Is there a more historically irrelevant region in Europe than this one?

Is there a more historically irrelevant region in Europe than this one?

>Crusades
>Great Northern War
>Vital area in the Eastern Theaters of WWI and WWII
>First areas to declare independence from the soviets
>Poland-Lithuania, Courland, Latgalian resistance?
That's just off the top of my head.

So what would be the most irrelevant then? Those are really just minor events compared to the bigger picture.

The Baltic Crusades determined the relationship and connections between the german territories and the West/East Slavic ones. This had a huge impact on european history.

Least relevant would probably be, I dunno, Finland I guess? Nothing really happened there that mattered that much comparatively.

Brittany, Cornwall, and Wales.

The Baltic at least had lots of history involving the Teutonic Knights, the Swedish and Russian empires, and the Hanseatic League that's relevant to the history of the Church, the rise of one of a major geopolitical force, and the economic rise of German colonists as well as the Dutch and British North Sea trade.

Nothing happened in Brittany by comparison.

finland

Yes

Iceland

Banks.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

>be Pagan until the 14th century
>for all this time no one has the idea to write down the tenents and myths
>Baltic Pagan tradition is almost entirely lost

JUST

Are you lost friend?

acebook.com/monsontv/videos/235335180268204/

Teutonic Order is to Black Dragons as Knights Templar are to Red.

pussys

"paganism" is a term devised by Christian which simply means rustic. The paganism of area has no relationship to the other.

Thus you have primitive balts practicing uninspiring animinsim and nature worship.

Who's Christian?

As said, tons of stuff happened in Livonia and Lithuania. I'll add some even.
>The cities of Livonia were among the very first where Reformation took hold
>Intervening in and conquering Estonia and (most of) Livonia is what set Sweden on course to becoming a Great Power, directly influencing the political and cultural course of history in Northern Europe during the most crucial Early Modern period
>Also, coincidentally, losing Estonia and Livonia is what spelled the end of the Swedish Great Power period. I'm not saying that taking and losing Livonia itself made and unmade Swedish power, but it was a significant contributing factor. For example, by the beginning of Early Modern period it was the Livonian cities that were the more prosperous and wealthy and important centres of trade rather than Sweden or Stockholm, not to mention Finland.
>The importance of the Livonian nobility for the newly formed Russian Empire is hard to over-state.
>Even before all that, before the crusades, Estonians were part of the norse trade network (the Kaupang trade iirc, memory is fuzzy, sry) with both contributions of both raw goods, high quality metal and crafted weapons. They took part in the trade and raiding and shiet, >we wuz wikings.
>Lithuania became one of the heirs and contenders for the legacy of Kiev Rus. It was literally up in the air who would reunite the lands of Rus. On their own, before the union with the Polish.
>Also, the Union with the Polish.

>The cities of Livonia were among the very first where Reformation took hold
Into the trash it goes.

What makes Baltic countries except Lithuania more relevant than Finland?

Latvia and Estonia were more irrelevant if anything.

It was only the cities tho. The peasants and the smaller towns remained staunchly catholic. The people were largely and ultimately converted to protestanism by the Moravian Church (Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine) in the 18th century.

It's actually pretty interesting as Livonian states were all non-secular and tied to the Church. These states, however, didn't end with the reformation. Hence there were secret (proto-)lutherians in office, social friction and awesome stuff like that. Neat stuff.

In the modern and contemporary periods, arguably yes. In the ancient, medieval and early modern periods most definitely not. Finbro, plz, comon.

Bessarabian hills.
Literally nothing of impact ever happened there.

Can you articulate your view?

Ancient seems about the same as neither had any influence on the world except for the amber trade.

Medieval? Estonia and Latvia were equally irrelevant as Finland, they just had German friends instead of Swedes and Russians.

The difference between Finland and Estonia/Latvia seems to be that Finland played a role in WW2 while Latvia and Estonia never played a role in anything.

Lithuania of course had something going on which sets them apart.

Can you define your notion of relevancy and influence?

Livonia was more intimately tied to Europe than Finland. Through the institution of the Hochmeister with the Imperial Court and by virtue of having prince-bishops who inadvertently dealt with Rome often. The Hanseatic trade connected the major Livonian cities with those of Norther Germany economically, politically and socially. The Livonian cities were the ones to deal with Novgorod on behalf of the League. The neighboring pagan and orthodox states meant that Livonia was and styled itself as a frontier state. The outcomes of their battles would define the borders of Europe-to-come. The minor crusades were also important for the socially and religiously. The southern coast of the Baltic sea 'weighed' more during the medieval and early modern ages. That was the more populous, prosperous and wealthy coast. Finland was the periphery compared to Livonia during those times.

Amber trade was more of a balts thing rather than ancient Estonia-Livonia. Also, amber as influence? Eh.

There are traces of ancient Estonian activity in Northern Europe or Viking Europe - from Bergen to Novgorod. The more prosperous phases were after the 300-500 followed by a period of decline and a low, with a new peak in 900-1200 iirc. As I said, I'm sort of fuzzy on dates as it's been years since I've read those books.

Wew, lad. Did you learn your history from just maps?

It just seems like Livonia played a rather marginal role in the world that you overstate because of a complex about your past.

