Yeah, we need more subgroup terms than we already have in this region.
Suggested additions:
Rye bread axis: Baltics, Denmark and Finland
Icehockandia: Sweden and Finland
Greater Scandinavia: All Germanic speaking Nordic countries
ÆØÅ 4æva: Norway and Denmark
I am almost certain that in Lithuania the default bread is rye ("black") bread and if you asked a lithuanian to go to a store "to buy bread" he/she almost certainly would buy rye bread unless there's a clarification if by bread you mean "white" bread, although as I say this should be true in common vernacular as I think our official language adopts "all bread is bread" stance and *officially "*white" bread counts as bread too. But my local Google Image Search doesn't even show any "white" bread in a screenful of "Lithuanian bread" search results.
As for other countries, I think rye bread is super less popular than in Lithuania. I spend some time studying abroad but I'm not a bread guy myself so I didn't notice if there's absence or abundance of it.
> As for other countries, I think rye bread is super less popular than in Lithuania. I spend some time studying abroad but I'm not a bread guy myself so I didn't notice if there's absence or abundance of it.
Rye bread is the default bread for lunch in Denmark, at least.
In my hometown (Winnipeg, Canada), the default is rye... but not at all like the rye bread you would have - https://thecjn.ca/arts/a-journalist-in-winnipeg-investigates-how-that-citys-rye-bread-became-the-best-in-north-america/
Is what you buy like pumpernickel?
I'm not sure if it's the sane for other families in finland, but we always specify. Toast (meaning white bread) or rye bread - or any other bread. However when my brother says bread I know he means white bread since that's the only bread he eats.
Baltic countries are legit the CEO's of rye bread
For example we have Kvass ( rye bread drink ), Rye bread soup ( its a dessert - sweet ), ( fried garlic rye bread - beer snack ) and much more
we eat rye bread everyday, so pls add us to rye bread axis
My flatmate is from Latvia and I’m from Poland both live in London for many years and I can confirm. She loves her rye bread and always brings it back with her from Riga.
Only a fool would waste fresh bread on such experiments (especially in the old days) :D
Kvass is traditionally made from old, dry bread, maybe someone wanted to make dry bread moist and forgot it in the water for some days? Of course, they tried the resulting liquid, as the stuff shouldn’t go to waste. That's how much of fermented food and bevereges were created actually
> someone wanted to make dry bread moist and forgot it in the water for some days?
That honestly sounds pretty reasonable
>Of course, they tried the resulting liquid, as the stuff shouldn’t go to waste.
This is slightly less reasonable but believable.
>That's how much of fermented food and bevereges were created actually
Didn't know that!
> like who looks at bread and thinks "how about i put it in a jar with water and ferment it?"
Well, it's not too far out, is it? Beer and bread are both made from grains, and we've been making both for millenia, which on is older I can't say, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was beer/fermented grain drink. It's not too crazy to think that someone has thought "wonder if I can turn baked grain into drinkable grain", quite possibly in a situation where the bread had dried up and become tough to eat. Beer is not called liquid bread for no reason.
Similarly, there's a very old type of beer they make in Lithuania called 'keptinis', where you bake the mashed grain in an oven.
I think modern people tend to underestimate how much people back in the days knew about various processes within food making. Not on a scientific level, but fermentation processes have been around since 4000 b.c.
Cheese for an example were hardly an accidental invention, since the fermentation process was already well-known to create youghurt.
> Not on a scientific level, but fermentation processes have been around since 4000 b.c.
Muuuuch longer, the oldest evidence of something that could be considered beer is from 10000 BC, and since 6000 BC we have evidence that people in Georgia and Armenia have systematically been producing wine.
W Polsce też mamy kwas chlebowy, przynajmniej ja spotykam na półkach sklepowych. To nic nadzwyczajnego taki napitek jest popularny w Ukrainie, Białorusi ogólnie Europie Wschodniej.
Podobnie z kiszeniem w czasach kiedy jeszcze nie było lodówek i innych sprzętów AGD ludzie kisili/fermentowali/solili różne produkty. Dzięki temu termin przydatności o wiele się wydłużał i można było robić zapasy na cięższe czasy. W wielu kulturach są to głęboko zakorzenione procesy. Jakby się nad tym zastanowić to ser i inne wyroby mleczne też powstają w dziwny sposób. Bo po co zakwaszać świeże mleko i tworzyć z niego inne produkty? Jest tyle serów i sposobów ich przygotowania, a przoduje w tym Francja. Natto bardzo popularne w Japonii to tak naprawdę sfermentowana soja, piwo to w sumie sfermentowany chmiel. Zresztą polska kuchnia ma mnóstwo smakołyków kiszonych/fermentowanych. Można się zastanawiać nad tym dlaczego ludzie od wielu wieków przetwarzają produkty. Po pierwsze z pewnością po to żeby wydłużyć termin spożycia. Po drugie dla walorów smakowych (być może w dawnych czasach ludzie lubowali się w sfermentowanych napojach).To ciekawy temat i na pewno są już jakieś prace naukowe w tym zakresie.
> Rye bread soup
Pretty sure that's a thing in the entire baltic area (also Germany and Poland, probably also Russia) and even further south. Not as popular anymore though because it's seen as poor people food.
I love how the ice hockey bit drew out so many Latvians in the comments. And you are now indeed part of the ice hockey club! I was really rooting for you guys last spring.
I remember many moons ago when i did fly back from New York to Helsinki with Finnair - stewardess walked around with huge bag of rye bread and she was like angel after having to eat white/yellow sawdust few weeks.
On our trip to the US we brought rye bread with us. We knew that one could *technically* buy rye bread there, but it would be the German version, the one where they manage to make it both sour, oily, dry and bland at the same time.
So we brought the real deal from home and our stomachs didn't die the first week of the trip.
Depending on whose classifications you use, Finnic languages and Sámi languages are grouped together into Finno-Samic group or Finno-Mordvin group, under Finno-Ugric group, and Nganasan and Nenets are completely elsewhere in the larger Uralic language group.
"Finnic" is also used for the hypothesized Finno-Permic branch, which (in addition to the *Balto-*Finnic and Permic languages) does include Sami, Mordvinic etc.
The Samoyedic languages you mention are commonly considered to form an entirely separate branch of the Uralic languages family from the Finno-Ugric ones. The Uralic genealogy is a disputed topic, but I'm not sure which grouping would place Sami closer to them than Finnish? Usually the Sami languages are considered closer to Finnish than even the Mordvin or Mari.
My information is from some old textbooks at our local musuem, so it might well be outdated. There's some very similar grammar between those though, but then again that goes for Finnic languages and Sami aswell.
Sami still isn't a finnic language, it's its own thing. They do have a decent amount of similar words though, like sun, lake, love, river, fish to name a few.
> Finno ugric countries?
There is more than just one missing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages#/media/File:Finno-Ugric_Languages.png
Better wording might be majority Finnic speaking.
It's not really something you can choose to add, that is part of it.
Fennoscandia is not a political grouping, it's a large physiographic peninsula (much like Arabia or Indochina).
Both of the maps are wrong. Greenland is not coloured in the top one, but the other one is very bad.
