|
Post by Edlund on Apr 5, 2008 9:28:08 GMT -5
I want to ask the Serbs who think that some of the Macedonians have Serbian origin - how did they lose their Serbian identity?
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Apr 5, 2008 10:06:52 GMT -5
This is the biggest bull$hit I have read from a Serb in this forum. Deucaon, and you have as a signature 'educate yourself'? Man, you are first who should follow this otherwise clever advice.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Apr 5, 2008 15:37:27 GMT -5
Serbs are liars! They think the whole world was at one point serb! This is why the whole balkans hates them!
LOL now you know why
|
|
SuperAlbanian
Amicus
King of Gays
20%
CANARIS IS THE REAL KING OF GAYS! OH WAIT! HES THE QUEEN OF GAYS!!!!
Posts: 1,283
|
Post by SuperAlbanian on Apr 5, 2008 16:49:28 GMT -5
I consider FYROMans to be Bulgarian slavs with Serb influence in them.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Apr 5, 2008 17:10:23 GMT -5
I want to ask the Serbs who think that some of the Macedonians have Serbian origin - how did they lose their Serbian identity? Regional rivalries, probably. This is the biggest bull$hit I have read from a Serb in this forum. Deucaon, and you have as a signature 'educate yourself'? Man, you are first who should follow this otherwise clever advice. When Czar Dusan made Skopje the capital of the Serbian Empire he must have done it because he loved the scenery. Serbs are liars! They think the whole world was at one point serb! This is why the whole balkans hates them! LOL now you know why Right...
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 6, 2008 2:39:49 GMT -5
"I want to ask the Serbs who think that some of the Macedonians have Serbian origin - how did they lose their Serbian identity?"
There are numerous reasons why the serbian componet in this Bulgaro /serbo mix lost its identity.....l'll point out one or two for now:
I have posted this in the Vardar Forum and l will re-write this again.
The following will be quoted from Floericke, Filov, Mintschev, Baker, Braun-Wiesbaden, Hajo Halborn, Richard von Mach, Vasil Radoslawoff etc...
In the development of the Macedonian question, the bulgarian exarchate played an extremely important part, for it was the first propagator of Bulgarian territorial ambitions among the Slavic population of Macedonia. Despite the policy of national repression to which the people was exposed, Bulgarian discontent was directed much more against the Greek bishops than against the Turks. "It is characteristic," says Kurt Floericke, "that the first steps were directed, not against the political oppression exercised by the Turks, but against the religious and linguistic persecution conducted by the Greeks. Thus, they did not leave the path of the law for an instant, but rather appealed to the pashas and the Sultan for their impartial and well-disposed mediation." Bogdan Filov remarks that Pajsije's Slaveno-balgarska istorija was the original stimulus of the Bulgarian national movement, "which took place simultaneously in Macedonia and Bulgaria and which was primarily directed against the used of Greek in the church service." "The Greek schools in Bulgaria, " wrote Ivan Minchev, "were a greater danger than the tyrannical regime of the Turks, for they were on the way to denationalizing the Bulgars." In order to avert this danger that was threatening them from the Patriarchate at Constantinople, the Bulgars threw themselves into the arms of the Turks. The effort made by Bulgarian leaders before the proclamation of the Exarchate did not, however, bear fruit. Rich Bulgarian merchants who had awakened to the call of nationalism organized in 1840-45 an opposition to ecclesiastical oppression. In 1867, the Bulgars appealed to the Porte for permission to set up a special body for public instruction in Bulgaria. In a memorandum which the Bulgarian revolutionary committee handed to the Sultan in 1870, it was stated that the Bulgars were fully prepared to remain under the Sultans authority. "If our independance," says the memorandum, "could find recognition and confirmation under the glorious scepter of the Sultans, and if the Sultans were at the same time willing to be also emperors of the Bulgars, then why should we not offer our help and our strength to the Ottoman monarchy, as the Magyars did to Austria and the Algerians to France?....Diplomacy would then stand in astonishment when it saw a miracle where it had been accustomed to seeing a weak body. In this way, all prestext for intervention and threats from whatever power would be precluded for all time. Noit one foreign country would look askance at