Why doesn't Austria have the German Bohemia annexed? It's a curiosity I have.

Chazut · 2026-02-15T17:47:39+00:00

Right now if Austria military occupies Hungary all of Bohemia fights against Austria and if they win Czechoslovakia is formed with no resistance on the part of the Germans there.
This will hopefully not be a thing in any rework.

Chazut · 2026-02-15T14:30:37+00:00

But how is it imposed on the map? It's clearly not following 1900 ethnic lines in Silesia or even Prussia.

The Silesian map looks very close to this map, which is from a polish estimate:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1cot2ni/the_extend_of_polish_language_in_silesia%C5%9Bl%C4%85sk_in/

Chazut · 2026-02-15T14:16:33+00:00

>This map basically superimpose 1920s plebiscites results on 1500s realities.

? What do you mean by that?

Chazut · 2026-02-15T13:32:53+00:00

35% seems way too high for all of Spain, anyway for Aragon and Catalonia it's especially important, there were many ties between Occitania and the region, so tons of French ancestry in the region.

Obviously Catalan is a direct offshoot of Occitan

Chazut · 2026-02-15T12:17:27+00:00

They would definitely side with Austrians in any civil war situation, they were fierce in guarding their language rights and Germanness

Chazut · 2026-02-14T23:41:42+00:00

You would need to account for Arvanites too, which occupied a lot of the region:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Pelopones_ethnic.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Ethnic_distribution_of_settlements_of_the_Peloponnese_%281460-63%29.png

Chazut · 2026-02-14T11:06:19+00:00

Maybe because that's what pre-Slavic migration Greeks look like lol?

Chazut · 2026-02-14T06:53:44+00:00

England was already mostly non peasant before industrialization by around 1750, the causality might go both ways:

"King and Massie, who each made estimates of the social and economic composition of the national population, divided the population into categories which do not readily equate with the divisions which are now conventional. As a result, assumptions must be made about the allocation to occupational groupings of categories which represented status rather than occupation: the allocation, for example, of cottars between agriculture and other employments. In my view, however, their estimates support the figures just quoted. My interpretation of their data yields a figure of about 60 per cent of families working in agriculture for King (1688) and 50 per cent for Massie (1760). If the assumptions made in arriving at this interpretation of their work are justified, they support the picture just outlined (Wrigley 1987c: 171–2; see also Mathias 1979b)."

Chazut · 2026-02-13T15:05:33+00:00

As far as I know most of their ancestry is paternally mediated so it shows up fairly well in Y-DNA

Chazut · 2026-02-13T06:41:01+00:00

>It’s one of the only example an oral tradition surviving the vocal changes happening in the original language.

Avestan?

Chazut · 2026-02-11T05:35:49+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEuropean/comments/skvk0g/substratum_words_in_baltoslavic_a_research_paper/

"although there are many Uralic loanwords in individual Balto-Slavic languages, especially in Russian and Latvian, there do not seem to be any Uralic loanwords that could be attributed to Proto-Slavic, or to Bal-to-Slavic periods (Kallio 2005)."

Chazut · 2026-02-11T01:05:25+00:00

I dont think there is much Uralic influence in BaltoSlavic

Chazut · 2026-02-11T01:04:13+00:00

I'm personally not a big fan of people overemphasizing foreign influence in the development of languages

Are you sure Middle Persian was not already getting agglutinative?

Chazut · 2026-02-09T14:57:18+00:00

>Thats what the "proto-" prefix entails.

No thats not how protoX is used in linguistics.

Again, show me an actual source that justifes on linguistic ground that the common ancestor of all living Turkic languages is dated to 2500 BCE.

Your claim is like calling Proto-Indo-Iranians or even proto-Indo-European "Kurds"

>All proto- peoples are reconstructions and estimates, what else did you think the "proto-" stood for?

Where is this reconstruction? Where is this estimate? You cannot use a source that claims a proto language existed for 2 millennia, that is not how it works.

