ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 14, 2008 10:08:44 GMT -5
U know that what is nowadays southern Bulgaria was called Eastern Rumelia (before the unification in 1885). And we know what fyrom ppl really are. Shouldnt it be great if they call themselves Western Rumelia (as Kuzman Shapkarev proposed)? Maybe in time they ll get the lesson of the history. By the way, the great powers tried to create a Rumelian nation and we all know they failed. But the Serbs managed in western Rumelia.
|
|
|
Post by bb681 on Mar 14, 2008 23:49:34 GMT -5
Its a bit too late for that as they already have the bug in their heads for being descendants of the ancient macedonians.
As for Roumelia, it failed because it lasted less than 10 years and,more importantly, it was officially created as a simple buffer zone between Bulgaria and the Ottomans i.e. there is no ideology propaganda of its citizens being Roumelians/Thracians or something brand different from the known Balkan ethnicities. In addition, the situation is not comparable to FYROM which is a buffer between four different countries, quarelling over it and is not the same with Kosovo where it cant join Albania as it was a requirement when it separated from Serbia. It was a defined zone with its boundaries and such, and was under the protectorate of a state that was so crippled that it did not even have the strenght to keep most of its Balkan territories a few decades later. The actual fact that the Ottomans did not attack when the unification occured, pretty much sums up their authority(or the lack of it).
Actually a funny thing I once read(not sure how true) on the Serbo-Bulgarian war in 1885 was that the Turkish sultan was compelled to send troops against the Serbians which I think it was to do with them theoretically attacking his protectorate(i.e. the Eastern Roumelia part of the Bulgarian territory) so he unwillingly sent some small army that took its time and did not even got to the border when the war was over. Then on their return, they ended up short of food and most of the stuff they were getting offered by the locals was pork meat which they refused to eat at first but then eventually had to.
But to go back on the subject, you try to apply logic in the issue of the name while logic rarely works in politics. These guys are so up their arses now that they wont even change a letter in their name because even if their name still ends up as some kind of "Macedonia", they would not like the fact to give up upon Greek demands.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Mar 17, 2008 3:01:07 GMT -5
Old Serbia.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 17, 2008 4:44:06 GMT -5
^ hehe...well, it should not be called macedonia thats for sure.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 17, 2008 5:21:37 GMT -5
Old Serbia? This is not the exact place of old Serbia for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 17, 2008 5:45:37 GMT -5
^ he meant southern serbia.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 17, 2008 9:16:53 GMT -5
Novi, Serbs never had any demographic prvailance in macedonia. In few areas - yes, but the vast part was always inhabited mainly by Bulgarians.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Mar 17, 2008 12:39:14 GMT -5
I did mean Old Serbia. Macedonia was part of the core of the Serbian medieval Empire under the Nemanjaci. It was also the location of original Serbian settlements in the Balkan during the 7th century. Saying that it was mainly inhabited by Bulgarians makes about as much sense as saying that Kraljevic Marko was Bulgarian.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 17, 2008 18:02:59 GMT -5
Marco, babe... In the 7th cerntury you Serbs were nowhere. In this very 7th century Macedonia was inhabited by Kuber's Bulgars only. Now good night ans take care of Kosovo.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 17, 2008 20:47:33 GMT -5
"I did mean Old Serbia. Macedonia was part of the core of the Serbian medieval Empire under the Nemanjaci. It was also the location of original Serbian settlements in the Balkan during the 7th century. Saying that it was mainly inhabited by Bulgarians makes about as much sense as saying that Kraljevic Marko was Bulgarian."
Marko, that is exactly right. Empires have passed through and peoples have settled and to say only one slav group is what makes the Vardarians is lunacy.......you cannot only base it on just lanuage, there are other factors like culture, history and even politically that makes a people.
Marko, old serbian lanuage was spoken there too.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 18, 2008 4:44:27 GMT -5
"In the 7th cerntury you Serbs were nowhere. In this very 7th century Macedonia was inhabited by Kuber's Bulgars only. Now good night ans take care of Kosovo."
The Bulgars crossed the Danube in the 9th century.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 18, 2008 6:32:25 GMT -5
I'll say it again because empires has passed through this region does make me believe that its a mixed area.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 18, 2008 10:46:40 GMT -5
Small mistake of about 5 centuries ;D
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 18, 2008 17:26:43 GMT -5
^ so they settled in the byzantine terrirtory in the 4th century?
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Mar 19, 2008 14:33:53 GMT -5
"Those Bulgars took part in the Hun raids on Central and Western Europe between 377 and 453. After the death of Attila in 453, and the subsequent disintegration of the Hunnish empire, the Bulgar tribes dispersed mostly to the eastern and southeastern parts of Europe. At the end of the 5th century (probably in the years 480, 486, and 488) they fought against the Ostrogoths as allies of the Byzantine emperor Zeno. From 493 they carried out frequent attacks on the western territories of the Byzantine Empire. Later raids were carried out at the end of the 5th century and the beginning of the 6th century" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarsi know its wikipedia, but it's just so simple and easy with it
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 19, 2008 18:24:38 GMT -5
^ as a people its well known they settled in the Danube delta and crossed it as a politicial identity in the 9th century.
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Mar 19, 2008 21:45:07 GMT -5
"crossed it as a politicial identity in the 9th century." hahahah, according to whom?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 22, 2008 6:01:18 GMT -5
^ l'm not going to dismiss it, but raids are raids it doesn't necessarily mean they settled. Above, u quote them dispersed in the 5th century, that could of happened, but then again the avars had lots of influence in the balkans and what happened to them?
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 22, 2008 9:13:02 GMT -5
Novi, with all the controvercy regarding the year Bulgaria was established, with all the pro-slavic propaganda and denial of Bulgars as a main ethnicity, the latest date anyone ever gave is 681. Much earlier than your 9th century. As for the Avars - it was the Bulgars who delivered the final blow to end their state.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 24, 2008 5:12:17 GMT -5
^ I'm not going to say much more because l think this will end up in boiling water. But l will only say this, l find it ludicrous that you say pro slavic propaganda because Bulgaria is a slavic state, they speak slavic and their customs are predominately slavic. I have noticed that many slavic peoples are ashamed to say they are slavs because the germanic proganda or hate mongering has infiltrated so much through their domination of media that slavs of the balkans and central europe are trying to find other origins just to distance themselves from the great Russian people of whom the germanics deeply want to distroy. They are extremely jealous of the success the great Russian nation had managed to create and even with a somewhat minor reduced nation it is still geopoliticially a massive threat to the west of all the german derived peoples.
|
|