istanbul under the pretext of liberating the Christians, since the latter would be free and would want to remain so." The idea behind this memorandum, with its obivious digs at Russia, is attributed by Braun-Wiesbaden to the Porte. "It was," he says, "neither a French, nor a Roman, nor a Greek, but a Turkish idea, although, indeed, completely beyond the grasp of a man like Abdul Aziz." Joseph Maria von Radowitz, whose position at that time would enable him to be well informaed on such matters, ascribed the idea of proclaiming an exarchate and the execution of this idea to Russia: "This movement [the Bulgarian movement for ecclesiastical separation from the Patriarchate of Constantinople] was a secretly fostered by Russia, i.e, by Ignatiew, whose personal idea it was, without, however, its suddenly coming out into the open. It was represented a complete turnabout in Russian oriental policy: while, until the Crimean War, the Russian slogan had been the defense of orthodoxy as a whole, now the Slavic national idea emerged for the first time as a leading principle to which the ancient Patriarchate of Constantinople sacrificed together with the sympathies of the disapointed Greeks. From now on, Russia was no longer merely the chief power behind Holy Russian Orthodoxy, but a mighty champion of the Slav national movement......Only in the summer of 1872 did this gradually become clear. Foreign diplomats on the Bosphorus did not, apparently, appreciate this as they should have done-least of all the British representative, Elliot, who spoke of it to me disparagingly. In the meanwhile, l reported it to Berlin as the biggest change for centuries in Russian oriental policy, and expressed the conviction that it marked the beginning of a future conflict between Russia and Turkey." This was the setting in which the Bulgarian Exachate was born. Without doubt, the Russians exerted great efforts toward its creation, since they believed that in this way they would secure a powerful means of realizing their policy in the Balkans. The Porte on the other hand which understood better than the Russians what was going on thereby acquired a new weapon with which to smash the unity of the Balkan christians. Serbia, who was ill informed and prompted, as ever, by sentiment for the slavic cause, interpreted the proclamation of the Exarchate as a gain for the Slavic world and for Orthodoxy. The Serbian government, through its envoy in istanbul, and Metropolitan Mihailo personally - who was very favorably disposed toward the Bulgars-welcomed the creation of the Exarchate in the belief that its influence would be confined to ecclesiastical matters and that a much happier time was thus ahead for the Slavic population in the south of the Peninsula. A true pan-Slav, completely devoted to the Russians and to Orthodoxy, and one of the main leaders of Slavophilism in the Balkans, Metropolitan Mihailo made great efforts to secure recognition of the Exarchate, for he was anxious to preserve the unity of the Orthodox Church in the Balkans, which was being subjected to heavy attack, both by propaganda of various kinds and by materialistic ideas. The Bulgars, on the other hand, understood the matter quite differently. Still without a state, they tried to exploit the Exarchate for the realization of all their national ambitions, which sprang from the influence of Venelin and that nebulous romanticism which had seized their leaders of the time. Some of these leaders were, in any case, little concerned about the church; what did concern them above all was the realization of their national ambitions and the formation of a Bulgarian state at the first opportunity. Richard von Mach was far from the truth when he wrote that the firman of March 11, 1870, by which the Exarchate was established, marked "the beginning of a new national development of the Bulgarian people." Mintschev commented that this firman "belongs to the greatest moral victories attained by the bulgarian people during the nineteeth century." Dr Vasil Radoslavoff wrote: "The Constitution of the Bulgarian Principality contains a special provision whereby the new Bulgarian state constitutes an essential part of the Church and is subordinate to the Holy Synod, regardless of where the latter shall have its seat." In the light of all these circumstances, it is not surprising that the first five Bulgarian bishops, in a letter to the Bulgarian nation, urged the people, not only to remain loyal to the Sultan, but to redouble their loyality and submission."
continues next post.....
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 6, 2008 2:41:20 GMT -5
Continues from my last post.....
