|
Post by manolakis1773papas on Nov 6, 2011 7:23:15 GMT -5
Which leaves Emathia as the core Macedonian region right, which was, until like 80 years ago, inhabited by Slavs! I mean Misirkov is from Pella/Postol, both the villages of Kutlesh and Palatica have clear slavic names and were inhabited by Slavs! So where should we look for ancient macedonian dna again? No one doubts there were Slavic settlements in Emathia a century ago but there were Greek populations too,which you seem to "forget".European travellers who visited Macedonia in 19th century confirm it: [imghttp://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/tranorgre270.png][/img] Have you ever heard of the region of Rumlouki in Emathia?This name was given by the Turks,Rumluk=land of Greeks.Some info on it from Leonhard Shulze Jena's "Makedonien,landschafts und kulturbilder": Kampania (the southern part Emathia) got off lightly from previous struggles as well.The population could here stronger than in any other region of Macedonia exhibit proudly its ancient peculiarity.The Turkish term "Roumlouki" makes the impression that here Eastroman,that means Greek peculiarity survived over the centuries of forreign domination. In page 112 Dr. Jena writes about the traditional woman costume of Gidas in Rumluki and especially about the famous head cap that resembles the ancient Greek helmets : "But the costume of the girls and the women in the land is regarded as landmark of ancient Hellenism....The whole thing reminds a helmet.The part of the forehead is exactly like that of Pallas Athena.The legend refers to the time,when Alexander the Great once punished his men for cowardice allowing the women to bear helmets". He is talking about this cap: Just take a look at Kanchov's statistics,it's quite clear Greek and Slavic populations were living as neighbours in that regions,the Greeks in the southern and the Slavs in the northern part: Note that Kanchov used as criterion for ethnic identity not church or school affiliation but the native language of the inhabitants,even your scholars admit it: www.google.com/search?q=Vasil+Kanchov%27s+ethnographic+data+for+Aegean+Macedonia+is+not+based+upon+religious+affiliation+or+the+language+of+school&btnG=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7+%CE%92%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=elSo these two villages were inhabited by Greeks according to Kanchov (whose view was as a matter of fact not pro-Greek!) and as for their etymology: You can't say the root of the word palatica is definitely Slavic since Latin "palatium"=palace was borrowed by both Greeks and Slavs,we have in modern Greek "palati" =palace too: translate.google.com/#en|el|palaceThe ending -ica is certainly Slavic but it is borrowed and used throughout Greece as female diminutive ending,mainly in female names,f.e. Evangellia-Evangellitsa.It's one of the very few Slavic influences of the modern Greek language. As for Kutlesh,its etymology is Turkish: translate.google.com/#tr|en|kutles
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 6, 2011 9:13:36 GMT -5
"brilliant." Believe me brate even the stupid BuLgari don't even know this. In the end there was an agreement that the BuLgari focus on vardar than European Turkey. you are cool man, some day we must put the pieces together and the image will show up like a beauty.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Nov 6, 2011 12:17:11 GMT -5
Here is one groundbreaking scientific interdisciplinary fact for you: Slavic Migrations did not happen, ever! First of all, the "Slavs" are archaeologically invisible. No traces what-so-ever have been found of those so called en masse migrations in almost the entire Balkans or anywhere for that matter (exception is Slovenia, but Mitija Gushtin thesis died soon after he proclaimed it). - Poulter "The Transition to Late Antiquity. The Danube region and Beyond" - F. Curta "The Making of the Slavs" - F. Curta (editor) - "Borders, barriers and ethnogenesis" - F. Curta (editor) - "East Central and Eastern Europe in the early middle ages" - F. Curta - Medieval Archaeology and Ethnicity: Where are We? - F. Curta - Etnicitet u ranosrednjovjekovnoj arheologiji: Primjer ranoslavenskih nalaza u jadranskoj regiji - F. Curta: - The early Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia: a response to my critics You can find F. Curta's articles on academia.edu and his