• This topic has 9 voices and 64 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 66 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #345989

    Anonymous

    It is a very sensitive issue. Some Belarus nationalists are saying that the history of Lithuania is really the history of Belarus and that Samogitian people (those who they say are the modern day Lithuanians) simply stole this all for themselves. According to this theory the Litva were a Baltic tribe in central Belarus and that they established a state which became known as Lithuania but that this name came after the Litva and not the people of present day Lithuania (Lietuva) which were only a small section of this empire. Also they say that while the rulers of this empire were based in the present day Lithuania they were all from the Litva who originated in central Belarus so in their view the castle at Trakai is not evidence against this theory but they simply say that they relocated from central Belarus to this region.

    Maybe this theory would be more acceptable if the promoters of it were not so rude as to deny any role of Lietuva people. At the Battle of Grunwald the majority of soldiers were from Belarus and Poland, but there were also those from Lietuva and because they were smaller their numbers reflect this smaller size. Instead of accusing Lithuanians of stealing Belarus history they should include themselves alongside Lithuanians and Poles as equal partners.

    You can see the theory presented by the Litvinists here: http://www.belarusguide.com/as/history/jermal1.html

    #424344

    Anonymous

    Once on another forum I replied to a thread similar to this one. So I'll just copy and paste what I typed back then.  :P Here you are:

    There are several kinds of litvinisms. The idea that Lithuanians = Žmuidzins is rather a part of the nationalist mythology, any nationalism aggrandise the past of its nation there is nothing new in this, the "Lithuanians = Žmuidzins" idea is an attempt to lay our hands on as big part of the GDL's heritage as possible.

    There are "Litvins" like Aleś Bieły whose modest activity looks rather like a reaction to the lack of success of the Belarusian nationalism. Currently they are trying something like constructing a separate Litvin identity around the Catholic faith and the history of the GDL, Armia Krajowa, Litwa Środkowa, which would be parallel to the Belarusian identity. But honestly, even despite the fact that the Belarusian identity is as weak as it is now, it is still 10.000 times stronger than this newly constructed identity, and to me people like Aleś Bieły are just a bunch of freaks. As for the most Belarusians, 97 % of them have never heard of these new Litvins.

    There are also people, for whom the Baltic identity is very important. They (and some other self-appointed popularizers of the Baltic identity such as the newspaper "Secret Researches") have indeed acquired some influence, and many people sincerely identify themselves as Balts. I am talking about people who at least care about their identity, because most people don't, the majority of people just live their lives, and the question of identity doesn't bother them.

    – But what are general moods about it in Belarussia? Which perspectives are more popular? Which in your opinion will rise/dicease in future?

    Well, since most people in Belarus went to a Soviet school, where they were taught about the evil GDL, where Belarusians desired to be liberated by Russians, the majority of people don't know/don't care about their Baltic roots (no doubt there is some percentage of the Baltic blood in Belarusians).

    The second by popularity is the idea that "Lithuanians = Žmuidzins", and the GDL was a Belarusian state, while "Litvins" is just another name for Belarusians (and partially it is true too, it happened that Belarusians applied name Litvins to themselves, and the neighbours did that too). After the fall of the Soviet Union the nationalist historiography contributed to the popularity of this option.

    What Belarusian children are taught at school now, I can't say. Probably a step back was made, a return to the Soviet historiography.

    The Baltic identity is third by popularity.

    Aleś Bieły has a follower or two.  ;D

    #424345

    Anonymous

    Besides basic meaning, ethnic Lithuanian , and other each resident of GDL it could signify specificaly, Slavic population of GDL vis-a-vis their brethren in Grand Principality of Moscow. While calling themselves Ruskie, people from GDL and GPM had names for people of other state. People from GDL were called Litvins in Grand Principality of Vladimir/Moscow. That explains number of Russians with name: Litvin, Litvinenko, and similar. Similary, people from GDL called themselves ruskie (Ruthenians), but to make difference they called residents of GPM Muscovites, by their capital. Some historians found 8 different meanings of term Litvin in Eastern Slavic documents. It could signify people who are ancestors of Modern Russians as well, this is what Soviet expedition from 1924 recorded:

    Кто вы такие? К какой нации принадлежите? — Хто мы? Мы руськия. — Какие русские? Великоруссы, что ли? — Да не, якия мы там великарусы? Не, мы ня москали. — Да кто же наконец? — Мы — Литва, литвины.

