Why was the teutonic order so cool? Their knights were Veeky Forums as fuck too

Which states would that be?Prussia wasn't even Slavic, but Baltic.

>while Slavs could only dream of achieving the opposite

We've been pushing you back since the sixth century.Also, almost every city that currently stands in Northern and Eastern Germany, including Berlin, was founded by Slavs, not Germans.

You're more than welcome to double-check everything I've written here, in case you don't believe me, of course.

>something East Slavs can only dream of achieving

Novgorod, Kiev and Vladimir would beg to differ.

Name a single Slavic movement or regime that was supremacist in any possible way.

But Germany defeated Russia in WW1.

Well that was after taking on the Balts and Slavs.
This is like saying that Mongols suck because they lost to Japan and Egypt. They have to stop winning at SOME point.

>Berlin
>founded by Slavs
Why am I not surprised?

Won by financing the rise of Bolshevism, which ultimately caused the death of nearly a hundred million people in the Eastern hemisphere.

>with other non-Russians

The military was firmly in the hands of ethnic Russians and for the record, the same can be said for Germany, which was led by an Austrian man of uncertain descent.

>Name a single Slavic movement or regime that was supremacist in any possible way.
What about all those Yugoslavian factions around world war 2 and after the break up of the union?
The Russians had a russefication policy both under the Tsar and under the later USSR, suppose that counts as supremacist?

Russia was militarily blown the fuck out in WW1. After the Gorlice-Tarnow battles they were completely fucked.

Which Slavs have they taken on, exactly?The Wends were disarmed in the Wendish Crusade and the Pomeranians were assimilated into the Polish state.

>This is like saying that Mongols

Comparing an empire-forging people to a opportunistic organisation that barely fought off pagan primitives(with large financial backing and support flowing in from all parts of Christian Europe) ?

Brusilov Offensive begs to differ, the Russians were merely poorly led, until that moment, at least.If the Germans were truly making a progress on the Eastern Front, then they would've never stooped to financing Lenin' revolution in order to preoccupy the Russian army with newly arisen domestic problems.

Good point.

>barely fought off pagan primitives
The campaigns of the Teutonic Order were largely successful. In most of their battles they easily won against the pagan primitives and carved their state out of their land, which they ruled for quite a while.

Not really.
Germans probably just felt sad for the incomplete human beings called old prussians and wanted that at least something as irrelevant as their name to survive.
I praise banditeutons for this one and only noble act in their entire history everyday.

It took them sixty years, several campaigns and numerous losses to subdue them, while having the upper hand in terms of resources and support.

But Hitler was still a native German speaker and Germany did quite well in world war 1 already. And it wasn't meant to be serious, just banter answer banter. As for uncertain descent, aren't his parents confirmed to be Austrians culturally? Culture over Race, right?

As for only defeating Russia through the revolution, they had military vise beaten them already before that. The problem was that the Russians didn't accept their peace deals, so they decided to sponsor some guys that would. Not sure why Russia didn't accept it, Solshenitzhyn said something about the peace deals leading to starvation through Russia.

Germany didn't just finance Lenin. They also financed resistance movements all around the globe. Ireland, Poland, Ukraine, Finland, the Islamic world, etc. - it was part of their strategy, and one completely independent from the military strategy since it wasn't in the hands of their military staff but mostly carried out by their political parties, diplomats, intellectuals, etc.

The Gorlice-Tarnow offensive was a devastating blow to Russia and it was to be expected that Russia would enter peace talks.

>The Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive during World War I was initially conceived as a minor German offensive to relieve Russian pressure on the Austro-Hungarians to their south on the Eastern Front, but resulted in the Central Powers' chief offensive effort of 1915, causing the total collapse of the Russian lines and their retreat far into Russia.

Russia did not, because the Tsar was bound by agreements with the entente that nobody would enter separate peace talks and thus still posed a threat, but by any reason Russia was militarily beaten. They were lucky that Germany was still too busy at the western front to mop them up completely.

