What causes the ethnic situation in an area to change?

probably because it's a linguistic map, and this isn't the "ideal europe borders" thread.

Yeah, but Ukrainian language in Eastern Poland after Operation Vistula, Ukrainian in Volga basin after 1921, no Ukrainian in Kuban, some wack-ass shit in Belarus? Then it's grouping all Caucasian languages into one single blob, no indication of Russian domination in Transnistria etc etc.

That's languages, not ethnicities.

>yet there're clearly some weird placements if it's supposed to be a modern map
no there isn't

>Austrians aren't German
lol

Most of those may be explained away by errors in census data and surveys, they probably needed a lot of info to make this map, and not all of it was probably strictly accurate. I doubt there are many studies of the ethnicity of people in backwater states like Transnistria

The Caucasian languages are probably grouped together because they couldn't be arsed, desu. It's a very linguistically complicated area.

I'm not really sure what you're asking. Migration and cultural shift? That seems obvious to me, but maybe you're asking something else? Ethnicity and culture are dynamic processes, not primordial facets of our biology. Ethnicity literally means "origins". French people originated with the Franks, a Germanic tribe that settled on the Rhine and became highly Romanized, which was reflected in their language. The Franks went on to conquer a hefty chunk of Europe, but the people in the empire spoke many, many languages and had many different origins, like those who spoke far less Latin-influenced West Germanic languages in what would become East Francia/The Holy Roman Empire.

Yeah the vast majority of the British Isles does speak an anglo language, its called English ... this is a modern linguistic map not an ethnocentric map

This is an interesting question, and a phenomena that has occurred since the very earliest times. The Sumerians experienced a period of large-scale immigration from Semitic sheep herders, who were confined to the rural regions and remained apart from the Sumerian cities, but then seemingly overnight you see Sumerian nobles with Semitic names, and then a Semtitic king unites Sumerian under a Semetic dynasty, the Akkadians. At no point did it seem that these Semites went from peaceful immigrants to holding the whip-hand over teh Sumerians, and yet it happened. This happened again and again throughout history and is happening even in the present time, but as far as I know there has been no serious study of it.

>>lol British Isles is totally majority Anglo guize

If anything this map greatly over-represents Celtic speakers. Wales has apopulation of 5 millions but only 500,000 of them speak Welsh as their mother tongue. Ireland and Scotland, similarly sized, have native speaking populations in the tens of thousands, despite every child being taught Gaelic in Irish schools.

There is no way that many people speak Irish in Ireland, you'd see a milimetre of green in the west, if that

Think of it as the places you could go and reasonably be able to find at least one native speaker. The map over-emphasises minority languages because if it didn't most minority languages wouldn't be represented on the map at all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

Wales has 3 million and around 10% are native speakers.

You do realise Irish people learn it for 14 years in school right?

Just like Americans learn Spanish and French, you mean? The Irish have their own dialect of English and a few fishing villages where the older people still use Gaelic, they teach it in school out of misguided nationalism, not because it's used.

Learning a language as a foreign language is not the same as speaking a language as a mother tongue.

>they teach it in school out of misguided nationalism,
what's misguided about wanting to revive the language?
it's shown signs of growth in the past few years, the way it gets taught in schools is a bit shit though

you'd be fluent in the language if you lived in a ghaeltacht for a few months more so than you would be from learning it for 14 years in Dublin

OP wants a description of that process, and details.

People changed their indentifications.

Prestige and acceptance.
Germanic and Slavic cultures were extremely prestigious after Great Migrations period. Both were cultures of free warrior-farmers with tribalistic origins.
Slavs were extremely inclusive - everyone could become a Slav by speaking and behaving properly, even a war captive after a mandatory period of patriarchal slavery (a breeze compared with Classical slavery, more like temporary house serf). Plus Slavs expanded either in area devoid of Roman civilization or severely pillaged and depopulated by Gothic-Bolghar-Avar-whatever invasions and nomadic raiding, having no competing culture. Wherever Bolghars and Avars raided the fuck out of Thrace or Moesia or Ilyria, their allies Slavs moved into "freed" territory, assimilating survivors for protection and land labour.

Genetically only Southern Belarusians, extremely northern Ukrainians and easternmost Poles can be considered Slavs, + Russians of Volga-Oka inter-river region after massive Slavic colonization of Opolye after X century. Yet all others are culturally Slavs yet genetically somewhat different, suggesting culture acceptance instead of genociding previous peoples with colonist waves from Dulebia.