books can easily be found in electronic forms on the net. His theories have been widely accepted by both western and eastern scholars. His editions and texts are published in almost every meaningful history/archaeology magazine and encyclopedia's on the subject of Early middle ages. Related bibliography is mentioned in his papers. His most recent book is "The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, ca. 500 to 1050. The Early Middle Ages" which i havent had the chance to read yet. In favor of this new revisionist theory of slavs and their so called migrations are also the genetic researches from various authors, which point out to the conclusion that the three most present hg's in the balkan slavic populations can be traced back to the paleolithic and neolithic on the very territories they live in. One way of interpreting the spread of slavic languages is presented by Mario Alinei: "Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis". More on the linguistic subject in Curta's books (he presents the thesis of Slavic being Lingua Franca of the Avar and Bulgar Qaganat's). Basically, what the theory says is that the term "Slav" is political construction of the Eastern Roman Empire in order to mark various territorial and political groups of people which were opposing them, therefor after getting complete control of the territories where these groups are mentioned as having residence, they completely vanish from historical sources. It is not linked in any way with language or culture. Actually the earliest accounts of a language which was used by the so-called "Slavs" in the historical sources is Latin, and if i'm not mistaken, certain "Slav" was mentioned speaking Greek. On the contrary, the term "Antes" is used for various groups of people which were always allied to the East Roman Empire. After this initial use of the term, it was first accepted in the western sources, and later it just become adopted evidently to describe a long range of people and states. Anyway, just read some of the books (at least its conclusions which usually aint long) to get a brighter perspective. It doesnt exclude the Greek culture in any way. "Slav Culture" is something that had different form in the early antiquity (maybe something that connected Thracians, Illyrians, Paionians, Epirotes, Macedons etc etc) and it is not tied to ethnic terms as we see it today. Its something totally different. This is a gross misreading of Curta driven by typically blind desire for an ex Deus machina overthrow of accepted wisdom so as to magically arrive at the fantasy world shared by your ilk such as the bananas at the ‘MTO’ forums. Curta does not contend that the Slavic Migrations never took place. He clearly sees the Danube limes (boundary) as a complex interface [his words] between Byzantium and the conglomeration of peoples who dwelled just over the river – perhaps for a very long time. He thus sees the ‘Slavs’, or rather the people the Byzantines would come to describe as Slavs, as living north of the Lower Danube in present day Romania. Clearly they had to migrate in order to get to into the Balkans … which means I have news for you: The Slavic Migrations did happen. Curta takes issue with how far we can still push such notions as ‘Slav homeland’ (eg the Pripet marshes), still fashionable in many quarters, which he views as conjecture not drawn from any real direct evidence. As I understand it his thesis is, to a large extent, pre-occupied with concepts of ethnogenesis in the face of what he sees as the absence of evidence for the existence of a people conceiving of themselves as ‘Slavs’. This is not the same as him believing that there were no ‘Slavic Migrations’. Curta, observes that a group needs to conceive itself under a label before it can present itself and be accepted by others by that label. Curta argues that this was not the case with any ‘Slavic’ group. He points out, characteristically, that ‘Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others’ and insists there is no evidence that the Slavs called themselves Slavs. Curta sees the ethnic descriptor ‘Sclavenes/Slavs’ as being borne of internal and bookish assumptions of Byzantine chroniclers, driven by their own motives to use the Sclavene label (which may very well have belonged to one particular tribe/group). He states: ‘Byzantine authors seem to have used ‘Sclavenes’ and ‘Antes’ to make