    Who are you? Which nation you belong to? – Who we are? We are Russians? What kind of Russians? Greater Russians? What’s with you, we are not Greater Russians, we are not Muscovites. – What are you then – We are Litvins.
    In history Braynsk belonged to GDL and that was preserved in tradition of people living there. 

    Thing, is Slavic population of GDL have mutliple identification, they were generaly Ruthenians, espetialy vis-a-vis Lithuanians and Poles. Vis-a-vis Russians they were Litvins. Thing were further complicated, after Ukraine was taken from GDL and attached to Poland.
    But, like I wrot somewhere here, Principality of Polotsk fought numerous wars with Litvins (in strict meaning ethnic Lithuanians), and they had in mind originaly Lithuanian princes, Mindaugas for example. Of course, Ruthenians played great role in GDL, but it started as Lithuanian state, and dinasty was Lithuanian. There is lot of meanings of term Litvin,and when reading it we allways must to have in mind historical context. 
    Lot od Gediminds got Ruthenised, but House of Radziwiłł could hardly be described as Ruthenian. They were Lithuanian (and latter Polonised). GDL was originaly Lithuanian state, which latter conquered large Ruthenian territory, and accepted lot of Ruthenian culture, but it does not mean that it was not Lithuanian state. It could be called Ruthenian as well, but it dose not make her less Lithuanian.

    PS. I dont think Soviet history had negative perception of GDL, niether Imperial Russian before. Aleigirdas is on Millenium of Russia. They were claimng it as half Russian/Ruthenian state. 

    #424354

    Anonymous

    Oleg Łatyszonek believed that since XVII Muscovites applied terms “белорусцы”, “Белая Русь”, “белорусское письмо”, that embraced both proto-Belarusians and proto-Ukrainians, their land, and their written language.

    Also did Ruthenians really call themselves “russkiye”? The common word for ‘a Ruthenian’ was Rusin (singular), and Rusiny (plural), I believe.

    Весели жъ се ты [shadow=red,left]Русине[/shadow]:
    Тва слава никгды не сгине

    I think we can safely say that the existence of two political centres in the Eastern Slavia (Vilnius and Moscow) led to emergence of two peoples: Ruthenians and Muscovites. Some believe that we should talk about one Ruthenian people until the end of Rzecz Pospolita at the end of XVIII century. The Russian Empire that came here, served as a catalyst, the Ruthenian identity finally died and gave the way to two new identites: souther Ruthenians become Ukrainians, while northern Ruthenians and Slavic-speaking Catholic Litvins gave birth to the Belarusian identity, as we know it today.

    Quote:
    In history Braynsk belonged to GDL and that was preserved in tradition of people living there. 

    The Smolensk land and the western part of the Bryansk land were regarded as ethnically Belarusian until the first quarter of XX century (later such views became “nationalist” and “counter-revolutionary”). Your quote from year 1924 proves that point of view.

    #424357

    Anonymous

    They called themslvs руские with one с, not two. In singular it was русин, or русичи before that. Therm with two с is reserved for mothern Russians and it’s consequence of latter Greek influence, like when name of country is changed from Русия to Россия. There was large variety of names русичи, руськи, руски, русины, русские, русские, русь руський, людий руских. Russians also preserved ethnonm русин. It is espetialy used to differentiate themselves from Tatars.

    Ps pluarl русины is influence of Polish.