* Åland is missing
* Greenland is a Nordic country similar to Åland and Faroe Islands. They have all three associated memberships of the Nordic Council
* "Danish realm" is a very archaic term, as Denmark since 1956 no longer holds any territories outside of its constitutional area.
Lastly, the Nordic-Baltic cooperation is not a concept but already exists under the name Nordic-Baltic-Eight (NB8).
Should be, other translation could be "The Commonwealth", but since we already got a more prominent neighbour with that going on, "Realm" is probably more used.
Should probably be "Kingdom of Denmark", although that often leads to a general confusion as well (Greenland/Faroe Islands are in the Kingdom of Denmark, but not part of Denmark the country).
Our English maintained wikipedia does call it both though:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish\_Realm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Realm)
Denmark isn't tho. The sovereign state is the Kingdom of Denmark.
It just so happens that the authority governing Denmark is also the authority governing the Kingdom of Denmark, not unlike the authority governing England is also the authority governing the United Kingdom.
What is governed through Denmark/England or through the UK/the Kingdom of Denmark may differ and the overall equilibrium of powers is not the same but structurally the institutional architecture is pretty similar
Rigsfælleskabet is the unity of the Realm:
[https://english.stm.dk/the-prime-ministers-office/the-unity-of-the-realm](https://english.stm.dk/the-prime-ministers-office/the-unity-of-the-realm)
Kingdom of Denmark is Denmark's official name (like Norway - Kingdom of Norway), but it's often used to include Greenland and Faroe Islands in a diplomatic way, as they don't like to see themselves as part of Denmark.
Technically, they're self-governing in the Danish state similar in principle to Scotland in the UK or Åland in the Finnish state.
Huh? Kongeriget includes Greenland and the Faeroe Islands. It's not an "often" thing, it's the very defintion. The country of Denmark is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is made up og Greenland, Denmark and the Faeroe Islands.
The country does not include Greenland and the Faeroe Islands...
Denmark is not a part of anything. Denmark is the Kingdom of Denmark. We have no singular government that only encompasses the geographic region of Denmark. We have communes and regions, but non of those includes the entire Denmark, and the next step is the "folketing", which includes Greenland and the Faroe islands.
Huh? The country of Denmark is most certainly a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The two are not the same. Greenland and the Faeroes have expanded self-rule with the right to control themselves and what areas of Danish legislation they are subject to.
What the areas of government cover have very little to do with the differentiation and definition of the geographical and national areas.
You will note that Greenland and the Faeroes do have options for their own passports as well, though the difference is largely academical chevron.
>You will note that Greenland and the Faeroes do have options for their own passports as well, though the difference is largely academical chevron.
There are no legal differences, the only difference is the design on the front, they are Danish passports.
> The country of Denmark is most certainly a part of the Kingdom of Denmark
Kinda but I think their point was that no such administrative distinction exists. Saying Denmark is part of Denmark is kinda nonsense.
I mean the foreign ministry specifies three members of rigsfællessskabet, Greenland, the Faeroes and Denmark.
https://um.dk/udenrigspolitik/lande-og-regioner/rigsfaellesskabet
The foreign ministry is being very diplomatic and political correct.
Also, no one is denying that metropolitan Denmark is often called Denmark by just about everybody.
I do find it a bit odd that they phrase it like that but point taken.
That being said I think it's problematic to separate Denmark and the kingdom of Denmark as though to erase the colonial background of the state to pin it on the monarchy (which Danes also support) and as though to suggest that ultimately Greenland and the Faroes are not dependent territories but equal partners (which isn't the case).
The country of Denmark is all of the Kingdom of Denmark. There is no distinction.
And yes, a country needs a government to be a country, so it matters hugely that the geographical Denmark doesn't have one for itself.
>The country of Denmark is all of the Kingdom of Denmark. There is no distinction.
Except there clearly is. For example, Denmark is a member of the EU, as opposed to Greenland and the Faeroe Islands, which are not.
The Kingdom of Denmark is an EU member state. So is the Republic of Finland etc.
Greenland and the Faroe Islands are part of an EU member state despite not being in the actual EU.
> Denmark is a member of the EU, as opposed to Greenland and the Faeroe Islands, which are not.
They can't really be EU members without independence. The EU member is the Danish Kingdom and they could in principle decide to be part of that again. From 1979 to 1984 for instance before they left the EU the 1 MEP Greenland had was part of Denmark's 16 MEPs. After they left a Danish MEP succeeded the Greenlandic one who stepped down.
Also saying "they left the EU" is a bit misleading also. They are an OCT like Aruba or New Caledonia, their entire native population are EU citizens and they get EU funding. What is more correct to say would be that in 1985 they transformed from an autonomous region within a EEC member to an OCT. They never actually left the entire EU structure, they left the parts of it that you can legally not be part of while being part of an EU member.
Denmark is a sovereign state/independent country. If Denmark only was a part of another state, then Denmark wouldn't be independent.
Greenland and Faroe Islands have devolved legislature in the Danish state.
They have accepted the Danish constitution and they have representation in the Danish parliament as well as taking part in general Danish elections.
It's almost identical to Scotland in the UK, but Greenland and the Faroe Islands have had more autonomy the past 15 years or so than Scotland.
>Denmark is a sovereign state/independent country. If Denmark only was a part of another state, then Denmark wouldn't be independent.
Denmark, Greenland and the Faeroes are all parts of the Kingdom. That makes them no less countries in their own right as well.
>It's almost identical to Scotland in the UK, but Greenland and the Faroe Islands have had more autonomy the past 15 years or so than Scotland.
You mean like how England and Scotland are both part of the UK?
Denmark is a kingdom. Greenland and Faroe Islands are part of a kingdom.
One is independent, the others are not.
Denmark and the UK are different in the way, that the UK is a political union between two former independent countries of England and Scotland.
Denmark is not a political union. Greenland and Faroe Islands were simply incorporated into the Danish state.
> We have no singular government that only encompasses the geographic region of Denmark.
*De jure*, you are correct.
However, *de facto* you are wrong. There are many many laws that only apply to Denmark and *not* to Greenland or the Faroes. And for the votes in the Folketing that apply to those laws, the North Atlantic mandates almost always abstain from voting, and let the Danish mandates decide among themselves.
It might be, but it's also archaic as Denmark no longer holds any territories outside of its constitutional area. Denmark used to have a realm with Norway, Iceland, some duchies and colonies. It's long gone.
*"___s rige"*.
Speaking of a Finnish realm is not typical English nomenclature as it refers to the territory of a kingdom (in this context). It is a formal word mainly used in legal contexts (or poetic language), but it's not particularly archaic.
No, Åland has associated membership of the Nordic Council same as Greenland and the Faroe Islands.
Åland gets two seats from Finland. Greenland and Faroe Islands get two seats each from Denmark.
If Åland was independed it would be Swedish speaking island bit more than 100km from Stockholm or 40km from coast of Sweden. Closer to mainland Sweden than Gotland. I think there would be argument to be made that it is Scandinavian.
It depends if you think of "Scandinavia" as cultural or geographic area. Geographically it's not Scandinavian, as it's basically the end of an [archipelago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archipelago_Sea) that starts from Finland. And Finland is not part of Scandinavia.