I'm willing to admit Finland wasn't relevant at all during the past but still, Estonia and Latvia also define the word irrelevant by never having organic state polities that weren't founded on foreign supremacy, German specifically.

Look, lad, I just listed off reasons how Livonia was politically, economically and socially part of and intimately tied to Christedom. Integrated, to use a modern euro buzzword. There's no over-statement, it's fact. If this doesn't fit your definition of relevancy or influence, well, I guess that's your problem.

Your statement that Finland was irrelevant is baffling, tbqh mate. I'd really want to hear your definition of that. I hope it's not some nationalistic state-centric bullshit view as your last sentence implies.

>no state on the map means no relevancy in history
>using German as a nationalistic concept in the context of the middle ages
wew, laddie, that's literally embarrassing

Do you think Finland was pagan or something?

It was a Catholic land and then a Protestant.
Finns went to study in France, Germany etc.
It was integrated, the end. Maybe some pagan traditions persisted much later in very rural areas but that's a good thing.


You just make up nonsensical arguments to defend your point.

I think Finland is Asiatic.

Fascinating perspective.
Scientists say that Finns and Estonians ancestors were Uralic but Estonians became more influenced by Baltic tribes because of proximity.

Lad, plz.

How many cities were there in Finland? Where did they get their rights? Were they members of the Hanseatic league? Which sovereign in Finland was part of the Imperial institutions? How many princes had direct ties with Rome? How about feudalism? Social mobility? Diplomacy?

It was more peripheral than Livionia. Lad, plz.

>You just make up nonsensical arguments to defend your point.
Or perhaps you fail to grasp my arguments as you display a middle-schoolers' understanding of history?

Seems like you have a lot to learn about Finnish history.

Whatever differences in the level of economic development there were between f.ex Turku and Tallinn don't seem to be very historically relevant or even large.


Estonian national history parallels Finnish national history. Estonia is not the heir of any sovereign political entity but was merely a land which belonged to various factions throughout the ages with the native Estonians playing the role of the servants. It's unfortunate but also very true.

>Estonia is not the heir of any sovereign political entity but was merely a land which belonged to various factions throughout the ages with the native Estonians playing the role of the servants. It's unfortunate but also very true.
Your continuing displays of ignorance are amusing.

Livonia was a periphery, Finland was a periphery's periphery. The differences are significant especially in the context of medieval and early modern Northern European history.

But my view is that Livonia was largely irrelevant to the world.

Dominion over Finland was a cause of war between Russia and Sweden for example far more often than over Estonia which is the main way in how Finland shaped the history of the world during that era.

I'm done with this since we have fundamentally different definitions of words.
I don't think relative prosperity of German merchants and nobles in Estonia is historically relevant by itself nor is "integrated Christendom" when Finnish priests were studying Christianity in Germany and France just like Estonians(or maybe not Estonians, I don't know).

As you've had your final say I'll have mine.

Your simplistic statements flaunt your ignorance of even basic tenets of historiography. You use terms with no regard to their context and inject contemporary ones into the past. Your understanding and view is askew and corrupt you don't even realise it. Educate yourself or don't join discussions on the topic of history. You will only surely make a fool of yourself again.

Soooo... Any other interesting stuff about Livonia? It's fun reading about less talked about countries.

How about this:

The second president of Estonia, Lennart Meri wrote a book (Silverwhite) that a meteor which fell on the island of Ösel at about 300BC (iirc) greatly influenced the Norse mythology and it was this crater 'where the sun set to sleep' which Pytheas (iirc, the greek from massalia) visited in Ultima Thule.

It's a pretty cool read that I'd recommend regardless of its questionable historical accuracy. He makes interesting leaps and weaves them into a compelling narrative. Also, his prose is good and he finds interesting moments to focus on (ex: what did the first finno-urgics feel upon seeing the sea for the first time?)

Meri was a great man and there was a joke that I was told years and years ago when I visited the country, which sort illustrated the difference in caliber and powerlevels between him and his successor.

Meri is showing the crater to his successor, the 3rd President of Estonia, and the Madam Minister of Education of the time.
>'Here it is, here's where it fell,' Meri says, pointing at crater filled with water.
>'Oh, straight into the lake then?' asks the President.
>'Good thing it didn't hit the school,' says the Madam Minister, pointing at schoolhouse on the banks.

I'll think of something proper to write about tomorrow. Or you can just ask me something. Chances are I'll be able to answer that.

Try again

Lusatia, despite its location, ceased to have any relevance after Poland was split between sons of duke Bolesław III Wrymouth via The Succession Statute.

Yeah nah fuck off, it was because of the peasants that protestantism was so popular in Latvia. The church finally could and did teach the Latvians, so they all turned to protestantism

What a cute and childishly naïve notion.

You can't be more irrelevant than Svalbard

This.

Well, you could be poopstonian.
And eat poop.

HOLY SHIT BTFO

HOW WILL SLOWSTONIANS EVER RECOVER

Lithuanian here. We wuz kingz and our language is closest to Sanskrit.

>our language is closest to street shitters

No wonder Lithuania is so shit.

Are for serious? Do you have any idea, how many wars were fought over Livonia?

Snownigger here. We wuz wikangz and our language is closest to Mongolian

STOP CALLING US LIVONIA

REEEEEEEÈ

Using livonia in the context of middle, early modern and modern ages is completely fucking justified, even preferred.