sense of the process of group identification which was taking place under their own eyes just north of the Danube frontier. They were, of-course, interested in the military and political consequences of this process than in the analysis of Slavic ethnicity. (p. 349, Making of the Slavs) His issue also has more to do with the nature, intensity, motives, scale and magnitude of the so-called ‘Slavic invasions’ but he does not deny that there were migrations. His is a new approach but hardly the earth-shattering overturning of the fact that the ‘Slavs’ entered the peninsula in the early middle ages. His is no re-translation of the Rosetta stone. For your reference, here’s how Bideleux and Jeffries, historians who can actually read, summarise Curta’s contribution in their ‘A History of Eastern Europe’. I found this after I wrote the stuff above: “In place or 'a great flood of Slavs coming out of the Pripet marshes', Curta postulates that the name "Sclavene" was a purely Byzantine construct, designed to make sense of a complex configuration of ethnies on the other side of the northern frontier of the Empire" (Curta 2001: 3, 118—19). ‘Slavs, did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others" (p. 346). "The making of the Slavs was less a matter of ethnogenesis and more one of invention, imagining and labeling by Byzantine authors. Some form of group identity, however, which we may call ethnicity, was growing out of the historical circumstances following the fortification of the Danube limes. This was therefore an identity formed in the shadow of Justinian's forts, not in the Pripet marshes … That no "Slavs" called themselves by this name [until the twelfth century] not only indicates that no group took on the label imposed by outsiders but also suggests that this label was more a pedantic construction than the result of systematic interaction [let alone investigation] across ethnic boundaries’ (p. 350). Thus, in place of the hitherto prevalent notion of*great Slav migration from origins somewhere in Poland or Belarus during the sixth and seventh centuries, Curta suggests that there were relatively short range inflows of unknown peoples from just north of the Danube (present-day Romania), and that these were most probably not a single ethnic group or even speakers of a common ‘Slavic’ language. They were called ‘Sclavenes’ by Byzantine authors for lack of any hard information about who they were – and the label eventually stuck and began to be imbued with more specific ethnographic content. This conjecture is reiterated in Curta (2005: 59-61). Nevertheless, Curta’s thesis remains nothing more than yet another conjecture and, while it does appear to offer a more-or-less plausible explanation of the emergence of the Balkan Slavs, it has nothing to say about the subsequent emergence of either the ‘Western Slavs (the forebears of the Poles, Czechs and Slovaks) or the ‘Eastern Slavs’ (the forebears of the Russians, Ukrainians and Belarussians). Consequently, Curta has only established that no one really knows for sure how, when or where the Slavs originated.” Curta’s overall discussion is very interesting, although a little too ‘precious’ for me in places and at times a little ‘esoteric’ … but his conclusion is hardly the simplistic one you want to believe it is. Accordingly, at least with respect to the Balkans, there was quite definitely a migration of people into the peninsula, which I think is still fair, albeit perhaps convenient (taking Curta’s point), to refer to as the ‘Slavic’ migrations or invasions - although we might debate its magnitude and its genetic impact on the locals. How could there not have been a movement of people given the obvious linguistic/toponymic differences (if nothing else) that distinguish the ancient Balkans from the Balkans of the middle ages and beyond? Best you stop clinging to YOUR interpretation of Curta, evidently the next in a line of self-serving delusions that seem to characterise your chicken thief nation (Rosetta; Slavic Homeric poems; IGENEA; Ethiopian genes and so forth). The ‘Slavic’ invasions happened indeed and Curta’s is simply a different response to elements of the traditional viewpoint. Archaeological evidence exists for the newcomers and the effect of their arrival(fibulae, numismatics etc), although unfortunately such strata have in the past usually been bypassed for more ‘glorious’ earlier