Was there ever a period in history when the Slavic world was more advanced or powerful than Western Europe?
Was there ever a period in history when the Slavic world was more advanced or powerful than Western Europe?
Was there ever a period in history when the Slavic world was more advanced or powerful than Western Europe?
No. Every state that was a threat to the west from the East was some steppeshitter empire.
Good morning Sir
Medieval Novgorod was on par with medieval Netherlands and Denmark in terms of advanced society.
But that's about it.
Wasn't yet fully overtaken by slavic immigrants.
Was completely Slavic culturally. As Slavic as Moscow, anyway. The state gained legitimacy from a Rus prince who kept selling off bits of authority to the city council, essentially.
>powerful
When the Warsaw Pact existed.
Probably 1945 right after Germany surrendered
Does this count?
No.
Does this count???
It wasn't Slavic
half of the landlords in European part of East Rome prob had Slavic roots after 8th century
That's not enough.
Surely you cannot dispute this mighty Slavic empire.
Meant for
Were they really slavic though?
Big =/= advanced
That thing was nothing but a mere footnote
Advanced how? We were less urbanized.
If you mean culturally and politically, then there was barely any time when Poland and Hungary weren't ahead of the West. A lot of the celebrated advances in Britain occur in Poland 80-200 years sooner.
Nonsense.
I'm going to wager these people weren't what made byzantium more advanced than western europe.
>I'm going to wager these people weren't what made byzantium more advanced than western europe.
I'm going to wager teutogroids didn't help West Rome much, seeing as it completely croaked almost an eon before schedule.
If we're talking about a single country I think the Golden age of Bulgaria under tsar Simeon (893-927) could classify as that.
Weren't they Turkic then and not Slavic?
>hurrdy durr
Yeah, bro, they were Mongol Tatar Fascists, that's why they literally invented the Cyrillic alphabet in their capital named Preslav.
Are you disputing that Bulgars were originally a Turkic steppe warrior people? Have you taken your meds today?
the Bulgars weren(t turkic at all anymore at that point
Ah, are you one of those schizophrenic Bulgarian Slavic nationalists who think that the idea that Bulgars were Turkic is some kind of fake conspiracy?
Black person, those are two posters. We're talking about the time of tsar Simeon, when Bulgaria was Christianized, the official language was the local Slavonic language, the official alphabet was the Cyrillic (that they developed), and the capital was literally called PreSLAV. And you're asking "Were they Turkic?"
Alright, cool your breasts, I had a genuine question, were they Turkic at that point, and you posted a highly emotional NNNOOOOO THEY WERE ALWAYS GIGASLAVS response, which seemed unwarranted
1. We're talking about c.900
2. It's disputed what the ethnicity, religion and language of the Bulgars in the 8th century was.
By this definition the Russians are also a turkic warrior people.
Do you have reading difficulties? I wrote that they WERE, not ARE. That is not a controversial statement.
Yeah I see, the Bulgars and the Bulgarians aren't the same group, kinda fricked really.
What happened there anyway? Local slavs took over the reigns and decided to stick with the name due to brand recognition?
Frick knows, probably just the Romans doing their thing and naming people whatever they want. Similar case in Hungary.
Hungarians actually retained the culture and language of Hungarians, an invader race from the steppes. So by itself that's not much of a misnomer. It's another question that racially modern Hungarians are totally different, just how Bulgarians are totally different from old turkic Bulgars.
The most widely accepted theory is that the Slavs were the majority of the population and the Bulgars were the elite, so from 680 (establishment of Danube Bulgaria) to 864 (Christianization) the Slavic element gained enough influence to become the leading culture.
I personally think the Bulgar elite (at least the part that didn't rebel against the Christianization) decided to make the switch because it would be easier to enlarge the country when Slavs were everywhere, especially in the Balkans.
>I personally think the Bulgar elite (at least the part that didn't rebel against the Christianization) decided to make the switch because it would be easier to enlarge the country when Slavs were everywhere, especially in the Balkans.