>Call Teuton banditeutons
>Call Prussians simple and incomplete
Pole detected.
Reminder it was the Pole who started the conflict with the Prussians.

Hitler was Austrian, a foreigner, who by the way, was of Jewish origin on his grandmother's and mother's side.

>they had military vise beaten them already before that
Brusilov's offensive began to revert their gains.

>The problem was that the Russians didn't accept their peace deals
For reasons above.

@1976794
>p*le
I am Galindian

>Novgorod, Kiev and Vladimir would beg to differ.
Founded by Vikings.

This one is actually true, although it was just a small town before Germans showed up.

>Hitler was Austrian, a foreigner,
Austrians are German in the same sense as Bavarians, Saxons or Prussians are German.

And whether Hitler was of Jewish descent is more than questionable, not to mention that even by the Nuremberg race laws he would have been regarded German - even with Jewish ancestry at his grandmother's side.

I was referring to the Wends, how exactly were they disarmed?

And yes, the Teutonic Order successfully conquered the Baltic area, and were then defeated when they fought the Novgorod, they lost.
Can't win everything.

As I said: it's not surprising at all.

I'm well of that, but financing Lenin had dire and permanent ramification for the world.

>The Gorlice-Tarnow offensive was a devastating blow to Russia, but by any reason Russia was militarily beaten

I repeat, Brusilov's Offensive began to revert the German gains on the Eastern Front.

>They were lucky that Germany was still too busy at the western front to mop them up completely.

If that were true, then Wilhelm would've never sought the Russian surrender by all means necessary.They've simply dedicated too many troops on the Eastern Front.

False, the paternal line of the Rurikids is strictly of Finno-Baltic descent, they're even distantly related to the Lithuanian Gediminids. For the record, the foundation of those cities predates the arrival of "Vikings".

Because they were stripped of their way of life, assimilated and forced to eek out a living as mere agriculturalists ?

>I was referring to the Wends

They were defeated by the joint armies of the Holy Roman Empire, Poland and Denmark, not the Teutonic Order.

>Austrians are German in the same sense as Bavarians, Saxons or Prussians are German.
If we've followed that logic, we could also say that Stalin and the rest of on the non-Russian communists were also Russian because they spoke Russian and were raised within the confines of Russian culture.

>If that were true, then Wilhelm would've never sought the Russian surrender by all means necessary.
Again: they were fighting a two-fronts war - which they sought to avoid at all costs, even marching through neutral Belgium for that purpose. Of course they wanted to get the Tsar to sign some kind of peace agreement. But if you think that Russia alone could have held off the German army you must be deluded.

>I repeat, Brusilov's Offensive began to revert the German gains on the Eastern Front.
Are you sure on that? The wiki article leaves the impression that while it was successful was to costly and that the Russians were unable to do much more with their victory and the losses played an important factor in the later revolution.

>If that were true, then Wilhelm would've never sought the Russian surrender by all means necessary.They've simply dedicated too many troops on the Eastern Front.
Why couldn't he just sought for one anyway? Whenever or not Russia was very effective they were still a great source of enemy manpower costing men that was needed on other fronts. Germany did face several quite strong nations with a few not so useful allies.

>we could also say that Stalin and the rest of on the non-Russian communists were also Russian because they spoke Russian and were raised within the confines of Russian culture.
Perhaps you could. It depends on the pan-slawist narrative.

The point is that Hitler as well as many - if not the majority - of Germans and Austrians at the time were pan-germanists. They sought to unify a Greater Germany. Austrians were not seen as foreigners but Germans.

>Which states would that be?Prussia wasn't even Slavic, but Baltic.

The core of the Teutonic state as well as later the Prussian state was (formerly) Baltic, but it expanded into Slavic land

>We've been pushing you back since the sixth century

kek

That's why Germans expanded from the Elbe and Saale (9th century) to the Vistula and Memel (19th century)? Or are you talking about the few remaining East Germanics who used to live in Eastern Europe by Slavs?

>Also, almost every city that currently stands in Northern and Eastern Germany, including Berlin, was founded by Slavs, not Germans.

