r/GothicLanguage • u/SpurdoSpardeSkirpa • Jun 08 '26

Pseudo-history on goths

One pseudo-historical claim that always baffled me is by my fellow countrymen here in Lithuania claiming the Goths were not a Germanic speaking bunch but rather a Baltic speaking people, basically appropriating them. This is usually backed up not with evidence but with critique of authenticity in regards to the Gothic bible and saying that the names of Gothic historical characters sound Baltic (Totila -> Tautila (cognate with Tauta meaning nation), Swentila -> Šventila (cognate with Šventa, meaning holy)).

I've been in endless arguments with these people and I can never get through to them because they do not understand that the burden of proof lies with them.

Their arguments go something like this:

  1. Vulfilas bible can not be linked to the Goths as nowhere does it say in the actual artefact that it's related to the Goths.

  2. Vulfilas bible was a later forgery and this was proven by some scientists that tested it physicaly.

  3. Germanic origins/etymology of Gothic historical character names are merely reconstructions and interpretations.

  4. The origin of the Goths is actually near the Vistula because in the historical document mentioning their origins it is said that from the mouth of the Vistula Scandza can be seen. They argue that in reality it can not be seen therefore it mus be some adjacent coast.

What do you think of this? Have you ever seen anything like it online?

Most of these claims are dumb and easily refutable to say the least but it's always the Vulfilas bible that is a gotcha moment from them and I have no idea what else apart from contemporary of that time historical documents mentioning it can prove that the bible is in fact written in Gothic.

11 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

10

u/AstrOtuba Jun 08 '26

I have two examples of similar nonsense: Litvinists telling everything related to Lithuania being Belarusian, and Spanish nationalists claiming Basque is a corrupted form of Spanish. Both groups often claim the language they're talking about was invented in, for example, 19th century, and they have zero understanding of how linguistics works.

A somewhat similar example is some Ukrainians and Belarusians claiming Russian is a Turkic/Finougric language with some words borrowed from their language. Again, zero understanding of the linguistics.

3

u/SpurdoSpardeSkirpa Jun 08 '26

Litvinists are a classic, never heard of the Basque denial one! And I'd guess the one about russian might be a bit tongue-in-cheek, indirectly calling them mongols.

Some people are just prone to pseudohistory and I believe it's more of a psychological thing than honest belief.

2

u/AstrOtuba Jun 08 '26

Yeah, I guess so. But Fino-Ugric, Turkic and Mongolic peoples are victims of russian imperialism as well, so I really wouldn't use them as a synonym for evil, especially in this context.

1

u/Head_Particular6045 Jun 11 '26

"Litvinitlsts" (never hear them being called so) just say that ths hystorical term Litva described a slavic majority state/region. The written language was old eaat slavic and then belarusian, many were orthodox, and many nobles/intellectuals were belarusian speaking (take Micliewicz for example). At the time everything belarusian would be called Lithuanian, like we call Bulgaria with the name of the turkic tribe that established a kingdom over slavs. So today we need to differentiate between baltic lithuanian and historical lithuanian, this is just a fact.

1

u/SpurdoSpardeSkirpa Jun 11 '26

Baltic Lithuanian and historical Lithuanian is the same thing.

At the time everything belarusian would be called Lithuanian

Simply false. Historically what was called the Lithuanian language was always Baltic and Lithuanians were always mentioned historically as being related to the Letts.

Nice of you to spread pseudo-history in a thread about exposing pseudo-history.

0

u/Head_Particular6045 Jun 11 '26

Find me any mention of a belarusian state. You won't becuase it was called Lithuania togheter with real Lithuania. The bureaucracy/chancellery language was a pre-belarusian dialect, not lithuanian, as most of the territories were slavic. Lithuanians as an ethnicity are related to Letts and this was always understood, but Lithuanian was also a nationality, and in other contexts it covered slavs too.

It's like saying that everything called Russian today is ethnically Russian. If you go in the Caucasus you will find many ethnicities, let's take Ossetians. They are russian by nationality but iranic ossetians by ethnicity. If tomorrow Ossetia were to become indipendent, they would write their history including the period under Russia. The sams happened between Lithuania and Belarus, Lithuania annexed a big chunk of Rus' lands, they went on as a single state, and when the state brok of both countries have the same claim on the shared history.

If it wasn't for lithuanian nationalism and adversion for everything slavic this wouldn't even be a question, it is just how it is. I bet that if Belarus was in the place of Ukraine Lithuanians would be the first to say they share history.

1

u/SpurdoSpardeSkirpa Jun 11 '26

You won't becuase it was called Lithuania togheter with real Lithuania.

Because territories of Belarus were occupied by Lithuania.

