|
Post by pagane on Mar 19, 2008 5:40:23 GMT -5
In the Albanian forum I read a statement by some Anittas guy who says literally 'we eliberated Bulgaria'. What is this? As far as I know Romanians took part in the battle for Pleven only. All right, my respect and gratitude for this, but stating that our liberation is their merit, is quite a big exageration. Is this what their history says?!
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 19, 2008 6:48:31 GMT -5
As far as I know Romania is the country after Russia that helped us most with the liberation. And for that we have to be very grateful!
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 19, 2008 11:28:49 GMT -5
Romania played a key part in the eliberation of Bulgaria. The Russian offensive stalled at Plevnen and the Russians asked for our assistance. We took command of the entire operation and the conquest of Plevnen was the turning point in the campaign of eliberating Bulgaria. Our contribution cannot be downgrated. On a political level, we acted in selfinterest, but the common soldier fought because he believed in the cause of eliberating his Christian brother south of Danube. This is indicated by the sources that mention the high morale of the Romanian army, who was ready to sacrifice itself for the greater good.
To expect gratitude from Bulgarians due to out effort at Plevnen would be an act of poor taste and at the same time, disqualify us of our honorable act. We would like to be acknowledged for what we did--in fair proportions--and if it's not too much to ask, we would like you to stop spitting on our history and herritage.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 19, 2008 11:35:39 GMT -5
It was a shared one. Your king and general Totleben.
Who is downgrading it? As we said, we are grateful but you go too far. Read a little about the war. This was not the only important battle.
Well, you obviously speak by heart or have some issues with Bulgarians. In all our textbooks and during the celebration of that event, Romanian participation is duly acknowledged.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 19, 2008 12:38:33 GMT -5
I can't claim to know a lot about our role in the eliberation of Bulgaria, altough I've planned to read on the subject. Just so you know, though, I've seen Bulgarians here who were unaware of Romania's participation in the war. As for the comment that you've seen in the Albanian forum: it was a bit of a tongue in cheek. It's a result of the three-year-old conflict between our forums. To make a long story short: it wasn't my fault and I didn't start the mess.
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Mar 19, 2008 14:32:26 GMT -5
"I've seen Bulgarians here who were unaware of Romania's participation in the war" which ones? we all acknowledged it, but stated you overexagerated?
"I can't claim to know a lot about our role in the eliberation of Bulgaria" so those conuntless arguments were utterly useless?
"it wasn't my fault and I didn't start the mess" *cough cough* i'm sorry, i'm allergic to bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 19, 2008 16:15:12 GMT -5
Khan Khum, I believe was his nickname.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 19, 2008 17:40:17 GMT -5
Anittas, Before you start with your anti-Bulgarian stuff, just look what we have given you. You might be surprised:) Not that I expect you to acknowledge it but still...
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 19, 2008 19:41:34 GMT -5
I acknowledge it all. The question is: are the things you have given us, good things?
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 20, 2008 5:31:31 GMT -5
For me they are. It is all about personal interpretation, of course, but I really think we influenced you in a positive way. Well, if you prefer that it were any other influence, from a different country, I can not argue on the issue. it is your choice.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 20, 2008 5:43:55 GMT -5
Could you name these positive things that you have influenced us with?
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 20, 2008 6:16:52 GMT -5
Literacy. Religion. Knowledge how to govern a state. Is it so insignificant for you?
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 20, 2008 7:31:38 GMT -5
Do you have any sources that support your claims?
We did get the Slavonic alphabet from you, but that would only hurt our cause later, because it took us a longer time to develop our own written language. Think of it this way: the alphabet was introduced to you, in order to strenghten your identity. That was the main factor and advantage. To us, it worked the other way around, so it did not help us in any way.
There's nothing that says that Christianity was introduced by Bulgarians, especially when we have certain religious terms borrowed from the Byzantines (biserica, basilica; Dumnezeu, Domini Deus). Still, if we say that you brought us Orthodoxy, I ask what good it's done for us. AofG argued that Catholicism would've served our national interest better. I sort of agree with him. Now, if your state, along with the other Orthodox states, would not have succumed so easily to Ottoman pressure, then perhaps this Orthodox brotherhood would've served us something. Unfortunatelly, it did not. It only weakened our geopolitical position.
As for governing, we borrowed many things from many different people. In Transylvania, Romanians also held to their own juristiction, which survived from older days. We borrowed military titles from Slavs, Hungarians, and even Turks. I don't know how much of this comes from the Bulgarian Slavs. If we consider that a good portion of the Romanian elite was stationed in Transylvania, before the creation of Moldavia, I would say that they were more influenced by Moravians and Ruthenians, than by Bulgarians.
