Examples of "brotherly nations"?

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,631
Spain
What about if there is a dispute over the facts, though? For instance, it's unclear whether US President Andrew Jackson was born in North Carolina or South Carolina.
In this case.. only Hooliganism.... if you like South Carolina.. you will say he is from SC... if you like NC... you will say he is from North Carolina... History is facts, facts, only facts... history books are for History what Astrology is for Science or Hitler for the painting.
 
Likes: Futurist

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,631
Spain
Yes, I hear you and this is the reason I dislike most so-called historical movies or shows as they are frequently only loosely based on facts. Having said that, ALL written history is based on interpretation of those said facts. Do we know what Prinz Eugen thought as he sacked Bosnia on his way to Sarajevo? What did he eat on the way down there? Was he anxious that Ottomans may place an ambush somewhere in Usora valley considering he did not have a large army? What did locals think when they saw his army approaching? None of this is available from the fact and three different historians will give you three different versions of his state of mind, his plans, or the overall success or failure of his excursion into the middle of Bosnia.

What I am alluding to is that we hardly can reconstruct events from WWII into smallest details let alone events going back several hundred years or millennia. Unless we discover the way to travel back in time, you will never have ONLY facts but rather historians’ own, frequently faulty and utmost subjective, points of view about historic events. History to me is not the linear timeline of events and wars but everything that happened in between or at the same time on a different continent, in another country. It is much more than what we know at this point.....some things will get clearer with more archeological finds, some we will never know as they are lost in time. It’s just a nature of human analytical mind to inquire and to fill in the gaps between the knowledge or if you want, facts.

i can't disagree with you ... about facts.... Do you know what happened with Theories, interpretations etc etc etc? That they are changing with time... because the "gurus" pretended to explain history according with the present... with the contemporanean reality... but man is a short-time creature... lacks of historial perspective and trying to explain present throught history....it is only manipulation...For example... we can explain history of Irak as a failed state from a 2019 perspective... but a historian would have written in 10th Centuy how much great was Irak and how its success came from a historical mythical past....

A book about history.. written in 2019 is very different than other wrote in 1901 (when European Powers ruled Earth) , in 1801, in 1701 etc.... So..you can be sure how historical books will be very different in 2101 or in 2201..... and what for you it is very important.. lacked of importance in 22nd Century.

In this forum it is typical to talk about the economic success of Protestant countries and the United States due to a supposed British heritage ... that´s only because today USA are the greatest power on Earth.... nobody told about that time when Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Duke of Finnland were the poorest countries on Europe....(and it was not 1 million years ago). Ok? In those days.... Spanish and Ottoman Empires were the top.. and historian explained their success... Still I am reading a book about 1759... and how British historian wrote about the Great Spanish Success and how Peninsula has been able to built a Huge Empire. The richest one (in a book writen in 1759).

If in the year 2278... Congo is the riches countries on Earth.... the historian will (and this forum too) write books explaining why the great Congolese succes...and why USA failed in the history..... and now it is one of the poorest areas on Earth.. and somebody in this forum will open a thread about why the protestantism only brought poverty....

So, I am not interested in Theories, i am not interested in books written by astrology men (historian men as I know them)... I am not interested in History as "Magister Vitam" (Teacher of the life).. I am not interested in History as to explain present.... because present is changing and always it is going to change.. and with changes... it is going to change theories... etc.. I am not interested in interpretations..... only in scientific dimensions...

Dates, figures, names, etc etc etc... History lacks of lessons...it is not magister.. it is not interpretation...

July 28th, 1914... Monarchy declared war on Serbia.... (that´s history)....June 28th , 1914... Terrorist came from Beograd with Serbian guns killed Franz Ferdinand and Sofia Chotek... that´s History...

To write about if CSA or USA had rights... goods, evils etc.. that´s not history..... only interpretations.... the same about Art, etc etc

Regards
 
Nov 2015
1,921
Kyiv
Which examples of "brotherly nations" are there? For the record, I am talking about countries that share a common language (or at the very least have extremely similar languages), a common history (to some extent), a common heritage (to a significant extent), and a common religion (at least to a large extent).