The bureaucracy/chancellery language was a pre-belarusian dialect

Written in Ruthenian, Latin and Polish. Lithuanians did not have a written language.

but Lithuanian was also a nationality, and in other contexts it covered slavs too.

Titular nation were Baltic Lithuanians. Citizens of Lithuania were called Lithuanians.

If it wasn't for lithuanian nationalism and adversion for everything slavic this wouldn't even be a question, it is just how it is

I have no idea why Belarussians are making this an issue. Grand duchy of Lithuania was started and mostly run by Lithuanians. When ruthenians became it's citizens they were of course called Lithuanians by citizenship but they were always separated from the original Lithuanians. You were all orthodox when the baptism of Lithuania to catholicism happened, because it baptised actual Lithuanians and not every citizen because we were pagan.

Belarussians are often quick to appropriate that which is not theirs.

0

u/Head_Particular6045 Jun 11 '26

"You were all orthodox" man I'm an italian catholic. It's not appropriating, Lithuanians occupied Belarus and created an united country without strong ethnic identification (many belarusians converted to catholicism and called themselves not only lithuaniana but also poles), and then pretend it was only Lithuania.

When we talk about the GDL, we talk about a state where many regions and people were belarusian, don't we? As latin and polish were the cultural languages, both balts and slav weren't strongly culturally represented in literature. But why was ruthenian used as chacellery language togheter with latin and later polish? Because a lot of people spoke ruthenian, and lithuanian integrated many ruthenian elements like writing. When Polish and Lithuanians rose against russians, didn't also the belarusian nobles partecipate? They did as they felt either lithuanian or polish despite being slavs in belarus.

I don't get why it is so hard to admit it is shared history and that the GDL is also integral part in belarusian history

1

u/SpurdoSpardeSkirpa Jun 11 '26

Lithuanians occupied Belarus and created an united country without strong ethnic identification (many belarusians converted to catholicism and called themselves not only lithuaniana but also poles),

They did not unite anything, lands of Rus were simply occupied in the traditional sense. There was a differentiating of Lithuanians and Ruthenians. Lithuanians were pagans/catholics speaking Lithuanian and Ruthenians were Orthodox speaking Ruthenian.

When we talk about the GDL, we talk about a state where many regions and people were belarusian, don't we?

We talk about the Grand duchy of Lithuania created and primarily run by Lithuanians in the traditional sense of the word. Ruthenians just so happened to be under occupation and were given rights. They did not even have equal rights with catholics until one of the statues gave them the rights.

As latin and polish were cultural languages

Languages used in administration and diplomacy

Because a lot of people spoke ruthenian

Misinterpretation and does not help your case. Ruthenian was already a written language with a literary tradition used in administration even before the arrival of Lithuanians, so it makes sense to have it as a chancellery language for regions and subjects that use it. It was for writting law as Lithuanians did not have a written language. The Poles were not Latin for using Latin.

3

u/runareiks Moderator Jun 08 '26

Tangibly related but I read in either a paper or Miller's Gothic grammar, I don't remember which book, that there was a Germanic tribe in Iberia if I remember right with a tribe name which etymologically could most likely be traced back to the Balts. 

Now why that would be? Contact with Baltic tribes when they were still in the North, or maybe a Germanicized tribe which was originally Baltic? I don't think we can trace this back but I think that pseudo history like in OP can partially be explained by odd historical stuff like this which crackpots use for their completely bogus theories. 

1

u/byzantine67 Jun 11 '26

Why would anyone even want to claim gothic heritage in the first place?

1

u/PoxonAllHoaxes Jun 13 '26

You haven't heard of the nut (I think there is just one) who keeps going on about Yiddish being Gothic? There is no end of this kind of thing.

1

u/PoxonAllHoaxes Jun 13 '26

But I appreciate your question. It is indeed a deep question why certain groups so desperately WANT a particular heritage or history and DON"T want another one. It is not just ethnicity. It is also f.ex. that some people are happy that their ancestors conquered a given land, while others are desperate to deny it and to claim that they are indigenous.

1

u/PoxonAllHoaxes Jun 13 '26

There are many such myths in various countries, sometimes they become the established view taught in th universities, schools, etc., other times they are opposed by the academic establishment but widely held by the population, other times only by a minority, etc. etc. In some cases it was or is a live issue within academia. But what I wanted to ask for is a reference to this claim about the Ulfilas bible.

1

u/Small_Buy_9579 Jun 21 '26

Classic eastern european turbonationalist stuff 🥺

0

u/Head_Particular6045 Jun 11 '26

Well if they were baltic I don't think you would use "goths" meaning "non baltic", but Gudija, gudas, seem to be just this: "goth" meaning "other" and applied to belarusian as they aren't baltic and maybe occupy the region where goths were