A Slavic toponym doesn't mean that Slavs founded the actual city. Slavs founded smaller (as in Berlin) and sometimes larger settlements in places that became German cities. Real cities with a special legal status and their own institutions became a thing with German colonization.

The Germans financed Lenin, the actual revolution was done by the Russians. And without the Russian army doing so poorly it wouldn't have got so much support.

>If the Germans were truly making a progress on the Eastern Front

They were, but since they also had to fight a bunch of other great powers they had to knock out Russia asap.

>But if you think that Russia alone could have held off the German army you must be deluded.

I'm not implying that, I'm saying that the Germans were desperately trying to get Russia out of the war, because her role on the Eastern Front costed them too many men and resources, resources which had to be desperately moved to the West.

>Of course they wanted to get the Tsar to sign some kind of peace agreement

Because they were desperate, if the Eastern Front remained disputed for just another year, the Western one would've been completely lost.

Now that you've mentioned it, I've truly forgotten of the losses they've suffered in that offensive.

The point of our discussion was that you've claimed that the Soviet Union was ultimately led by a non-Russian, while Germany was basically in the same situation, then you've proceeded to claim that culture matters more than ethnicity, which is highly contradictory to your first statement, because both Stalin and Hitler are foreign in terms of ethnicity, but are respectively "Russian and German" because they spoke Russian and Germans, with Stalin being even more "Authentic than Hitler, due to him actually being born in Russia, while Hitler was born in a foreign sovereign state.

>Austrians were not seen as foreigners but Germans

And neither were Stalin and his stooges seen as non-Russian in a national, cultural and linguistic fashion, at least not in Russia.

>, which ultimately caused the death of nearly a hundred million people in the Eastern hemisphere.
Also because Bolsheviks just getting more Russian support? While the Bolsheviks did get financial support from the Germans, the whites got direct military support from the Entente.

>The point of our discussion was that you've claimed that the Soviet Union was ultimately led by a non-Russian, while Germany was basically in the same situation, then you've proceeded to claim that culture matters more than ethnicity, which is highly contradictory to your first statement, because both Stalin and Hitler are foreign in terms of ethnicity, but are respectively "Russian and German" because they spoke Russian and Germans, with Stalin being even more "Authentic than Hitler, due to him actually being born in Russia, while Hitler was born in a foreign sovereign state.
Actually, that was me, a different guy. And I did it to countrya banter someone else.

>I'm saying that the Germans were desperately trying to get Russia out of the war, because her role on the Eastern Front costed them too many men and resources, resources which had to be desperately moved to the West.

Everybody in that thread is aware of that, the whole discussion was revolving around your denial of the fact that Russia was getting BTFO long before the revolution

The Germans haven't just financed Lenin, they've also financed his entire organisation, aside from that, they've even supported them with field logistics and propaganda.

>They were
Absolutely, but only up until 1916, then they've grown desperate and began pushing for a Russian surrender more actively.They've wasted far too much time and resources on the Eastern Front, if it delayed for an additional year, the Germans would've suffered massive losses on the Western front.

>The core of the Teutonic state as well as later the Prussian state was (formerly) Baltic, but it expanded into Slavic land
That expansion into Slavic land was reverted.

>That's why Germans expanded from the Elbe and Saale (9th century) to the Vistula and Memel (19th century)?

They didn't "expand", they were invited by local rulers to supplement the losses of native population in the 13th 14th century.All up until the end of the 18th century, their population was minute at best, it grew out of proportion during the process of Germanization of Poland in the decades that came after it's partitions, mostly by illegal measures.Incidentally, all your aspirations and "expansions" were completely reverted in but two decades, rather pathetic, considering everything that transpired in post 18th century Eastern Europe.

>A Slavic toponym doesn't mean that Slavs founded the actual city
It certainly does, because they're the ones who've emptied out the swamps, cleared the forests and developed the initial infrastructure, adjacent settlements and it's center, the old-town.The Germans have transformed them into what they are today, but they would've never achieved that without the Slavs initiating the process of urbanization in the earlier mentioned regions.

