Soucres for medieval Eastern Europe

[Turjan]

I think most of us would use the term Eastern Europe to refer to the former Soviet Empire, but not just the former Soviet Union (hope I'm not mincing words with you here).

In other words, I think the avergae American includes in Eastern Europe Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovkia (and its descendents), Romania, etc., etc.

But that's not really helpful in cultural terms. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Germany, Austria and Switzerland are considered to be part of Central Europe. In principle, you could also count the historical Transsylvania into this group (not so much nowadays).

Transsylvania was mostly inhabited by Hungarians with a substantial German minority. Of course, you could also find some Romanians (who speak a Romance language, obviously ). Therefore, slavic sources don't help at all in this context.

 

[msd]

But that's not really helpful in cultural terms.

Oh I agree. But, the phrase Eastern Europe has more often than not been used to define historical political boundaries between the Soviet Empire and the West.

I agree with you wholeheartedly though...having spent significant time in that area, the culture, the history, the language, and the religions differ vastly, but still, if you were to ask 99 out of 100 Americans where Poland (and the other countries at issue) are, they would probably say...Eastern Europe.

 

[Turjan]

Oh I agree. But, the phrase Eastern Europe has more often than not been used to define historical political boundaries between the Soviet Empire and the West.

This kind of border existed only for about 45 years . Before that, the Russian influence was somewhat more limited, although they dominated parts of Poland or Finland for quite some time.

South-East Europe is that European area that has belonged to the Osmanian Empire (Turkey) for centuries and had been influenced by the Byzantine Empire before that. These countries share a lot of cultural similarities from this common heritage, despite language and religious differences.

Central Europe is that part that belonged to the Holy Roman Empire or Hungary for centuries (except northern Italy) or was at least part of the Catholic hemisphere in this area (like Poland during much of the medieval time). Here you can also find lots of cultural similarities despite vast language differences.

 

[Algolei]

...a great book that is pretty much revered in any academic setting that takes Russian and Eastern European studies seriously is The Icon and The Axe.

And on that note, here is a link to some other links that might be interesting.

http://it.stlawu.edu/~rkreuzer/imprus/imprus1.htm

 

[fusangite]

But that's not really helpful in cultural terms. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Germany, Austria and Switzerland are considered to be part of Central Europe. In principle, you could also count the historical Transsylvania into this group (not so much nowadays).

Transsylvania was mostly inhabited by Hungarians with a substantial German minority. Of course, you could also find some Romanians (who speak a Romance language, obviously ). Therefore, slavic sources don't help at all in this context.

Actually, Romanian has a very high number of Slavic loan words. The majority of the Romanian population is understood to be of Slavic ethnicity/origin but adopted the language of the coastal Latin minority. The same is true of Bulgaria -- a predominantly Slavic population that has adopted the language of an already part-Slavic group of Turkic invaders.

Also, depending on your historical era, Slavic-speaking Europe was larger than today. During the 7th century, Eastern Germany, Northern and Western Greece, and present-day Romania and Bulgaria all had Slavic-speaking majorities.

But let's take an inventory of the peoples of the region today in terms of language groups:
Turkic: Hungary, Bulgaria
Romance: Romania, Moldavia
Slavic: Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Slovakia, Czecho, Ukraine, Russia, Byelorussia, Lithuania, Poland
Greek: Greece
Bothno-Ugric: Estonia

Slavo-Turkic interaction with Orthodox Christianity is very much the story of the cultures that formed in Eastern Europe; in the early Middle Ages, that common interaction did give rise to much commonality amongst the peoples of the region. While it is true that there was much diversity and difference, an understanding of Slavic history and culture is useful regardless of what region of Eastern Europe one is examining.

Before you generalize about who lived in Transylvania, you need to ask when. If we're talking about the 8th century, the region is dominated by the Avars, for instance.

 

[Turjan]

Actually, Romanian has a very high number of Slavic loan words. The majority of the Romanian population is understood to be of Slavic ethnicity/origin but adopted the language of the coastal Latin minority. The same is true of Bulgaria -- a predominantly Slavic population that has adopted the language of an already part-Slavic group of Turkic invaders.

Well, all members of the "Balkan Linguistic Union" share a few similarities that can be traced back to Latin, Slavic or Greek roots. No wonder, because all Balkanic language groups shared mixed settling areas before modern times with reciprocal influences. Whether you group Bulgarian into the Turkic or Slavonic language family is still a matter of debate, I suppose. Most of the time it's put into the Slavonic language family. The vocabulary is mostly Slavonic and very similar to Macedonian (some verb forms have been derived from Turkish). And Hungarian was shifted to Turkic languages? Last time I looked it was put into the Finno-Ugric family (together with Estonian), subdivision of Uralic languages. Are there any new clues in this field? I just ask, because you put Estonian into "Bothno-Ugric", where the "Ugric" part hints at Hungarian.

I agree that Romanian culture contains many slavic elements.

