Sup /r/badhistory.

A bit less than a month ago, I presented to you the crazy ideas of a Lithuanian historian and ripped them apart as absolute rubbish. Today, I decided to take on a bigger fruit - the absolute biggest fruit in the entirety of Lithuanian badhistory.

Today, I am presenting you the "Slavic Lithuania" theory. Or, in this case, Slavic Litva.

If anything, this is the most dangerous set of badhistory I've heard of, at least in Eastern Europe. You know why? Because it is considered to be the actual history in the whole nation of Belarus. Poor guys... The idea that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Slavic, particularly a proto-Belarusian, state was first popularized by Mikola Yermalovich in the last decade of the Soviet Union, as well as the early post-Soviet period. Yermalovich is considered to have been a capable historian that revealed the truth behind "Litva" in Belarus, but he is seen as a fringe historian whose works rely on cherrypicking evidence and sometimes completely alternate history here, in Lithuania.

Here is the Slavic Lithuania theory condensed into a single short article for any of those who are not following, with all their arguments presented there. To refute them, I will rely on my own knowledge as well as the article "Shadow of a Fictional Lithuania", in Lithuanian.

Oh, and by the way - I do not condone any harsh feelings towards any of you Belarusians. In fact, it's great to see that you uphold the history of the Medieval Lithuania period as much as we do, it was important to both of us! And I will concede from the start that it was as much of a Belarusian (well, proto-Belarusian, anyway) state as it was a Lithuanian one - we are guilty of stealing your noble families and considering them ours, etc.

But we have to learn to share...

Argument 1 - "The state language of Litva was Ruthenian, so Litva was a Slavic state! Their inhabitants were Litvins!"

This is less badhistory and more bad history interpretation. Indeed, the chancellery language of medieval Lithuania was Old Church Slavonic. Nobody argues with that, even the annals of Lithuania were written in it. The problem is that it is applying a 19th century interpretation of nationality to the Middle Ages. In the Medieval Era, your nationality was not determined by which language you use, but rather by which country you live under. As such, all inhabitants of Lithuania at the time - whether Baltic, Slavic or whatever - were called "Lithuanians". This "Litvin" (Slavic inhabitant of GDL) identity didn't stick, by the way - by the time nationalism arrived, everyone was quick to separate to Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians.

Oh, and about Old Church Slavonic. It is painful for me to say this, but at the time - huegh - the Balts were on a lower civilization level than the Slavs. As in, the Slavs were already Christianized and with it brought things like, a written language, a more organized government, more developed trade, etc. Slavs composed the majority of Lithuania's population, so it's obvious that even a Baltic Lithuania would use a Slavic language for their literary matters.

Argument 2 - ""Lithuania" is actually Zhmud, which only joined Litva in 1413!"

This. This is actual badhistory.

In 1411, not even the correct date, Samogitia (which is what they are referring to) was reincorporated in Lithuania. Vytautas the Great (whose cult of personality in Lithuania will be left for another time) gave Samogitia to the Teutonic Order in the Treaty of Lyck and later in 1404 to gain their support against his cousin Jogaila in his struggle to obtain the throne of Lithuania. Of course, to give something to the Teutons you have to own it...

Samogitians were in medieval Lithuania since the times of Mindaugas. (for those unaware, it's the territory with Medvėgalis), and participated in numerous Lithuanian campaigns against the Teutonic Order, so yeah.

Not buying that. Oh, and we are not Samogitians. Samogitians are bad enough. Too much redneck.

Argument 3 - "The nucleus of Litva was in Slonim and Minsk regions!"

Handy map of what they are claiming.

There are numerous ways I can refute that. I could point to, for the sake of it, unbiased foreign researchers who deny this. I could refute this with Teutonic sources that state Lithuania is between Livonia and Prussia. I could point to Russian chronicles which say that Lithuania conquered these regions.

But here's how I do it. I will point to the first mention of the name of Lithuania in history. And how even from the very start of Lithuania historiography it is false.

Annals of Quedlinburg, 1009.

"[In 1009] St. Bruno, an archbishop and monk, who was called Boniface, was slain by Pagans during the 11th year of this conversion at the border of Russe and Lituae, and along with 18 of his followers, entered heaven on March 9th."

Lituae is very clearly Lithuania. Russe can be two things - either Kievan Rus', or a distorted name for Prussia. Let's test both of these theories.

If Russe is Rus', then Lithuania cannot be in Slonim-Minsk, because, well, it would be in Rus'. In addition, if Lithuania was in the Kievan Rus', then there would be no reason for Saint Bruno to head there to baptize pagans, because the Eastern Slavs were already baptized!

If Russe is Prussia, then Lithuania still cannot be in Slonim-Minsk, because there is no way Prussia would extend as far as to reach modern day Eastern Lithuania.

Argument 4 - "Wilno only became the capital of "Lithuania" in 1939, when Stalin gifted it"

False.

Vilnius became the capital of modern Lithuania in 1918, upon the Act of Establishment of the Republic of Lithuania. That's where the seat of the Council of Lithuania was, as well as the first Government right before the Wars of Independence. Only after the Bolshevik invasion, when Poles got to Vilnius first, did we lose the city.

We regained it for a little while during the Polish-Soviet War, too. So no.

Oh, and by the way, what was the capital of the Bolshevik-created Soviet Lithuania in 1918? Also Vilnius. So that also counts.

Argument 5 - "Litva was a Grand Principality!"

You ever noticed how I use the term "medieval Lithuania" instead of "Grand Duchy of Lithuania"? No, not because I am a patriot.

It's because using the term "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" to refer to Lithuania before the Union of Krewo is not correct and mostly a product of Soviet historiography. Sure, while it is a Grand Duchy, the rank of it's title is far higher than that of a Grand Prince.

For the most part, the pagan Grand Dukes - Gediminas, Algirdas - referred to themselves in letters to foreign countries as "kings". Gediminas, when writing a letter to the Pope, called himself "king of Lithuanians and most Rus'ians" (Gedeminne Dei gratia Letwinorum et multorum Ruthenorum rex). Pope John XXII first called him "the one who calls himself king", but later started calling him "king", too. When writing to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Algirdas called himself "basileus", though this was likely because of religious matters (from the point of view of Algirdas, the Patriarch in Constantinople is overseen by the Emperor of Constantinople, so the "Patriarch" in Kiev is overseen by the "Emperor" of Kiev, so the Grand Duke of Lithuania).

Phew...

---

Phew...

Does this make sense to you? I was going to make this a post about common Lithuanian badhistory in general, with this one as the top one, but it turned out so long...