For the Bulgars, the most valuable gain was the official recognition, throughout the territory of the Exarchate, of "bugar-mileti" as well as "urum-mileti." The former term was intended as designating all those members of the orthodox church who remained loyal to the Patriarchate but who did not feel themselves to be Greeks. From the practical or political point of view, this was the first official recognition of the Bulgarian nationality. On the other hand, the serbs in Old and southern serbia suffered a twofold setback: since they had no national Church of their own, it was impossible for them to be entered in the population register as a separate nation, and, divided as they were between Exarchate and Patriarchate, they were thrown into conflict among themselves. "With the creation of the Exarchate," says Carl Ritter von Sax, "the Bulgarian name once more acquired official significance." The edict establishing the Exarchate opened up considerable opportunities for spreading Bulgarian influence in all the Serbian lands under Turkish rule. The opportunities were amply exploited. Under the pretext of introducing Church services read in slav and liberating the people from the authority of the Greek bishops, there began a bitter struggle for the Bulgarization of areas that had never been Bulgarian. "those who declared themselves for the Exarchate were Bulgars, those who acknowledged the Patriarchate were Serbs. It was scarely possible at that time to trace any linguistic borderline." Bulgarian agents, many of whom were from Macedonia and had been converted to the Bulgarian cause, inundated the whole of Macedonia and, under the aegis of the Exarchate, engaged in the work of bringing the people over to their side. On January 14, 1899-i.e, at a time when relations had become well defined, Freiherr von Marschall reported to the German Chancellor von Hohenlohe that all Bulgarian commercial representatives in Macedonia were merely revolutionary agents: “This is especially true,” he said, “of the agent Rizov in Skoplje, where he has organized a central depot for the Macedonian-Bulgarian movement. The same is essentially true of Bulgarian diplomatic representatives, who consider their chief task to be the conducting of propaganda for a Greater Bulgaria.” Article 10 of the above-mentioned firman required that at least two thirds of the total Orthodox population in any area should decided in favour of the Exarchate, that it be included in the area of the Exarchate and that it be given the right to ask for Exarchate bishops and priests. Taken all in all, this edict subordinated to the Exarchate the dioceses of Pirot, Nish, Custendil and Samokov, all of which had previously come under the Patriarchate of Pech. The omission of all reference to Skoplje, Veles and Stip in the edict is conspicuous. “In Macedonia and eastern Thrace,” says Richard von Mach, “i.e, in those areas that are today under direct Turkish administration, not one diocese was originally subordinated to the Bulgarian Exarchate.” Later, however, they too were included in the Exarchate and received bishops appointed by the Exarchate. In their efforts to obtain this two-thirds majority, Bulgarian propagandists did not scruple in their choice of methods. Referring to their work in Southern Serbia, Theodor von Sosnosky wrote: “What these methods were the Greeks, Serbs and Turks of this unhappy land felt on their own backs. By plunder and arson, rape and murder, armed bands tried to make them come over to the Bulgarian side. The obvious consequence of this terrorism was that other nations retaliated according to their strength. In this manner, one band raged against another.” “Their terrorism,” says Hugo Grothe of the Bulgars, “brought them more enemies than friends. If power were to come into their hands today, there would be a danger that everything non-Bulgarian would be persecuted ten times as bitterly as it was when Bulgaria was in Turkish hands.” “The fear in Macedonia.” Wrote H.N.Brailsford, “is more than an emtion. It is a physical disease, the malady of the country, the ailment that comes of tyranny.” For a long time, the Turks tolerated this conduct on the part of the Bulgarian missionaries, for their old hatred of the Serbs had been exacerbated by the Serbo-Turkish war of 1878. “It is understandable,” says Heksch, “that the Turks preferred the patient and submissive Bulgar to the rebellious Serb or Greek. Since the Serbian principality had gained its freedom, the Turks regarded every Serb who declared himself to be such a rebellious conspirator against the Turkish regime. This circumstance was exploited by the Bulgars in order to spread their propaganda among the Serbs outside the principality. Whoever was reluctant to become a Bulgar and persisted in calling himself a Serb was denounced to the Turks as conspiring with Serbia, and could only expect severe punishment. Serbian priests were maltreated; permission