>Real cities with a special legal status and their own institutions became a thing with German colonization

Seals have only given them legal status.

Absolutely, but they were somewhat starting to revert that course of event, although not as well as they've planned.

That military support shrunk immeasurably once the Whites have refused to the territorial integrity of the former Russian Empire.

I apologize for the misdirected argument, then.

>I apologize for the misdirected argument, then.
Not intended to insult you or anything, but you could probably feel a lot better just by not answering such post. The post made it rather clear it was banter, so answering it will just create a discussion that wasn't there to begin with.

True, I've stopped a good session of jacking off just to respond to his post.

The most western city of the rus was kiev and as far as i know they never reached that with an army.

So much for your "deep into russia"

He said Slav lands though, not Russian lands.

>That expansion into Slavic land was reverted.

Partially, and only very recently. If the post-war expulsion (made possible by an international coalition) becomes "Slavs pushed Germans back since the 6th century" in your head then there's something wrong with your brain.

>They didn't "expand", they were invited by local rulers to supplement the losses of native population

Those who were invited subsequently expanded both demographically as well as economically, founding villages and towns and playing a big role in trade, craftmanship and the politics of the cities. This is also a form of expansion. Apart from that, there was also conquest by force; in Carantania the duke requested protection against Avars from Bavarians and accepted their sovereignty over the land.

>All up until the end of the 18th century, their population was minute at best

Nope, modern East Germany, Lower Silesia, Pommerania and the North-West of East Prussia were already pretty German in the 1500s. The Germanization efforts of the German Empire focused mainly on Posen and West Prussia and were only moderately succesful. The measures weren't illegal under the law of that time.

>it's center, the old-town.

The center of Berlin grew around the German merchant's town around the St. Nicholas Church (oldest building in Berlin).

>We've been pushing you back since the sixth century
What even happened in the sixth century? Can you provide me a timeline to justify your claim?

t. non Germanic nor Slavic

The Teutonics in no way had any sort of upper hand, they were always outnumbered. They couldn't have had "numerous losses" to the pagans, that'd be impossible to maintain. Their story is more of a few trying to survive against impossible odds in hostile land (like the Levant crusaders), not a large invading army.

>with large financial backing and support flowing in from all parts of Christian Europe
Absolute nonsense, the Pope didn't even support them.

Wait what country is Koingsberg (one of the most prosperous and notable german cities) in today????

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendish_Crusade
I dunno man, they had a fuckton of allies

Russian lands are Slavic, unless you believe that a several groups of allegedly Nordic adventurers and merchants could've bred out a massive population in several generation.

Yes, and Slavic lands means any land populated by Slavs. So saying that Germanics could create kingdoms deep into Slavic lands don't have to mean East Slavs, it may meant that they did so for west Slavs or south Slavs..

Not partially, but completely.You don't see any Germans in Eastern Europe, do you?

> If the post-war expulsion (made possible by an international coalition) becomes "Slavs pushed Germans back since the 6th century"

Never said that, but it's merely it's finalization.My initial comment referred to both Germans and their tribal and Medieval forefathers.

>Nope, modern East Germany, Lower Silesia, Pomerania and the North-West of East Prussia were already pretty German in the 1500

If you considering barely forming the bulk of cities and towns in those regions, then absolutely, but they were still a minority in comparison to the indigenous populations.

>This is also a form of expansion
Subsequent and regulated growth of civilian populace is a form of expansion?In that case, I guess the Arabs and Turks are also expanding in modern-day Germany.

>The measures weren't illegal under the law of that time.

I've specifically said that post-partitions measures were largely illegal,not the ones before that were regulated by a native central government.

> St. Nicholas Church

Which was built on the foundations of a previously destroyed wooden fort.

>it may meant that they did so for west Slavs or south Slavs

Luckily, they haven't.

>Not partially, but completely.You don't see any Germans in Eastern Europe, do you?

