|
Post by Kubrat on Nov 30, 2008 22:54:29 GMT -5
every educated person knows that map is not correct. if you're basing any argument on that map, well... good luck in life. raska itself at the time was barely bigger than present montenegro, and that was the only serbian land. while it has been well documented that the franks and Bulgars shared a common border.
please don't waste my time with such filth.
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Nov 30, 2008 22:57:03 GMT -5
quoting a book or subject from a previous book or subject that is know to be invalid does not make the new quoted book or subject valid. don't waste my time.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 1, 2008 0:36:25 GMT -5
"every educated person knows that map is not correct."
Kubrat, the map is 100% correct. This map shows where the serbian tribes inhabited at the time of charemagnes death.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 1, 2008 0:37:24 GMT -5
"quoting a book or subject from a previous book or subject that is know to be invalid does not make the new quoted book or subject valid. don't waste my time."
Yes, l know, its invalid to you. I have almost at every occasion avoided serbian historians.
Show me pre 19th century references?
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Dec 1, 2008 3:21:35 GMT -5
serbian tribes? no it doesn't! where is the historical reference? hell, the only reference is raska the map shows the slav inhabitants and named them serbs. get over yourselves. secondly, the Bulgarian lands are greatly underexagerated, and the avar kingdom should not be there "In 804, the Bulgarian Empire took the southeastern Avar lands- Transylvania and south-eastern Pannonia to the Middle Danube river. Many Avars joined the Bulgarian Khanate. The Franks turned the Avar lands under their control into a military march. The eastern half of this March was then granted to the Slavic Prince Pribina, who established the Balaton principality in 840 AD" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avarsthat alone refutes the markings on the map, get this shit out of here. what do you want? a reference of what? and it's invalid because it's not a proper argument. i told you don't waste my time with this crap. before you state what your country is and has done, find out where your neighbouring countries stand. i suggest you look at some Bulgarian maps for reigns during Krum, Simeon, Omurtag, Trevel before you throw me this crap about serbia and their inhabitants and tribes. also read some stuff about Kubrat and his sons, read about the huns, read about the avars. you'll eventually notice that with all of them there were distinct Bulgars with them. hell there were Bulgars in the present macedonian, italian, and serbian regions before the ostrogoths, before any serb influence. unless you somehow relate anything slavic as being serb which is complete Bullsheet
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 1, 2008 6:23:57 GMT -5
"that alone refutes the markings on the map, get this s**t out of here."
The Avars?. You still haven't refuted anything, try again.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 1, 2008 17:15:48 GMT -5
Yopu don't know much about Avars, do you? They were quite an interesting people with very significant part in the history of the Balkans. But explaining this to you will probably take several years. It took me two and a half years to somehow inform you that Bulgaria was not established in the 9th century, something that can be read even in your library, I guess. I give up on the Avars.
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Dec 1, 2008 17:45:24 GMT -5
i'll dumb it down for you. the map is time based on the death of Charlemagne, who died in 814 now historical sources state: "In 804, the Bulgarian Empire took the southeastern Avar lands- Transylvania and south-eastern Pannonia to the Middle Danube river." which is not shown at all in that map. keep inmind that the avars never got that land back and as i said, the "serb" tribes is bs. and the Bulgarian lands are under exagerated when compared to historical sources. if you would like, i could try to explain it to you in binary?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 1, 2008 18:50:16 GMT -5
"In 804, the Bulgarian Empire took the southeastern Avar lands- Transylvania and south-eastern Pannonia to the Middle Danube river." which is not shown at all in that map. keep inmind that the avars never got that land back and as i said, the "serb" tribes is bs. and the Bulgarian lands are under exagerated when compared to historical sources. if you would like, i could try to explain it to you in binary?"
No sources means nothing, try again.
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Dec 1, 2008 19:08:06 GMT -5
i guess oxymorons are too much for you to handle. look it up yourself, i'm not gonna waste my time on educating you about things you should know when you keep denying them and proposing theories contrary to the truth. you're opinions are meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 1, 2008 19:12:57 GMT -5
^ excuses?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 2, 2008 0:47:25 GMT -5
I want you to show me things like:
Heinrich Muller's Turkish Chronicle, 1577:
"However valiantly the Serbian people fought in Macedonia, the Sultan nevertheless occupied the Serbian towns of Serrai, Strumica, Philippopolis and Veles".
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 2, 2008 1:04:27 GMT -5
Marin Drinov (a Russian) believes that the settlement of the Slavs took place over a prolonged period (3 centuries) before a large scale of mass migration of peoples was completed by the seventh century.
