How to read about Central-Eastern Europe? Especially for smaller nations/peoples. It seems a case of language and territory, opposed to say, national identities formed under historical constitutions; and I find it difficult to follow without thinking: >they were nations from the very beginning >national identity suddenly appeared out of nowhere at the threshold of the modern era. Yet still these groups/tribes, have been culturally separate to some degree.
For example 'Slovaks' have been a culturally 'separate' group under Great Moravia, kingdoms of Poland, Hungary, Habsburgs, Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia... but they have somewhat ""always"" been there despite the changing borders and allegiances, and they've only been a nation state on and off through the 20th century and finally gaining independence only in 1993 with the velvet divorce.
So how am I supposed to read about Eastern Europe in a way that makes a cohesive narrative? Any advice?
Does any of this make sense? If not please correct me. Also looking for book recs.
Then there are oddballs like the Baltics which can be classified as both Russosphere and Germanosphere.
Adrian Wood
Regarding the Baltics, they're trying to avoid Russia and re- allign themselves with the Scandi's so hard.
Bentley Bell
And romania which is neither.
Christopher Rodriguez
a book called "the price of freedom" covers the history of east central europe (czech, polish, hungarians) in a cohesive narrative. you can dl it off bookzz. herres a link to a free download bookzz.org/book/738828/3c5f10
Cooper Edwards
Thanks, this is the kind of thing I am looking for, I hope there are other works people can recommend.
Jackson Morgan
Also to add,
"regional approach" is the phrase I was looking for! These "national' histories seem quite narrow and there's a lot of isolation otherwise which is quite frustrating to me.
Juan Perry
balkans ? ottoman ruledt hem 500 years they are all half turkish trust me. they are not "white" anymore...
Benjamin Rivera
Is this why Serbs are so neurotic about their heritage?
For the most part. The book, published in 1847 is essential for understanding that. Written by the Prince-Bishop of Montenegro >DEDICATED TO THE ASHES OF THE FATHER OF SERBIA
Benjamin Campbell
why do montenegrins refuse do call themselfs serbs then?
Nathaniel Butler
Same reason Americans, English, Australians, Scots, New Zealanders, Canadians, etc. don't call themselves English.
Jack Rogers
you can't compare that
Andrew Sullivan
Not him but it's very comparable.
Thomas Reyes
Latin blood
Landon Hall
Its literally the same thing
Zachary Rogers
Don't know about good English books on the subject other than Wandycz's Price for Freedom (history of v4 countries) but if there is anything specific you want to know about central European history, i can help
Matthew Mitchell
The unrelated to the discussion racepost no one asked for.
Jaxon Thomas
It's a lot more complicated. Because for a long time Montenegrin was just used as a regional term, like a New Yorker, Californian, Texan etc. Some other Serbian regional identities are Sumadinac, Vojvodjanin, Nislija (and many other city related identities). As was written in the geography textbook for Montenegro from 1911. >As of 1910 Montenegro has a population of around 300k, and all of them are Serbs, most are Orthodox, but there are others who follow Catholicism and Muhammad. There are Serbs living in other countries, some free (Serbia), some under foreign yoke (A-H, Turkey).
But during communism the meaning changed, and as communism was waning, so Montenegro went from being 95% Serbian to 90% Montenegrin, to 61% Montenegrin, to 44% Montenegrin over the decades, proportionally this was mostly a change in how the people viewed themselves, with a 5% Albanian and 1% Croat population being pretty much consistent. Now flipping over and comparing it to the language census. At the time 44% of population identified as Montenegrin 63% of the population said their first language was Serbian. There's also the fact that the literature of Montenegrin writers is the basis for Serbian nationalism.
After all the wars, and towards the end of the wars the relationship changed a bit. Here's the unchallenged ruler of Montenegro 30 years running, and how his statements from the early 90s and 2003-2006 are diametrically opposed. They don't refuse to call themselves Serbs, they just changed their mind about it. They went from calling themselves "the purest and greates of all Serbs" and "Serbia's Sparta" (Vojvodina/Novi Sad is called Serbia's Athens) to refusing to call themselves Serbs. youtube.com/watch?v=Vqz742ilpQU
Also, whenever they got separatist sentiments Italy was always involved in some way.
Andrew Gray
Also in regards to The closest thing i'd compare the relationship between Serbia and Montenegro (in the confines of the Anglosphere) is the one between Australia and New Zealand. Other examples would be Bulgaria and Macedonia and Romania and Moldova.