Anyway, so far, I could think of:
...

-The East Slavic countries (Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus):



They have very close languages... are pretty similar peoples, were all part of the Russian Empire and/or Soviet Union, are all overwhelmingly Slavic, are all traditionally Eastern Orthodox countries (with atheism possibly becoming much more popular during the 20th century under Communist rule), and largely share a common history such as being a part of Kievan Rus' in the Middle Ages, participating in the Russian war effort against France and its allies in the Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans and their allies in both World Wars (with Galicia being an exception in regards to this due to them being a part of A-H during WWI and collaborating with the Nazis during WWII), and suffering under Communist rule for decades.
- when my wife’s relatives or acquaintances flew to us from Kiev to Russia, they didn’t understand what is talking about on Ukrainian TV. For the most of the Russians, Ukrainian is not very clear

- Most of Ukraine was part of the Rzeczpospolita, and not the RI until the late 18th century.

- Galicia and Transcarpathia until 1918 were part of Austria-Hungary, and then Galicia was part of Poland until 1939. Transcarpathia became part of Russia (USSR) only in 1945

- For a century and a half, "Russian" part of Kievan Rus was only a very small part of the territory of novadays Russia - less than 10%. In the mid-12th century it broke away from Rus for a very long time.

- Russia itself worked closely with Nazi Germany from August 1939 until the German invasion of Russia

- During the German occupation of Russia 1941-1943 many Russians worked closely with the Nazi authorities. About 1 million Russian Hivi served in the German army. Plus Russian ROA. And in the territory of three Russian regions the fascist Lokot republic was created in 1942.



- as for Galicia (and Volhynia) - in the fall of 1942 a partisan UPA was created there to counter the German occupation and protect the Ukrainian population from it. And this opposition was substantial

- For the Russians Bolshevism was "native" - Russia gave birth to it and massively supported it. And to Ukraine Bolshevism entered on Russian bayonets

And if you look at the history of the past 100 years, you can call the Russian and Ukrainian people brotherly only with big reservations
 
Last edited:
May 2013
178
USA
i can't disagree with you ... about facts.... Do you know what happened with Theories, interpretations etc etc etc? That they are changing with time... because the "gurus" pretended to explain history according with the present... with the contemporanean reality... but man is a short-time creature... lacks of historial perspective and trying to explain present throught history....it is only manipulation...For example... we can explain history of Irak as a failed state from a 2019 perspective... but a historian would have written in 10th Centuy how much great was Irak and how its success came from a historical mythical past....

A book about history.. written in 2019 is very different than other wrote in 1901 (when European Powers ruled Earth) , in 1801, in 1701 etc.... So..you can be sure how historical books will be very different in 2101. So, I am not interested in Theories, i am not interested in books written by astrology men (historian men as I know them)... I am not interested in History as "Magister Vitam" (Teacher of the life).. I am not interested in History as to explain present.... because present is changing and always it is going to To write about if CSA or USA had rights... goods, evils etc.. that´s not history..... only interpretations.... the same about Art, etc etc

Regards
Excellent post Martin, I did not want to dwell more on this but I felt your post deserved to be acknowledged. It was a large post so I will just touch on two or three things.

1. Yes, those biased contemporary lenses that many so-called gurus use when looking at events from a century ago or longer tends to drive me bonkers. For example, I was genuinely surprised just how shallow an approach was in Niall Ferguson’s book “The war of the World”. If this is the best that former Harvard professor can do, that only tells you about the academic integrity nowadays and that it is more about being in tune with current political/social fashion than to stick to the hard, cold facts. It felt like reading an opinion piece from the New York Times, rather than an actual book written by a historian. I have no respect for “authors” like this.

2. Times change and perspectives change. I always liked to look at historical events or dates in comparison to what was occurring at the same location elsewhere. The stone fortress in my hometown was built roughly at the time when Edward I built Caernarfon, in fact it was also built on the site of older wooden castle from 10-11 century. Yet, one is a smaller fortress while Edward I made a behemoth of a fortification. Spain, as you said, was a huge and important Empire, the one that Edward’s successors trembled in fear from. It was more of a sheer luck than English tactics that made them survive the Armada in 1588. In 1330s through 1350s, Catalans and Germans were mercenaries in the short lived Serbian Empire. Nowadays many Serbs move to Germany to live and to work. You already mentioned Iraq of 10th century and that of 20th century. Think about what our European ancestors were doing while ancient Egyptians made those monumental objects and with such a precision.