Germans (and Austrians) live on formerly Slavic land. Hence, the German Eastern expansion was only partially reverted.

>Never said that, but it's merely it's finalization.

The expulsions were not the finalization but the reversal of a century-long development.

>My initial comment referred to both Germans and their tribal and Medieval forefathers.

And it's categorically wrong, it's ridiculous to even argue about it but you're a special case. The general trend over the centuries was Germans expanding eastwards, both peacefully as well as by means of war. Temporal setbacks still don't mean that "Slavs were pushing Germans back since the 6th century", sorry.

>Subsequent and regulated growth of civilian populace is a form of expansion?

Yeah, if a settler community manages to prosper and gain economical and political dominance then it is a form of expansion. There were also other forms of expansion, as mentioned and ignored by you.

>In that case, I guess the Arabs and Turks are also expanding in modern-day Germany.
It is, although the expansion of Middle Easterners and Africans into Europe is an entirely different phenomenon.

>I've specifically said that post-partitions measures were largely illegal

Such as?

>Which was built on the foundations of a previously destroyed wooden fort.

Don't know where you've got that from, but the historical center of Berlin had only smaller Slavic settlements (according to archaeologist Felix Biermann - stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/denkmal/archaeologentag/2008/download/Biermann-SlawenBerlin.pdf). At this place, Germans founded the cities Berlin and Cölln, which would later merge. Larger Slavic settlements could be found at the outskirts of present-day Berlin, such as Spandau.

>If you considering barely forming the bulk of cities and towns in those regions, then absolutely, but they were still a minority in comparison to the indigenous populations.

Townspeople were of supreme political and economical importance and there was also a strong rural German presence which promoted the assimilation of Slavs. It's difficult to estimate who was the majority in numbers in 1500, but the German population was by no means "minute at the end of the 18th century", as you claimed. The Nuremberg Chronicle (1493) says with respect to Silesia that "The language of this people is chiefly German, although Polish is spoken to a greater extent on the further side of the Oder;"

beloit.edu/nuremberg/inside/translation/index.htm

Quick, post any Slavic work of architecture, art or science in this thread.

Oh, wait. Everything was created by the Germans.

This thread is pure cancer

I wouldn't say that russification is the same as considering Russians to be some kind of master race.

Quick, post any German work of architecture, art or science in this thread.

Oh, wait. Everything was created by the German Jews.

Wendish Crusades. Quite a while before the Teutons in Prussia.

>Teutonic Knights
>Wendish Crusade
Did you even read that page?

The Slavs are responsible for the invention of 756 inventions, of which the periodic system of elements (Medeleev), modern mechanics(Timoshenko),
modern austronautics(Tsiolkovsky), modern seismology(Mohorovichich), heliocentric theory(Copernicus), modern geometry(Lobachevski), the helicopter(Sikorsky),radioactive theory(Maria Sklodowska-Curie),early photography(Levitsky),wireless telegraphy(Murgas),Big Bang theory(Gamow),objective psychology(Bekhterev), walkie-talkies(Magnuski),colour television(Zworkin),electric tram(Pirotsky),alternating current, radar, hydroelectric plant, cryogenic engineering, transistor, modern electric motor, remote control, neon lighting , wireless communication (Tesla), radio(Popov), long-range telephone(Pupin), crystalline science(Stranski), modern geochemistry(Vernadsky), rocket science(Korolev), pre-lumiere camera(Prosynski), incandescent bulb(Lodygin), transformers(Yablochov), lasers(Brasov and Prokhorov), LEDs(Losev and Holonyak), synthetic rubber(Lebedev), solar cells(Stolev), digital electronic computing(Atanasoff/Atanasov), field recorders(Fidelski), contact lenses(Witcherle) modern education(Komensky), caterpillar tracks(Blinov), electrically-powered railway wagons(Pirotsky), Videotape recorder(Poniatov), petrol cracking(Shukhov), grain harvester(Vlasenko), modern anthropology(Malinowski), bullet proof vest(Zeglen), parachute(Kotelnikov),mine detector(Kosacki), space travel( Tsiolkovsky), vitamins(Funk), lunar roving vehicle(Mieczysław Gregory Bekker), sound in films(Tykociner), radar(Popov), train air brakes(Bozic), conventionally usable plastic(Stepanovic), ballpoint pen(Penkala), supersonic photography(Salcher), dactyloscopy(Vucetic), the antibiotic azithromycin, the power block(Puratic), modern petroleum industry and the kerosene lamp(Łukasiewicz) have catapulted mankind into of an age of unlimited technological development.