    Тверская область, в то время древнерусское Тверское княжество, принадлежит ныне в большей своей части к северно-великорусскому наречию, в связи с чем нужно заметить, что на глубоком севере (например в Олонецком крае), северный Великорус, по свидетельству описаний путешественников (мне теперь недоступных), до сих пор говорит о себе: „Я здешний Русин”.

    Source

    Vilnius was not Slavic political center. Anyway, not in its begining.

    image

    Roman Catholic minority is giving national identity to Orthodox majority? Ratio is like 1 to 7 or 1 to 8. There is allways argument they are forcifuly returned in Orthodoxy, but before that they were forcifuly made Uniates.

    Smolensk was then Russian for 4 houndred years. By which means they could have other national identity? If you speak about language, main difference between two languages is Orthography and influence of Polonisms (on level of dialects, not on level of literary languages). Well let’s see 400 years they were part of Russia, and cherished Russian culture, called themselves Russians and it does not make them Russians?

    #424362

    Anonymous

    Certainly it is no argument, I just report the conclusions that were made by Łatyszonek. All the terms you mentioned have their own history, they meant different territories in different times in different languages. For examle: in XVII century, for Muscovites “Belaya Rus” was the land of all Ruthenians. But for Ruthenians themselves in the same century (and before that) “Belaya Rus” was the name of an area within Rzecz Pospolita aproximately in the North East of current Belarus.

    Not that I don’t believe you, but I’d like to see the sources.

    Once I made a search in dictionaries, in etymological dictionaries, around the internet, and my conclusion was that if even Russians ever called themselves “Rusins” such cases were very rare. But it is possible.

    I meant it served as the centre of gravity for Slavic lands.

    8. There is allways argument they are forcifuly returned in Orthodoxy, but before that they were forcifuly made Uniates.

    You are imagining things. Where did I say something like that?

    On the contrary, I believe it was the Russian Empire that paved the way to the Belarusian nationalism. Ethnographic, historical, linguistic researches that prepared the soil for it, were carried out in the Russian Empire. The maps with the ethnographic borders of Belarusians were drawn in the Russian Empire. The idea that Catholic and Orthodox Belarusian are the same people and only their religion differs them was born in the Russian Empire. Thank you, Russia!

    I am going to throw some copypasta at you if you don’t mind. By Catherine the Great:

    “Малая Россия, Лифляндия и Финляндия суть провинции, которые правятся конфирмованными им привилегиями: нарушить оныя отрешением всех вдруг весьма непристойно было б, однако же называть их чужестранными и обходиться с ними на таковом же основании есть большее, нежели ошибка, а можно назвать с достоверностию глупостию. Сии провинции, также Смоленскую, надлежит легчайшими способами привести к тому, чтоб они обрусели и перестали глядеть как волки из лесу“.

    Sounds surprising, eh? 

    Sorry that I don’t reply immediately to your posts but usually in a day or two. Currently I don’t have much time for forums.

    Could you please fix tags (or whatever this stuff is called) in your last reply in the thread about the Ruthenian language?

    #424366

    Anonymous

    Not quite right:
    В XII—XV веках данное название упоминалось в отношении земель Северо-Восточной Руси и Великого княжества Московского, в XV—XVII веках — в связи с землями России. Н. М. Карамзин считал, что впервые термин «Белая Русь» встречается в Раскольницкой и Ростовской летописях под 1135 при названии Ростово-Суздальского княжества.
    It had pretty diverse meaning.

    Quote:
    Not that I don’t believe you, but I’d like to see the sources.
    Slovo o Polke Igoreve, It is full of references to русичи.
    Русичи великая поля чрьлеными щиты прегородиша, ищучи себѣ чти, а князю — славы.

    Until XVII century quite offten. That term is encountere for the first time in Primary chronicle. It’s now preserved onyl by Rusyns. (Carpathian ones). I allready gave you link to professor Georgiyevskiy work.