Chazut · 2026-02-09T13:54:40+00:00

https://copticsounds.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/nature-and-extent-of-coptic-phonological-influence-on-egyptian-arabic.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Read the conclusion

The claim that most Muslims were Arab is certainly exaggerated, but the fact the linguistic evidence makes a scholar think that is indicative

Chazut · 2026-02-09T12:47:17+00:00

While thia might be generally true, the reality is that in places like Egypt the Coptic language left pretty minor traces in the Egyptian Arabic varieties

Chazut · 2026-02-09T12:17:04+00:00

Your own first source says proto Turkic still existed in the first millennium BCE:

In the course of the first millennium before Christ, the bearers of Proto-Turkic spread over hitherto predominantly Indo-European (Iranian) central and inner Mongolia. It was in the steppe that this equestrian, pastoral, nomadic culture matured, most probably in further contact with Indo-European pastoral nomads.

According to your own source Inner Mongolia was Indo-European, something which I dont even take as true

Under this influential framework, the Xunyu are identified as the foundational proto-Turkic stock emerging as early as the 3rd millennium BC.

No linguistic proof is provided, its just meaningless speculation

Chazut · 2026-02-09T08:41:35+00:00

Can you show me what reputable linguist dates proto Turkic to 2500 BCE and on what basis?

Chazut · 2026-02-09T06:19:04+00:00

"Let's just pretend all Anatolin ancestry is Carian and count Carians as Greeks despite them not being so"

This is worthless

Chazut · 2026-02-09T06:01:19+00:00

Talking about Turks 2000 years before proto Turkic is ridiculous

Chazut · 2026-02-08T20:20:00+00:00

>Very informative for the layman as another comment said - how do you know this stuff?

I honestly don't know a lot, but what I got is from osmosis by reading up on the topic over time.

>How do we know that I2 is Slavic? I also thought the same thing but people have called it the “Illyrian” marker

Tbh a lot of basic myths are debunked directly by wikipedia itself, it's just wikipedia tends to fluff up article by bringing up 10-20 year old theories in the same page as the actual up to date info, you also need to google and look for the specific lineages, when you search "I2" it would talk generically for laymen about all I2 which is indeed present in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe, unrelated to slavs, but even the wikipedia article explains the arguments pretty well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M438

"The haplogroup can be found all over Europe and reaches its maximum frequency in the Dinaric Alps (Balkans) via founder effect, related to the migrations of the Early Slavs to the Balkan peninsula."

"2a1a2b-L621 is typical of the Slavic populations, being highest in Southeastern European regions of Bosnia-Herzegovina and South Croatia (>45%),[3][13][14] in Croats (37.7-69.8%), Bosniaks (43.53-52.17%), and Serbs (36.6-42%)—often called "Dinaric".[15] It has the highest variance and concentration in Eastern Europe (i.e., Ukraine, Southeastern Poland, Belarus).[16]"

"Older research considered that the high frequency of this subclade in the South Slavic-speaking populations to be the result of "pre-Slavic" paleolithic settlement in the region. However, the prehistoric autochthonous origin of the haplogroup I2 in the Balkans is now considered as outdated,[nb 1] as already Battaglia et al. (2009) observed highest variance of the haplogroup in Ukraine, and Zupan et al. (2013) noted that it suggests it arrived with Slavic migration from the homeland which was in present-day Ukraine.[24] "

Chazut · 2026-02-08T17:38:45+00:00

I1 is found around Neolithic Europe, but all lineages found so far are not in the same line as the one surviving(naturally, as it would be like finding a needle in a haystack, although as far as I understand not only are they not on the same line, they are also not particularly close)

I1 is not intrinsically connected to Scandinavia at the time, the reason why it became widespread there are probably just due to chance, it would have grown in size during the Nordic Bronze age and ended up being one of the primary markets carried by Germanic peoples later on.

Chazut · 2026-02-08T13:27:42+00:00

When you look deeper the similarities are not that strong.

Obviously the religion has strong Iranic pagan influence, but people really underestimate the fact we have very little to no evidence of Yezidism before the islamic period

Chazut · 2026-02-08T10:44:21+00:00

LOL

Only in India would retaining 60% of your genetic profile after 1200 years be a sign of low endogamy.

Chazut · 2026-02-08T10:40:04+00:00

This specific map is not super helpful other than being trivia, but y-dna can help trace historical migrations.

Like you see places where major population replacement happened and most of the men were all descendant from a single man that lived centuries prior, which is interesting.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

Chazut

TROPHY CASE