>Oh, wait. Everything was created by the German Jews.

Apart from this not being true, German Jews prospered in a German environment and profited from institutions created by Germans. Slavland had ten times more Jews than Germany, yet these Jews achieved comparably little in the atrocious Slavic environment.

That's because jews in germany assimilated and bred with germans lol.

germans are the jews

Fall of Arkona worst day of my life.

"Partially" implies a part of them and their culture remaining in Eastern Europe, which is false.

>The expulsions were not the finalization but the reversal of a century-long development
They certainly were, because they've reverted everything that your kind had accomplished in the last seven centuries.

>And it's categorically wrong
The Slavic migration westwards and southwards has assimilated and displaced nearly 28 different ethnic groups, of whom 11 were Germanic tribes, the Bastarnae, Goths. Thervings, Greuthungs, the remaining Visigoths. Ostrogoths and Crimean Goths,Gepids, Rugians, Scirii, Vandals and the Heruli.

The Vandals were even Slavicized to such a point that one third of their paternal lines were in fact, Slavic, not Germanic.

>The general trend over the centuries was Germans expanding eastwards
Only according to German historians who have a tendency of not mentioning that Slavic expansion towards the West lasted for nearly 600 years.Specifically, all up until the Wendish Crusade, which also marks the beginning of the German "expansion" towards the East.Before you start howling about it allegedly began in the 10th, not 12th century, just take into consideration the Great Slav Rising,whose immediate consequences were a complete stop on further German eastward expansion for the next 200 years. Even after, your "expansion" was irregular and limited to the whims and needs of the central government that invited you.

>There were also other forms of expansion
You've only mentioned one, the one employed in the case of Carantania. Also, me ignoring it is a sign of reciprocity, you've ignored parts of my argument as well, so why shouldn't I return the favor?

>Such as?

In the case of Poland, Confiscation of property, forceful relocation and deportation of Polish elements from Western Poland, the closing of recently developed public Polish schools, the culling of their nobility etc. (1/2).

>citing eupedia

literal retard

Are you mad because your pro-germanic view has been trashed?

>Don't know where you've got that from
From Saxo's Gesta Danorum and Chronica Slavorum.

>(according to archaeologist Felix Biermann)
Forgive me, but I'd rather drink acid than trust German takes on anything that is remotely associated with Slavic people and their history. (2/2).

I've later said "in comparison" to the indigenous population.

>Townspeople were of supreme political and economical importance

That only counts for Torun and Gdansk, and even they could only exert meaningful political importance once they've formed a coalition, which, for the record, have never lasted for too long.

>The Nuremberg Chronicle (1493) says with respect to Silesia that "The language of this people is chiefly German, although Polish is spoken to a greater extent

I see you've also read the only English translation of it, but then again, that rule can only be applied to Lower Silesia.

>had ten times more Jews than Germany

That can only be said for Russia(here, they were forbidden from practicing banking and usury) and the Ottoman Empire.On the other hand, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a completely different story.

I'm not because I'm Anglo/Germanic or whatever and it's my first post ITT. But first thing eupedia is run by one autist named Maciamo and everything posted in here is his opinion and assumptions. Second thing Vandals weren't tested and there wasn't any study that I can recall on their haplogroups and more so haplogroups mean shit, because we don't know the original frequency of those in Vandals. Third thing you should look at autosomal DNA. For example distance to Bronze age "Germans" from closest to further go something like this:
Lithuanians
Icelanders
Irish
Sorbs
Norwegians
Scottish
Poles
Czech
And lastly then Germans.

