Baltoscandia

Why? Care to explain?

I think so. Balts and Scandies look similar and have history/geography tied closely together. I'd even argue Finland is Baltic, not Scandi. The exception might be Lithuanian though which historically integrated into Poland/Central and Eastern Europe moreso than Northern Europe.

Genetically though they are most similar to Finns though, and by Language to Latvians. Also, nowadays culture is pretty much the same across all Baltic countries, the only difference is that Lithuania was relevant at some point in the history. So that's kinds moot point I think to think it integrated more Into Central/Eastern Europe than Northern, especially since Swedish Empire was in constant contact with PLC, it's just that unlike Latvians/Estonians, Lithuanians governed themselves (most of the time) instead of being puppet states of PLC/Swedish/Russian empires.

And for the looks, I don't think it's true, because Finns, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians are predominantly n1c1, while Scandies - l1. Sure, they all have blond hair/blue eyes and are tall, but their facial structures are different (West and East Baltid

bump

>Germany is not a threat

Lithuania has much more ties to Eastern Europe than to Scandinavia, otherwise i would say it's pretty viable, a complete federation would be harder though. You would have to start with a Scandinavian or a Nordic federation before you invite the Balts.

>Very little shared history
Imagine actually being this ignorant.

>I'd even argue Finland is Baltic, not Scandi.
Once upon a time that would be true, but not today. You can thank the Bolsheviks for that.

You have 3 very different groups of people.

Two very different levels of wealth.

3 very different cultures.

Why?

Why would DK/Nor/Swe (maybe Finland) shackle themselves to the baltic states? they are poor slavs. Theres no positives in those countries.

Imagine the amount of money they would have to funnel to even have comparable living standards.

The Nordic Council is really all they share [Outside of what they share with Europe].

The combined Baltic and Scandinavian armies comparable to Austro-Hungary and German armies of the Great War.

Are you fucking retarded?

The only reason why they have history together for any part is because of geography and its not even that much. Scandinavia has more history with the new world within the last 500 years than with the Baltic states.

Haplogroups be damned. The culture astronomically different. There is a lot of balts coming and going where I live (DK) because they can't integrate so they fuck off somewhere else.

The only way there would be a Baltic and Scandinavian union would be under Scandinavian conquest (EU notwithstanding).

FYI OP: Finland is not part of Scandinavia.
Is this another USA fantasy that has no basis in history?

What history do they really share after the Commonwealth? Really not that much.
Even before that it was pretty much Estonia being conquered here and there or tidbits of land on the coast.

There are no deep ties between than outside of the current EU treatise.

>Why would DK/Nor/Swe (maybe Finland) shackle themselves to the baltic states?
We have already done it, only that we included a whole lot of other poor slavs too, it's called the EU. I would much rather have our tax money go to the Baltic countries than fucking Romania who we have nothing in common with.

To some extent yes, but more shackled to Germany and France than to the Baltic states.

I guess my question would be:
Why would the Scandinavian nations shackle themselves directly to the Baltic states?

>Romania
I'd rather have our money go to neither, but that is because I'm a Eurosceptic.

>What history do they really share after the Commonwealth?
You mean PLC? That only included the Baltic countries. Other than that, all countries except Lithuania have been heavily influenced by north germans and have all historically been lutheran. Both Sweden and Danmark have also owned large parts of Latvia and all of Estonia for a couple of hundred years which definetily left some marks. Estonia and Finland are also very similiar in both language and culture.

There is no unifying factor for all countries, it's more like 1 has ties with 2 who in turn has ties with 3. You could of course largen this equation to the entire world, but stopping it here would make sense.

>Both Sweden and Danmark have also owned large parts of Latvia and all of Estonia for a couple of hundred years

Before the PLC yes, they have owned a bit of territory (I wouldn't call this large) of the slav side of the Baltic. This was conquered/overtaken/given to the Knightly Orders (Not counting the 30 years war fuckery).

Estonia and Finland do have similar cultures but Finland doesnt really share that much with Norway or Denmark, and was only historically a Swedish duchy.

I really don't think they have as much in common as OP believes.