    В „Хождении в Индию” (за три моря) Тверского купца Афанасия Никитина (1466-1472 гг.) читаем: „И язь грешный привез жеребца в Индейскую землю, дошел семи до Чюнеря… А в том Чюнере хан у меня взял жеребца, а увидел, что язь не бесерменнн, Русин, и он молвит: И жеребца дам да тысячу золотых дам, а стань в веру нашу в Махмет-дени; а не станет в веру нашу в Махмет-дени, и жеребца возьму и тысячу золотых на главе твоей возьму” (Буслаев, ук. соч., стр. 214); правописание подновлено Буслаевым.

    В Суздальской летописи по Лаврентьевскому списку повествуется о татарских зверствах в Курской и Воронежской волости под 1263 годом: „…а что изимано людей черны (х) и з женами и з детми, то все попровадил прочь. А трупья бояр те(х) повеле по деревью извешати, о(т)имаяголову и правую руку .И начаша бесурмене вязати головы боярскые к тороко(м), а рукы вкладоша в судно, вставиша на сани Чернысе Русину и поидоша от Ворогла. И пришедше в село в Туров, и хотеша послати по земля (м) головы и рукы боярскые, ино некуда послати, зане вся волость изимана. И тако пометаша головы и рукы п(с)ом на изьедь”

    We could endulge in little math here. Belarus have 10-13% of Roman Catholics, out of whome some half are Poles.  It makes ratio of Orhodox vs Roman Catholics 16 to one. Not to mention that both were Ruthenians originaly. We know that even that 5% are mainly of Orthodox ancestry (they become Latin rite after banning of Union or they descend from Nobility which converted Calvinism and then Roman Catholicism). They all were Ruthenians. But this was more or less just about details, nothing else.

    The maps with the ethnographic borders of Belarusians were drawn in the Russian Empire. The idea that Catholic and Orthodox Belarusian are the same people and only their religion differs them was born in the Russian Empire. Thank you, Russia!
    I believe it was clear they are same people before that ethnographic researches ???

    So? I am not saying they become Russians in one moment. But  all nations are formed in XIX century. Before that there were ethnical groups. Some have strong identity, some weaker.
    They say “We are Russians, but we are not Muscovites”.  Smolensk, unlike Ukraine, Lithland and Finland was Russian for centuries.

    #424372

    Anonymous

    Many Belarusians are regarding the history of the GDL as its own only is probably the result of the Belarusians being denied their history for a long time.  Some people of the older generation are saying it felt as the history of Belarusians started after October Revolution or WW2. Today, people have access to various sources of information to which they didn’t have during Soviet times. That’s the kind of equality and historical justice the Belarusians experienced in the past. It was only recently that the encyclopaedia of the GDL in 3 volumes were published in the Belarusian language which was welcomed by the Belarusian society.

    As far the question of the ethnonym Litvin  goes, there are several interpretations of it. One Belarusian linguist accounted for 8 different interpretations of the ethnonym. The most widely interpretation was used to apply to the residents of the GDL of different ethnicities and faith. So, how are Lithuanians being treated unequally in this instance?

    P.S.
    The Belarusians living in Smolensk region is a separate subject in itself. As late as the period of WW2 people in some villages of Smolensk region were identifying themselves as Litvins.  Some districts of Smolensk region a historical Belarusian region. There is some interest about historical and cultural ties between the Belarusians and the people of Smolensk region.

    #424374

    Anonymous

    So why not share this heritage with Lithuanians instead of claiming they have no part of it and are stealing it for themselves?

    There are also people, for whom the Baltic identity is very important. They (and some other self-appointed popularizers of the Baltic identity such as the newspaper “Secret Researches”) have indeed acquired some influence, and many people sincerely identify themselves as Balts. I am talking about people who at least care about their identity, because most people don’t, the majority of people just live their lives, and the question of identity doesn’t bother them.

    The problem is also that not all Belarusians would be Litvins. According to Litvinism the Belarusian ethnogenesis is Balto-Slavic. In this case how is it possible to tell who is a Balt and who is a Slav? Also even if people say Belarusians are Slavified Balts then what is to say all are Litvins? I do not mind Litvinism, so long as they do not deny Lithuania its place in the GDL.