was refused to open Serbian schools, and those that were already in existence were closed; Serbian monasteries were destroyed. In order to avoid persecution, the population renounced its nationality and called itself Bulgarian……During the last thirty or forty years, propaganda has been rife in which the Bulgars have encouraged the Turks to act against Serbs and Greeks. Hence, throughout Macedonia, Thrace and Dardania, Slavs are considered to be Bulgars, which is quite incorrect. On the contrary, the Slavs in Macedonia are incapable of understanding a Bulgar from Jantra. If it is desired to designate these Slavs correctly, then they must be considered as Serbs, for the Serbian name is so popular with them that, for example, male children are sometimes christened ‘Srbin’ [Serb]. The Serbian hero of the folk poems, Marko Kraljevich, is obviously the Serbian ruler in Macedonia.” Scarcely any serious scholars have considered that a vote for the Slavic church was a declaration that one was a Bulgar. “If,” says Hugo Grothe, “during the church plebiscite of 1872, two thirds of the Christian Slavs voted for the Exarchate, this was by no means a confession of their Bulgarian decent.” Brailsford remarks that the inhabitants of Southern Serbia of that time were Bulgars, “because free and progressive Bulgaria has known how to attract them.” The Exarchate was laboratory in which they were nationally transformed: on these grounds, Brailsford says that the Exarchate clergy were “missionaries of the Bulgarian idea.” It is not, therefore, too much to say that the Bulgarian Exarchate was the precursor of San Stefano Bulgaria, which, as D.Rizov says, “remained the national and political ideal of the entire Bulgarian people.” “Present-day Bulgaria,” wrote Paul Dehn, “is considered by politicians as a torso, and they will not rest until they resurrect their country within the frontiers, more or less, of the San Stefano treaty, including, in particular, the Aegean ports, since Varna, on account of the expensive and time-wasting passage through the Bosphorous and Dardanelles, is insufficient.” In order to consolidate the territory for this dreamed-of state, the Bulgars, as Hermann Wendel pointed out, set about the Macedonian Slavs with deliberate and well-organized propaganda and a program for spreading Bulgarian education. “Teachers,” says wendel, “not only taught the children to read and write, but instilled into them the Bulgarian national outlook. Thus, the Bulgars emerged, not as the initiators, but as the exploiters, of a movement which, in the form of the awakening of the ‘unhistorical nationas,’ was bound inevitably to appear one day.” “The new state,” says Jirechek in reference to Bulgaria it was hoped to create, “was supposed to embrace the area from Basicko lake and the port of Kavalla, and in the west to unclude Pirot, Vranje, Debar and Kastoria. These frontiers were never realized, but for the Bulgars they remained as a formulated political ideal.”
continues next post.......
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 6, 2008 2:42:26 GMT -5
Continues from last post....
Thus the Exarchate, as it was envisaged by Bulgarian ecclesiastical and popular leaders, was the precursor of San Stefano Bulgaria-a hastilyt formed conception that was to become the tragedy of the Bulgarian people. Bulgaria, in the form in which it was carved out by the Russians at San Stefano, was intended to serve the Russians as a fulcrum in the Balkans, as a springboard toward domination of the Mediterrean. “Such a Bulgaria,” says Dr Alexander Redlich, “was conceived, not as an independent country, but as a Russian province, which would, formally speaking, remain under the sovereign power of Turkey. It was intended to become a Russian Egypt and to keep the route open for Russia to Istanbul. In this way, Russia became the territorial neighbour of Turkey, which her next blow would destroy,” In the view of H.W.V. Temperley, San Stefano Bulgaria fulfilled all Bulgarian ambitions: it was presented as an ideal for succeeding generations, and maps of it were in every school. “The realization of these frontiers,” he says, “was the aim of the whole of subsequent Bulgarian policy.” Wolfgang Windelbandstates that it was an attempt to achieve undisputed Russian control in the Balkans, “and St. Petersburg reckoned on Europe’s bowing before a fait accompli, the force of which has always been attested in the history of diplomacy.” In the calculations of those who hankered after a Greater Bulgaria, Macedonia played an essential role. “Bulgaria,” wrote D.Krapcev on March 24, 1915, “will never renounce her claim to Macedonia. Sooner or later, in one way or another, it will become an inseparable part of our state. Enormous sacrifices have been paid for it, and, if necessary, yet more will be made when a suitable opportunity offers itself. The proper moment and the means….will be determined by the Bulgarian government.”