>but more shackled to Germany and France than to the Baltic states.
What? No, western Europe do not need us and we do not need them, it's the southerners and the easterners who get all the gibs.

>I'd rather have our money go to neither
Why? We do not really need all our money (excluding the foreign migrants who should all be thrown out), in fact if you ask me we have become too spoiled, we might aswell give some to our neighbours across the baltic sea so we can all prosper. It should be done responsibly however, the EU isn't doing that.

>in fact if you ask me we have become too spoiled,
Are you insane? We DO need the money to modernise our armed forces, develop our hospitals and care systems (modernise those too) because they are collapsing under load, and it wouldnt hurt to increase the wages of teachers, or to train them more.

It takes me 3 weeks to get a doctors appointment for crying out loud.

>Before the PLC yes
The Swedes took Livonia (about half of Estonia and about half of Latvia) from the PLC, it was only when Russia "officialy" became an empire that they lost it.
>Finland doesnt really share that much with Norway or Denmark
All Nordic countries have been very similair to each other economically and politically since the start of the 20th century and as a result they all have very much in common with each other.
>and was only historically a Swedish duchy.
Finland was an integrated part of Sweden for ca 600 years, it has had a HUGE impact on them.

All Nordic countries have been very similair to each other economically
Are you serious? You cannot compare the economies of the Scandinavian crowns to those of the Baltic states. The Baltic states are some of the poorest countries in Europe while Scandinavia is some of the richest.

> Finaldn [...] had a HUGE impact on them.
Doesnt run contrary to what I said. I said they were a Swedish duchy and thats that.

As i said, throw out the niggers and these problems will solve themselves.
>mordernise
They are already modernized, the armies are just really fucking tiny.

>All Nordic countries have been very similair to each other economically
lel there's a reason why Swedbank is the biggest bank in Estonia

>Baltic states
The Baltic states are not Nordic, the Nordic countries are all scandinavian-speaking countries + Finland.
>Doesnt run contrary to what I said
You said "only" which implies that it didn't have much of an effect. The term duchy doesn't really fit in either, half of the time it was actually a grand principality (although for some reason it is always translated as grand duchy) and the title was mostly ceremonial anyway.

unironically a big negative factor to a deeper alliance/nordic state is prestige, so these answers are fairly correct.
Denmark and Norway don't want to be second players in a three way union, and none of the three will accept finland doing a lot either.
Sweden would have to take a back seat, the hate just runs fairly deep there.
t. swede

the answer is probably a deeper economic/trade union and an expanded military alliance in the case of US withdrawal

>The Baltic states are not Nordic
Youre right I was mistaken.

>You said "only" which implies that it
A Principality can be considered the same general rank as a Duchy, like Austria's Archduchy.

like Austria's Archduchy can be comparable*

Estonia is fairly close to finland which is a lot close to Sweden. A finland/estonia/sweden alliance could be possible in the future, as Estonia seems to be growing economically, bringing it closer to Finland.

Not really, principalities are usually considered higher than duchies. I'm guessing they translated it as a duchy because english doesn't have it's own word for a principalities prince. No idea how you fit in grand and archdukes into the picture though.

If a duchy == principality, then:
archduchy == grand principality.

Well their "shared history" with nordic countries covers a span of a little over 300 years total, with 200 under Denmark and 100 under Sweden (no the primarily German monastic orders are not Nordic).

At best this 300 years is largely a using the region as a means to access to Baltic trade (very little Nordic settlement / noble interbreeding).

In terms of shared history, Russia probably has more to work with given that at least their nearly 300 years of overlordship over the Baltic states has seen Russian migration and integration into the state apparatus.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curonians
>only 300 year history with scandis

>Implying Veeky Forums gives enough fucks to care about baltic history
Hell, they consider baltics slavs

>slav side of the Baltic
>slav
The Poles are the only Slavs in the area.

>baltic
>slavic
They have intermingled and such but balts are rather unique in the whole european context.

Just as balts intermingled with germans and scandis

Well, technically Russia as well, due to having Kalliningrad and Sankt Peterburg

By kaliningrad you mean prussia proper and konigsberg.. filth.

You mean Královec.

Karaliaucius, niggas

>Trusting a Swede
Never

You mean prūsija.