    Well, since most people in Belarus went to a Soviet school, where they were taught about the evil GDL, where Belarusians desired to be liberated by Russians, the majority of people don’t know/don’t care about their Baltic roots (no doubt there is some percentage of the Baltic blood in Belarusians).

    I see, so most believe they are the same as Russians?

    But Lithuanians would also be part of such a state so then why deny them the right to this history as well? Why is this Litvinism so hostile to Lithuanians who did nothing to the people of Belarus?

    Quote:
    What Belarusian children are taught at school now, I can’t say. Probably a step back was made, a return to the Soviet historiography.

    It is most likely.

    Who are you? Which nation you belong to? – Who we are? We are Russians? What kind of Russians? Greater Russians? What’s with you, we are not Greater Russians, we are not Muscovites. – What are you then – We are Litvins.
    In history Braynsk belonged to GDL and that was preserved in tradition of people living there.

    So you are saying that there is good evidence for the Litvinist theory? Perhaps it is so, but then why deny Lithuanians their role? History can be shared. 

    Lot od Gediminds got Ruthenised, but House of Radziwiłł could hardly be described as Ruthenian. They were Lithuanian (and latter Polonised). GDL was originaly Lithuanian state, which latter conquered large Ruthenian territory, and accepted lot of Ruthenian culture, but it does not mean that it was not Lithuanian state. It could be called Ruthenian as well, but it dose not make her less Lithuanian.

    PS. I dont think Soviet history had negative perception of GDL, niether Imperial Russian before. Aleigirdas is on Millenium of Russia. They were claimng it as half Russian/Ruthenian state. 

    But the theory of Litvinists is that the Litva were from central Belarus and that the people of present day Lietuva had nothing to do with them.

    Also did Ruthenians really call themselves “russkiye”? The common word for ‘a Ruthenian’ was Rusin (singular), and Rusiny (plural), I believe.

    Весели жъ се ты [shadow=red,left]Русине[/shadow]:
    Тва слава никгды не сгине

    I think we can safely say that the existence of two political centres in the Eastern Slavia (Vilnius and Moscow) led to emergence of two peoples: Ruthenians and Muscovites. Some believe that we should talk about one Ruthenian people until the end of Rzecz Pospolita at the end of XVIII century. The Russian Empire that came here, served as a catalyst, the Ruthenian identity finally died and gave the way to two new identites: souther Ruthenians become Ukrainians, while northern Ruthenians and Slavic-speaking Catholic Litvins gave birth to the Belarusian identity, as we know it today.

    So more or less the division between Muscovites, Belarusians and Ukrainians is due to the division between Vilnius and Moscow?

    So then what is the difference between Belarusians and Russians in this case? The fact that they are not Muscovites?

    Well Belarus should rediscover its history. But why be hostile to Lithuanians in order to assert their identity?

    If they are included then they are not being treated unequally. However there is an implication that Lithuanians stole Belarusian history. 

    Such a term refers to all the people of the GDL, including Lithuanians as far as I am aware. The Litvinists claim that Lithuanians are unjustly taking the name for themselves and that they have no right to call themselves Lithuanians when this name is derived from a Baltic tribe from Belarus. So maybe Belarus and Lithuania should just share this name? Regardless of history or who has the right to say they are the ones who founded and led the GDL, both present day Lithuania and Belarus were part of this kingdom.

    #424390

    Anonymous

    No. I do not support Litvinism. I acctaully said that fact that Slavic population of GDL called themselves Litvins does not mean that term Litivin denoted Slavic people, whose name was stolen from Lithuanians. Like it was said few times term litvin could have lot meanings. It could denote and waspromarily denoting Ethnic Lithuanians in oldes Eastern Slavic documents. It also could denote Eastern Slavs and all other residents of GDL. There are 8 different meaning of term in Ruthenian and Russian literature. I was trying to show that stories about stealing of name are not the truth.

