, Slavic tribes belonged to the nations of Styte and Sarmatia, located north of the Black Sea by the Don, Dniester, Prut, and Danube Rivers (present-day Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria).
>The Venedy or Wends were also a part of the old Slavic nations. The Wends lived along the Vistula River (now Poland) between the Baltic Sea and the Carpathian Mountains in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D.
At any rate, Bulgaria was an early state that used a Slavic language. Is 600 AD medieval?
>The earliest mention of the old Slavs comes from the 5th century B.C. in the historic writings of the Greek historian Herodutus
This is exactly why reading Herodotus should be mandatory for posting on this board. He NEVER ONCE mentions Slavs in any context whatsoever. What he does do is spend lots of time talking about the peoples across northern Eurasia from Poland to the Altai. The vast majority- made up of Scythians- all spoke Iranic. There was no Slavic at the time and his attestations actually disprove proto-Slavic theory.
>At any rate, Bulgaria was an early state that used a Slavic language. Is 600 AD medieval?
Cyrillic isn't developed until 9th-10th AD. Bulgars are further proof that Slavs didn't exist because they were specifically Turks before adopting the Slavic language. The entire Slavic project is constructed.
Mediterranean sea connects people with grain to people without grain, people with timber to people without timber, people with tin to people with copper, people who burn incense to people who gather it, etc.
North-Baltic sea connects people with fur and fish, to other people with fur and fish.
Cyrillic is an alphabet, not a language. The language obviously predates the script.
And we have zero, none reason to think Bulgarians were turkic or iranic. There's no language preserved other than their names and administrative terms, which are unique.
>Cyrillic is an alphabet, not a language. The language obviously predates the script.
It's not obvious that it does, and we just went over this. The Bulgars were Turkic during and previous to the date you stated and the Slavs simply did not exist. They were universally described as using Iranic languages up until over half a millennia after Herodotus, and likely after that were described as using Germanic.
The modern slavic languages show more lexical similarity to iranic languages than western european/greek Centum stratum languages.
It is not so left field to think of slavs as iranic speaking europeans, where as actual iranians are the result of such types of peoples mixing with natives local to persian geography.
Iranian is simply another pronunciation of aryan - so the original aryans in the context of this theory would probably have been ethnically slav like.
oof lad get a grip
>The modern slavic languages show more lexical similarity to iranic languages than western european/greek Centum stratum languages
they don't, iranic langs have no proper genders which is a hallmark of all european languages, the reason english for example has no genders or declensions is because it got muttified from all sides
most slavic languages are more closer to proto-indo-europan and so they have things like declensions and genders and complex future-past tenses
similar for example to classical latin which was also close to proto-indo-european but then it got muttified into romance languages which don't have declensions anymore
if anything modern slavic languages are closer to the original language of the europeans because they didn't get so simplified due to muttification like romance (italic) and germanic (to an extend, german is rather conservative still unlike english) languages
the absolute state of his
too cold and the only important people on its shores are swedes and russians. other than that it was just random pagan tribes
too cold
Enjoy german mines and old toxic chemical containers.