Also, depending on your historical era, Slavic-speaking Europe was larger than today. During the 7th century, Eastern Germany, Northern and Western Greece, and present-day Romania and Bulgaria all had Slavic-speaking majorities.

That's true. Btw, there's still a Slavic-speaking minority in Eastern Germany, speaking Sorbian . Things like this are always in a flow.

Slavo-Turkic interaction with Orthodox Christianity is very much the story of the cultures that formed in Eastern Europe; in the early Middle Ages, that common interaction did give rise to much commonality amongst the peoples of the region. While it is true that there was much diversity and difference, an understanding of Slavic history and culture is useful regardless of what region of Eastern Europe one is examining.

Well, right. Nevertheless, I see the flair of the Balkan more in its mix of orthodox christianity and many different peoples living side by side. Transylvania is always very near to this border, most of time on the Hungarian side. What I defined as South-East Europe includes the Turks in this mix. Central Europe does not (except for a very short time) and contains catholic instead of orthodox in the mix, which is the main difference.

Before you generalize about who lived in Transylvania, you need to ask when. If we're talking about the 8th century, the region is dominated by the Avars, for instance.

Well, the keyword "van Helsing" was given. This sets the time frame. Coming from there, I put the population to Hungarian (I included the Szekler under this point) with a German minority. The actual percentage of Romanians is not so clear, because they were mostly serfs and did not often show up in the documents. On the other hand, Vlad was clearly Romanian, although he grew up at the Hungarian court.

 

[Turhan]

Great Thread, I love this stuff too

For the original poster, You might try a couple big books by a Polish writer: Henryk Sienkiewicz. His great Trilogy With Fire and Sword, The Deluge and Fire in the Steppe (these are set around the mid to late 1600's if I recall...). The trio deal with the disorder in the huge realm of Poland (whick reached into the Ukraine, up to the borders of Russia and west into what we now call eastern Germany). The invasion by the Swedes and the uprisings of the cossacks create lots of problems. One warning though, these books were written over a century ago and the language, when well translated by WS Kuniczak, is wordy in the old style. There are lots and lots of words. This is not your typical Tom Clancy or Ernest Hemingway page turner-- it builds slowly and has lots of rich detail.

For an older time, try his Teutonic Knights. It is a true medieval period-- around the 1200's. This book is not in my opinion as good as the Fire and Sword trilogy, but it is better than average and has lots of information on knightly stuff and old northeastern Europe .

 

[morbiczer]

Let me correct a few things:

The same is true of Bulgaria -- a predominantly Slavic population that has adopted the language of an already part-Slavic group of Turkic invaders.

(...)

But let's take an inventory of the peoples of the region today in terms of language groups:
Turkic: Hungary, Bulgaria

1. Bulgarian is a Slavic language. The Bulgarians were a Turkic people living north of the Black Sea. At the end of the 7th century AD a part of them moved to the Danube region, more or less into the current Bulgaria. (Other parts of the Bulgarians moved to the Volga, and possibly to other places too.) Those moving to the Danube conquered the Slavs living there, but since there were far more Slavs then Turkic-Bulgarians, the conquerors were assimilated within a few centuries. About the only thing (ASFAIK) which they carried over was the name "Bulgarian". The Bulgarian language is a regular Slavic language, although I can't rule out that it has Turkic loanwords in it.

2. Hungarian is a Finno-Ugric language. Finno-Ugric is a language group completly different from both Indoeuropean and Turkic. Finnish and Estonian are also Finno-Ugric languages, but they are only very far related to Hungarian. Hungarian has a fair amount of Turkic words in it, but only because the ancient Hungarian tribes (sometimes called Magyars in literature) had Turkic people as neighbors for a long time. We also have lots of Slavic words for the same reason. But there can be no doubt that the basic vocabulary and basic grammar of Hungarian is Finno-Ugric.


Edit: noticed too late that Turjan mentioned most of what I wrote already. Sorry for the "doublepost".

 

[Klaus]

A fine book that's heavy on fluff and light on crunch is the 2e Guide to Transylvania, for Masque of the Red Death.

And not that it matters to anyone, but in Portuguese we say Oriental Europe for the former members of the Warsaw Pact and Ocidental Europe for countries that were on this side of the Iron Curtain.

 

[Afrodyte]

time frame

As far as a specific time period, I'm most keenly interested in the medieval era. Alternatively, I sort of like mid- to late 19th century Eastern Europe (at least, as Bram Stoker and later writers envisioned it) although the presence of firearms would sort of throw a monkey wrench in the ideas I have. Van Helsing was simply the thing that got me thinking in that direction. However, I did like Transylvania as envisioned in Bram Stoker's Dracula, but I think that there Slavic history may be a better source for understanding and fleshing out the setting I'm using in the adventure I have in mind. The geographic and political autonomy of the region during the middle ages helps give a sense of isolation that is required to make the adventure work. The mix of local folklore and "universal" religion provides an orientation toward the world both different and familiar to most people. The predominance of rural attitudes and sensibilities gives a refreshing shift from the typical urban perspectives. The linguistic and cultural differences are things I'm interested in as well.