Preussen *

bump

we still use coldwar equipment!

Slavonic is synonymous to South Balt. Proto-Balto-Slavic split into 3 different dialectical zones. East Balts at east (ex. Lithuanians), West Balts at west (ex. Prussians) and South Balts at south (ex. Sklavonians). These South Balts started to call themselves Slavs at some point and their modern linguistic designation is Slavonic. This is of course pretty misleading as it would be more logical to call them as South Balts as that's what they are linguistically. This Balto-Slavic hybrid word is useless and illogical, it should be just Balt.

>Balts want to be Scandi
Why? I1 is a proto-proto-Baltic haplomeme that dominates Scandinavia.
If anything Balts should sever ties with every other group in Europe and then rule over them as their ancestors ancestors did.

Scandi-shilling is extremely prevalent here.
They're basically gods to the baltic youth.

why?
Proto-proto-Balts (Paleo-Europeans) cucked Scandis so hard that the Paleo-European haplogroup is the """"""Germanic"""""" haplogroup.

Because being western and progressive is hip and cool, and scandis embody that ideal perfectly.
If you actually think the average pleb cares or even knows about haploshit or ancient judeo-wendo-romano-zeta-reticuli-neo-proto-retro-balto-slavs and their extraterrestrial journeys, then you're bloody delusional.

this
Nobody gives a fuck, they just want to be seen as western and progressive, and get away from the slavic stereotype.

That's just pure delusion at your part. There was never such a thing as "South Balts".

And it was called Balto-Slavic for a reason. Stop deluding yourself about mighty Baltic race, because despite being in the same family, Slavs achieved thousand times more.

Actually, Balto - Slavic is a meme, there's like 4 different theories why grammar are similar, 3 of them says it's just because of the close proximity.

5*

>slavs
Balts that got lost in the woods*

Your life is a meme, you silly baltic supremacist. Balto-Slavic in an undeniable fact.
Ancestors of Balts from Bronze Age were R1a. And that's the only relevant part. With Iron Age came N1c.

n1c is pro indoeuropean gene nigga. And Balts have the majority of it.

And I'm not even baltic supremacist. I'm just German interested in them.

Emphasis on the Balto- part.
Baltics reign supreme.

>n1c is pro indoeuropean gene nigga
No, it's not. It's Uralic. It's origin is placed in Mongolia. On top of that, it came after R1a and R1b
>And I'm not even baltic supremacist. I'm just German interested in them.
That explains your bias towards Slavs and tryhard methods to split Balts and Slavs apart.

Next thing you're gonna invent is Balto-Germanic I bet.

Balts ruled teh Slavo-Germanics.

Well, mentality and appearance wise, baltics are more similar to Germans.

Anyways, how do you explain n1c dominance in baltic countries if it came later?

>Well, mentality
Do you mean Germans have average IQ of 90 like Lithuanians?
>appearance wise, baltics are more similar to Germans.
Says who? Baltic and Slavic phenotypes are closer to each other than Germanic ones with Baltic.

Unless of course you're Eastern German, then I have bad news for you, my dear Slavo-Baltic rapebaby.
>how do you explain n1c dominance in baltic countries if it came later?
Jagiellonians were N1c and so was Rurik. Sucesful men tend to have a lot of children.

N1c coming after R1a is a known fact.

Well, IQ is not really a measurement of intelligence, also it is proven it is completely dependent on education. College Educated Lithuanians from Vilnius that I met are pretty much identical to Germans

Also, google Lithuanian male/ woman and German ones and compare.

>Jagiellonians were N1c and so was Rurik. Sucesful men tend to have a lot of children.
First of all, Rurik were Scandinavian. Jagiellonians are Lithuanians. How the fuck do they have same genes?
Also, are you implying nobility fucked with the peasants?
Also
>Jagiellonians
>Lot of children
It died out for a reason.

