ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 9, 2010 3:20:31 GMT -5
I choose Ioan Assen II. In my opinion he was the greatest, because he rarely fought but our influence was sensed even in Western Europe. Amazing dimplomate!
|
|
|
Post by tsompanos on Jun 13, 2010 11:20:49 GMT -5
wheres Samuil?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 13, 2010 12:24:05 GMT -5
Its Samuel. And who voted Kaloyan? Reasons?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jun 13, 2010 13:07:40 GMT -5
Each one of the medieval rulers has done something great for Bulgaria and I think it's hard to choose between any of them. But, I voted for Kubrat, because he united all Bulgars into one.. forming Old Great Bulgaria. His ideals about Bulgarian unity are exactly what we need to have now, it's our national motto after all, yet we don't follow it at all.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 13, 2010 14:18:45 GMT -5
tnx for saying your reasons...
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 13, 2010 14:27:42 GMT -5
I voted Kaloyan. In 10 years of rule only this man achieved something really tremendous. He is the only ruler without a lost battle, the one who defeated Magyars, Byzantines and Crusaders in a very tough political surrounding.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Jun 13, 2010 16:28:07 GMT -5
I like Kaloyan's name so i would vote him... i've read that Greeks called him Skyloyiannis so he must have been good for Bulgarians...
|
|
|
Post by Ivanov on Jun 13, 2010 16:54:25 GMT -5
I also voted Kaloyan. As Ruse pointed out he was very successful on the battlefield. He also was a great diplomat - just read his letters to the Pope. As you may know after the refusal of the Orthodox church to recognize him as an emperor he converted Bulgaria to Catholicism. I have read an interesting theory about this decision of his - it seems that this was not an act of frustration but a long term strategy to ensure support from western Europe against our main rivals - the Byzantines, and also to settle the border disputes with the Magyars. His successors did not continue on this path - some even argue that if they did, we would never be conquered by the Ottomans(or conquered for much shorter period) , since the catholic states gave them unite opposition and gradually they were kicked out of every catholic state they have invaded.
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Jun 15, 2010 8:03:59 GMT -5
I vote for Kubrat Khan. He started everything. Under his rule we united. And we became even greater force than before. He laid the foundations.
By the way Ivanov - I don't think our fall to the Turks has something to do with religion east or west. The religion itself was the problem - corrupted clerics, surrounded by riches and sins who with double tongue teached the public to follow the submissive "God". The Bogomils made the situation even worse. Our old warrior code was forgotten. Our unity by blood was forgotten. That's why we fell.
If you have read Mavro Orbini's book (a Medieval Croatian) - he says only the Bulgars could stop the Turks. No Greeks, no Serbs. The Bulgars. But then he gives us as example of what the saying "Divide and Conquer" means. We were divided - fighting each other. Overconfident in our strength. And we lost due to that.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jun 15, 2010 9:51:32 GMT -5
The problem was that we were divided. By the late 1300's, Bulgaria was split into 3 feudal style kingdoms.. much like the governing systems in the West. If we remained united, things may have been different. Hopefully we won't make the same mistake again...
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Jun 15, 2010 10:29:50 GMT -5
I think it's obvious who I voted for, but Kaloyan would've been my second choice
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 15, 2010 11:13:06 GMT -5
The problem was that we were divided. By the late 1300's, Bulgaria was split into 3 feudal style kingdoms.. much like the governing systems in the West. 3? More likely 5-6, including Uglesha and Krali Markos (who were Serbians) ruling over Bulgarians in Macedonia... Not to mention that eastern Serbia was populated with Bulgarians, even probably Belgrade too...
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jun 15, 2010 12:36:18 GMT -5
Even worst. That's what the problem was, that we didn't remain unified.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Jun 15, 2010 16:27:48 GMT -5
Even worst. That's what the problem was, that we didn't remain unified. honestly, who were Bulgarians to be unified under one state? Bulgarians as an ethnos was created due to the Bulgars and their kingdom, ok? In 1000 who was Bulgarian, if he wasn't inhbatiting the areas controled by the Bulgarian tsar? I mean, was a man in Serajevo Bulgarian? The language difference, was even small back then, so what were the criteria? Who did you excpet Asen or any other tsar to unifie? All Balkan Slavs? All Bulgars?