periods and relevant ‘digs’ have not been given the attention they deserve. Literary evidence clearly exists to describe the disruption caused by the migrations - the natural exaggeration of the chroniclers notwithstanding. And again let’s not forget the most obvious: linguistics and toponymics. The earlier Greek and Paleo-Balkan toponymy of antiquity has been indisputably supplanted by a new linguistic element. The absence of Latin borrowings in Slavic is entirely telling – it was simply not there before. There is enough surviving linguistic material from antiquity to undermine your absolutely ridiculous and laughable view that Slavic is simply re-badged Illyrian/Thracian/Epirote(!)/Macedonian(!!!) – what a convenient jumble (but that’s another topic). Who the f.uck are you trying to kid? You‘ve only taken part of Curta’s message (labelling; the ethnic make-up of the ‘Slavs’) and added your own twist to suit. So may I suggest, dear Zhivko with a Greek nick, that you read Curta again, this time not through your magic ‘Macedonian’ prism, and stop peddling your deluded ‘Slavic invasions never happened’ bullsh.it here BBB slavic migrations have left a huge genetic footprint, check out this thread, archeology and historical chronicles pretty much match with genetics. illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=physicalracialanthropologydiscussion&action=display&thread=33449One interesting thing about haplogroup I2a2-Dinaric, is that it has two sub-branches. I2a2-Dinaric South and I2a2-Dinaric North. Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosnians and Croatians I2a2 Dinaric are by a vast majority Dinaric South branch. Bulgarian and Greek I2a2 Dinaric are mostly North. However the Fyromovian sample is very small(2 Dinaric-North, 1 Dinaric South), this is from a publiccly posted DNA website. www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=yresultsBBB I'm wondering if you know anyone who has access to DNA databases(published in journals) to Fyramovian, Albanian and Greek haplogroups in their full SNPs, so I can get their Dinaric South/Dinaric North ratios. I'm sure the results will confirm the pattern from the website above, but its always good to have a large sample to shut up idiots once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Nov 6, 2011 16:50:14 GMT -5
Babylon Enigma, what about R1a in Balkans?
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Nov 6, 2011 18:32:37 GMT -5
^^ Novi bro, the big powers (and russia) *KNOW* that Bulgos cannot bulgarify south hard-core Serbia, that's why they are playing this FYROM game. I am afraid, in the end FYROM would end up in yugoslavia, but portions of the greek makedonia transfered to Bulgaria.... And the greek-slavs are infact pro-bulgo. Maybe greeks are afraid of them, and NOT FYROM?? Maybe fyrom was designed AS A BULGARIAN PROXY *BUT NOT* a future-bulgaria teritory? Maybe FYROM is supposed to work for Bulgaria (giving parts of Greece to Bulgaria), and then go back to Serbia? Who knows what the mighty powers have in their minds in London/NY. Greeks and Bulgars are afraid of neo-Ottoman Turkey and Macedonia's close relationship with Turkey. This is not imagined, it is real. Turkey owns our airports, they have funded two universities in Macedonia, we have signed military agreements with them, and they train and fund our military. The neo-Ottomans make no secret about Turkish minorities in Greek and Bulgarian Thrace, and their future possible role in providing a joint Macedonian-Turkish border at the river Mesta... So you guys can conjur up all the theories and anti-Macedonian propaganda you like, there is more to this then meets the eye...
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Nov 6, 2011 18:39:09 GMT -5
^ Well said brate, it will also create a larger Bu Lgarska wrapping itself around Greece, very dangerous in my opinion also. It was Russia's interest to have a huge Bulgarian Khanate in the Balkans back in the late 19th century, hence why she funded them to the teeth so that serbian vardar would be lost to them Its not about a greater serbia, its also in the interests of Greece that vardar is a state of serbia, it will neutralise this stupidity of the current vardarian concept of Macedonia. Serbia is a spent force guys. Krajina, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro...Sandzhak, Vojvodina....that's alot of fronts to be fighting...