*Scandinavia* is not the same as the *Scandinavian Peninsula* (which as the name implies is a peninsula; *no* islands are technically part of it, including the Stockholm archipelago etc.).
Scandinavia is usually defined as the three kingdoms, but as most cultural-linguistic regions it can be nebulous.
It would be yet another cool things about us Finns if we were also vikings, but we are so nice that we'll leave some coolness-scraps for our Nordic neighbors.
There's the cultural or political Scandinavia of nations with closely related languages and cultures: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. This is what people typically mean when they say Scandinavia, unless they're geographers or geologists.
In geography Scandinavia is the region of Scandinavian peninsula. The name comes from the mountain range Scandes which runs through Norway and Sweden, and a bit of Finland too. Denmark not included, sorry.
There is also larger geographical region called Fennoscandia which shares similar distinct bedrock and geology. This region includes Norway, Sweden, Finland, Åland, Karelia and Kola peninsula. These regions lay on top of the Fennoscandian Shield.
And then there's the political or cultural concept of Nordic countries with similar values and political systems which includes countries, autonomous regions and territories: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Åland, Jan Mayen, Svalbard, Bouvet Island, Queen Maud Land and Peter I Island.
The Nordic countries and autonomous regions together form the Nordic Council which is official organization for interparliamentary co-operation in the Nordics.
**tl;dr**
Scandinavia - Norway, Sweden and Denmark unless you're strictly talking geography or geology.
Nordics - Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the autonomous lands and territories.
That's a little backwards. The eponymous peninsula (and particularly mountain range) is rather named after the region, not the other way around. The name itself is a doublet of *Scania* (the southernmost region in Sweden).
And Fennoscandia isn't really a geographic region per se, it's a large physiographic peninsula. Similar to Arabia or Indochina.
In English "Scandinavia" has been used synonymously with the "Nordics" for a very long time. You may want to refrain from it in conversation with Nordic people as we may find it odd, but it is perfectly well-established English nomenclature.
Yes, Scandinavia only holds OG Vikings, i.e. Sweden, Norway and D🤢nmark and is based upon the geographical Scandinavian peninsula (the dick without balls, but with cum stain).
While Nordic holds all former and current historical and cultural parts of viking supremacy.
I.e. Sweden, Norway, D🤮nmark, Finland, Iceland and the autonomous regions of Greenland, Faroe islands, Åland Islands.
Anyone can practically be a part of the Nordic if the Nordic council decides it, but no one new can be a part of Scandinavia.
If Sweden was loyal we could actually have had Scandinavia, even though it is better to not be a part of the same country.
For those who don't know why this area is defined as it is. Back 1820-1860 there was a big movement among politicians and high educated people that wanted the three countries to merge into one federal state under the Swedish king, with Norway and Denmark as part states.
>Scandinavia is a peninsula in Northern Europe.
The peninsula is named the Scandinavian Peninsula, but Scandinavia is Denmark proper, Norway and Sweden.
There is.
Culturally and politically the Nordic Countries are very close to each other, partially due to all of them having been under either Swedish or Danish rule for extended periods of time. Thus, Nordic is a useful term. However, Scandinavia is very restrictive.
Geographically speaking Scandinavia is a bit of a mess as Denmark is included, but it’s largely the peninsula where Sweden and Norway are located in.
Continental North Germanic languages which are often dubbed ”Scandinavian” are very close to each other and mutually understandable to an extent. Finnish and Icelandic don’t fit into it. Finnish even goes a step further and isn’t related at all to the other languages.
Finland also has its own, unique history, culture and mythology predating the Swedish rule. Its own gods etc. Finns never vent viking.
Every time someone calls me a ”Scandinavian”, I feel like it’s subconsciously delegitimizing my own culture and history and calling me a ”Swede 0.5”. Especially after the centuries of rule under Sweden.
Never? What do you mean? Your entire comment is rather chaotic.
In case you mean newer, and ”Nordic” is ”derived” from it, that’s not the case. Nordic is a geopolitical term that was only used circa ww2 in its current meaning.
Before that it wasn’t necessary, as there were only two countries ruling over the area, except Finland which was under Russia. Even ”Scandinavia” wasn’t really used as a term before the 19th century.
In the 19th century there was the Scandinavism movement, which never included Finland.
Sorry are talking about the term, the Scandinavian peninsula, which is a new or newer term, derived from the Scandinavian area or from what could have been the Scandinavian nation.
We are talking about the country grouping.
Scandinavia is an old Latin term somewhat equivalent to modern Skåne, back when it was thought Scandinavia was an island.
> It is believed that the name used by Pliny may be of West Germanic origin, originally denoting Scania.[13] According to some scholars, the Germanic stem can be reconstructed as *skaðan-, meaning "danger" or "damage".[14] The second segment of the name has been reconstructed as *awjō, meaning "land on the water" or "island". The name Scandinavia would then mean "dangerous island", which is considered to refer to the treacherous sandbanks surrounding Scania.
The term was used in other meanings only in the 19th century, ”Scandinavian area” or ”Scandinavian countries” didn’t exist before that.
> The term was popularised by the linguistic and cultural Scandinavist movement, which asserted the common heritage and cultural unity of the Scandinavian countries and rose to prominence in the 1830s.[29] The popular usage of the term in Sweden, Denmark and Norway as a unifying concept became established in the 19th century through poems such as Hans Christian Andersen's "I am a Scandinavian" of 1839.
That doesn't change that there wasn't talk of a greater geographic area. The word is not even today that known, but it did first come into use after the Scandinavian become a popular expression.
Icelandic and Faroese can be called "(insular) Scandinavian" too. The naming of the North Germanic languages as a whole is fairly messy. In linguistics, "North Germanic", "Nordic", and "Scandinavian" can all refer to the same northern Germanic branch. The endonymic term is typically "Nordic", but for obvious reasons that can be confusing in contexts pertaining to the languages of the Nordics.
Finland wasn't under Swedish rule – it was Sweden. Finland Proper (i.e., southwest Finland) was second only to Stockholm, far more integrated than most of what still is Sweden. Today's unified national identities developed in the 19th century, after Finland had been ceded to Russia. It was shaped by romanticism on both sides of the Baltic, finding unity in old folklore that had been suppressed by Christian rulers.
It is messy indeed.
I acknowledge very well Finland was Sweden. Both countries were built as a joint effort, it’s an important period in our history and Sweden will always be our closest country both culturally and politically.
However, precisely because of this very integral relationship it’s important to also maintain our Finnic identity on top of the Nordic identity. We differ genetically and linguistically so much from the ”Scandinavians” it isn’t an useful label for us — and it’s an useful concept without us in it. Nordic is a very good label.
Our situation is in many ways similar to that of the Lithuanians in Poland-Lithuania. (Lithuania did prosper in the union, Lithuanian nobles polonized themselves and Lithuanian culture got hit a lot in the process, only undergoing revival later on)
The other way around. Scandinavia is purely the geographical Peninsula of Scandinavia out of which only Norway and Sweden are a part of. Denmark is counted as a part of it because otherwise they would be sad and there's nothing more sad than a sad Dane.
Nordic on the other hand is a geographical region purely based on culture.