Germanics like Franks and Goths and Burgundians were totally different. Being Frank was very prestigious and liberating - iirc, Frank never paid taxes and nobody had a right to impose one on them, for example. Yet path upwards into Germanic-ness was forbidden for Romance locals. Both peoples existed under different laws and rights, Germanics imposed as free elite over subjugated Romance guys. So even if some Gallo-Romance or Italian or Roman-British pleb wanted to go full Germanic, he would be humiliated at best and stroke down as impostor and pretender for elite rights most probably.
So only regions closest to Germanics proper became Germanized, like Switzerland and Tyrol from Romanized Rhaetians or Flanders from Gallo-Romance, which were inundated in Germanic settlers.

>There is in fact, a turkish minority between Belarus and Poland
It's tartar minority.

Very well written. Just one question; what is this Dulebia you write of?

So French (from north-eastern Oil dialects) is the most divergent and Germanised language and culture of all Romance peoples due to many Franks staying there as elite class.
And that's it. Burgundians and Lombards vanished barely leaving a trace. PERHAPS some quite isolated and ancient village communes in a shithole corner of Veneto region that speak some weird South German dialect of Allemanic variety are all what was left from Lombards that controlled all of Italy for centuries. That is if they are not Middle Ages settlers from Tyrol.
Germanics were very-very keen on privilege and birthright, they melded slowly with locals and vanished in their ranks as they couldn't possibly outbreed much more numerous subjugated class of Romance speakers. Very small acceptance of foreigners, hence they later vanished in their ranks, unless foreigners were expelled instead of subjugated (Anlgo-Saxon invasion of Britain, Brits preferred fucking off to Wales, Cornwall and Scottish highlands instead of servitude).
Think of if. Wales, Corn-WALL, Wallonia, Gaul (also Wallachia, but it was a distant influence) etc. comes from Germanic Walh for "foreigner". Most future French and Italians (Iberians somewhat less so) were literally subjugated foreigners, nothing more for some centuries. Germanicness was prestigious yet unattainable unless born into.
Slavs didn't care, accepted literally everyone, hence why half a Europe from Peloponnese-Morea to Brandenburg-White Serbia to Gardariki-Russia spoke literally one and the same language from 600 to 1000, the Common Slavic.
It was also the same culture till around IX century, when dynastic, religious and geographical factors splintered it.

Second factor is very old, enticing and prestigious in its own right Roman culture. Slavs barely touched upon it, Germanics conquered its very core. After Carolingian renaissance Roman culture became as prestigious as Germanic, and being more refined - assimilated it with small trace left.

>unless foreigners were expelled instead of subjugated (Anlgo-Saxon invasion of Britain
hasn't this been debunked, though?

>what's misguided about wanting to revive the language?

He's a Brit nationalist m8

A tribal union mentioned in Primary Chronicle and Bavarian Geographer (as Zeriuani, quod tantum est regnum, ut ex eo cuncte genetes Sclauorum exorte sint et originem, sicut affirmant, ducant // Zeriuani or Zerivani, "which is so great a realm that from it, as their tradition relates, all the tribes of the Slavs are sprung and trace their origin").
Somewhere between Polesie marshes and Dniester river origin. Dulebia was there "before" Zerivani, place of origin of many important Russian and Balkan tribes, including Croats and Serbs.

Very small and recent (~600 years), not as big as the map shows. I'm of Lithuanian Tatar descent, I know.
Still we stronk and much importance.

>from 600 to 1000, the Common Slavic
The Slavic language started diverging earlier than that, at the latest around the 9th century. Old church Slavonic was a literary language based on certain dialects around Thessaloniki.

I'm pretty sure the genetic footprint of the original inhabitants is still present, so you're correct.

Not quite. From fourth or third to half men from many "Anglic" and "Saxon" regions are genetically foreign for Britain. Many "Celtic" men are still there, but there indeed was an invasion with heavy resettling of peoples included. More to the East it goes, the less "Celtic" men there are.
East Anglia region is also practically Scandinavian, as some part of England near York.

So Anglo-Saxon invaders much preferred expelling Britons to Brittany, Wales, Cornwall and Galicia that ruling over them. Perhaps they were too unruly, unlike Romance peoples much more accustomed to crazy carousel of pretender emperors/chieftains and their troops owning their shit.