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Nov 6, 2011 19:39:30 GMT -5
^Vojvodina is majority Serb (who don't want to separate) so its not going anywhere. Sandzak doesn't even have a prominent autonomist movement let alone one for independence. We will never go to war with Montenegro, the people of both countries would be vehemently opposed. Krajina is basically a lost cause so I doubt we'll be going to war with the Croats anytime soon. As for Bosnia, we got a nice little 49% of the country as essentially our own so we are fine there. Kosovo's really the only issue right now.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Nov 6, 2011 19:48:37 GMT -5
^Vojvodina is majority Serb (who don't want to separate) so its not going anywhere. Sandzak doesn't even have a prominent autonomist movement let alone one for independence. We will never go to war with Montenegro, the people of both countries would be vehemently opposed. Krajina is basically a lost cause so I doubt we'll be going to war with the Croats anytime soon. As for Bosnia, we got a nice little 49% of the country as essentially our own so we are fine there. Kosovo's really the only issue right now. When it comes to territory Kosovo is the only responsibility Serbia should be dealing with (Agreed). Krajna is out of Belgrades hands, long ago, we had the chance to take, but lost it. This doesn't mean Serbs there are f**ked, they should organize themselves, and work for themsevles, Belgrade cannot do s**t for them, same goes for RS. The problem with Serbs is that they look at Belgrade for answers, well sorry to say but Belgade is f**ked as it is, BG has their own issues. RS seems to be more stable that Serbia is, ironically.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Nov 6, 2011 20:00:29 GMT -5
^ Well said brate, it will also create a larger Bu Lgarska wrapping itself around Greece, very dangerous in my opinion also. It was Russia's interest to have a huge Bulgarian Khanate in the Balkans back in the late 19th century, hence why she funded them to the teeth so that serbian vardar would be lost to them Its not about a greater serbia, its also in the interests of Greece that vardar is a state of serbia, it will neutralise this stupidity of the current vardarian concept of Macedonia. Serbia is a spent force guys. Krajina, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro...Sandzhak, Vojvodina....that's alot of fronts to be fighting... Hold on... and 700 000 Macedonians aren't? You're as many as my whole administrative unit in this part of Belgrade, spread across whole Macedonian country.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Nov 6, 2011 21:09:45 GMT -5
Serbia is a spent force guys. Krajina, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro...Sandzhak, Vojvodina....that's alot of fronts to be fighting... Hold on... and 700 000 Macedonians aren't? You're as many as my whole administrative unit in this part of Belgrade, spread across whole Macedonian country. WTF? At the last census R. Macedonia had a population of 1.4 million Macedonians (65% of the total population). Not sure what this 700K refers to?? There are more than double this number of Macedonians around the world too.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 6, 2011 21:37:39 GMT -5
"The thing is that FYROM's own patriots defined themselves as Bulgarians. When you call them on it they say that it is taken out of context. Now for whatever reasons they felt closer to Bulgaria (Exarchate) and what not is a different issue. But the fact of the matter is that their political leaders always leaned if not outright defended the Bulgarian character of the region. Even if you read Karev's interview he says the same. Now if the majority of the Slavs in the region is something else I do not know. Im just going by the historical references I have read."
Chalke, the historical references that define the Vardarian character as Bulgarian *were* written during the late 19th century, prior to that they were strictly known as Serbs. The people of the region were calling themselves Serbs all the way up to the commencement of the Bulgarian Exarchos. The Slavs of this region joined the Exarchos because they wanted church services to be conducted in a slavic language. There are numbers of reasons why foreign travellors called these slavs as *Bulgarians*; one was, once they joined the exarchos they viewed them as Bulgars and second, they relied on confused Albanian and local Greek guides who called them Bulgars.
Me and Pyrro have discussed here the mechanisms of the words Boulgaroi (common people) and Bolgaroi (a nation) that were later applied to the slavs, the Greek people unfortuntely confused the two words, read below:
There are many unsolved mysteries in the Balkans, some of which no doubt are abused by nationalists to spread confusion and cause tension. Take for example the dual meaning of the word “Vulgar”. Before nationalism became widespread in the Balkans, “Vulgar” was a word that described the lower class of people, a certain segment of the Byzantine and later of the Ottoman population in the Balkans.
“Vulgar” is believed to be a derivative of the Latin word “Vulgaris” which roughly translates to “common” or “everyday”. With time “Vulgaris” evolved to “Vulgar” meanings “lacking of manners”, “uneducated”, “of low class”, “dirty” and so on.
In the hands of the Koine speakers the word “Vulgar” became Βολγαροι. When transposed to the medieval languages Βολγαροι became Bolgars.
In Koine there was in fact another Word, the “ethnic definition” of the Βονλγαροι or Boulgaroi (Bulgarians), a people who once built an empire in the Balkans.