All those countries have very different haplogroup frequencies but genetic distance tells quite a different story.

The only retard here is the one who assumes that something as precise and empirical as genetic research is false.

>But first thing Eupedia is run by one autist named Maciamo and everything posted in here is his opinion and assumptions

One of the youngest researchers in genetics is an "autist" according to you?For the record, his information can be traced to any other notable site that deals in the topic of human origin.

Except there are almost no differences between ethnic norwegians and ethnic poles.

Instead of pretending to be smart and know it all why don't you open and read up study which you're referring to in previous which says nothing about Vandals and those number are pulled out of his ass. Go ahead look at the study there's a mere mention of Vandals and it doesn't refer to haplogroups or whatever.

researchgate.net/publication/253953198_Low_pass_DNA_sequencing_of_1200_Sardinians_reconstructs_European_Y_chromosome_phylogeny

He has no degree in genetics or anything, he's a "hobbyist" who thinks too highly off himself.

You don't seem to understand how genetic distance works.

>Brusilov offensive
You realize that offensive failed, right? It had a couple early successes, but was quickly bogged down and began being reversed again.

>You don't seem to understand how genetic distance works.
Do you?

I do, but it seems you don't understand how to read those graphs and what North/South/East/West axis means.

He earned a degree in genetics from the University of Brussels.

Only because they've begun to adopt his tactics.

And how many peer reviewed studies has he published so far? 0. As I said it's his own interpretation of other studies and assumptions.

>"Partially" implies a part of them and their culture remaining in Eastern Europe, which is false.
Actually not, since we were talking about the movement of Germans into Slavic land. Not sure why you're bringing the geographical category Eastern Europe into play, probably just one of your typical deflections.

>Before you start howling about it allegedly began in the 10th, not 12th century, just take into consideration the Great Slav Rising,whose immediate consequences were a complete stop on further German eastward expansion for the next 200 years.

The expansion arguably started with Charlemagne's campaigns that were continued by later German emperors. The Slav rising temporarily reverted it in what is now NE-Germany, but Austria and the Sorb areas stayed in the Reich.

>Even after, your "expansion" was irregular and limited to the whims and needs of the central government that invited you.

As already mentioned, the expansion was driven both by peaceful industry as well as conquest.

>The Slavic migration westwards and southwards has assimilated and displaced nearly 28 different ethnic groups, of whom 11 were Germanic tribes, the Bastarnae, Goths. Thervings, Greuthungs, the remaining Visigoths. Ostrogoths and Crimean Goths,Gepids, Rugians, Scirii, Vandals and the Heruli.

Those aren't Germans but East Germanics, those who remained in East-Central Europe were presumably quite few anyway.

>The Vandals were even Slavicized to such a point that one third of their paternal lines were in fact, Slavic, not Germanic.

That's rather because Vandals were themselves immigrants and assimilated parts of the native proto-slavic/venedic population into their culture.

You've only mentioned one, the one employed in the case of Carantania.

Present day East Germany, Eastern Brandenburg, Pomerania, Prussia were conquered by means of war and subsequently Germans immigrated.

The teuron train has no brakes

Where exactly...? Not that it matters much because a ruined wooden fort is not the same as a city centre

>I see you've also read the only English translation of it, but then again, that rule can only be applied to Lower Silesia.

The German original says the same and I was previously talking about lower silesia specifically

>Only according to German historians who have a tendency of not mentioning that Slavic expansion towards the West lasted for nearly 600 years.

On a side note, the Slavic expansion does get attention by German historians, which once again shows your ignorance. Especially nationalistic ones used to stress that the Slavs were allegedly themselves "invaders" of ancient Germanic land, and thus they considered the German drive to the East a justified re-conquest.

Which mod is this?

>Horned helmet

Was this a thing?

Ano Domini 1257. It's pure autism. In a good way.

Yes, just not for Vikings.