The congress of Berlin made it impossible for San Stefano Bulgaria to remain as it had been carved out: instead of bowing to Russia, Europe threw her plans into confusion. The regions of Pirot, Vranje, Leskovac, Prokuplje and Nish were annexed to Serbia, but Southern Serbia continued to be subjected to Bulgarian propaganda, which, after this setback, merely redoubled its efforts. “That the congress of Berlin left Macedonia under Turkish rule,” says Gilbert in der Maur, “was the result of complete ignorance and indifference to human dignity, a disgrace for the century in which the Italian and German nations, on the basis of the national principle, emerged as states.” Von Radowitz did not believe that the Russian negotiators were convinced of the permanency of their achievement. “If they had been, then they would have been under an illusion as regards the world situation.” Bismarck appears to have foreseen the possibility of such a development in Balkan relations. In his Memoirs, he wrote “It is not possible impossible that in the distant future all these tribes [the Orthodox peoples in the Balkans] will be forcibly annexed to the Russian system; that their mere liberation will not make them supporters of Russian authority has been proved primarily by the Greek people…..The liberation movement continued, and the same thing happened with the Rumanians, serbs and Bulgars as with the Greeks: all these peoples readily accepted Russian assistance in their liberation from the Turks, but, when they had won their freedom, they did not show the slightest disposition to accept the tsar as the Sultan’s successor.” From fear of the Russian danger-a fear that at that time was justified-the great powers continued to enslave a section of the Balkan Christians, on whom Bulgarian propaganda descended with renewed fervor, persisting in its attitude that what had now proved impossible of attainment would nevertheless one day achieved.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Apr 6, 2008 3:06:28 GMT -5
Blah Blah, the truth is some 56 year old diaspora chetnik wrote that.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 6, 2008 3:17:59 GMT -5
"Now back to the topic, somehow i believe what Deucaon says about slavomaks. i believe the northern Tetovo slavomaks, they just lost their Serbdom somewhere in time. The eastern slavomaks, however, speak i think closer to bulgarian. all this -ata ending words. (e.g. Kolata) are bulgarian, i think."
Pyrro, Northern areas of Vardar, the people of peasantry do speak a torlakian (Serbian dialect) in cities as Tetovo, Skoplje, Kumanovo, Kratovo, Kriva Palanka and the regions of polog? etc... The standard Vardar lanuage was derived from Prilep central Vardar. I do believe the Torlakian dialect just like in Serbia will eventually become extinct because the standard lanuages of either nations will eradicate them. The Vardar lanuage is an extension of the west bulgarian dialect, and, you are right, the suffixes like ta, ot etc... are definate articles which all slavic lanuages don't have except for Vardarian and Bulgarian, this was the result of the influence of the Greek lanuage onto their lanuage, when it was evolving from a common initial slovene type lanuage, from which, the first group of slavs spoke when they first settled in the south balkans during the 4 & 5th centuries (the undifferential slavs). Lingustic oases have been found that the local slavs speak a lanuage that is most closest to todays slovene, which is different from modern Bulgar and Serbo-Croat. The undifferential slavs settled in todays central and southern serbia, Albania, Vardar and todays Bulgaria.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 6, 2008 3:21:33 GMT -5
"Blah Blah, the truth is some 56 year old diaspora chetnik wrote that."
I did not say this, but it was told by these people:
Floericke, Filov, Mintschev, Baker, Braun-Wiesbaden, Hajo Halborn, Richard von Mach, Vasil Radoslawoff
are they chetniks?
Do you want to know something terro, the Chetnik movement started in Vardar, not Serbia!.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Apr 6, 2008 4:17:03 GMT -5
You probably consider a few decades being a much longer period than several centuries. If this is your argument, I have nothing to say.
LOL, this is really amazing. Let me tell you this, Novi. I speak Bulgarian in the way of the Yantra area (this is a river and the region is wrongly designated, but nevermind) and I still have no problems with understanding what fyromians want to say. It is also very intriguing how the revolutionaries from macedonia and Bulgaria communicated if they didn't understand each other. By using fingers only?
I somehow miss the connection between the name Srbin (if there were children with this name) and Marko Kralevic and how Srbin means exactly that. Not to mention that Marko is a common Slavic name, not Serbian. And you can take him, he died as a Turkish vassal, so I can't see what you are proud of. Look at the historic figure, not the folklore.
This is a biased atricle at its best. All bread, butter and blossoming flowers with Serbian policy and terror and murders with the Bulgarian one. Nice...do you believe all this crap, Novi?