Regardless whether we took these things from you, or not, I still fail to see what good they have done to us. The vacuum that may have existed, in our knowledge of administration, would've been filled up either way: if not by you, than by others. I for one think it would've been better if we had taken it from others, who were more sophisticated than you. We should've affiliated ourselves with someone strong to help us overcome the Ottoman threat. Besides, the Slavic system of Feudalism, along with its boyars, provided economic weakness due to lower taxes and serfdom; political instability since the boyars were to elect the prince--a factor that often led to civil wars; and corruption. If we had gone West, we would've had a monarchy instead of a principality and this would've made it easier for Moldavia and Wallachia to unite centuries earlier.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 20, 2008 8:20:37 GMT -5
As I said, it is point of view. Just note that there are plenty of 'if's in your post. There are even more of those in Bulgarian history but nothing can be done to change the events.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 20, 2008 9:15:36 GMT -5
Anittas, I was very surprised to read your post, I hope not many Romanians think the same as you. First I wanna say that all those point u make hardly make sense. The Slavic alphabeth, the Orthodoxy, the Bulgarianinfluenced titles: take it or leave it, is big part of your cultural identity. Obviously u have problem with being Romanian, because all those things u mention do separate you from your neigbours and make u unique, make your nation different. U may speculated what would ve been if smth happen. I say u better embrace your identity.
|
|
|
Post by Ivanov on Mar 20, 2008 9:44:41 GMT -5
Joan, have you read the views of Anittas in the old forum? If not, then my congratulations about this post of yours
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 20, 2008 9:47:17 GMT -5
Tnx, I havent, why? He hates Bulgarians I guess?
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 20, 2008 9:55:29 GMT -5
My identity has nothing to do with the things mentioned, especially when there exists alternatives to those things. When it comes to religion, many Romanians in Transylvania are Catholic. They are not disliked due to belonging to a different Christian religion. One of the first Moldavian princes, namely Latcu, converted to Catholicism. The first wife of Alexander the Good was Catholic, as were many other Polish princesses. You need to understand that Romania consists of three main historical regions that were culturally influenced differently. It's not all about Bucharest and the surrounding area. In Transylvania, Romanians used the Latin alphabet and didn't write in Slavonic. To help you understand why that was a better choice for Romanians, I will point out that the Transylvanians helped our culture development by replacing the Slavonic script with the Latin script. We should also mention that the Slavonic script was not used in all correspondences. Sometimes, the Latin and the Greek alphabet was also used.
To be fair, there are advantages with Orthodoxy. It may have helped the Romanians in Transylvania keep to their identity and not assimilate into the Hungarian society. Altough many Catholic Romanians managed to resist assimilation, many others have not. Also, when the Hungarians tried to forcefully convert the Romanians of Maramures to Catholicism, there was a rebellion which eventually led to the creation of Moldavia. Yet, we cannot attribute the Bulgarians for introducing Orthodoxy to Romanians because, as I've mentioned earlier, there are clear signs that the Eastern rite was introduced by the Byzantines. From Bulgarians, we only got the script, which crippled our cultural progress.
The points I make here many sense and they are written from an objective point of view. I mean, if we were Catholic and were writing in the Latin script, I would be having this discussion with my Hungarian counterparts, so it's not like I would be better off doing that. My only concern was that a Western approach would have served us better. You were once like a big brother to us, but you quickly grew weak and fell prey to the Turks. We were left alone with no one to guide us or to look up to.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 20, 2008 10:06:59 GMT -5
I see your point yet I disagree. Even writing in Slavic contributed to who u are today. As for orthodoxy, yes its not 100 percent it was introduced by us on u. However u have to bear in mind that all eastern orthodox churches were very much influenced by the Byzantine one in Constantinopole and the Bulgarian one probably most of all. So the Byzantine influence doesnt mean it wasnt the Bulgarians that introduced orthodoxy to u. Add to this that part (and sometimes the whole) of Romania was incorporated into the Bulgarian empire in at least early medievil times and u have more grounds to believe it was introduces by us than the Greeks.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Mar 20, 2008 10:34:45 GMT -5
In what way did the usage of the Slavonic script contributed to what we are today? I'm sure it has influenced us somehow, but you cannot say that our identity is dependent on the Slavonic script or other Bulgarian influences.
The territory of present-day Romania did not belong to Bulgaria. There were vassal states that recognized Bulgaria as their suzerain, but even if we gather all of the states that were vassals to Bulgaria, you would still be left out with territory that belongs to Romania, and which was not part of the vassal states.
|
|