Who is really the greatest european nation?

[Casimir]

That is wrong imo, a language can play a big role in "building a nation", but it's not fundamental to create a nation's  idenity.
In Austria,Germany and Switzerland(well, most of the Swiss) people speak the same language: German (Deutsch whatever), but still, they are different nations... the same could be said about Ireland,Wales,Scotland : i really doubt that a big part of the population of those countries  can write and speak fluently in Gaelic; the main language over there  it's Englis, but that doesn't mean they are English .

Most people in Wales can speak soem welsh.  In the south this is less common but i personally know atleast 6 guys who can speak fluent welsh.  In north and mid wales welsh is widely spoken.

I agree however that language is not the definition of culture and as you said it is an important building block of it.

A nation state is abstract, a label we give with no real meaning other than what we attach to it. Essentially all it comes down to is where the European powers decided to draw absolute borders in the 19th century. The rest is just how we come down to justify these moves- we use language or common history to justify common backgrounds, but this is just another form of propaganda. Simply put the political entities at the time were frozen and later these were given justification. When H1tler tried to claim one land of Germanic descent he used similar archaeology of the areas to try and validate a common descent (a 'Germanic' style of metalworking or pottery throughout prehistory, trying to make a deep claim).

Cornwall is part of England despite having far more in common with Wales in terms of Celtic language and history, both lands being relatively untouched by the Romans and Anglo-Saxon invasions. You could also say the Bretagne (Brittany) region in north-west France has more in common with Cornwall than it does with the rest of France, similar traditional language, a history of contact and exchange. When the Romans took Gaul they reported men from south-western Britain (Cornwall) fighting alongside the Gauls in the area now known as Brittany, which suggests more than just casual trade- they had common customs and language but one was absorbed into England, the other into France.

So let's not pretend 'nations' have any real bearing on ethnic, linguistic or historic alignments. Just look at Africa, the modern day nations were formed by European nations drawing lines on a map and sharing the continent between them with no regard for native languages, cultures, identity or infrastructure. If you see your land as a united political, cultural, linguistic and social union, then it's because some fellow in a top hat over 100 years ago decided that's what he wanted you to think.

Cornwalls culture is being shit and full of imbreds, also making bad beer and telling everyone its good.

[Macropus]

Lol, what a bullshit thread. 
The greatest european nation is australian kangaroos, end of story.

[Overdriven]

Common language in a nation? Just look at India. There are no common languages no matter how much the state tells you the official languages are Hindi and English but everything is translated into regional languages anyway because the vast majority speak neither of those.

[Abay]

Common language in a nation? Just look at India. There are no common languages no matter how much the state tells you the official languages are Hindi and English but everything is translated into regional languages anyway because the vast majority speak neither of those.

maybe u cannot call them a nation. I dont know about india so I w,ill not talk about them before I learn some but see north africa please. they mainly talk arabic and you cannot call them algerian, moroccon, tunusian, libyan, egyptian but arabs.
also u can see turkish world. we(in turkey) call khazaks, azerbayjanians, turkmen, north cyprussian, ozbek, kirgiz, karaçay-çerkez federal government, kabartay balkar federal government, tatars, baş kurdistan federal government, çuvaşistan federal government and dagestan federal government turks first. Turkish people are Turks, Khazaks are Turks, etc... And after Soviets brought Russian language to Khazakistan, you see Khazaks are becoming Russian in a time.
As a result, Language--->Culture--->Nation

PS: You cannot call Greeks,  under Ottoman Empire as ''Ottomans or Turks'', they are Greek.

[Abay]

Fun question; is England a nation? Cos i don't really think it is, it's just a country. I'd call Great Britain a nation though, however it encompasses a far more culturally and linguistically diverse population. I'm sure you could say the same for other similar political unions.

For this reason i think there is something lacking in the definition of a nation if we think they're based purely on cultural and linguistic similarity. It's just hard to see because we get to observe the finished product that appears so unified, when the reality, and the history is often far from simple.

there are comments and also facts. your opinion will not change anything. also I know my typing here proabably will not change your mind. the best is ending the thread 

[Casimir]

there are comments and also facts. your opinion will not change anything. also I know my typing here proabably will not change your mind. the best is ending the thread 

your argument of language = culture = nation is your fucking opinion, not a fact.