> Not that it matters much because a ruined wooden fort is not the same as a city center
I specifically spoke of the Church being built on it's foundation, which later became the location for the town center.

>Actually not
Actually yes, because in this case, movement implies permanent attempts of consolidating permanent sedentary culture through various means.

>Not sure why you're bringing the geographical category Eastern Europe into play
Because it's the proper term? Eastern Europe is synonymous with Slavs and vice versa, in case you've missed that.

>The expansion arguably started with Charlemagne's campaigns that were continued by later German emperors

And it factually began with the Wendish Crusade, what of it?

> The Slav rising temporarily reverted

Your usage of the term "temporarily" is rather lose, 200 years is a massive setback.

>Sorb areas stayed in the Reich
Only nominally, true control was established there only after Niklot's death.

>As already mentioned

And as I've mentioned, it's not expansion if you're invited by a foreign government to supplement it's need for more population.

>Those aren't Germans but East Germanics
As I've recall, I've said Germans and their forefathers, the "forefathers" part implies the Germanic tribes.

>those who remained in East-Central Europe were presumably quite few anyway
Only true in the case of the Visigoths and Crimean Goths.

>That's rather because Vandals were themselves immigrants and assimilated parts of the native proto-Slavic/venedic population into their culture.
Plausible, but keep in mind that we're speaking of 1/3 of their entire male population, it would be nigh-impossible for them to assimilate so many foreigners without proper institutions, linguistic similarities and long-term contact. (1/2).

>Present day East Germany, Eastern Brandenburg, Pomerania, Prussia were conquered by means of war and subsequently Germans immigrated.
I've forgotten about them, but you're not entirely right. Pomerania was brought into the fold by methods of appeasement of it's nobility, and Prussia wasn't Slavic, but Baltic. (2/2).

Kaliningrad
its part of Russia today

>Only nominally, true control was established there only after Niklot's death.

How? The Sorb homeland, Lusatia and Meissen, still had Saxon rulers, they weren't affected by the uprising.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Lusatia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margravate_of_Meissen

>Pomerania was brought into the fold by methods of appeasement of it's nobility

ehh, it's a bit complicated, the emperors oponent henry the lion conquered it, and after henry was defeated it was given back to the slavic griffins as a fief. then it was conquered by danes and later re-conquered by some german prince a few decades later

>nationalist retards STILL portraying the Teutonic crusades as a German vs Slav conflict thanks to centuries of asshurt Polish propaganda
>not realizing it was a Czech king who funded the crusade, Koenigsberg got named after him and there was a decent number of Bohemians / other Slav participating in the campaigns

>Plausible, but keep in mind that we're speaking of 1/3 of their entire male population, it would be nigh-impossible for them to assimilate so many foreigners without proper institutions, linguistic similarities and long-term contact. (1/2).

Read the study it doesn't have these numbers or even mentions them and stop talking out of your ass turbo autismo.

Tervingi and Greuthungi are literally Visigoths and Ostrogoths respectively and they were both displaced by Huns.

It's not propaganda if it's true.

>not realizing it was a Czech king who funded the crusade
Retard, the problem was that they've begun turning against their greatest benefactor in the region, Poland and even going that far to attack another Christian realm, the Republic of Novgorod.

The articles clearly say that over one third of Vandalic male lineages were of Proto-Slavic origin.

They weren't displaced, but merely absorbed into their army.

Yeah but that article is is sourcing it's claim to a study which doesn't mention anything about it at all, retard.

>How? The Sorb homeland, Lusatia and Meissen, still had Saxon rulers, they weren't affected by the uprising

They certainly were, even the articles you've posted are supportive of it. Both states have established true control over the populace only in the aftermath of the Wendish crusade, not before.

>it's a bit complicated

I'm aware of it, but it was the main method of assuming control in Pomerania.All those who've temporarily conquered Pomerania have faced the same problem, a complete inability to keep the local nobles loyal and their subjects from rebelling against their occupant. Thus, the Germans have decided to give Pomerania to Wartislav and his brother Ratibor, whom everyone seemingly supported.