3. History is fascinating and all of the could/should/would have beens make the whole picture of one country’s or one nation’s potential for greatness. However, this also leads to cultural and superiority/inferiority complexes. It is perhaps the inherent problem to depend on a historian’s own point of view. He may know of the same events you and I know, but if he is presenting from the contemporary point of view or has a slight bias towards own ethnicity/religion, it is already turning into a tale as you mentioned rather than a factual, emotionless narration. Hence my opinion that despite the known facts, historical books will always suffer from inherent biases and one’s interpretation of what happened rather than having an actual screenshot of that moment in front of us. This is because humans tend to fill the gaps by their own narrative. The best I can state about my favorite historians is that they seemingly tried to keep their own biases to a minimum and filled those missing parts with logical and well informed arguments (i.e., John V. A. Fine, Richard Evans, A. Beevor, Ian Kershaw, V. Corovic, etc.).
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,631
Spain
Ex

1. Yes, those biased contemporary lenses that many so-called gurus use when looking at events from a century ago or longer tends to drive me bonkers. For example, I was genuinely surprised just how shallow an approach was in Niall Ferguson’s book “The war of the World”. If this is the best that former Harvard professor can do, that only tells you about the academic integrity nowadays and that it is more about being in tune with current political/social fashion than to stick to the hard, cold facts. It felt like reading an opinion piece from the New York Times, rather than an actual book written by a historian. I have no respect for “authors” like this.

2. Times change and perspectives change. I always liked to look at historical events or dates in comparison to what was occurring at the same location elsewhere. The stone fortress in my hometown was built roughly at the time when Edward I built Caernarfon, in fact it was also built on the site of older wooden castle from 10-11 century. Yet, one is a smaller fortress while Edward I made a behemoth of a fortification. Spain, as you said, was a huge and important Empire, the one that Edward’s successors trembled in fear from. It was more of a sheer luck than English tactics that made them survive the Armada in 1588. In 1330s through 1350s, Catalans and Germans were mercenaries in the short lived Serbian Empire. Nowadays many Serbs move to Germany to live and to work. You already mentioned Iraq of 10th century and that of 20th century. Think about what our European ancestors were doing while ancient Egyptians made those monumental objects and with such a precision.

3. History is fascinating and all of the could/should/would have beens make the whole picture of one country’s or one nation’s potential for greatness. However, this also leads to cultural and superiority/inferiority complexes. It is perhaps the inherent problem to depend on a historian’s own point of view. He may know of the same events you and I know, but if he is presenting from the contemporary point of view or has a slight bias towards own ethnicity/religion, it is already turning into a tale as you mentioned rather than a factual, emotionless narration. Hence my opinion that despite the known facts, historical books will always suffer from inherent biases and one’s interpretation of what happened rather than having an actual screenshot of that moment in front of us. This is because humans tend to fill the gaps by their own narrative. The best I can state about my favorite historians is that they seemingly tried to keep their own biases to a minimum and filled those missing parts with logical and well informed arguments (i.e., John V. A. Fine, Richard Evans, A. Beevor, Ian Kershaw, V. Corovic, etc.).

it is not possible to say better than you have written here. +2. I think this post is very interesting and it is like the base for a debate about the filosophy of the history.... because as you well wrote academic integrity nowadays and that it is more about being in tune with current political/social fashion than to stick to the hard, cold facts...unfortunately.... it is thruth. In Spain (as in Russia) "History" have changed a lot in the last 50 years.... and it is funny...always in favor of the direction of the wind in which "politics" blows ...