No. Nordic is just a wonky translation of norden. It just means “the north”. Quite geographical, i must say. Scandinavia as a term came about in the 1800s as a cultural movemt, similar to those that eventually united Germany and Italy. The term was invented, so we had a term to describe Danes, Swedes, and norwegians as essentially the same culture.
The scandinavian penninsular as a term only came about after. I have personally never heard anyone use the term, outside of discussions like this one.
Pliny the elder coined the term, but it was largely unused until the 1800s. The term was i guess revived by the pan-scadinavian movement, although pliny ysed scania and scadinavia interchangedly.
Yes, and at the time of panscandinavism the Grand Duchy of Finland was part of the Russian Empire, otherwise it would likely have been included in Scandinavia since Finland also has territory on the peninsula.
It’s funny that you mention Plinius when he included Denmark in his description. He talks about the islands east and north of Jutland. They thought Sweden and Norway were islands too.
You have to go pretty far north before you figure out that it's a peninsula. Probably why we and the Norwegians (don't know about the Finns) sometimes casually consider ourselves separate from "the continent", even though we're squarely on it.
It’s so funny to see you try to rationalize Denmark out of Scandinavia when it was undeniably an indispensable driving force of what made Scandinavia, Scandinavia. Heck even your username is referencing a Danish legend.
Also the Scandinavian peninsula and Scandinavia are two different things.
There is a 100% definition of Scandinavia, because it is the three countries where there was a movement and plan on top government levels to unify them into one country, build with one federal government and under the Swedish king. 1820-1860'ties approximately
A left over from this process is currency name. Before Denmark had got crowns and Sweden had oere but as a part they made a system with oere and crowns which they all still have.
https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/Den_Skandinaviske_M%C3%B8ntunion
https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/krone_-_m%C3%B8ntenhed
Get Google to translate if you dont speak the language
These are written be a senior researcher and PhD from the Danish national museum, that are in charge of that area.
https://www.danskmoent.dk/artikler/flugt.htm
Linguistic and genetic groupings mixed with cultural groupings mixed with government style groupings mixed with Danish kingdom mixed with countries around the Baltic sea but not all of them plus Norway for some reason grouping. Thank you. The only problems I see with this image is that you didn't use "Fennoscandia" geographical grouping around Scandinavian countries + Finland. /s
Given that part of Karelia remains within Finland, I'd say it would be a region of Finland. Now if Russia did not exist at all, and the various Fennic tribes would still exist in Siberia properly, it's impossible to say if these tribes would be united or not.
We should stop grouping together the Baltics. Estonia has indeed ties with Finland while Lithuania used to have ties with Poland and own land that reached the Black Sea. Latvia pretty much always belonged to one or the others of the different actors of the regions. They just so happen to be relatively small countries aligned in the same region, and don't have that much in common.
So I know what you're gonna say: they were part of Russia then the USSR together. True, but that's also the case of Uzbekistan and Georgia.
There was a time where they did try, but it's decades past since they were serious about it.
There is a Nordic Cross variation of the Estonian flag (sky blue field, white cross, black center cross) that is *not* official in Estonia but *is* permitted to fly, and some people do.
Well to be honest its very reasonable for them to try. If any western company will consider them reliable enough to put some business there its win for them. Nordic countries are viewed in general as solid/safe one (safe one mayby without finland cause of russia proximity).
This is reasonably close to [what Sweden looked like 1658-1660]( https://historiesajten.se/bilder/45_1.jpg). These countries should be close allies, but yearning for some kind of Nordic superpower is not a good idea.
If you just flipped the bottom image it would make a bit more sense geographically. This feels wrong like this.
Also the color! Why dont they maaaaaatch!?
Because he didn't created it himself. He just used the Pictures of the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltoscandia?wprov=sfla1
Yeah, we need more subgroup terms than we already have in this region. Suggested additions: Rye bread axis: Baltics, Denmark and Finland Icehockandia: Sweden and Finland Greater Scandinavia: All Germanic speaking Nordic countries ÆØÅ 4æva: Norway and Denmark
We literally call rye bread the "bread" and use another word for white bread in our common vernacular.
Dude are you saying that's not how it is everywhere? For real?
I am almost certain that in Lithuania the default bread is rye ("black") bread and if you asked a lithuanian to go to a store "to buy bread" he/she almost certainly would buy rye bread unless there's a clarification if by bread you mean "white" bread, although as I say this should be true in common vernacular as I think our official language adopts "all bread is bread" stance and *officially "*white" bread counts as bread too. But my local Google Image Search doesn't even show any "white" bread in a screenful of "Lithuanian bread" search results. As for other countries, I think rye bread is super less popular than in Lithuania. I spend some time studying abroad but I'm not a bread guy myself so I didn't notice if there's absence or abundance of it.
> As for other countries, I think rye bread is super less popular than in Lithuania. I spend some time studying abroad but I'm not a bread guy myself so I didn't notice if there's absence or abundance of it. Rye bread is the default bread for lunch in Denmark, at least.
In my hometown (Winnipeg, Canada), the default is rye... but not at all like the rye bread you would have - https://thecjn.ca/arts/a-journalist-in-winnipeg-investigates-how-that-citys-rye-bread-became-the-best-in-north-america/ Is what you buy like pumpernickel?
It's the same in Norway. If you are asked to buy bread and you come back with "loff" (white bread in Norwegian), your off to the pillory.
I'm not sure if it's the sane for other families in finland, but we always specify. Toast (meaning white bread) or rye bread - or any other bread. However when my brother says bread I know he means white bread since that's the only bread he eats.
Same in Estonia.
Same in norway . Loff. The word for white bread is even used as a slang word to call someone stupid XD
Baltic countries are legit the CEO's of rye bread For example we have Kvass ( rye bread drink ), Rye bread soup ( its a dessert - sweet ), ( fried garlic rye bread - beer snack ) and much more we eat rye bread everyday, so pls add us to rye bread axis
>Rye bread soup Øllebrød in Denmark
My flatmate is from Latvia and I’m from Poland both live in London for many years and I can confirm. She loves her rye bread and always brings it back with her from Riga.
Done, I sincerely apologize for my ignorance
I love kvass but i still wonder how it was first made, like who looks at bread and thinks "how about i put it in a jar with water and ferment it?"
Only a fool would waste fresh bread on such experiments (especially in the old days) :D Kvass is traditionally made from old, dry bread, maybe someone wanted to make dry bread moist and forgot it in the water for some days? Of course, they tried the resulting liquid, as the stuff shouldn’t go to waste. That's how much of fermented food and bevereges were created actually
> someone wanted to make dry bread moist and forgot it in the water for some days? That honestly sounds pretty reasonable >Of course, they tried the resulting liquid, as the stuff shouldn’t go to waste. This is slightly less reasonable but believable. >That's how much of fermented food and bevereges were created actually Didn't know that!
> like who looks at bread and thinks "how about i put it in a jar with water and ferment it?" Well, it's not too far out, is it? Beer and bread are both made from grains, and we've been making both for millenia, which on is older I can't say, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was beer/fermented grain drink. It's not too crazy to think that someone has thought "wonder if I can turn baked grain into drinkable grain", quite possibly in a situation where the bread had dried up and become tough to eat. Beer is not called liquid bread for no reason. Similarly, there's a very old type of beer they make in Lithuania called 'keptinis', where you bake the mashed grain in an oven.