Jirechek:
"in the fifth century the Slavs were far from being unknown in the [Balkan] Peninsula: they were a fairly numerous and influential people, although their colonies appear to have been pretty widely scattered." He then goes onto say that Slavic colonisation began in the third century and was carried out gradually: "At the end of the fifth century," he says, "armed migration began on a massive scale." This would be the second and final phase in this movement, which likewise took place over a prolonged period.
Constantin Jos. Jirechek, Geschichte der Bulgaren, Prague, 1876, p.94
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Dec 2, 2008 2:45:50 GMT -5
holy shit dude, do you not have a life? you're on here every hour of everyday.
"However valiantly the Serbian people fought in Macedonia, the Sultan nevertheless occupied the Serbian towns of Serrai, Strumica, Philippopolis and Veles".
here's why your sources are flawed. there is one city in that list that has never been under serb influence in any form or matter, in the year 1577, or 1000 years before, or 500 years after. i suggest you throw that book out.
slavs does not mean serbs, get that through your head.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 2, 2008 3:38:06 GMT -5
Marin Drinov is Bulgarian with Russian citizenship. Both him and Jirecek deserve some respect for what they have done about Bulgaria, but not in the sphere of history.
So Philipopolis (Plovdiv) has been a Serbian town...that is what I call a surprise. Follow Kubrat's advice, Novi. Throw this book away.
|
|
|
Post by serban on Dec 2, 2008 5:42:11 GMT -5
The Serbs in Timocka Krajina were Bulgarians. What is important is not what they consider themselves to be now (Serbs), what matters is they speak Torlakian and that is a proof of their Bulgarianness. The Slava tradition (Saint of the house) is shared also by the Romanians in Timocka Krajina (about those in Serbian part of Banat I don't know) which doesn't prove anything except. They could be Romanianized Serbs with Romanian mother tongue who have kept some Serbian customs but they also be Romanians who have borrowed Slava from the Serbs. Either way their mother tongue is Romanian and therefore they are Romanians, no matter how many Serbian customs they have. Romanians and Bulgarians have martenitsa custom (I don't know about the Serbs). That doesn't mean that Bulgarians and Romanians are the same nation because we speak different languages. Anyway the Slava custom of Timok Romanians differs from the Serbian. When a Romanian buy a new house he celebrates both his old Slava and the Slava of his new house. Some houses have 3-4 Slavas. I think continuing to debate with Novi Pazar on the Bulgarianness of the "Macedonians" is pointless. He has his ideas that nodoby can change. It's like trying to persuade a FYROMian that he is actually Bulgarian and has nothing to do with ancient Macedonians. No matter what genetic "studies" show, FYROMians speak Bulgarian which is not what ancient Macedonian was. That means that Bulgarians are actually Thracian and Montenegrins are Illyrian when in fact all these two nations are Slavic because they speak Slavic languages, language being the most important component of a nation.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 2, 2008 6:09:55 GMT -5
^ I agree complitely. However, we cannot say Bulgarians are exclusively Slavic, because I think we have alot in common with the Romanians and the Greeks, so there must be some big balkanic influence there. At least for me. I agree that the easiest way to distinguish a Bulgarian from Serb is the grammer and in this respect the Torlakians are indeed Bulgarian by origin.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 2, 2008 6:26:04 GMT -5
You guys are hilliarious.
|
|
|
Post by serban on Dec 2, 2008 6:55:45 GMT -5
^ I agree complitely. However, we cannot say Bulgarians are exclusively Slavic, because I think we have alot in common with the Romanians and the Greeks, so there must be some big balkanic influence there. At least for me. I agree that the easiest way to distinguish a Bulgarian from Serb is the grammer and in this respect the Torlakians are indeed Bulgarian by origin. Not only the grammar but also many pure Bulgarian words. According to Romanian historians when the Slavs came in Moesia (this means Timocka Krajina included) they found only Romans (all the Thracians had been Romanized). I don't think this is true though. It is true though that some of the Thracians had been assimilated by the Romans. So Timocka Krajina Romanians ("Vlachs") are actually Thracians and Romans (Romanized Thracians) who have been Bulgarianized and then Serbianized and then Romanianized. Since Romanians are Romans' descendants and Romanian language is a historial dialect of Latin, Romanians in Timocka Krajina are simply Romanians who have been Slavicized at some moment in history and then they have been re-Romanianized. This means that the wrong act of Slavizicing the Romanians/Romans has been rectified by Romanians from north of the Danube who have re-Romanianized the Slavs (Slavicized Romans) from Timocka Krajina. There must have been very many Romanians who have crossed the Danube and settled in Timocka Krajina. Otherwise they couldn't have Romanianized the Bulgarians they found there.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 2, 2008 7:00:36 GMT -5
^ wrong, first Torlakian is old serbian dialect and two bulgars arrived 150 years after the serbs settled in the Balkans.....try again.
|
|