    Litvinists is that the Litva were from central Belarus and that the people of present day Lietuva had nothing to do with them. Like I said first mention of term Litvin, and primarily meaning of it was Ethnic Lithuanian. First state on territory of Belarus was Ruthenian principality of Polock, one of strongest pricipalities of Rus’.

    Ehm I was speaking about shifiting of identities for poplation of Smolensk region. They are Russians (Waste majority of them). Those people mentioned here in same time are declaring to be Russians and Litvins, it is trace of time when Smolensk was part of GDL. But, due to living under Mosocw and Russia for centuries, and given the fact vernacular speeches of that region (I have in mind entire region of Smolensk) are transitional, they accepted, or if somenoe wish, get incorporated in Rusian ethnos, allter in nation as well. But that topic is different from waht we discuss. I just said that one of meanings of term Litivin could encompass all residents of GDL (and their descendants today belong to all three Eastern Slavic nations). Litva was deep in Russia as well as far as Trubeck.
    But I repeat, primarily meaning of term Litvin is Lithuanian.

    #424391

    Anonymous

    The early history of Belarus was written by non-Belarusian historians in the 19th and early 20th centuries with a political agenda in mind. There was also a theory about a homogeneous Slavic ethnicity existing in ancient Rus’. The theory was later adopted by Soviet historians until it started falling apart in the early 70s after more archaeological and linguistic evidence was gathered. The history of the Belarusians was purposely distorted in the 19 th century.

    The GDL originated in NW Belarus and south eastern Lithuania. This fact can be substantiated by historical documents and archaeological findings. Many Belarusians in Belarus believe that Navahrudak was the first capital of the GDL which you can check its location on the map. Some say it’s only a legend.

    There were some Baltic speaking princes and a king in the GDL but that fact alone does not make Lithuania to be the main successor of the GDL. Similar circumstances existed in many European and non-European countries. Russia had a German Queen ruling the country responsible for the division of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Early ruling elite class in Kiev Rus and Novgorod had Viking ancestry. Ottomans had non-ethnic Turkish sultans ruling the Empire and so on. In some instances, Baltic speaking rulers were marrying Slavic women to form political unions. It’s also important to many rulers spoke Slavic language and some were baptised in Christian Orthodox religion. The Belarusian people are rightfully considering them as their rulers. The ethnicity of the rulers doesn’t really mater. It would be an ethnographical theft if the Belarusians were only considering ethnic Belarusians as their national heroes or important figures in their history.

    Moreover, the language of the administration in the GDL was old Belarusian or Ruthenian.  Many important historic events in the GDL  were happening on the present day Belarusian territory. Soldiers going into famous battles from the territories of modern day Belarus. The prevailing majority of the GDL population were ethnic Belarusians of Christian orthodox faith , later Greek Catholic and Catholic. How can Belarus not being a successor of the GDL?

    The Belarusians have been reconsidering their history from their perspective, while trying to stay as objective as possible. For instance, the Belarusians appointed a Lithuanian historian as the editor in charge of the Belarusian encyclopaedia on the GDL. The current Belarusian government is ignorant of the GDL heritage. You see, both the Belarusians and the Lithuanians were falsely led to believe about main successor of the GDL being Lithuanians (the Balts).

    As far as the ethnonym ‘Litvin’ goes, I don’t know what is there to argue about. Regardless of its origins, the term was widely applied to the residents of the GDL in which the majority were ethnic Belarusians. People of Ukraine  are known as Ukrainians, while in the past Ukrainians  were known under different names in different regions of the country. The ancestors of Czechs were known as Bohemians in some point of time. The ethnonym has a non-Slavic origin as far as I know. 

    Generally, the Belarusians are not hostile towards the Lithuanians.  You are reading only selected sources if you think the Belarusians are hostile.

    #424393

    Anonymous

    So, how can Belarus not being the main successor of the GDL?