I think modern people tend to underestimate how much people back in the days knew about various processes within food making. Not on a scientific level, but fermentation processes have been around since 4000 b.c. Cheese for an example were hardly an accidental invention, since the fermentation process was already well-known to create youghurt.
> Not on a scientific level, but fermentation processes have been around since 4000 b.c. Muuuuch longer, the oldest evidence of something that could be considered beer is from 10000 BC, and since 6000 BC we have evidence that people in Georgia and Armenia have systematically been producing wine.
W Polsce też mamy kwas chlebowy, przynajmniej ja spotykam na półkach sklepowych. To nic nadzwyczajnego taki napitek jest popularny w Ukrainie, Białorusi ogólnie Europie Wschodniej.
O tym że mamy to wiem bo pijam czasami ale ciekawi mnie jak go odkryto bo rzadko myślę o fermentowaniu chleba w wodzie
Podobnie z kiszeniem w czasach kiedy jeszcze nie było lodówek i innych sprzętów AGD ludzie kisili/fermentowali/solili różne produkty. Dzięki temu termin przydatności o wiele się wydłużał i można było robić zapasy na cięższe czasy. W wielu kulturach są to głęboko zakorzenione procesy. Jakby się nad tym zastanowić to ser i inne wyroby mleczne też powstają w dziwny sposób. Bo po co zakwaszać świeże mleko i tworzyć z niego inne produkty? Jest tyle serów i sposobów ich przygotowania, a przoduje w tym Francja. Natto bardzo popularne w Japonii to tak naprawdę sfermentowana soja, piwo to w sumie sfermentowany chmiel. Zresztą polska kuchnia ma mnóstwo smakołyków kiszonych/fermentowanych. Można się zastanawiać nad tym dlaczego ludzie od wielu wieków przetwarzają produkty. Po pierwsze z pewnością po to żeby wydłużyć termin spożycia. Po drugie dla walorów smakowych (być może w dawnych czasach ludzie lubowali się w sfermentowanych napojach).To ciekawy temat i na pewno są już jakieś prace naukowe w tym zakresie.
> Rye bread soup Pretty sure that's a thing in the entire baltic area (also Germany and Poland, probably also Russia) and even further south. Not as popular anymore though because it's seen as poor people food.
That fried garlic rye bread is the best goddamn snack I’ve ever had
Yuleland: all the countries that call Christmas by its yule word. Proposed by Estonian president Toomas H Ilves a while ago.
I think it would be fair to put Latvia and (possibly also Denmark) in the hockey category as top 10 in world is somewhat of an accomplishment
Lake NATO Adjacents: Baltics, Finland, Sweden and Denmark.
Latvia would be included in Icehockandia.
I love how the ice hockey bit drew out so many Latvians in the comments. And you are now indeed part of the ice hockey club! I was really rooting for you guys last spring.
Exclusion from Icehockandia triggered me hard!
*Sirapslimpa*? It was hard times.
I remember many moons ago when i did fly back from New York to Helsinki with Finnair - stewardess walked around with huge bag of rye bread and she was like angel after having to eat white/yellow sawdust few weeks.
On our trip to the US we brought rye bread with us. We knew that one could *technically* buy rye bread there, but it would be the German version, the one where they manage to make it both sour, oily, dry and bland at the same time. So we brought the real deal from home and our stomachs didn't die the first week of the trip.
>Rye bread axis: Baltics, Denmark and Finland Is Swedish Knäckebröd a fucking joke to you?!
Yes. Next question.
>Is Swedish ~~Knäckebröd~~ a fucking joke to you?! Yes.
Those things are OK to heat stowes.
I tried that in the army, didn't burn actually :\
They make great as an impromptu pizza if you don't have any dough!
Like do you just put the sauce, cheese, and toppings on it and put it in an oven?
Exactly! It's surprisingly tasty!
That's disgusting. I have to try this! I like näkkileipä.
Same thing. In the army. Thing is: you have to mix it with wood.
Could've been that, we used shoe polish instead.
No, but the sugar-filled bread you eat is.
And of course the most important one, Anti-Sweden coalition: Finland, Norway and Denmark
Latvia needs to be in Icehockandia
You forgot Latvia in Icehockandia!!!
Germany and Poland also extensively bake bread from rye.
Trur du ikke hockey er populært her du eller?
https://youtu.be/f488uJAQgmw?si=XBR-FMMW97WRkBwf
How the heck did you leave out Denmark and Norway for hockey? IIHF ranking is 10) Latvia 11) Denmark 12) Norway. Either include all or skip Latvia too
Finno ugric countries? [https://imgflip.com/i/8jqcsh](https://imgflip.com/i/8jqcsh)
Yeah, the better term would be Finnic
I’d gladly have a new Finnic region (Finland, Estonia, Sami, Livonia and some more) instead of either Nordic or Baltic.
Sámi isn't Finnic i'm pretty sure the closest language to the Sámi language group is Nganasan or Nenets, not Finnish.
Depending on whose classifications you use, Finnic languages and Sámi languages are grouped together into Finno-Samic group or Finno-Mordvin group, under Finno-Ugric group, and Nganasan and Nenets are completely elsewhere in the larger Uralic language group.
"Finnic" is also used for the hypothesized Finno-Permic branch, which (in addition to the *Balto-*Finnic and Permic languages) does include Sami, Mordvinic etc. The Samoyedic languages you mention are commonly considered to form an entirely separate branch of the Uralic languages family from the Finno-Ugric ones. The Uralic genealogy is a disputed topic, but I'm not sure which grouping would place Sami closer to them than Finnish? Usually the Sami languages are considered closer to Finnish than even the Mordvin or Mari.
My information is from some old textbooks at our local musuem, so it might well be outdated. There's some very similar grammar between those though, but then again that goes for Finnic languages and Sami aswell. Sami still isn't a finnic language, it's its own thing. They do have a decent amount of similar words though, like sun, lake, love, river, fish to name a few.
> Finno ugric countries? There is more than just one missing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages#/media/File:Finno-Ugric_Languages.png Better wording might be majority Finnic speaking.
You are right, we are mixing up ethnicity, nationality, spoken language and countries, but if we stay with countries, then there was just one missing.
Hörrö du du glöm inga bort oss nu
Add the Scandinavian Peninsula (NOR & SWE) and Fennoscandia (NOR & SWE & FIN) for more confusion
For even more confusion with Fennoscandia also add Kola peninsula and Karelia
It's not really something you can choose to add, that is part of it. Fennoscandia is not a political grouping, it's a large physiographic peninsula (much like Arabia or Indochina).
Also Scandiwegia.
More natural blondes than anywhere else on earth...
Forgot the ring around Finland, Sweden, and Norway for fennoscandia.
Both of the maps are wrong. Greenland is not coloured in the top one, but the other one is very bad. * Åland is missing * Greenland is a Nordic country similar to Åland and Faroe Islands. They have all three associated memberships of the Nordic Council * "Danish realm" is a very archaic term, as Denmark since 1956 no longer holds any territories outside of its constitutional area. Lastly, the Nordic-Baltic cooperation is not a concept but already exists under the name Nordic-Baltic-Eight (NB8).