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Jun 15, 2010 16:40:19 GMT -5
Interesting, we all should learn more about this great "Bulgarian" from an eye witness: www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/villehardouin.htmlYou should start your reading with the chapter: PROGRESS OF THE YOUNG ALEXIUS THROUGH THE EMPIRE: Afterwards, by the advice of the Greeks and the French the Emperor Alexius issued from Constantinople, with a very great company, purposing to quiet the empire and subject it to his will. With him went a great part of the barons; and the others remained to guard the camp. The Marquis Boniface of Montferrat went with him, and Count Hugh of St. Paul, and Henry, brother to Count Baldwin of Flanders and Hainault, and James of Avesnes, and William of Champlitte, and Hugh of Colerni, and many others whom the book does not here mention by name. In the camp remained Count Baldwin of Flanders and Hainault, and Count Louis of Blois and Chartres, and the greater part of the pilgrims of lesser note. And you must know that during this progress all the Greeks, on either side of the straits, came to the Emperor Alexius, to do his will and commandment, and did him fealty and homage as to their lord-all except John, who was King of Wallachia and Bulgaria. This John was a Wallachian, who had rebelled against. his father and uncle, and had warred against them for twenty years, and had won from them so much land that he had become a very wealthy king. -And be it known to you, that of the land lying on the west side of the Straits of St. George, he had conquered very nearly the half. This John did not come to do the will of the emperor, nor to submit himself to him. Don't miss the rest, very interesting.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jun 15, 2010 22:38:10 GMT -5
A Bulgarian was, and is, anyone who genuinely identified/identifies as such. The Bulgarian ethnos is formed by three major ethnic components; those being the Ancient Bulgars, Slavic tribes, and Thracians. These three were amalgamated into a single ethnos between the years 600AD-1000AD. During the Second Bulgarian Empire, there were various other ethnic groups who have contributed to the modern day Bulgarian ethnos, some examples are Cumans, Vlachs, Jews, and Armenians. Realistically, if we look throughout history, most of the present day countries in Europe have undergone similar processes. There are no pure nations in Europe; all present day European ethnic groups are formed by the amalgamation of 2 or more other earlier ethnicities.
What the hell’s the matter with you!? Language alone does not determine a person’s ethnicity. If that man in Serajevo identifies as a Bulgarian, then he’s Bulgarian.
Unifying the Balkan Slavs was never a Bulgarian goal. This was an ideal that became a goal for the Communists of Eastern Europe. The only people and territories that Bulgaria wanted to unify after it’s liberation from the Ottoman Empire are pretty much depicted by the map of San Stefano Bulgaria. That map represents geographic areas where, at the time, 2/3 or more of the population identified as Bulgarians.
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Jun 15, 2010 23:44:42 GMT -5
That's what I was saying mate.
Patrinos - you are wrong. No offence but you are. These 5 small Bulgar kingdoms (some were not even kingdoms - they were despotates) they were ruled by Bulgarian rulers. They were ruling Bulgarians. Not Serbs / Greeks and each wanted the Tsar's crown. Simple as that. It's like Nikea and the Despot Komnin of Epirus trying to restore the fallen Byzantine Empire from the crusaders. They were both Greeks right? The same here. But obviously we chose the wrong moment to play the "vassal-sovereign" western game.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Jun 16, 2010 3:55:59 GMT -5
Atan,I didn't speak about the rulers, who were in charge on those bulgarian "despotates". I was referring to the people inside and outside these entities, that asen wishes to have been unified...and I repeat, who were those who must have unified under a Bulgarian single authority? all the Balkan Slavs...? no. Who then? A Slav in Ohrid or in "Triaditsa" could identify himself with the Bulgarian kingdom and name, but I don't expect a Slav in east Serbia, in Serajevo or Kilkis for example to do so... unless you have the sources to back this statement.
Asen, you keep talking about the "three major ethnic components", Slavs, Bulgarians, and Thracians. Do you have at least one original source, bulgarian, greek or whatever, that mention Thracians as a factor in the things of the Bulgarian kingdom? Let me answer...no. You have plenty sources talking about Bulgars and Slavs(Sklavinous, Sthlavous etc) as distinct groups, that after the years and due to the numerical superiotity of the Slavic element the first we slavicized.
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Jun 16, 2010 7:00:28 GMT -5
But this is what I am telling you man! If you read my post above you'll see that I wrote : "Bulgarian rulers ruling over Bulgarians!"
What other Balkan Slavs? I don't speak of Serbs, Croats, Bosnians or whoever. I don't care about them. Up to that point the Bulgarians as nation were formed long time ago. To these Bulgarians I refer. And these were in the mentioned small states.
Of course - in Plovdiv (Pulpudeva, Philipopolis etc.) there were large Greek population. I do not deny that. But majority of the people were Bulgarians in these small states. That explaines enough I think.
By the way - when our fathers came here in 7th century they encountered some Slavs and Thracians. The goal of our rulers was to unite the Slavic tribes under one scepter. They succeeded to some point. As you can see they forged the various nations into one. But again - this is 7th century. The period we talk about is 14th century.
I could ask you the same. Are you Roman, Byzantine or Greek? Are you the descendant of the East Roman Empire, Greek polises or Byzantium? You will tell me - I am all of those. And you are right. I say the same - I am Bulgar (mostly), Slav and Thracian in one. I am product of a soup which boiled ready from 7th to 9th century ;D. The soup was quite ready at 14th century. Thats it.
And please forget this bul.lshit about uniting all the Balkan Slavs. We are not serbs. I can assure you our leaders at the time did care quite little about the other "Slavs".
It's simple man. I don't understand why we enter so deep into so simple stuff?!
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Jun 16, 2010 7:03:27 GMT -5
Ah sorry - I saw you mentioned Serbs. Who of us claimes any Serb? Or any wishes that we want the Serbs under the scepter of our Tsars? Why do you need proof of something we didn't claim?
|
|