    Litvinists base their claims on lies. Some of these lies are not just retarted, they are very retarted. It compromises the whole view of Belarussian role in GDL. You think "if they have to use these ridiculous lies to support importance of Belarussians in GDL, then their role probably was rather insignifacant".

    Lithuanians mostly value the period before most of the ruling class of GDL turned into Lithuanians only in political sence. Everyone knows that these people where not ethnic Lithuanians (even though many of them had Lithuanian surnames and probably a considerable amount of Lithuanian blood). But when we are talking about people like Mindaugas or Vytautas…For Lithuanians they are Lithuanian as it gets. Not sharing them with anyone  :D

    #424394

    Anonymous

    I don’t support radical Litvinism, you know I don’t. Let’s not engage in another argument accusing litvins of retarded lies. Do you honestly believe the role of Belarusians was insignificant in the GDL?

    But when we are talking about people like Mindaugas or Vytautas…For Lithuanians they are Lithuanian as it gets. Not sharing them with anyone  D

    25.09.2012

    Belarus announces contest for best design of Mindaugas monument…in Navahrudak.  D

    Belarus announces contest for best design of Mindaugas monument
    MINSK, 25 September (BelTA) – A contest for the best design of the monument to Mindaugas, the founder and the first Duke of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has been announced in Belarus, BelTA learnt from Spokesperson for the Culture Ministry of Belarus Yulia Viskub. The contest is administered by the Culture Ministry and the Belarusian State Academy of Arts. The decision to create a monument and install it in Novogrudok was made jointly by the Culture Ministry, the Grodno Oblast Executive Committee and the Novogrudok District Executive Committee. According to the Spokesperson, the design of the monument should meet the highest standards of classical and national monumental art. The monument is to be installed in a public garden on the square in Novogrudokhttp://novogrudok.grodno-region.by/en/news/region?id=8983

    #424396

    Anonymous

    I don't support radical Litvinism, you know I don't. Let's not engage in another argument accusing litvinits of retarded lies. Do you honestly believe the role of Belarusians was insignificant in the GDL?

    I was trying to say that they're making a bear's favour for Belarus (or should I said image of Belarus in Lithuania).

    Of course, Belarus played a significant role. But it was speakers of Lithuanian who established Lithuanian state (Mindaugas) and who raised it to the greatest height in it's history(Vytautas). And this period of GDL (or kingdom, duchy)  is the most important for modern Lithuanians. So from Lithuanian perspective, modern Belarussians definitely do not have the right to claim 50/50 or even more. I don't know to which period of GDL modern Belarusians associate more. 

    25.09.2012
    Belarus announces contest for best design of Mindaugas monument…in Navahrudak

    The initiative is nice, but Navahrudak wasn't Lithuanian capital.  :-

    #424397

    Anonymous

    Of course, Belarus played a significant role. But it was speakers of Lithuanian who established Lithuanian state (Mindaugas) and who raised it to the greatest height in it’s history(Vytautas). And this period of GDL (or kingdom, duchy)  is the most important for modern Lithuanians. So from Lithuanian perspective, modern Belarussians definitely do not have the right to claim 50/50 or even more. I don’t know to which period of GDL modern Belarusians associate more. 

    It’s like telling to all eastern Slavs they had no role in formation of Rus’ because the first rulers weren’t Slavs. I am using anologous example for others to see the issue. But thanks for your opinion.

    The initiative is nice, but Navahrudak wasn’t Lithuanian capital.  :-

    You don’t know this for certain because nobody does. Maciej Stryjkowski suggested that Navahrudak was the first capital of the GDL and many scholars supported the claim, while some didn’t. I also read the article of Tomas Baranauskas; he is biased which is obvious. Anyway, many Belarusians believe that Navahrudak was the first capital of GDL and we are going to have the monument of Mindaugas in Navahrudak.  You are welcome to come to see it when it’s done.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 66 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

10 User(s) Online Join Server
  • some slavic guy...
  • Nexius
  • kony97
  • Tujev
  • Nefario
  • GOGA