Formation of European countries

I don't think anyone is concerned that this map lacks Kosovo.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany
This is the foundation of Germany

1871 feels so wrong.

1990 my guy

Look I know how we all feel but let's not be too cruel here.

Germany should be 1701 (foundation of Prussia).

Generally a lot of countries are way too early, for example why the fuck is Czechia 870?

Duchy of Bohemia? I guess it's either that or 1993 like Slovakia but I know that even if these early medieval states had to ask the Emperor for the crown they were still pretty independent and very often fought against him.

>moldavia 1359
>Romania 1862

Retard

Either you put 1065 for Spain (foundation of Kingdom of Castille) or 1516 (foundation of Kingdom of Spain). 1479 Makes no sense whatsoever.

Slovakia should be 1939

Slovakia should be 1990

1516 makes more sense.

Puppet state.
It's right there with Kosovo.

Nations are more of a current state of affairs, than any stable guide to anything.

What is the claim for norway being older than its neighbours? surely those sources would be early cloister or church, and those would not likely start in norway.. especialy with a christian church in Ribe, just north of todays Germany, since 600 or so

Nordic states were hopeless. It's just impossible to know anything for sure. Iceland was less problematic. And I thought there were more viking kings. Looks like historians know which line can be called "Swedish monarchs" which Norwegian etc.

Russia is that young? I thought they're older than Polacks.

France was founded as a country in 843 by the treaty of Verdun. Clovis conquest of the Gauls is something else.

Kievan Rus is basically a cluster of eastern slavic tribes which was later conquered by the Mongols. Russia came later. I don't know why Russia looks like some kind of Slavia Prime.

If you are strict, then 987 is the founding year of France, the year the Capetians became Kings of France. Before that France was just part of different Frankish and Carolingian empires.

...I dont understand that, it seems like a contradiction.

Historians do know a lot about the lines of kings, but is that the measure? The date on Denmark is the year of a certain rune stone, that declares the whole nation united under christ. Its about a state-religion, and tells us that christianity had some hold at that time, and that there was deffinately some 'denmark'-like thing in the world. What I wonder is, how do you get norway to be older than that? Same monks for sources, seems to me..

Iceland is a bit more problematic than you think, btw.. It was a colony in the sense of the monarchs, so a state within the kingdom.

Much of the known history of iceland is dug up and figured out around late 1700s in denmark, as happened with norway, and they both claimed some level of independence around 1814.

Roughly at the same time, sweeden becomes a national state, rather than a traditional monarchy, with a brand new bloodline on the throne. Nobody counts that as any birth of sweeden, nor should they, it was just Napoleon making a mess of things.
On the other hand, the three kingdoms were united under one flag for a while, during the Kalmar union. Was that an end of a nation, a birth of one?
I guess you could say norway existed between somewhere in the long long ago, and somewhere in the 900s. Then again in 1400s for a little while, then again in 1800s until today.

Point> everywhere is a mess. Nations are a new measure. It does not work retroactively.

>Ireland
>1921
???

Slovakia was a German puppet state during WWII
Finland has been a Grand Duchy under the Russian tsar since 1809

Romania appeared first in 1600, faggot.
We were united under different names before that.

desu Germany is a younger country than Greece. If Germany somehow started at the 8th century because of the HRE then Greece was around since the Dorian invasion

Nice map, user.

As someone from Czechia, I appriciate that you went for 870 and not 1993

>We were united under different names before that
Lmao and Europe was united under different names a bunch of times, doesn't mean EU was founded 27BC

>As someone from Czechia
hard to believe since almost everyone from czech hates the name czechia

It's bizzare how Czechs hate that name.

>Frankish Empire => France
>Bulgarian Khanate => Bulgaria
But
>England =/=> Britain
>HRE =/=> Germany
>ERE =/=> Greece
>Wallachia =/=> Romania
>Cossack Hetmanate =/=> Ukraine
>Luxembourg =/=> Luxembourg
?

well it is a new name and it sounds even more similar to chechnya so its understandable not everyone would like it

Calling it Czech Republic is just so inconvenient if you want to refer to the nation in general not just its political system after 1993. And Bohemia refers to just a part of the country.

not op but
>england=/=>britain
since uk is formed by union of scotland and england
>HRE =/=> Germany
ehhhh
>ERE =/=> Greece
byzantines called themselves roman not greek
>Wallachia =/=> Romania
romania=wallachia+moldavia
>Cossack Hetmanate =/=> Ukraine
wasnt really ever independent and also there are bunch of cossacks that consider themselves russian
>Luxembourg =/=> Luxembourg
no idea what happened here

Yes England doesn't equal Great Britain. And Cossacks didn't have an independent country.

Honestly the biggest problem is with the age old question. When did France/Germany separate? I'm not gonna even bother to make sense of the nordic countries. Most of it is half-legend.

frankish succession rules

Well to some it simply created more Frankish kingdoms.

