ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 9, 2008 6:03:05 GMT -5
www.bgpetition.com/sevtopolis/index.htmlBulgari, podpishete petiziata za vuztanovyavane na Sevtopolis, ako iskate da pribavim oshte 1 perla v istori4eskata korona na Bulgaria i nashite zemi. Dear international friends, thats a petition for reconstruction of an ancient thracian city Sevtopolis, buried under the waters of a lake. U can sign it too.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 9, 2008 6:40:02 GMT -5
No one mentions what sum is needed for this. I suspect it is something huge and that with the same money we can reconstruct and restore plenty of other historic sites that are in desperate need of renovation. One example - the medieval town of Cherven, the best preserved fortress from the Secpnd Bulgarian Kingdom. Amazing site with astonishing nature around it that can easily be turned into major tourist attraction with may be 10 times less money. Nothing even mentions it, though, instead we try to spent money on something that has been under water for ages. Do you really think there will be something preserved, except stones?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 9, 2008 9:26:51 GMT -5
I dont know but I dont get why one think should exclude the other? Why not rebuild both?
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Jun 9, 2008 9:48:10 GMT -5
Most important is to protect and preserve all! Huge business has been going on and a lot, unknown to us, is sold abroad. Probably that's a better way to preserve ancient historical artifacts?! You never know.
|
|
|
Post by cinnibanno on Jun 9, 2008 12:40:48 GMT -5
Identity crisis anybody? ;D
If you have thracian ancestry (we've both infered this mainly from ethnological research as well as common sense), it would be adequate to call it Romanian, as the Thracians were thoroughly romanised in those 6 centuries until the Bulgars arrived in the Balkans. This if we assume that their arrival coincided with the genesis of the modern Bulgarians, a theory which is obviously erroneous. I'm confident that I will be quickly put to silence, with an avalanche of "arguments" (in fact, there will only be a simple, unjustified dismissal of my view. Your discussion will cary on, as thousands have had before and thousands will have in the future, on hundreds of Internet boards).
Nonetheless, this brings me to the second point of my interposing. In regard to the fortress of Cherven. Wouldn't this very episode (the founding of the Second Bulgar Tsarate) prove my stance? And isn't it paradoxical and... somewhat surreal I dare say, that just below this very post, somebody (a person speaking a Slavic language, having a Turkic ethnonym, laying claim to Thracian ancestry and prouding themselves with a fortress built by a Romanian) will refute me?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 9, 2008 13:53:40 GMT -5
Well, we accept our mixed origin: Bulgars, Slavs, Thracians, Romans, Turks, Greeks, Pethenegs, Kumans etc. They all have contributed to the bulgarian nation. Romanians claim they are mix of romanized Dacians and few Romans. Strange where all Bulgars, Slavs, Thracians, Romans, Turks, Greeks, Pethenegs, Kumans went or they were just passing through?
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Jun 9, 2008 14:58:04 GMT -5
Cinnibanno, why shall we call Thracian ancestry romanian?? Even if romanised, they were ethnically still the same ppl. The Romans were in Rom and Thrace and Dacia were only small part of the Roman empire. I don't see Dacian ppl as Romans. I don't see you as turks either - just because you were part of the Ottoman empire.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 9, 2008 16:17:57 GMT -5
Cinnibano, the patron of your capital is s Bulgarian priest from a village that is situated about 15 km from Cherven. So spare me your essays about what we are and think hard what you Romanians are infact. Because history will lead you to conclusions that have very little to do with Romans and Dacians. It is comprised of Slavs, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Magyars, etc, etc... Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jun 10, 2008 17:04:54 GMT -5
Listen here very carefully: we say that our identity and our origin was built from the legacy of these two people. We don't deny the contribution that others--for better or worse-- have given our nation and our genetic pool. The Cumans were our buddies and we've admitted their contribution to our nation to the fullest extent. If we claim a link to the Dacians, then we also claim a link to the Thracians--to which the Dacians belonged to, so I don't understand why you question our attribution to them. The same with Romans: first you say that we claim to hail from a few Romans, next you imply that we deny them. As for the rest, their contribution is noted, but it hasn't always been to the interest of our nation. For that reason, we don't celebrate their presence here. The Cumans, on the other hand, were good neighbors who were absorbed into our nation; and as such, their legacy is greater.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 11, 2008 4:14:56 GMT -5
Then will you explain me what have Celts contributed to your nation? I mean, in Bucharest you can see a small monument of Romulus and Remus and alongside it a monument with a Celtic cross. That probably means those Celts have had a great impact. May I know what is it?
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jun 11, 2008 9:45:15 GMT -5
Then will you explain me what have Celts contributed to your nation? I mean, in Bucharest you can see a small monument of Romulus and Remus and alongside it a monument with a Celtic cross. That probably means those Celts have had a great impact. May I know what is it? It's not a Celtic cross, my Vlach friend. Though modern Celts (the Irish primarily) use it, the cross with a circle around it is much older than Christianity and was known to many other peoples. It's a variation of the symbol for the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 11, 2008 9:49:46 GMT -5
Well, are you sure it is not intended to connect you with Celts? Anyway, nice to see you again, my Bulgar friend, with your infinite wisdom
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jun 11, 2008 10:10:48 GMT -5
Well, are you sure it is not intended to connect you with Celts? Anyway, nice to see you again, my Bulgar friend, with your infinite wisdom I doubt it. There are "Celtic cross" headstones all over Vlach cemeteries in Serbia, though the common folk that regularly set them up never heard of the Celts. These crosses are like shopska salata -- not only the Shops know of it.