The word Βονλγαροι (Boulgaroi) is derived from the word Βονλγα (Voulga). Βονλγα is the Koine name of the river Volga where the Proto Bulgarians originated.
When the written form of the Koine word “Βονλγαροι” was transposed to the modern languages, it became Bulgars. The close spelling and pronunciation of the two words “Βολγαροι” and “Βονλγαροι” in Koine became confusing, misleading and for the most part, indistinguishable to non-Koine speakers, particularly to foreigners who were not familiar with the Balkan cultures.
Outsiders (non-Balkanites) who lacked knowledge of the meaning of the two words “Bolgar” and “Bulgar” used them interchangeably as if they were synonymous until the word “Bolgar” was eventually dropped in favour of the word Bulgar.
During the 19th century after the formation of the new Balkan States, Bulgaria began to deliberately misuse the word “Bolgar” to mean “ethnic Bulgar”. By claiming all “Bolgars” in the Balkans to be “ethnic Bulgarians” it began to make claims on Macedonian territories under the guise that the peasant population of Macedonia was actually ethnically Bulgarian.
Evidence of the widespread use of the word “Bolgar” can be found not just in Bulgaria and Macedonia but in other parts of the Balkans. The Russian traveler Simeon Lehatsi, who traveled through the Balkans in 1608 and visited Sarai, a region in Bosnia which exists to this day, commented that “the Bosnian population does not speak the Turkish language, it speaks Bolgarian”. From the Bosnians he learned that in Rumelia, outside of the larger towns, there were “80,000 Bolgarian villages which were of the Greek Orthodox faith”. He also says that many Bosnians [note he calls them Bosnians and not Bulgarians] because of the Harach [taxes in blood] changed their religion into Moslems. On the issue of languages spoken in Bosnia he says “all people in Bosnia speak Bolgarian”.
What exactly did Simeon Lehatsi mean when he called the Bosnian rural population and their language “Bolgarian”? Did he mean “ethnic Bulgarian” or did he mean something else? You can ask the Bosnians if they feel as Bulgarians. And I can assure you they do not feel as Bulgarian exactly as Macedonians do not feel so. Bulgarian monk Paisiy Hilendarski, wrote in his Book “Istoriya Slavyanobolgarskaiya” (History of the Slavobolgarians) “why are you ashamed to call yourselves Bolgarian?” The answer he was usually receiving from the people was : “The Greeks [merchant class] are wiser and more cultured, whereas we the Bolgarians are simpleminded, unintelligent and have no refined words in our language.” Here one can see that even many Ethnic Bulgarians were confused by the two different but very similar words. They were ashamed to call them Bolgarians, or people with lower culture. The Bulgarian Monk also wrote: “I have witnessed many Bulgarians behave in this manner”. So if I may be allowed to say, we have no idea how many of these people were actually ethnic Bulgarians. It is impossible to tell. But what we can tell is that the word Bolgarian was understood as designatio of people of lower class. It is noteworthy to mention at this point that “Greek” during the Ottoman era did not mean “ethnic Greek”. “Greek” was a word used to refer to the multi-ethnic, Koine speaking merchant class of people, also called the Phanariots. The word “Greek” in this context, like the word “Bolgar”, denotes a social class of people in Ottoman society. Further evidence of the existence of the “Bolgar” class can be found in Serbian and Croatian epic folk songs called “Bulgarshtitsa” (Bulgarian folk songs). “Bugarshtitse” were most common from the 16th to the 18th century and could be found near the Adriatic Shores from Zadar to Perasta and Kotor. Similar folk songs have also been found to exist in Italy but in an earlier period. The oldest Serbian or Croatian “bulgarshtitsa” dating back to 1497, in the Neretva dialect (a region of Dalmatia), was found in southern Italy. From the evidence given above and given that nationalism and ethnic distinctions did not exist until much later, it is safe to assume that the word “Bolgar” alluded to a certain social class of people. In 1861 the Brothers Miladinovi published a collection of songs which they called “Bulgarian Folk Songs”. Like those originating in Serbia and Croatia this particular set of folk songs also originated outside of Bulgaria; in Macedonia. Like the “Bugarshtitse” which belonged not to the Bulgarians but to the Serbians and Croatians, this particular set of folk songs belonged to the Macedonians. Why then are the Bulgarians laying claim to the works of the Brothers Miladinovi belonging to the Macedonians and not to those belonging to the Serbians and Croatians? Why is the “common” class of people in Macedonia considered to be “ethnic Bulgarian” by the Bulgarian State and not those in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia? Could it be because Bulgaria has territorial claims on Macedonia?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 6, 2011 21:42:52 GMT -5
"you are cool man, some day we must put the pieces together and the image will show up like a beauty."
