|
Post by c0gnate on Mar 20, 2008 14:37:48 GMT -5
Christianity as the state religion was introduced to the Balkans in the 4th century. That's several centuries before the Asiatic Bulgars appeared on the scene.
The official christianization date of the Bulgarians, in 863, refers to the conversion of the khan and his military elite, not of the pre-existing pre-Slavic population. The relatively newly arrived Slavs also were not christian.
The Vlachs of the Balkans, of which the Romanians are the most numerous, were christianized in the Latin language, during the time of the Roman -not Byzantine - Empire.
However in the 9th century the translation of the Bible into Slavonic and the invention of the Slavonic alphabet lent a powerful force to religious and political organization in Slavonic.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Mar 20, 2008 14:48:51 GMT -5
AofG argued that Catholicism would've served our national interest better. I sort of agree with him. Are you sure it wasn't c0gnate who said that?
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 20, 2008 14:49:27 GMT -5
Well, many consider the E. R. Empire to have begun with Constantine in the early 4th century.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Mar 20, 2008 14:57:36 GMT -5
I doubt Constantine had in mind a division, or the eventual fifth century collapse of what we call the western part. Even in the 6th century Justinian almost succeeded in reassembling the whole empire.
Besides, to the very end in 1453 the Byzantines said they were Romans and called their empire Romania.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 20, 2008 15:20:59 GMT -5
But there was a division, which he decided upon.
Irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on Mar 21, 2008 3:19:29 GMT -5
AofG argued that Catholicism would've served our national interest better. I sort of agree with him. Are you sure it wasn't c0gnate who said that? Yes, I too remember c0gnate saying this. Literacy. Religion. Knowledge how to govern a state. Is it so insignificant for you? Let's be serious. Literacy? Your slavonic alphabet slowed down our progress. Religion? We were chistians long before you arrived in the Balkans. Knowledge of how to govern a state? What knowledge? You guys succumbed to the ottomans very fast, so you obviously didn`t have any knowledge like that. We learned much more things from the germans and even from the hungarians, than from your marauding hordes.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 21, 2008 3:33:51 GMT -5
Progress you say...progress of what? Of an unexistant state or of people under different foreign rule till the beginning of the 14th century? Don't make me laugh.
All of you? Wow. Some of our khans were Christians too. So what?
Well, I'd be ashamed to state something like this considering that we ruled over you or you were just a part of our empire for centuries. And we obviously knew how to govern a state since we opposed succesfully the most powerful neighbours for a long time, while you were hiding in the bushes trying to hit a pigeon with a slingshot in order to have something to eat.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 21, 2008 7:24:09 GMT -5
Nope, the progress that was supposed to start after we created our states. That wasn't very nice. Anyway, I believe the Vlachs had a certain role to play when it comes to the creation of the Empire of the Vlachs and Bulgars. c0gnate, perhaps you said it also, about Catholicism, but AofG said the same thing. I remember him posting that in the forum and also when we had a personal convo on Yahoo. I mentioned to him Absalon, the Danish monk who was also a general who conquered numerous people. From there, we discussed the differences the two Christian religions could offer, etc.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 21, 2008 8:06:32 GMT -5
Does this progress include foreseeing in the future centuries? True I guess this has something to do with the Romanian claim that Asens were Vlahs.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 21, 2008 8:53:22 GMT -5
Even if the Asens were not Vlachs, the Vlachs were still a part of the empire and they did contribute to its formation. But yes, the first Asens were Vlachs.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 21, 2008 12:20:15 GMT -5
Strange. The first Asens were Vlahs (up to you and some scholars) but the later ones were not (up to everyone). How's that?
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 21, 2008 12:37:28 GMT -5
It's not strange. In time, the Asens mixed with Bulgarians and adopted a Bulgarian consciousness. It happens all the time with dynasties. Even today.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 21, 2008 14:32:26 GMT -5
I am sorry to tell you this but they couldn't have any Romanian consciousness. Vlah one included.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 21, 2008 14:53:35 GMT -5
Are you speaking of the first Asens? If so, could you tell me why they couldn't have any Vlach consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by Ivanov on Mar 21, 2008 16:38:33 GMT -5
Asen Brothers again ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ivanov on Mar 21, 2008 17:42:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 22, 2008 9:05:35 GMT -5
What is here to comment, it has already been commented. Passionate discussions, no doubt. ;D
|
|
|
Post by vlaici on Mar 23, 2008 9:21:11 GMT -5
Like it or not, it's common history... Personally, I like it!
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Mar 28, 2008 7:54:31 GMT -5
The so called Slavonic culture is in fact Byzantine 100% the only differences were the slightly modified Greek alphabet and the Slavonic language. I cannot call it Slavonic, the real Slavonic culture was so primitive that i don't think we really know anything about it except for some pagan gods and some barbaric beliefs. No need to mention the Bulgar culture , the Bulgars and Slavs were two extremelly primitive peoples who lived for centuries plundering the eastern Romans and Greeks and at some point were christianized and to some extent civilized by the Greeks.
The fact that Moldavia and Walachia chose the Ortodoxism was because it was the only way to be independent from Hungary and secondly because the so called second "Bulgarian" state founded by Romanians was considered at in the 13th and 14th century by the Romanians in Moldavia and Walachia as theirs or related to them at least.
PS Annittas i don't think the Bulgarians have given anything to us for the simple fact that they didn't had anything except Gispies, gagauzs and other animals who came over us from Bulgaristan.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 28, 2008 8:55:47 GMT -5
No need to mention the Bulgar culture , the Bulgars and Slavs were two extremelly primitive peoples. Uou! Enlighten us with your deep knowledge about them! I thought there werent many sources left describing their initial cuture, especially the Bulgar one. Come again? Are u now claiming u are Roman? What is Eastern Roman? Romans=citizens of Rome. Didnt u claim u were Romanized Dacians? And this new culture was so sucessful that it influenced the Romanians long after the fall of Bulgaria under the Ottomans. Obviously your forefathers though it was a sophisticated civilization since the language the church rituals were adopted. If u say they were borrowed by the Byzantines then how would u explain the Slavic? First u are probably right. The Assens may have had Valahian desent. Its as possible as the other theories (Cuman one etc). However its undoubtedly true that the Assens acted like real Bulgarian kings, demanded to be described as such. I dont get why Romanians hate Bulgarians. We have nothing against u. Its horrible that since at least mid 20 century both countries act like the other dont exsist, although we have had same historic route and its visible if u have been in both countries.
|
|