|
|
|
Post by benkovski on Jun 12, 2008 23:01:41 GMT -5
Romanians claim they are a Romanized Dacians. Greeks claim they are ancient Greeks. Macedonians claim they are ancient Macedonian. Albanians claim they are ancient Illyrians. The funny thing is that the politics of each country are aimed in such a way as to claim that these people are solely descended from the mentioned ancient peoples. But, it is very ignorant for any European nation to claim a sole descent. It just shows lack of knowledge. There are no pure countries in Europe. Out of the countries above, as far as I know, Albania has the most right to their claims given the physical geography of the regions they occupied. Meaning that today’s Albanians seem to have lived in inhospitable terrain and most conquering foreigners didn’t disrupt their gene pool much. In the case of Romania and Greece, both countries are in geographical regions that had seen so much changes and shifts in populations that its absurd to claim that the people that inhabit those lands today are the exact same people as 2000 years ago. There is never any clear Romanian identification until the late 13th century and the establishment of Wallachia. Who were the Vlachs? Where did they come from? When did their self consciousness developed? The answers to all these questions are unknown. There are many theories and each one is just as weak as the next. There just doesn’t seem to be enough hard evidence to reach any sort of decisive conclusion. Any credible scholar would admit that. The whole Romanized Dacians campaign began recently. It was around the time when the Romanian principalities united and decided to cleanse their language of the vast amount of Slavic terms and replace them with Latin ones. This is theory is almost entirely supported by political ideologies. With respect to Greece’s claim on ancient Greece, they are going way too far. Their government claims that the country is homogeneous and its 98% Greek. Their escape line is that they supposedly don’t recognize minorities. Additionally, the Greek government has managed to avoid any sort of mention about the massive Slavic invasions throughout most of present day Greece. They also omit the fact that while Greece was under Roman and East Roman rule, there were many forced population shifts. It was a common tactic for the Romans to take large populations from one province and replace them with people from another. That was their way of decreasing the chances of rebellions. So the fact that some governments purposefully omit historical facts that have been proven by many international scholarly societies shows that these governments have a past that they wish to erase and replace with a new one, rather an ancient one. With regards to Macedonians, and some Bulgarians, claiming that they are ancient Macedonians and Thracians.. this is wishful thinking and a pathetic attempt to emulate the politics of Romania and Greece. Hèå Áúëãàðèòå ñè èìàìå èñòîðèÿ è òÿ å âåëèêà. Íà íàñ íå íè òðÿáâà äà ñè ãîâîðèì äåòñêè ïðèêàçêè, òàêèâà ïðèêàçêè êîèòî ìèíàâàò çà èñòîðèÿ â íàùå ñåâåðíà è þæíà ñúñåäêè.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jun 13, 2008 7:43:04 GMT -5
Hèå Áúëãàðèòå ñè èìàìå èñòîðèÿ è òÿ å âåëèêà. Íà íàñ íå íè òðÿáâà äà ñè ãîâîðèì äåòñêè ïðèêàçêè, òàêèâà ïðèêàçêè êîèòî ìèíàâàò çà èñòîðèÿ â íàùå ñåâåðíà è þæíà ñúñåäêè. Àìàí íå å âåëèêà ÷å å íåçíà÷èòåëía.
|
|
|
Post by Ivanov on Jun 13, 2008 9:37:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 13, 2008 9:38:40 GMT -5
Ìîæå ëè ñåãà òàêèâà ïðèêàçêè, ìîé áúëãàðñêè ïðèÿòåëþ? ×å òè ñè êóáðàòîâ ïîòîìúê, áðå! Íå òå ëè å ñðàì?
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jun 17, 2008 6:32:43 GMT -5
Ìîæå ëè ñåãà òàêèâà ïðèêàçêè, ìîé áúëãàðñêè ïðèÿòåëþ? ×å òè ñè êóáðàòîâ ïîòîìúê, áðå! Íå òå ëè å ñðàì? Àáå ÐóñåÁÃ, íå òè ëè îìðúçíà äà ìè íàâèðàø â î÷èòå ôàíòàñìàãîðè÷íèòå ñè ìèñëè è ðàçñúæäåíèÿ? Èñêàø àðãóìåíòè à ïðàâ ñè øåãàäæèÿòà - äàé äà òå îñòàâèì íà ìèðà.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Jun 17, 2008 9:00:39 GMT -5
Ah Ruse, ti kubratov potomako..
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on Jun 17, 2008 9:46:04 GMT -5
There is never any clear Romanian identification until the late 13th century. [...] The whole Romanized Dacians campaign began recently. So what? There isn`t any clear English identification until the 12th century also... that doesn't mean that an anglo-saxon population didn`t exist on the British island until the 12th century. Are you saying that Romanians suddenly appeared from nothing in the 13th century. Of course, if you base your ideeas on a 19th century theory (the one of Rober Roessler), you might be right. But, sadly, you are wrong. Here are some historical sources: ...The list is large and my time for you is short. I understand your envy. You feel that your place is not in Europe, so you start poisoning the history of other people. As for our friendship with the cumans mentioned by Anittas, here are some other sources:
|
|