Again, if Slavs were to invade Britain instead of Germanics, it would probable be some Sea Serbia with 99% North-West Slavic population or something.
Slavs were more of a class (think Vikings or Roman citizens) bounded by common language (Common Slavic, very uniform for centuries across half of Europe) and status (free warrior-farmer), than peoples proper from perhaps 400'es to 600'es.
Germanics were very volkish and exclusive. If you weren't born a Germanic and lived in their land, you were fucked at game of life. Until Roman culture enticed them, at least. Where little or no Roman culture remained, East Frankia morphed into future Germany.

Again, examples from East Asia. Chinese are very numerous and wide, but historically only peoples of Wei river and lower Huanhe were "Ancestrally Chinese". Others were Hmong-Mieng, other Sinitics, Austronesians, Austroasians, Mongolians, Tungusic, Koreanic and God knows who else. Chinese (like Slavs) are quite inclusive (for their own region, that is). So if you speak proper Chinese, accept their culture and are slanty-eyed, you're good.
Mongols were a closed caste, hence they turkicized or sinicized later like Franks romanized, or were left to small enclaves of resettlers (like MAYBE Lombard remnants in Veneto).

Yes. But dialects then were much more mutually intelligible. More like modern dialects of English.

>what's misguided about wanting to revive the language?

For what purpose? Should we revive Old English too? The Irish have their own form of THE global language, and you think it would be a good idea to replace that with a language literally no-one else in the world speaks?

Old English is a form of language that evolved into modern English. Irish, on the other hand is a language that is still spoken in Ireland. Not only is it a living language, it is the national language of the Irish. English being the modern lingua franca does not change the fact that the Irish language is an important part of the Irish identity, even though its current position may not be very bright.
Every language is important.

A rough example of why Europe became full of Slavs is North America having become full of, well, Americans.
Original Thirteen colonies had a population smaller than Ireland (before Potato Famine) and GPD less than French colony of Haiti.
They also were heavily biased towards Germanic Protestant migrants over any other, and always had some Nativist movement even from very inception.
Still they've assimilated several migrant waves that made them even more big, prestigios and enticing to move and assimilate into and grab land.

Maybe when another 500 years pass and eternally buttmad Virginoland will again clash with BigMidWestia blob over Texans removing Califaztlanos, then North America will become some sick joke of Eastern Europe regardless of formally common origin and acceptance.
Most probably not, but you should get the idea.

>getting this buttblasted about what other people do

While I'm totally pro language resurrection, I'm afraid Celtic languages are doomed.

Language is a matter of prestige, and gateway to prestigious culture is language. Also it is a practical matter - the more people speak it in wider area, the better.
Armenian so became the language from Caspian to Mediterranean while based on dialect of some irrelevant Phrygian-like tribes of Moschi defeated and resettled by Urartu in small quantities all over their kingdom.
When Urartu fell, the only thing uniting its former lands were small enclaves of future Armenians, who could communicate with their brethren over vast distances - hence very practical for trade and info exchange, prestige came soon enough.
Same with proto-Slavs siding with Huns against their Gothic oppressors, were settled wide from Danube to Dnieper. Even with all the clusterfuck of Great Migrations there were always some Slavs from Italy to Alania, so knowing their language had practical benefits of knowing things from far and wide before being Slavic became prestigious.

I severely doubt modern waning Celtic languages will ever get close to English language prestige and practicality.
Unless all of English drowns in sea of bastardazed Ebonics and Muslimics, of course, and all Anglo remnants of British Empire somehow suiciding themselves with imposed oligarchies and great migrations, so that being full Éire wouldn't mean protection, power and prestige more than drunkness and potato, I dunno.

I'll give it a shot first off remember that goths and Frank's and Saxons are not a ethnic group like how we think about them they confederations of tribes and one could move between especially early on with ease. Now these tribes conquered a lot of land but for the most part didn't replace the people who lived there. So the actually cultures often didn't change, with exception to the Anglo Saxons. Now also realize also these "States" you are talking about are more like personalized fiefdoms. Meaning control was defined by people not land. But to get back to the point Italians, French and Gremans didn't exist at this time and historians use the terms to describe people who live the borders now.

>I severely doubt modern waning Celtic languages will ever get close to English language prestige and practicality.

More even than this, modern Irish writers have achieved tremendous literary prestige... writing in English. The tradition of Irish English is more vibrant and culturally productive at this point than the whole output of living Celtic-language traditions, so even if the Anglos vanished beneath the waves, Irish English would be more prestigious than Gaelic.