Why is Danzig allowed to form Poland?

[Sfan]

Old Prussian is definitely Slavic in terms of language. This I know for sure. It's part of the proto slavic group, part of which formed Proto Baltic, part of which is Old Prussian. The general assumption BC is to link language and culture, so do you have any scientific text showing us otherwise?

 

[Bibor]

When I was browsing decisions, I found out that you're allowed to form Poland as Danzig (a releasable nation from the Teutonic Order in 1444) despite having Prussian as your main culture. What's the reasoning behing it?

Most formable nations in EU4 have little to do with language or nationality, but are rather real or fictional political foundations for a strong country/empire. France, Spain, United Kingdom are good examples. Danzig, as the most important economic center of the region (much like Novgorod) could've easily be the driving force for the unification of Poland.

 

[Warial]

Old Prussian is definitely Slavic in terms of language. This I know for sure. It's part of the proto slavic group, part of which formed Proto Baltic, part of which is Old Prussian. The general assumption BC is to link language and culture, so do you have any scientific text showing us otherwise?

Am I in different reality or something? I should be asking for papers which say that Old Prussians were Slavic. While I didn't read any in English (as speaking Polish grants me access to a lot more sources on archeology from the region), I'm sure that anyone you find will be speaking of Baltic Prussians, Pruthenians, Bruzi, Aestiorum, will refer to them as Balts, while contrasting them with Slavs.

Also, both Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic were (possibly) developments from Proto-Balto-Slavic (which some scholars argue is an invalid theory and the similarities between Baltic and Slavic languages are due to language contact). Both Slavic and Baltic languages are Indo-European, but neither are Baltic languages Slavic, nor are Slavic languages Baltic.

Here are some articles in English on the archeology:
https://www.academia.edu/31588836/Marek_F._Jagodziński_Truso_between_Weonodland_and_Witland
https://www.academia.edu/492605/Vik..._cul-de-sac_of_the_European_urbanization_2010
https://www.academia.edu/9457913/Sh...ite_Archaeologia_Baltica_18._2012._P._224-255
http://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/get/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2006~1367159161472/DS.002.1.01.ARTIC

 

[Sfan]

Oh that's an interesting one when I dwelve into it. I've had lectures about it in French where our scholars clearly call the group Protoslave (protoslavic), but the English sources clearly call it balto-slavic. I guess French it's a remnant of an old classification based on the fact that the two groups are the dominant satem languages in Europe. Whatever, you're right about it as English sources are usually way better.

 

[Wolfsgeist]

Yeah well, Baltic and Slavic languages probably share a common ancestor, but that's an Italo-Celtic level of long ass time ago ^^

 

[Sfan]

I'm biased towards thinking that Italo-Celtic is way more coherent as a group, following even relatively old works like those of Watkins, and if proto-italo-celtic ever existed it diverged several centuries earleir. But we go really far away from the original topic.

 

[Parapluman]

Old Prussians were not Slavic and possibly never lived in Gdansk, as the archeological evidence of Baltic cultures in Gdansk are non existent to my knowledge.

You're right ofcourse I ment baltic (or Balto-Slavic) when I said slavic.