Exactly... we can think what were doing Europeans when Egyptian built Pyramides or Indian or chinese cultures...or for example... Yucatan or Peru around 2.000 years ago...so... when we compare for example Sillicon Valley and Yucatan... we are doing from our very short and limited temporal perspective...so... our conclussions are never universal and they are never timeless but depend on Here and Now. That´s because I don´t like interpretations or history books.... because they see the history.... from Here and Now.... forgetting facts only because they are not interested from the Here and Now perspective...

. He may know of the same events you and I know, but if he is presenting from the contemporary point of view or has a slight bias towards own ethnicity/religion, it is already turning into a tale as you mentioned rather than a factual, emotionless narration.

excellent exposure. Exactly that´s the reason because I don´t like interpretations...if we talk about the great success of Nordic Countries.... comparative (I hate comnparation) with other countries... for example.... Egypt, India, Central Asia or Mali.. ... they are presenting Nordic Countries as they are today.. forgetting Norway was the poorest country in Europe in 1900... and one of the poorest in 1945...or how Sweden was the land of emigration (as today Syria)...and when we say... Tombouctu was richer than Denmark... in some centuries in Medieval Age....o Samarkand... or Cairo etc... and we say. but they failed in history... whilst Nordic Countries finally they succeeded and built advanced societies ... we forget... we are talking about Here and Now.... if in 25th Century.... Mombassa, or Yakarta or Bangui...are the top economic and politic centers in the wold.... a "guru".. a modern History scholar will write a book about how great Kenyan, Indonesian or Centroafrican advance societies and how failed the West World!!!! (a source of poverty)....

Times change and perspectives change.

100%.... for example... Why we think Jamestown was so important..... Really Jamestown lacked of importance.... nor in 1610, in 1776, in 1840 nor in 2019... Jamestown never was important on Earth....So.. why we talk about Jamestown and not about Zacatecas, Potosi... two cities were the top of world importance in 16th, 17th, 18th centuries?

Because USA is the most important country in world (I would add in history)...USA economic, political, military and still most important, culture power...

so we we distort history when we intend to see it from here and now ... Usa is not Great because Jamestown.. whe should see each "moment".. every "here and now" to explain how USA became the greatest power on Earth... because when a New Empire born... and it will be born....they will make the same mistakes that us....and so... for them.. New York will be a "an unimportant city" ... as today we see Zacatecas, Potosí, Lima, Havana or Mexico City .... when these cities were the richiest cities in America (or West Indies) in 1800!!

So the Here and Now perspective distort history.... underestimating and enlarging....that´s the reason because I don´t read History books but only contemporanean sources... I am not interested in here and now to explain There and then.

Regards. Excellent!
 
Likes: Castrum 1415

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
In this case.. only Hooliganism.... if you like South Carolina.. you will say he is from SC... if you like NC... you will say he is from North Carolina... History is facts, facts, only facts... history books are for History what Astrology is for Science or Hitler for the painting.
Hitler couldn't paint people very well but otherwise his paintings weren't too bad. I mean, they're certainly much better than what I myself can ever personally draw. :(
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,631
Spain
Hitler couldn't paint people very well but otherwise his paintings weren't too bad. I mean, they're certainly much better than what I myself can ever personally draw. :(

You are right.. It was a joke.. Hitler was not a Van Goh or a Picasso... but better than an average man... better than me for sure!!!! he lacked of "inspirations" but "technically" was not bad.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
You are right.. It was a joke.. Hitler was not a Van Goh or a Picasso... but better than an average man... better than me for sure!!!! he lacked of "inspirations" but "technically" was not bad.
Yeah, IMHO, Hitler gets way too bad of a rap in regards to his artwork--unlike for his political life, where getting an extremely bad rap is perfectly justified.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
Also, might Laos and Thailand be classified as brotherly nations? I mean, they have a similar language and a similar religion--though divergent recent histories since Laos experienced both French rule and Communism while Thailand experienced neither of these two things.
 
Likes: martin76

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,631
Spain
Also, might Laos and Thailand be classified as brotherly nations? I mean, they have a similar language and a similar religion--though divergent recent histories since Laos experienced both French rule and Communism while Thailand experienced neither of these two things.
I´ve been twice in Laos.. and yes... I couldn´t see so much difference at all... and the same between Kampuchea and Buriran
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions