|
Post by Kubrat on Apr 7, 2008 17:22:11 GMT -5
"Immediately after that campaign, Simeon sought to punish the Serbian ruler Petar Gojniković who had attempted to betray him by concluding an alliance with the Byzantines.[8] Simeon sent an army led by two of his commanders, Theodore Sigrica and Marmais, to Serbia. The two managed to persuade Petar to attend a personal meeting, during which he was enchained and carried off to Bulgaria, where he died in a dungeon. Simeon put Pavle Branović, prior to that an exile in Bulgaria, on the Serbian throne, thus restoring the Bulgarian influence in Serbia for a while.[84] ... In Serbia, Zaharije was persuaded by the Byzantines to revolt against Simeon. Zaharije was supported by many Bulgarians exhausted from Simeon's endless campaigns against Byzantium.[92] The Bulgarian emperor sent his troops under Sigrica and Marmais, but they were routed and the two commanders beheaded, which forced Simeon to conclude an armistice with Byzantium in order to concentrate on the suppression of the uprising. Simeon sent an army led by Ceslav, son of Klomimir in 924 to depose Zaharija. He was successful as Zaharije fled to Croatia. After this victory, the Serbian nobility was invited to come to Bulgaria and bow to the new Prince. However he did not appear at the supposed meeting and all of them were beheaded. Bulgaria annexed Serbia directly. [15][93] A large portion of its population fled to Tomislav of Croatia, one part was taken into slavery and there were also refugees to Byzantine and to a lesser extent Hungarian territory." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_I_of_Bulgaria#Suppression_of_Serbian_unrest_and_late_campaigns_against_Byzantium"By the late 9th and early 10th centuries, Bulgaria extended to Epirus and Thessaly in the south, Bosnia in the west and controlled all of present-day Romania and eastern Hungary to the north. A Serbian state came into existence as a dependency of the Bulgarian Empire." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria#First_Bulgarian_Empire"For about four centuries, the city remained a battleground between the Byzantine Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary and the First Bulgarian Empire." Belgrade had been at the very least part of Bulgaria from between 800 and 1015, at least 215 years, if you look at maps and borders that represent dates over those 4 centuries, its a safe assumption to say that Belgrade had been part of Bulgarian territory for about 300 years. under the second Bulgarian empire, anther safe assumption is that Bulgaria ruled of Belgrade for about 50 years. go wiki the second empire. an assumed 350 years, if not more. "It became the capital of an independent Serbian state for the first time in 1284 (lost to Hungary in 1427), the status that it would regain only in 1841, after the liberation from the Ottomans. In the 20th century, it was also the capital of several incarnations of Yugoslavia, up to 2006, when Serbia became an independent state again" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade#Middle_Ageslets assume that yugoslavia = serbia. serbia would have ruled over Belgrade over a total of 310 years. this is not taking into account how many times it may have been lost in between the time periods. are the fact that the last turkish forces left in 1867 and not 1841 "At the same time (around 878.), the first record of the Slavic name Beligrad has appeared, during the rule of the First Bulgarian Empire." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade#Middle_AgesSlavic name first mentioned in 878 as Beligrad in the letter of Pope John VIII to Boris of Bulgaria which means "White city / white fortress". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade#Names_through_history
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 7, 2008 20:09:02 GMT -5
I'll be writing about the importance of the term Bulgar!.
When we examine the significance of the term "Bulgar," which, both by the Greeks and, later, by numerous travelers through Macedonia during the nineteenth century, was used to designate the Orthodox Slav population, which did not know Greek and therefore could not be called Greek. For the most part, it was not called Serbian on account of the then firmly established error that the Serbian state of the time embraced all Serbs except those in Bosnia. "When a part of the Serbian people," says Jovan Dragasevic, "albeit very small, acquired its political freedom and gathered itself into a little state separate from Turkey, under the name of 'Serbian state,' the Turks identified the name of Serb, which was hateful to them, with the subjects of Serbia; thus, they did not tolerate that anyone in their state should call himself a Serb,....and the unliberated population did not dare to call itself by a name enjoying such an evil reputation in Turkey." Milojko Veselinovic states: "That the people in Macedonia and Old Serbia now call themselves Bulgars is entirely due to the enforced desire of the Turks, who more readily hear the name of the peaceful and submissive Bulgar than that of the ever rebellious Serb." The Macedonian population, constantly in a state of uncertainty and fear for its very life, was recluctant to give any definite answer to foreigners' questions on their national feelings. "I asked," said James Baker, "some Bulgarian peasants in Macedonia about their nationality, and they immediately replied 'rum,' which, indeed, is the name peculiar to the Greek population of Asia Minor. They insisted that they were Greeks. 'If that is so,' l told them, 'why do you speak Bulgarian at home?' 'Because our forefathers did so,' was their reply. 'We have had to suffer a great deal for being called Bulgars, although we are Greeks.' " At about the same period, Karl Braun-Wiesbaden was passing through these districts. He also noticed this submissive outlook among the Slavic population of southern Macedonia and southern Bosnia. "Here in Macedonia and souther Bosnia," he says, "the Bulgar makes no claim to speak his mother tongue, let alone understand any other. When he meets some 'effendi' (whether a Turk or an unknown foreigner, for the Frank is always an effendi here), he greets him in Greek with 'Kalhora' or "Kal himera.' " "Fifteen years ago," wrote Milojko Veselinovic, "I was in Turkey [i.e, in the southern areas of Serbia, then under Turkish rule] and had the opportunity to converse at some length with many people, especially with peasants from the districts of Vranje, Leskovac, Nish, Turnovo, Kriva Palanka,m Kumanovo, Skoplje and elsewhere, and l noticed that they mostly refer to themselves as 'risjani,' 'kavuri' or 'raya.' When a Turk asks them, 'Say, what are you, raya?' they reply, 'l am a kavurin, aga.' But when Christian asks them, they say, 'I am a risjanin.' " Milojko Veselinovic (1888), Jovan Dragasevic (in 1890) and Stojan Protic attempted to fix more or less precisely the meaning of the term "Bulgar" (in Serbian "bugarin" and in Bulgarian "bolgarian"). "Under no circumstances," wrote Veselinovic, "will an inhabitant of Macedonia or southern Old Serbia call himself a 'bolgarin' or 'bulgarin,' but only (and then out of necessity) 'bugarin,' which is a sign that a Serb is peaking, since lu becomes u in the pronunciation of a Serb alone and of no one else." As distinct from Protic, who, writing on "Macedonia and the Macedonians" in Odjek, as serted that the Macedonian Slavs took the name "Bulgar" from the Latin "vulgaris," Veselinovic claimed that it was derived from the Greek "vulgaros," Dragasevic, who, as an ethnographer, was a member of the Serbian delegation to the Berlin Congress, held more or less the same view on the origin of the term "Bulgar" as Veselinovic. His derivation is from the Greek Boulgaroi, which means common people. He goes on to say that the word Bolgaroim which was applied to the Bulgars proper, "signifies a definite nation," while Boulgaroi indicates only the cultural level of the people. Later, the Greeks confused the two expressions, "particularly as the Byzantines could not regard even those in the east as being civilized, and also both these peoples [in the eastern and western halves of the empire], although differing from one another, were related. Subsequently, the uninitiated took these expressions as meaning the same thing, i.e, as being the name of a nation." "Bolgar and Boulgar," he continues, "are two quite different expressions: the former, in latin Bulgar and in Slav bolgar and bugar, is the name of a nation that never crossed the Rhodope Mountains and Despotova Gora, which separated it quite naturally and inevitably from the peoples to the west of these mountains....Boulgar designates the people, or plebs; it is the equivalent of the Latin Vulgar, and means the 'lower class' of the people in a country." Dragasevic also agrees that fear of the Turks was the reason why the Serbs in Macedonia called themselves Bulgars: they followed the whim of their masters, while "many used this alien name instead of their own in their dealings with citizens on whom they were economically dependant."
Continues with my next post......
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Apr 7, 2008 23:52:20 GMT -5
novi...we both know thats BS.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Apr 8, 2008 2:27:16 GMT -5
Well done, Veselinovic. Anything else a Serb has dreamed about macedonians and we are missing as a proof?
My, my...what a pile of nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 8, 2008 7:05:47 GMT -5
continues from my last post.....(significance of the term Bulgar)
"During the Turkish regime," says Cvijic, "the 'Bulgar' as applied to the raya spread beyond Bulgarian districts [and came to be applied] to serfs and peasants farming land on a tenant basis. The area controlled by this extremely oppressive regime extended to Skoplje and beyond.....Applied, as it was, in this sense in the Vardar districts, the name 'Bulgar' began to penetrate as far as Kosovo and Metohija, while one Russian traveler in the seventeenth century applies the name even to Serbian peasant farmers in the area of Sarajevo, in Bosnia. In the extreme west of the Balkan Peninsula, in Dalmatia and Croatia, the name 'Bulgar' signified ill breeding, and probably for this reason the inhabitants of these areas called their simple folk poems 'bugarshtice.' Vatroslav Oblak confirms the view of Veselinovic that in the Macedonia and west Bulgarian dialects vocalic l is replaced by u, particulary in those areas where Bulgarian comes into contact with Serbian, while the same phenomenon cannot be found in the east and south of the areas over which Bulgarian is spoken. "Both by its geographic extent and by its sporadic appearances, this u shows that we are here concerned with Serbianisms. Indeed, in almost all dialects characterized by u instead of l, we find other traces of Serbian influence, as, for example, u for a. Particular mention should be made of the name bulgarin with all its variations, which one finds throughout almost the whole Macedonia (except, perhaps, some southern and southeastern districts) in the form bugarin." Veselinovic, against whom loud protests were raised at one time, was right when he pointed out that the name "Bulgar" began especially to be used by the local population when the agitation for a Bulgarian exarchate first assumed a large scale. "Since," he says, "the people had lost its Serbian bishops in the previous century, it did not care for any alien ones, but mechanically supported the Bulgarian bishops, thinking that they would at least read the church services in Slav, which would be better, in its opinion, than Greek. This was taken advantage of by the Bulgarophiles, who collected signatures from the people by virtue of which the peoplerenounced the Patriarchate and joined the Bulgarian Exarchate. As soon as anyone signed, he had from that moment on called himself a Bulgar, since otherwise that 'majority' would not be obtained that was essential if they were to have a Bulgarian bishop and Slavic services in church. Finally, the people agreed, but, being unable to say 'bulgarin,' used the Serbian pronunciation 'bugarin.' " Quite apart from the proverbial ignorance of the state of affairs in the Balkans which frequently obtained, this help to explain why foreign travelers in the nineteenth century called all Orthodox Slavs in Macedonia "Bulgars," frequently without having the least idea of where to draw the borderline between Serbs and Bulgars. Referring to the district between Salonica and Edessa, August Griesebach wrote in 1839: "The Bulgarian language covers the southern and eastern, and Serbian the northern and western parts of the area, although the borderline between these two daughters of the Slavic tribe has proved impossible to define precisely; it is said that this line, by a gradual confusion of words, merges, so to speak, into a transitional zone." Despite this assertion, Griesebach calls the districts around Skoplje, tetovo and Shar planina Bulgarian since, he says, they are inhabited by Bulgars, and says that the inscriptions on the walls of the monastery of St. Atanasije are written in Bulgarian (i.e, in Old Slavonic) and Greek. "There are," he says, "several Bulgarian monasteries in Upper Albania-that is, one large monastery is apparently, according to the map, situated near Debar." As we have seen, Braun-Wiesbaden found Bulgars (he himself puts this word in quotation marks) in 1878 in Macedonia and Bosnia. His skepticism with regard to this term is evident: referring to the Slavophile propaganda of the time which made all Orthodox Slavs on Turkish territory out to be Bulgars, he says: "Anyone who has been on the spot and lived there can only find rediculous current Russian assertions that these people are all 'Bulgars' and that the land from the Vardar to the Aegean-including Ser, where a well-known Greek teachers' college in flourishing-must be given to Bulgaria. One would have to be as ignorant as a diplomat to belive such a lie." At the bbeginning of the twentieth century, Souther and Old Serbia were studied, among others, by Dr Karl Oestreich. His observations are of particular interest since by that time relations in Southern Serbia had become crystallized. Although he commits a number of errors in respect to the ethnic character of this region, nevertheless his judgement is more sober and objective than that of other writers. Referring to the population around Skoplje, which Griesebach out of sheer ignorance described as Bulgarian, he says: "The city's population consists of all possible elements. The greatest majority are Serbs-some of whom have come out in favor of the Bulgarian Exarchate and call themselves 'Bulgars'-and Albanians, or Mohammedanized Serbs. Although it is situated south of Shar-planina, Skoplje is the chief city of Old Serbia.....The rural population, although it is Serbian in origin, has for the most part given its support to the Exarchate, since a Bulgarian bishop is for them more acceptable than a Greek bishop of the Ecumenical Church to which they formerly belonged. This is how the rural population around Skoplje has today come to be mostly Bulgarian; the same is true of the purely Serbian Tetovo." How the Serbbian population of Southern Serbia came to decide in favor of the Exarchate and what precisely this decision meant, Dr. Oestrich sets forth in his extensive study entitled "Die Bevolkerung von Makenonien." Here he points out that the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate provoked a serious schism among the Slavic masses in the Balkans, who were appealed to by both the Patriarchate and the Exarchate, since the rest of the population was already oriented by virtue of its very national identity and, moreover, in comparison with the Slavs, constituted a negligible minority. On the question who these "Bulgars" were in Southern Serbia, Oestreich says: "The Bulgars' were Slavs, and the so-called 'Greeks were also Slavs. The 'Bulgars' were simply Macedonian Slavs who had joined the Bulgarian Church, which had been brought to them by the inhabitants of the [Bulgarian] Principality and which had been anathematized by the Patriarchate. They might be Bulgars or Serbs. The 'Greeks' were also Slavs who, on account of opposition toward the Bulgars and their Turkophile policy, had remained in the Greek Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchal Church, which, as far as its membership is concerned, was also Slav." A considerable part of the rural population, although it then felt itself to be Serbian, seized the first opportunity of obtaining Slavic priests and so declared itself to be Bulgarian .....Whoever joined the Bulgarian Exarchate was registered in the Turkish population records as "bulgari-milet" and to the world at large was a Bulgar. To what extent the inhabitants of Southern Serbia were disturbed by the conflict between Patriarchate and Exarchate may be seen from an episode described by Vesekinovic. The older peasants from a village near Pchinja said: "Heaven alone knows what will become of our people. We were all brothers and on friendly terms, but since the quarrel over bishop began, some have been crying, 'We are Bulgars, for we are on the Bulgarian side,' while others on the Patriarch's side said, 'We know who we are, even if they do call us Graecophiles.' Cursed be he who started this quarrel!" Altough, for the most part, agreeing with what V.Gregorovic wrote on the ethnic affinities of the Slavic population of Macedonia (Gregorovic assigned them to the Bulgars), N.P.Kondakov was nevertheless unable to exclude entirely the possibility that there were Serbs in this region. Generally speaking, he saw in the Macedonian Slavs "an idefinite national group which clearly approximates to the population of Bulgaria proper." However, he adds that in Ohrid, " ' Serbophiles' or 'Patriarchists,' as the Bulgars call them, are living in very small numbbers, and in the city.' Further, Kondakov states that in the vicinity of Skoplje there were a number of Serbian settlements and large villages, while in the city itself there were fifty Serbian houses without a church. In general, he is of the opinion that there were never any Serbs in Skoplje, but that they were nevertheless at that time the leading cultural element. "But," he goes on, "if there were no [Serbian] cities, villages of tremendous size had survived by whose means extremely beautiful churches had been rected, and, although this district is purely Bulgarian with a few Serbian villages thrown in, it may nevertheless be described, from the cultural standpoint, as a corner of Old Serbia." In Mladi Nagorichani, Kondakov found Serbian villages in which the Bulgars had begun to found settlemets of their own. In his Memoirs, Djorche Petrov recalls that there were "Serbophile" villages in the area of Bitolj, near Smilevo, and that, when they began to organize the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, they were undecided whether to includ the "Serbophiles" in their organization or not. "We decided," he says "to accept them with freat caution and reserve, for fear they might betray the cause to the Greek bishop."
it will further continue with my next post........
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Apr 8, 2008 7:37:46 GMT -5
Novi, stop these bollocks please! Even you Serbs were completely able to say b'lgarin till the beginning of the previous century and your language reform, right? It is not my problem you decided to remove this sound. Which is pretty strange, btw. How do you pronounce Srbin? Or krv? Eh?
This article is just wrong.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Apr 8, 2008 7:49:56 GMT -5
For the same reason Alexander the Great made Babylon the capital of his empire. The cities in question were magnificient in comparison to the cities previously held by Alexander and the Serbs respectively. Besides, Skopje during this time was a very much Greek-speaking town more than anything (K. Jirechek,"Staat und Gesellschaft" p. 64).
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 8, 2008 21:02:07 GMT -5
"Novi, stop these bollocks please! Even you Serbs were completely able to say b'lgarin till the beginning of the previous century and your language reform, right? It is not my problem you decided to remove this sound. Which is pretty strange, btw. How do you pronounce Srbin? Or krv? Eh?"
"This article is just wrong."
The authors from whom l have quoted have illustrated the Serbianisims within their lanuage (the west bulgar launage).
Pagane, the reason why l have decided to write the above was to highlight to Edlund how the *Serbian* component of this Bulgaro/Serbo hybrid had partially lost its identity. In my opinion l'm not striving to prove its only Serbian, but l do believe both Bulgars and Serbs have played their part in the formation of this Vardar nation. Even racially, the Vardarians can display both influences from these two peoples (Slav Serb, Slav Bulgar and Turkic Bulgar)
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Apr 9, 2008 2:03:53 GMT -5
I would highly appreciate if you point me how you distinguish between 'Slav Bulgars' and 'Turkic Bulgars'. What is the difference between them, may I know?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 9, 2008 2:21:40 GMT -5
Continuing from my last post of the significance of the term 'Bulgar'.....
Not without interest, in this connection, are the observations made on the spot by Professor Franz Doflein, who was engaged in geological research. Like many others before him, he was biased in favor of the Bulgars, but nevertheless observed that the people he came across did not speak Bulgarian. "So far," he says, "the linguistic frontiers between Serbian and Bulgarian have been constantly shifting in the Balkans, especially in Macedonia. The result is that it is difficult to say whether, in the north, on the Danube frontier, the dialect spoken in a village, let us say, near Pirot, is Serbian tinged with Bulgarian or Bulgarian tinged with Serbian. The borderline is similarly indistinct and confused in northern Macedonia." Doflein noticed that the urban population of Skoplje spoke a dialect which seemed to him to be nearest to Bulgarian. "When," he says, "one is farther away, in the villages north of Skoplje, it becomes increasingly difficult to make oneself understood with those few words of Bulgarian that Germans normally have at their disposal. The probability of meeting Serbs becomes progressively greater. In Skoplje also, many inhabitants are Serbs, which is not surprising in a communications center that is so near Serbia." One of the more prominent foreigners who traveled through the Serbian lands was J.G. von Hahn. In 1868, he found "Bulgarian Christians" in many places, and "Serbian Christians" only in Prokuplje and Kurshumlija. All the rest of the Slavic population south of the Serbo-Turkish frontier, which at that time was two hours walk from Aleksinac, he described as "Bulgarian peasants." In Leskovac he found two thousand four hundred, in Vranje one thounsand in Kumanovo three hundred and fifty houses belonging to "Bulgarian Christians," in the vicinity of Kumanovo ninety Bulgarian villages and in Gniljane one thousand five hundred homes of "Bulgarian Christians." Long before Hahn, Ami Boue, in 1847, designated the Crni Drin as the western frontier of Bulgaria. According to him, Bulgars are to be found in Bulgaria, Upper and Lower Moesia and Macedonia. Of the Bulgars of Upper Moesia and Macedonia, he says that they have many folk poems in common with the Serbbs. As far as he could ascertain, the Bulgars at that time did not sing any poems about Marko Kraljevich. He further noted folk poems were not sung in Bulgaria in the same manner as in Serbia, especially in Bosnia and Hercegovina, and observed that the Bulgars did not have the gusle. Four years later, Cyprian Robert offered almost the same identical information on the population of Macedonia. According to him, the Bulgars made up the "essence of the Macedonian population." Speaking in greater detail of the country, he says that the chief town of Bulgarian Macedonia is Serez. He adds that this part of the country should be distinguished from the northwestern districts inhabited by Serbs. "For the rest, the Serbbian pastoral tribes are separated from the Bulgarian agrarian population of Macedonia by the Greeks, who inhabit the central and coastal regions of this great land." From the foregoing, the true meaning of the expression "Bulgar" should be clear, both as applied by the people to itself and as comprehended by foreign travelers. It designated, not an ethnic group, but the common people, the working masses, who spoke Slav. The most menial tasks, which neither Greeks nor Turks were willing to undertake, were known as "Bulgarian work." The fact that foreign travelers referred to the Slavic population as Bulgars was due to ignorance and to wrong information obtained from the Greeks and from other sources. Of all such travelers, with very few exceptions, Tihomir Georgevitch is merely stating the truth when he says that they knew neither history, not the lanuage, nor the customs, nor the mutual relationships of the peoples they were describing. "Only a small number of books on Macedonia," he says, "has been written with a real knowledge of the subject, truthfully, independently and without bias." How foreigners gathered their information on the inhabitants of the area through which they passed may be seen from examples. The French consul Pouqueville, who journeyed through Greece and parts of Turkey and Macedonia at the bbeginning of the nineteenth century, was accompanied by a young Greek who simply called all Slavs Bulgars. Franz Bradashka says of Hahn that he was insufficiently acquainted with the ethnic relationships of the areas through which he travelled, and did not even know Serbian. "I am not at all surprised, "says Bradashka, "that he was unable to obtain detailed information about everuthing: in the first place, his journey was too hasty; in the second place, his servants and escorts were Albanians; and in the third place, he knew no Slav lanuage. In particular, this ignorance of Slav explains his inability to distinguish between Bulgars and Serbs and the fact that, relying on his Albanian guides, he copied down inaccurately several Slav names which had bbeen written quite correctly on the attached sketch of the terrain by Major Zah."
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Apr 9, 2008 4:53:47 GMT -5
Novi, can you tell me what was the exact level of command of both Bulgarian and Serbian this professor had in order to make such conclusions?
I see. According to this terrific conclusion, now we are not even an ethnicity. To make things worse, this idiot speaks about Slav language. There is no Slav language. There are languages that belong to the Slavic group but they are called Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 9, 2008 6:22:53 GMT -5
"I would highly appreciate if you point me how you distinguish between 'Slav Bulgars' and 'Turkic Bulgars'."
Simple, ones who have inherited mongolic influences. You have even shown images of Vardarians displaying such influences. I also believe the Cumans may have played apart in this also......before you say anything, yes the Bulgars were not pure mongols when they arrived at the Danube delta, they were quite caucasoid with some of *their* kin showing mongolic influence.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Apr 9, 2008 6:30:00 GMT -5
Well, I have seen pictures of Jelena Jankovic too. She is not Serb according to your examples, is she?
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Apr 9, 2008 6:30:42 GMT -5
Novi speaking
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Apr 9, 2008 6:31:29 GMT -5
Well, I have seen pictures of Jelena Jankovic too. She is not Serb according to your examples, is she? I think she is half montenegrin.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 9, 2008 6:44:22 GMT -5
What is your opinions regarding these slavic tribes:
- Severjani - Timochani - Moravljani - Brsjaci - Tikvesh - Smoljani - Rinhini - Sagugati - Dragovic - Velesic or Velegostic - Vojnich Epirus - Milinci - Jezerani
Jirechek + Marin Drinov list these as some of the undifferential tribes that were absorbed into the Bulgar and Serbian nation, before the arrival of these peoples (Bulgars & Serbs). Have in mind that widespread diffusion of Slavs (undifferential/common) in the Balkans, particularly in the region of ancient Macedonia, explains why this region was called "Slovinia" in Byzantine sources. Before the arrival of the Bulgars, Moesia was known by the same name. Interesting to note also that some slavs that where transfered to Asia minor from the region of vardar in 649 founded the city the of Gordoservon.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 9, 2008 6:52:29 GMT -5
"Novi speaking" Thanks Pyrro hehe , in my opinion the slav component is mixed and the southern regions of Vardar are Greeks. Thats what l believe. I might write about the arrival of the slavs in the balkans, this may shed some light into this horrible Vardar mess.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 9, 2008 6:54:20 GMT -5
"I think she is half montenegrin."
Terroreign can have her and talk about his montenegrin beauties ;D
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Apr 9, 2008 7:06:46 GMT -5
Just a clue, i am copy/pasting by the Greek forum. There was a debate about the ancient slavs of Epiros. Some claimed them bulgarian but....
Also i should add that in Bulgarian "dry" is "Suh".
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 9, 2008 7:26:38 GMT -5
|
|