Not only a biased article, a very stupid one as well. In 1872 Bulgaria was not a free country. It became such in 1878.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Apr 6, 2008 4:36:21 GMT -5
Pagane, my Bosnian wife writes in her CVs that she can understand basic bulgarian, and thats true. Lets not be kidding here. Even Slovenian are alike, from what Novi writes.
Novi, thank you very much for the info! I mean you are the man when it comes to Southern Serbia (slavomakedonia as well)! Some questions for you: Where are the slovenian speaking people? In fyrom, juzna Srbija? One think i noticed in Dzep, Predejane is that the ppl were blonde (like pols) (blonder than the average Serb) and shorter, i mean they were shorter than ppl i see on the streets of Athens, and much shorter than the ones you can see in Beograd. Also one thing that i noticed is that Serbs/Bulgars/Slovens say "Mleko", whereas Croats/Muslims/BosnianSerbs/Crnagorksi say "Mlijeko". Is it relevant?
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Apr 6, 2008 4:43:29 GMT -5
Pyrros - Montenegrins actually say "Varenika" for Milk
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Apr 6, 2008 4:55:02 GMT -5
You probably consider a few decades being a much longer period than several centuries. If this is your argument, I have nothing to say. Why would Czar Dusan do that if he didn't think Macedonians were Serbs and that he was save in Skopje?
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Apr 6, 2008 5:33:27 GMT -5
Pyrros, the article says that macedonians can not undertsand Bulgarian at all. Your logic is irrelevant in this case.
The literary word is 'mlyako'. Mleko is more a dialect word.
He was. He was half Bulgar. And if I use the same line of thoughts, I can freely claim the whole of Serbia as being utterly Bulgarian. Why not? You were many times under our rule, Belgrade (Alba Bulgarica according to medieval sources) was an inner city where the Bulgar governor met the students of Cyril and Methodius and sent them to Pliska to spread the new alphabet and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 6, 2008 5:33:38 GMT -5
"I mean you are the man when it comes to Southern Serbia (slavomakedonia as well)!" Thanks kind complement Pyrro hehehe...l don't think l'm the man, but l like to read things about the sth regions of Ex-Yu. Our Bulgar friends and our Greeks Bro's do know Vardar (Skopljano-malakas) very well and its history . "Where are the slovenian speaking people? In fyrom, juzna Srbija?" I'll quote J.J.Mikkola, Max Vasmer, Corovic and Schafarik "Linguists have found that Serbo-Croat and Slovenian are the product of a common lanuage and that they were spoken even before the grouping [of the slavic tribes] in the regions they occupy today took place", says Corovic. Referring to the speakers of proto-Slavic , Max Vasmer says that "before the more important dialectal difference began to emerge, they inhabited a region whose individual areas were subject to mutual linguistic modification." "Where we find Slavs," says J.J. Mikkola, "who calls themselves Slavs, we must derive them from a single proto tribe." It is interesting to note that, despite all the vicissitudes of fortune to which the Slavic tribes were, during the centuries, exposed, linguistic oases have survived in the south which testify to the kindship of the southern tribes with those which inhabit present-day Slovenia and Koruska. During world war 1, Ljubomir Pavlovic discovered, in the slav villages around Ostrovo(Bulgaria), a lanuage group which resembles Slovenian. "The lanuage of these Slavs," he reports, "is nearest to that of the Slovenes. I have seen many Slovenes from our front who have no difficulty in conversing with these Slavs. Moslem from Meglen stated repeatedly that linguistically they are nearest to the Slovenian volunteers in the Serbian army. An acquiantance of mine, a respected householder from Edessa, told me, after a conversation with a lieutenant colonel in our army who came from Slovenia, that he understands the Slovenes better than he does Serbs and Bulgarians. Slavic customs associated with weddings, "slava," funerals, domestic and agricultural life are almost identical with those in the mountain villages of Old Serbia and Montenegro."
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Apr 6, 2008 5:42:47 GMT -5
"An acquiantance of mine, a respected householder from Edessa, told me, after a conversation with a lieutenant colonel in our army who came from Slovenia, that he understands the Slovenes better than he does Serbs and Bulgarians"
i'll be freakingly damned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What an awesome clue!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 6, 2008 5:48:24 GMT -5
^ I was shocked as well when l had learnt of this also
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 6, 2008 5:52:15 GMT -5
Have you heard of the city in Asia Minor called Gordoservion?
|
|