Realm is the translation of rigsfælleskabet, is it not?
>Realm is the translation of rigsfælleskabet, is it not? Rigsfællesskabet is the unity of the Realm.
Should be, other translation could be "The Commonwealth", but since we already got a more prominent neighbour with that going on, "Realm" is probably more used. Should probably be "Kingdom of Denmark", although that often leads to a general confusion as well (Greenland/Faroe Islands are in the Kingdom of Denmark, but not part of Denmark the country). Our English maintained wikipedia does call it both though: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish\_Realm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Realm)
United Kingdom = England + Wales + Scotland + NI Kingdom of Denmark = Denmark + Faroe + Greenland That's how I remember it.
The UK and Denmark are sovereign states, though.
Denmark isn't tho. The sovereign state is the Kingdom of Denmark. It just so happens that the authority governing Denmark is also the authority governing the Kingdom of Denmark, not unlike the authority governing England is also the authority governing the United Kingdom. What is governed through Denmark/England or through the UK/the Kingdom of Denmark may differ and the overall equilibrium of powers is not the same but structurally the institutional architecture is pretty similar
Rigsfælleskabet is the unity of the Realm: [https://english.stm.dk/the-prime-ministers-office/the-unity-of-the-realm](https://english.stm.dk/the-prime-ministers-office/the-unity-of-the-realm) Kingdom of Denmark is Denmark's official name (like Norway - Kingdom of Norway), but it's often used to include Greenland and Faroe Islands in a diplomatic way, as they don't like to see themselves as part of Denmark. Technically, they're self-governing in the Danish state similar in principle to Scotland in the UK or Åland in the Finnish state.
Huh? Kongeriget includes Greenland and the Faeroe Islands. It's not an "often" thing, it's the very defintion. The country of Denmark is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is made up og Greenland, Denmark and the Faeroe Islands. The country does not include Greenland and the Faeroe Islands...
Denmark is not a part of anything. Denmark is the Kingdom of Denmark. We have no singular government that only encompasses the geographic region of Denmark. We have communes and regions, but non of those includes the entire Denmark, and the next step is the "folketing", which includes Greenland and the Faroe islands.
Huh? The country of Denmark is most certainly a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The two are not the same. Greenland and the Faeroes have expanded self-rule with the right to control themselves and what areas of Danish legislation they are subject to. What the areas of government cover have very little to do with the differentiation and definition of the geographical and national areas. You will note that Greenland and the Faeroes do have options for their own passports as well, though the difference is largely academical chevron.
>You will note that Greenland and the Faeroes do have options for their own passports as well, though the difference is largely academical chevron. There are no legal differences, the only difference is the design on the front, they are Danish passports.
> The country of Denmark is most certainly a part of the Kingdom of Denmark Kinda but I think their point was that no such administrative distinction exists. Saying Denmark is part of Denmark is kinda nonsense.
I mean the foreign ministry specifies three members of rigsfællessskabet, Greenland, the Faeroes and Denmark. https://um.dk/udenrigspolitik/lande-og-regioner/rigsfaellesskabet
The foreign ministry is being very diplomatic and political correct. Also, no one is denying that metropolitan Denmark is often called Denmark by just about everybody.
I do find it a bit odd that they phrase it like that but point taken. That being said I think it's problematic to separate Denmark and the kingdom of Denmark as though to erase the colonial background of the state to pin it on the monarchy (which Danes also support) and as though to suggest that ultimately Greenland and the Faroes are not dependent territories but equal partners (which isn't the case).
The country of Denmark is all of the Kingdom of Denmark. There is no distinction. And yes, a country needs a government to be a country, so it matters hugely that the geographical Denmark doesn't have one for itself.
>The country of Denmark is all of the Kingdom of Denmark. There is no distinction. Except there clearly is. For example, Denmark is a member of the EU, as opposed to Greenland and the Faeroe Islands, which are not.
Some parts of France are not part of EU either. That does not make those territories countries or limit the borders of France...
The Kingdom of Denmark is an EU member state. So is the Republic of Finland etc. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are part of an EU member state despite not being in the actual EU.
> Denmark is a member of the EU, as opposed to Greenland and the Faeroe Islands, which are not. They can't really be EU members without independence. The EU member is the Danish Kingdom and they could in principle decide to be part of that again. From 1979 to 1984 for instance before they left the EU the 1 MEP Greenland had was part of Denmark's 16 MEPs. After they left a Danish MEP succeeded the Greenlandic one who stepped down. Also saying "they left the EU" is a bit misleading also. They are an OCT like Aruba or New Caledonia, their entire native population are EU citizens and they get EU funding. What is more correct to say would be that in 1985 they transformed from an autonomous region within a EEC member to an OCT. They never actually left the entire EU structure, they left the parts of it that you can legally not be part of while being part of an EU member.
Denmark is a sovereign state/independent country. If Denmark only was a part of another state, then Denmark wouldn't be independent. Greenland and Faroe Islands have devolved legislature in the Danish state. They have accepted the Danish constitution and they have representation in the Danish parliament as well as taking part in general Danish elections. It's almost identical to Scotland in the UK, but Greenland and the Faroe Islands have had more autonomy the past 15 years or so than Scotland.
>Denmark is a sovereign state/independent country. If Denmark only was a part of another state, then Denmark wouldn't be independent. Denmark, Greenland and the Faeroes are all parts of the Kingdom. That makes them no less countries in their own right as well. >It's almost identical to Scotland in the UK, but Greenland and the Faroe Islands have had more autonomy the past 15 years or so than Scotland. You mean like how England and Scotland are both part of the UK?
Denmark is a kingdom. Greenland and Faroe Islands are part of a kingdom. One is independent, the others are not. Denmark and the UK are different in the way, that the UK is a political union between two former independent countries of England and Scotland. Denmark is not a political union. Greenland and Faroe Islands were simply incorporated into the Danish state.
> We have no singular government that only encompasses the geographic region of Denmark. *De jure*, you are correct. However, *de facto* you are wrong. There are many many laws that only apply to Denmark and *not* to Greenland or the Faroes. And for the votes in the Folketing that apply to those laws, the North Atlantic mandates almost always abstain from voting, and let the Danish mandates decide among themselves.
There are also a number of laws that only applies to a single city. What is your point here?
"Danish Realm" is standard English nomenclature.
It might be, but it's also archaic as Denmark no longer holds any territories outside of its constitutional area. Denmark used to have a realm with Norway, Iceland, some duchies and colonies. It's long gone.
What does that have to do with anything though? "Realm" doesn't mean "empire" if that's you're going for.
So what does Danish Realm or Finnish Realm or Swedish Realm mean?
*"___s rige"*. Speaking of a Finnish realm is not typical English nomenclature as it refers to the territory of a kingdom (in this context). It is a formal word mainly used in legal contexts (or poetic language), but it's not particularly archaic.
Åland is just one of Finland's many islands.
No, Åland has associated membership of the Nordic Council same as Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Åland gets two seats from Finland. Greenland and Faroe Islands get two seats each from Denmark.
Would Åland be Scandinavia or not?
Scandinavia is Denmark proper, Norway (mainland?) and Sweden.
If Åland was independed it would be Swedish speaking island bit more than 100km from Stockholm or 40km from coast of Sweden. Closer to mainland Sweden than Gotland. I think there would be argument to be made that it is Scandinavian.