[Teeth]

Nations are very vague entities anyway, imagined communities based on something that never has been defined. I think the OP just meant any type of sovereign political body. The entire question is flawed on so many levels anyway and the thread was best closed before it even started. It provided some entertainment though, mainly due to allowing people to splurge their chauvinistic and idealized opinions of 'nations'.

[Korgoth]

[Casimir]

I'd be interested in scanning this entire thread for any facts lol. This kind of question is always going to be largely opinion and theory. My entire argument is based on what i've read on the subject, having had to write a number of essays on culture and the formation of nation states. But saying i've read a ton on the subject doesn't make me more correct, i'd never claim that, at the end of the day all the books anyone can read on the subject are just going to be the opinion of the writer based on their observations. Well, not so much for formalised nation states, we know those happened in the 19th century, that's a well-documented fact. And for language i guess i provided a few examples, i can put a bibliography if you want xD

But culture? Hell, even trying to define the word is a matter of preference and opinion. I think anyone going into an internet debate (or an academic one for that matter) thinking it will be possible to change their oppositions mind is deluded and bound for imminent frustration, but there's no shame in admitting that and it does no harm to put your case forward.



That's what i've been saying lol, the vague imagined communites part. Also the flawed question. Also the entertainment. This post has just restored my faith, this thread can die in peace now, at least i met someone else who understood what a nation is/isnt xD

I was referring to Abay's argument not your own.  I agree with you entirely, as Linda Colley would argue all nationality is generally constructed by a central movement rather than simply existing.

[Overdriven]

maybe u cannot call them a nation. I dont know about india so I w,ill not talk about them before I learn some but see north africa please. they mainly talk arabic and you cannot call them algerian, moroccon, tunusian, libyan, egyptian but arabs.
also u can see turkish world. we(in turkey) call khazaks, azerbayjanians, turkmen, north cyprussian, ozbek, kirgiz, karaçay-çerkez federal government, kabartay balkar federal government, tatars, baş kurdistan federal government, çuvaşistan federal government and dagestan federal government turks first. Turkish people are Turks, Khazaks are Turks, etc... And after Soviets brought Russian language to Khazakistan, you see Khazaks are becoming Russian in a time.
As a result, Language--->Culture--->Nation

PS: You cannot call Greeks,  under Ottoman Empire as ''Ottomans or Turks'', they are Greek.

Doesn't Algeria also speak French? And Egyptian Arabic is very different from say...Palestinian Arabic or Saudi Arabic. There are similarities and they do broadly come under the 'Arab' world but there are also big differences.

[Kamirane]

Spain 1740
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

British Empire 1914
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


And a bit animation for alot of countries
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[EponiCo]

Doesn't Algeria also speak French? And Egyptian Arabic is very different from say...Palestinian Arabic or Saudi Arabic. There are similarities and they do broadly come under the 'Arab' world but there are also big differences.

Well, I think the idea is not that everyone with the same language bands together, but people with different languages normally won't.
Kind of makes sense, it's not really practical if you can't understand the language of your government or the next bigger market.
If there is a conflict between two groups with different languages you'd most likely end up on the side that you understand. Not only can you only hear their version of the story, you'd be isolated and maybe killed over a misunderstanding or general prejudice if you don't.
Almost all states I know have one official language, and there's very many conflicts in nations with multiple languages.
There do exist some counter examples, and maybe it's less true with Globalisation, but you can have a rule of thumb, if a nation does not have a common language it's quite likely to end badly.

[Ottomans_Guard]

Good old Germany

[Oberyn]

The dialects spoken in all those north african countries are based on arabic, but they all have their differences. They were pretty much all on the way of becoming their own languages ala "vulgar" latin romance languages before the standardization of languages due to mass literacy. And if you think the people in these countries don't have a sense of nationality and all are pan-arabic before anything else, you must be living 100 years ago. Anyone remember what happened for the World Cup qualifiers last time Algeria played against Egypt? And don't get me started on Morrocco and Algeria. They have ethnic ties that date to well before the arab conquests, but that doesn't change the very different history both areas have had and the subsequent sense of nationalism it has fostered.

[Casimir]

I'm sorry but this thread should have been ignored from the very start.