>College Educated Lithuanians from Vilnius that I met are pretty much identical to Germans
So your opinion is formed on personal feelings rather than facts?
>Also, google Lithuanian male/ woman and German ones and compare.
Who do you think looks more alike? Poles and Lithuanians that mixed for centuries during PLC, possibly even before that. Or Germans and Lithuanians that have nothing to do with each other? I think the answer is obvious in that one.
>First of all, Rurik were Scandinavian. Jagiellonians are Lithuanians. How the fuck do they have same genes?
Why not? Not the same genes, just the same haplogroup and with different mutations at that.
>Also, are you implying nobility fucked with the peasants?
Are you implying they didn't?
>It died out for a reason.
Due to lack of legitimate children, just like most of dynasties. Doesn't mean they didn't have a lot of bastards that later carried their paternal line.

Here's a map for you, since you seem genuinly interested in the Baltic region.

Well, they did mix, but not that much. Gotta keep the royal bloodline pure and all.

When you have to fuck, you fuck. And it was often a peasant girl getting the dicking.

>facts
The only study into lithshit IQ was done with 93 participants.
Hardly counts as fact for anything.

Honestly it could be a thing, but the problem is that it wouldn't last long, because it has Russia to the east and the EU to the south.

...

...

...

Baltoscandia
>viable?
No
>realistic?
No

Although our countries have lost much of what they are, they will eventual enter a new nationalist age. This will lead to the separation of any unions.
Norwegians, Swedes and Danes are close yes, but not close enough to live within the same land. It has never worked and never will.

Balties were part of Swedish Empire for a long time.

Swedes, Danes and Norwewegians will end up united under Roman Hegemony.

As does every military on the planet.

It's not really a question of "Why not?" but of "Why?"
I mean, I'd be up for a Denmark-Norway 2.0, but that's about it. Anything more would be unnecessary and unhelpful to the parties involved.

Also, surprisingly, is right. Prestige is a factor here as well.

>Ancestors of Balts from Bronze Age were R1a. And that's the only relevant part. With Iron Age came N1c.
I'm not referring to haplomemes.
The MtDNA of the Baltic peoples created and perpetuated I1 and I2 from haplogroup I which was originally a deviation from haplogroup J (when proto-Europeans during the time of the Neanderthal first moved into Europe)
When the Indo-Europeans came they encountered the Paleo-Europeans. The Indo-Europeans were able to largely sweep them away due to their much greater numbers as well as their bronze weapons and horses.
Yet when the Indo-Europeans could not operate with their horses and had to fight man to man they got trounced by the ferocity of the Paleo-Europeans who at the time were still using wooden weapons and fighting in bands of huntsmen rather than military groups with specific roles.
The Paleo-Europeans took Indo-European women and we know this because in Scandinavia their MtDNA is Yamnaya but their haplogroup is Paleo-European, so we know it was P.E. men taking I.E. women.
The Genetic story is clear, an ancient people whom the Balts are the direct genetic descents of, not only conquered the people who conquered the world, but took their women, replaced their culture, and almost entirely eradicated every Indo-European Male in Scandinavia.
Culturally speaking the vikings are more akin to Paleo-Europeans than they are to Indo-Europeans. We find lots of boats and sacred stones in places the vikings frequented, cultural objects not just boats used for practical purposes. The Paleo-Europeans were the people who developed the first boats in Europe and saw their construction as sacred, saw their usefulness on the sea but also a usefulness in a more abstract or meta-life sense in that they believed boats carried you to the afterlife.
Also it's worth pointing out the if we break Europeans into Indo-European and Paleo-European, places where the vikings direct descendents are genetically resemble Balts more so than Scandis.

I mean't I'm not referring to haplomemes when talking about Balts specifically.
A better explanation. Suppose someone in Ireland has a Germanic haplotype from a viking invasion. But their genetic make up is 90- some percent Irish. You wouldn't call them a viking or a Germanic person because of their haplogroup, you'd simply say their ancestors were cucked by someone.
I apply the same reasoning to Scandis. Their DNA says I.E. but their haplogroup says Paleo-European.

I think Danes, Norwegians, and the English could work together as a union. They don't look the same but for some reason they all think the same way and use the same cultural references.
England and Denmark are probably much closer to each other than Norway is to either, but Norway is an offshoot of Denmark so I think some Paternal Allegiance could come into play.

>there are entire countries who want to be weak, effeminate, depressed, and aloof

Balts are depressed af anyways