This is the standard Byzantine/Roman tactic as well, if you cant control the border, outsource it to someone else. Just pick one of the more likely to cooperate tribes, give them a crown and a bishop and declare them king of the bulgars or franks or whatever.
Interesting, that would make a lot of sense. The key is probably that Slavs were at least a relative majority, so they could impose their language. Unlike with Hungarians, where the small Uralic elite ruled over various tribes who spoke Turkic, Iranic, Slavic, Gothic, and frick knows what else, and Hungarian could serve as a lingua franca. But if 50%+ of your population is already speaking a single language, there is no need for a different lingua franca.
Makes me wonder though how Latin displaced the local language in Hispania or Gallia.
Late 2040s Poland
It’s retribution against Adolf 100 years before
Maybe 1820s after the Napoleonic Wars depopulated France.
1945
>mfw
As a Bulgarian I'm sick of this discussion about muh turkic Bulgars. Truth is WE DON'T KNOW. They didn't bother to write much about themselves and we have very limited surviving sources. Which means that every fricking moronic regime and nowadays every fricking moron on the Internet is an expert blabbing about them being Central Asian, nomads, Iranians, Turkic, Tengrists or whatever. Every single theory is pulled out from someone's ass trying to push some narrative. We don't even know what their ruler's title was ("khan" is also pulled out from someone's moronic butthole). We know they had pagan rituals (described in Byzantine sources and also the correspondence of Boris with the pope), we know some of their military titles, and that's about it. We know that in the 9th century they converted to Christianity, the Slavic language became official and that's it.
Should have just claimed to be the real Romans like everyone else, Greeks, Serbs, Russians, Romanians, etc.
There was a lot of copy pasting of Byzantine culture in medieval Bulgaria, but I'm happy they didn't start larping with the two-headed eagle and shit like the rest.
(with the exception of Ivan Alexander in the 14th century when he created the concept of the Third Rome. Little did he know the Turkish problem will become much bigger.)
Those two centuries from the establishment of Bulgaria on its present place until the Christianization in the mid 9th century are truly the dark ages of sources. We know the names of the rulers, the battles they've won, some info about this and that, but compared to other periods the information is incredibly little.
As a Hungarian, I feel the same. Nobody really knows where Conquering Hungarians came from, either. Mainstream leftist academia morons will claim that they were (or even worse that we modern Hungarians are) closely related to Khantys and Mansis based on some 19th century linguistics, which isn't even actually accepted by contemporary linguists anymore. (Hungarian is of course a Uralic language but it's basically just a hypothesis that it's more closely related to Ugric languages than anything else.) Right wing morons will claim that they were 100% Turkic, but then why the frick don't we speak a Turkic language? Also we don't even know that Conquering Hungarians actually spoke the language we call Hungarian today. Maybe Hungarian is the language of the Avars and Conquering Hungarians were really Turkics who adopted the language they found here in the Carpathian Basin. Frick knows. All we know is that a nomadic steppe tribal federation called the Conquering Hungarians came here in the 9th century and had enough political presence to form a unitary state. And by the late 11th century they were speaking what is called the Hungarian language today. That's it.
Military tech is an axis of advancement.
PLC pretty much disintegrated any army that wasn't more than twice theirs. Western mercenaries supposedly demanded double pay if they had to face heavy PLC cavalry or passed on the contract altogether. Sounds like art of war-wise, Poles outstripped most anybody else between 1575-1675. The armies weren't very large, which was the main limiting factor.
Lithuania isn't Slavic
Maybe 1575-1625 at best. Swedes and Turks were still getting blown the frick out in the 20s but they were already learning how to deal with the Polish cavarly and you can't say Poles were able to dominate the battle field regularly at that point. Around 1650 they stopped being anything special.
cope
A professional army tended to obliterate Swedes in the period. The problem was PLC was fighting 4 different enemies, including one internal, with mostly ad hoc levy armies, with no heavy cavalry to speak of.
*in those ad hoc armies
Up until the Crusades, then it turned around over a century or two.