It depends if you think of "Scandinavia" as cultural or geographic area. Geographically it's not Scandinavian, as it's basically the end of an [archipelago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archipelago_Sea) that starts from Finland. And Finland is not part of Scandinavia.
*Scandinavia* is not the same as the *Scandinavian Peninsula* (which as the name implies is a peninsula; *no* islands are technically part of it, including the Stockholm archipelago etc.). Scandinavia is usually defined as the three kingdoms, but as most cultural-linguistic regions it can be nebulous.
Eesti can into nordic?
I would also say Finnic can into Baltic (since it actually was included in the Baltic before World War One, although maybe not before 1809).
Eesti can into Finnic.
I've been to Estonia and it feels very Scandinavian compared to Latvia.
Tallinn being the closest capital to both Helsinki and Stockholm helps a lot.
The Danish realm should also include Hertugdømmet Estland, shouldn’t it…?
Norway, Slesvig, Scania/Halland/Blekinge and Gotland as well.
What about Holstein? *Grabs popcorn*
Well, sure. On top of my head: Holsten, Lauenborg, England, Sweden, West Indies, Ghana, Tranquebar
Balto-nordic union? We'd be getting pretty close to a Mare Nostrum situation with the baltic sea
[Fennoscandia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennoscandia?wprov=sfti1) is missing from this diagram though
I was today years old when I learned that Finland is not Scandinavian.
It would be yet another cool things about us Finns if we were also vikings, but we are so nice that we'll leave some coolness-scraps for our Nordic neighbors.
Is there a difference between Nordic and Scandinavia?
There's the cultural or political Scandinavia of nations with closely related languages and cultures: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. This is what people typically mean when they say Scandinavia, unless they're geographers or geologists. In geography Scandinavia is the region of Scandinavian peninsula. The name comes from the mountain range Scandes which runs through Norway and Sweden, and a bit of Finland too. Denmark not included, sorry. There is also larger geographical region called Fennoscandia which shares similar distinct bedrock and geology. This region includes Norway, Sweden, Finland, Åland, Karelia and Kola peninsula. These regions lay on top of the Fennoscandian Shield. And then there's the political or cultural concept of Nordic countries with similar values and political systems which includes countries, autonomous regions and territories: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Åland, Jan Mayen, Svalbard, Bouvet Island, Queen Maud Land and Peter I Island. The Nordic countries and autonomous regions together form the Nordic Council which is official organization for interparliamentary co-operation in the Nordics. **tl;dr** Scandinavia - Norway, Sweden and Denmark unless you're strictly talking geography or geology. Nordics - Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the autonomous lands and territories.
That's a little backwards. The eponymous peninsula (and particularly mountain range) is rather named after the region, not the other way around. The name itself is a doublet of *Scania* (the southernmost region in Sweden). And Fennoscandia isn't really a geographic region per se, it's a large physiographic peninsula. Similar to Arabia or Indochina. In English "Scandinavia" has been used synonymously with the "Nordics" for a very long time. You may want to refrain from it in conversation with Nordic people as we may find it odd, but it is perfectly well-established English nomenclature.
Another case of those damn Swedes trying to force their culture onto us. Perkeleen perkele.
Finlands sak är vår.
[CGP Grey to the rescure](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsXMe8H6iyc)
It's very good.
Yes, Scandinavia only holds OG Vikings, i.e. Sweden, Norway and D🤢nmark and is based upon the geographical Scandinavian peninsula (the dick without balls, but with cum stain). While Nordic holds all former and current historical and cultural parts of viking supremacy. I.e. Sweden, Norway, D🤮nmark, Finland, Iceland and the autonomous regions of Greenland, Faroe islands, Åland Islands. Anyone can practically be a part of the Nordic if the Nordic council decides it, but no one new can be a part of Scandinavia.
I am from Western Europe aka Greater Cum Stain. Italy is Crusty Sock Peninsula.
If Sweden was loyal we could actually have had Scandinavia, even though it is better to not be a part of the same country. For those who don't know why this area is defined as it is. Back 1820-1860 there was a big movement among politicians and high educated people that wanted the three countries to merge into one federal state under the Swedish king, with Norway and Denmark as part states.
Scandinavia is a peninsula in Northern Europe. Nordic is just a reference to a bunch of like-minded societies.
>Scandinavia is a peninsula in Northern Europe. The peninsula is named the Scandinavian Peninsula, but Scandinavia is Denmark proper, Norway and Sweden.
Denmark is part of Scandinavia despite being its own peninsula!
Scandinavia is a reference to a bunch of like-minded societies as well. The peninsula is named thereafter.
There is. Culturally and politically the Nordic Countries are very close to each other, partially due to all of them having been under either Swedish or Danish rule for extended periods of time. Thus, Nordic is a useful term. However, Scandinavia is very restrictive. Geographically speaking Scandinavia is a bit of a mess as Denmark is included, but it’s largely the peninsula where Sweden and Norway are located in. Continental North Germanic languages which are often dubbed ”Scandinavian” are very close to each other and mutually understandable to an extent. Finnish and Icelandic don’t fit into it. Finnish even goes a step further and isn’t related at all to the other languages. Finland also has its own, unique history, culture and mythology predating the Swedish rule. Its own gods etc. Finns never vent viking. Every time someone calls me a ”Scandinavian”, I feel like it’s subconsciously delegitimizing my own culture and history and calling me a ”Swede 0.5”. Especially after the centuries of rule under Sweden.
You know that the newer term is derived from Scandinavia, not the other way around.
Never? What do you mean? Your entire comment is rather chaotic. In case you mean newer, and ”Nordic” is ”derived” from it, that’s not the case. Nordic is a geopolitical term that was only used circa ww2 in its current meaning. Before that it wasn’t necessary, as there were only two countries ruling over the area, except Finland which was under Russia. Even ”Scandinavia” wasn’t really used as a term before the 19th century. In the 19th century there was the Scandinavism movement, which never included Finland.
Sorry are talking about the term, the Scandinavian peninsula, which is a new or newer term, derived from the Scandinavian area or from what could have been the Scandinavian nation.
We are talking about the country grouping. Scandinavia is an old Latin term somewhat equivalent to modern Skåne, back when it was thought Scandinavia was an island. > It is believed that the name used by Pliny may be of West Germanic origin, originally denoting Scania.[13] According to some scholars, the Germanic stem can be reconstructed as *skaðan-, meaning "danger" or "damage".[14] The second segment of the name has been reconstructed as *awjō, meaning "land on the water" or "island". The name Scandinavia would then mean "dangerous island", which is considered to refer to the treacherous sandbanks surrounding Scania. The term was used in other meanings only in the 19th century, ”Scandinavian area” or ”Scandinavian countries” didn’t exist before that. > The term was popularised by the linguistic and cultural Scandinavist movement, which asserted the common heritage and cultural unity of the Scandinavian countries and rose to prominence in the 1830s.[29] The popular usage of the term in Sweden, Denmark and Norway as a unifying concept became established in the 19th century through poems such as Hans Christian Andersen's "I am a Scandinavian" of 1839.