If you're going by medieval states, Slovenia should be 658 or 828, when it was conquered by the Franks. As for Bosnia and Croatia, you used the first crowning. By that merit, Serbia should be 640 ish (exact year unknown), and Bulgaria should be 681.
Also, Montenegro (and Serbia interchangeably) could be 1077, as Rascia and Duklja can be used for both, because they're basically the same thing.

How would HRE by any stretch of imagination = Germany when it included chunks of France, Netherlands, half of Italy, Austria etc and was ruled by "non-Germans" probably most of it's existence and the German stem-duchies didn't have a cohesive German identity to begin with

never said it didn't
those frankish kingdoms evolved into kingodm of france and HRE with lotharingia being absorbed by those two

>was ruled by "non-Germans"
not really, HRE Emperors have been German dynasties.

they were ruled by czechs for some time tho

>France
>481
How comes? Clovis didn't even conquer France by that time!

Source please, because that is bullshit! Name a single Czech emperor!

Depends on what your definition of German dynasties is
Is Hapsburg german or austrian or what
Is Luxembourg german or french or what

here's one
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Bohemia

oops wrong one
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

Both are German houses, Austria is just the East mark of the empire. As the name already suggests.

Chechnya is pronounced Chetch-nya
Czechia is pronounced Check-ya
Very different.

Thats house Luxemburg. His mama was czech, but thats it.

>territorial changes
>being ruled by a foreign dynasty
>the national identity didn't exist initially

These are non-arguments and have no relevance to the date when a political entity was established. They can be applied to almost all countries in Europe.

If you want to go further, Germany wasn't established until
>1949 when the Federal Republic of Germany was established
>1990 when they DDR and BRD united, Two Plus Four Agreement
>1994 when the last Russian troops left
>Germany doesn't exist at all because it's still under de facto US occupation and BRD
So take your pick.

That's not France.

>being ruled by a foreign dynasty
what foreign dynasty would that be?

one iotation worth of difference
was born in prague raised there,ruled bohemia

Damn right it isn't, thats why 481 as founding date fro France is a little optimistic.

France should be 843

>>Germany doesn't exist at all because it's a corporation
This

>was born in prague raised there,ruled bohemia
You are not a horse just because you are born in a stable.

Alright, if it's all arbitrary and all that matters is that there was something roughly there some time in the past you can just as well mark French starting from celtic Gaul I guess or Gallic empire of the third century or something
Why not

I was merely quoting the anons argument. I don't thing the Habsburg or Luxembourgs should be considered "foreign"

Horse is a species, German is a culture (arguably)
Epic argument though, well meme'd

ehhh i guess

>When you are born the heir of a noble German house and you grow up in Prague, this makes you somewhat 100% genuine >Czech. Wen you become emperor afterwards that makes the Czechs somehow the Emperors of the HRE
Yeah, right.

Russia is much older than on your map.

I guess it's impossible to choose one perfect date but I guess Verdun was like the first brick.

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that there's such a thing as a German race or something?

>1000AD
>Russia

fair enough.

That's Kievan Rus though. A common root of all eastern slavic nations.

Congrats to San Marino for being the oldest.

No, just a very distinctive difference between Slavic Bohemians and Germanic Germans.

The baptism of Clovis would actually fit better. It represents in a way the shift from Romanized germanic state to Catholic Gallo Roman Latin language Kingdom which France became.

843 also works though.

>Iceland is a bit more problematic than you think, btw.
It really isn't. We declared an independent state by democratic process in 930, and that government was accepted by the people of Iceland. The colonial period is irrelevant.

>Pappal state 1929
>Greece 1822
>Meanwhile, slavic peoples get the first shit duchy as their founding date.

Admit it OP, you're a slav shit.

I guess back then they were still Franks.

Difference like where they were born, where they live, what culture were they brought up in and what language did they speak? Sure

>481
France's foundation is at the baptism of Clovis in 496 not in 481

>Greece 1822
That's not wrong though?

Those were Franks not French.

>The baptism of Clovis would actually fit better. It represents in a way the shift from Romanized germanic state to Catholic Gallo Roman Latin language Kingdom which France became.
Please nigger, Clovis was conquering Gaulish lands with his Frankish tribe, thats it, France came much later.

Maybe the UK should be set as 1603/1604 for the ascension of James I and VI? While any full union failed, James announced himself as "King of Britain", despite parliament.

If you are putting some proto-slavic duchy as founding dates for the modern slav states you should put for Greece like 1200BC.

And I thought it was the Battle of Alesia and the first French surrender and following romanizations of the Gauls.

You're right about one thing.

"Kievan Rus" was invented in 19th century.
It was called Ρωσία (Rosia) in 10th century by Constantine VII, emperor of Byzantine.

>proto-slavic duchy
Which one?

That's the point, his baptism basically turned the tribe's conquest into a new gallo Roman state ruled by the Franks with gallo Roman clergy and administration, which is basically the definition of early France.

But yes, Verdun is much more clear cut, if you wanted to choose one single date with no debate to be had.

>Frank
A middle word for French, deal with it

J'encule ta mère fils de pute

This was meant for you

Can you not infect this thread with your autism?

>Same people ruled by the same dynasty from 9th till 16th century.
>Not the same state.