Brate, we've contributed alot here and people still arn't understanding.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Nov 6, 2011 21:49:45 GMT -5
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Nov 6, 2011 21:52:42 GMT -5
"you are cool man, some day we must put the pieces together and the image will show up like a beauty." Brate, we've contributed alot here and people still arn't understanding. That's because Macedonia is not Serbian. It was only held by the Serbs briefly in the 14th century, and then again briefly in the 20th century. The marauding Goths of the 4-5th centuries had a greater impact on Macedonia, then Serbs did.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 6, 2011 22:24:30 GMT -5
^ First of all, l didn't see quotes from your link prior to the late 19th century, and second of all, the serbian empire of dushan controlled the region of vardar for only a brief period (correct), but the people of the region continued to call themselves *Serbs*, name their male children *Srbin* and carry on Serbian cultural traditions that is ONLY UNIQUE TO SERBIAN PEOPLE.
Your vardarian king (Marko Kraljevich) is a Serb!
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Nov 6, 2011 23:06:33 GMT -5
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 7, 2011 1:16:49 GMT -5
"you are cool man, some day we must put the pieces together and the image will show up like a beauty." Brate, we've contributed alot here and people still arn't understanding. That's because Macedonia is not Serbian. It was only held by the Serbs briefly in the 14th century, and then again briefly in the 20th century. The marauding Goths of the 4-5th centuries had a greater impact on Macedonia, then Serbs did. LOL, yet i have never seen any makedonian singing about any Goth "Ulrich"!!! All they do is sing about Marko Kraljevic and Milos Obilic!!! magicasland.com/category/myths/translation: Haha, so this is also the case in GREEK makedonia, one can imagine the situation for your makedonia LOL There are fairytales in EPIROS about Milos Obilic as well!!! As a mater of fact the ONLY legends in the balkans are of SERBIAN origin.... Chento, go to Meteora in central Greece , a huge complex of monasteries and see who built them. Then tell me, how could Makedonia be outside Serbian sphere when in fact they were pretty active down to central Greece (and i am talking 13th, 14th century here, not before). Chento, you are trying to deny reality...
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 7, 2011 3:29:21 GMT -5
PS Hint, for any Serb who likes Stefan Dusan and medieval Serbia, they can find the *original signature of Stefan Dusan*, (by his own bare hands) in the museum of "Megalo Meteoro" which is the highest monastery in the Meteora complex. This monastery was built by Jovan Uros (Stefan's brother).
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 7, 2011 7:22:31 GMT -5
"OK how bout some 18th century docs"
interesting and at the same time l have numerous sources, Russian ones, which have people from vardar who arrived to Russia saying they are Serbs 15th, 16th, 17th centuries!
Again, we've had slavs from serbian regions calling themselves Macedonians. The term Macedonia is used by slavs as a geographical designation not ethnical.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Nov 7, 2011 8:11:57 GMT -5
"OK how bout some 18th century docs" interesting and at the same time l have numerous sources, Russian ones, which have people from vardar who arrived to Russia saying they are Serbs 15th, 16th, 17th centuries! The term Macedonia is used by slavs as a geographical designation not ethnical.^ Exactly. Well said Novi Im not the best with the details of FYROM regarding Serb - Bulgarian POV. I respect both sides opinion on the matter though. Nice feedback btw.
|
|