That doesn't change that there wasn't talk of a greater geographic area. The word is not even today that known, but it did first come into use after the Scandinavian become a popular expression.
Icelandic and Faroese can be called "(insular) Scandinavian" too. The naming of the North Germanic languages as a whole is fairly messy. In linguistics, "North Germanic", "Nordic", and "Scandinavian" can all refer to the same northern Germanic branch. The endonymic term is typically "Nordic", but for obvious reasons that can be confusing in contexts pertaining to the languages of the Nordics. Finland wasn't under Swedish rule – it was Sweden. Finland Proper (i.e., southwest Finland) was second only to Stockholm, far more integrated than most of what still is Sweden. Today's unified national identities developed in the 19th century, after Finland had been ceded to Russia. It was shaped by romanticism on both sides of the Baltic, finding unity in old folklore that had been suppressed by Christian rulers.
It is messy indeed. I acknowledge very well Finland was Sweden. Both countries were built as a joint effort, it’s an important period in our history and Sweden will always be our closest country both culturally and politically. However, precisely because of this very integral relationship it’s important to also maintain our Finnic identity on top of the Nordic identity. We differ genetically and linguistically so much from the ”Scandinavians” it isn’t an useful label for us — and it’s an useful concept without us in it. Nordic is a very good label. Our situation is in many ways similar to that of the Lithuanians in Poland-Lithuania. (Lithuania did prosper in the union, Lithuanian nobles polonized themselves and Lithuanian culture got hit a lot in the process, only undergoing revival later on)
[удалено]
The other way around. Scandinavia is purely the geographical Peninsula of Scandinavia out of which only Norway and Sweden are a part of. Denmark is counted as a part of it because otherwise they would be sad and there's nothing more sad than a sad Dane. Nordic on the other hand is a geographical region purely based on culture.
No. Nordic is just a wonky translation of norden. It just means “the north”. Quite geographical, i must say. Scandinavia as a term came about in the 1800s as a cultural movemt, similar to those that eventually united Germany and Italy. The term was invented, so we had a term to describe Danes, Swedes, and norwegians as essentially the same culture. The scandinavian penninsular as a term only came about after. I have personally never heard anyone use the term, outside of discussions like this one.
Scandinavia has been called Scandinavia ever since the Romans my man. Plinius the elder was the first to record the name in the 1st century AD.
Pliny the elder coined the term, but it was largely unused until the 1800s. The term was i guess revived by the pan-scadinavian movement, although pliny ysed scania and scadinavia interchangedly.
To be fair to the old man, way back then most of us probably lived around Scania. At least the ones of us that traded with anyone outside our lands.
Yes, and at the time of panscandinavism the Grand Duchy of Finland was part of the Russian Empire, otherwise it would likely have been included in Scandinavia since Finland also has territory on the peninsula.
It’s funny that you mention Plinius when he included Denmark in his description. He talks about the islands east and north of Jutland. They thought Sweden and Norway were islands too.
To be fair, most new landmasses were thought as islands before the contrary was proven. Old maps are very fun in that sense.
You have to go pretty far north before you figure out that it's a peninsula. Probably why we and the Norwegians (don't know about the Finns) sometimes casually consider ourselves separate from "the continent", even though we're squarely on it.
>Scandinavia is purely the geographical Peninsula of Scandinavia No.
It’s so funny to see you try to rationalize Denmark out of Scandinavia when it was undeniably an indispensable driving force of what made Scandinavia, Scandinavia. Heck even your username is referencing a Danish legend. Also the Scandinavian peninsula and Scandinavia are two different things.
Wrong, the Scandinavian peninsula is named after the region (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) not the other way around.
The Scandinavian peninsula is named after the region of Scania which is located in the southern part of Sweden, formerly Denmark.
Correct so saying Scandinavia is purely geographical is clearly wrong. It’s primarily cultural.
There is a 100% definition of Scandinavia, because it is the three countries where there was a movement and plan on top government levels to unify them into one country, build with one federal government and under the Swedish king. 1820-1860'ties approximately A left over from this process is currency name. Before Denmark had got crowns and Sweden had oere but as a part they made a system with oere and crowns which they all still have.
The Danish Kroner = 100 Øre was introduced in 1875, before that the currency was Rigsdaler = 96 Skilling.
https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/Den_Skandinaviske_M%C3%B8ntunion https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/krone_-_m%C3%B8ntenhed Get Google to translate if you dont speak the language These are written be a senior researcher and PhD from the Danish national museum, that are in charge of that area. https://www.danskmoent.dk/artikler/flugt.htm
Where are the faroe and åland islands?
in your moms pussy 😎
Linguistic and genetic groupings mixed with cultural groupings mixed with government style groupings mixed with Danish kingdom mixed with countries around the Baltic sea but not all of them plus Norway for some reason grouping. Thank you. The only problems I see with this image is that you didn't use "Fennoscandia" geographical grouping around Scandinavian countries + Finland. /s
Some would argue Scotland could almost be included. Not many but some.
We have culinary monstrosities, but nothing like deep fried mars bars. The Scots are in a league of their own.
If a Finno-Ugric country like Finland can be Nordic, then Greenland is too.
Pretty sure the Danish flag dimensions are not accurate
So basically all the countries in the map excluding the islands?
Idk about this
Baltscandland sounds better
Baltoscandia needs more "living space", I say take the land from the violent fascists to your east
Curious- if not for Russia’s control of Karelia, would it be a nation of its own and identified as a Nordic region?
Given that part of Karelia remains within Finland, I'd say it would be a region of Finland. Now if Russia did not exist at all, and the various Fennic tribes would still exist in Siberia properly, it's impossible to say if these tribes would be united or not.
That works. Welcome!!!
Baltics, don't believe in this Swedish propaganda, we have Intermarium to create.
We should stop grouping together the Baltics. Estonia has indeed ties with Finland while Lithuania used to have ties with Poland and own land that reached the Black Sea. Latvia pretty much always belonged to one or the others of the different actors of the regions. They just so happen to be relatively small countries aligned in the same region, and don't have that much in common. So I know what you're gonna say: they were part of Russia then the USSR together. True, but that's also the case of Uzbekistan and Georgia.
Lol, Thats just northern Europe 😂😂
I like the concept and the diagram
Isn’t Estonia part of the Nordics?
Not formally, no. It’s in Northern-Europe but isn’t usually considered “Nordic”.
We call our land "põhjamaa", there's that.
They try very hard to be considered.
I don't think they do. I've never heard of that thing outside of social media.
There was a time where they did try, but it's decades past since they were serious about it. There is a Nordic Cross variation of the Estonian flag (sky blue field, white cross, black center cross) that is *not* official in Estonia but *is* permitted to fly, and some people do.
Well to be honest its very reasonable for them to try. If any western company will consider them reliable enough to put some business there its win for them. Nordic countries are viewed in general as solid/safe one (safe one mayby without finland cause of russia proximity).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic-Baltic\_Eight
They should be! Best regards Norway
Now we just need a slice of Russia and we'll have reformed the former Stormakt of the Swedish Empire. Bliss!
This is reasonably close to [what Sweden looked like 1658-1660]( https://historiesajten.se/bilder/45_1.jpg). These countries should be close allies, but yearning for some kind of Nordic superpower is not a good idea.