|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 7, 2008 0:24:47 GMT -5
The history of the Bulgarian state in the Balkans begins with the arrival of a group of Bulgars, under the leadership of Khan Asparuch, in the region around Varna. Mikov says that the Bulgars were about 50 thousand. Vladimir Corovic states that: "At Pliska, or Pliskova, near the modern village of Abobe, their first capital came into being, covering a large fortified area of twenty-three square kilometers. Here there was a wall streching from the Danube to the sea. From here, Asparuch began to subdue the Slavic tribes which had long been settled in this area and which, ethnically speaking, had nothing in common with their conquerors". Dr A.Ischirkov says from Die Bevolkerung in Bulgarien und ihre siedlungsverhaltnisse: "the bulgars imposed their rule upon the slavs, who, since they possessed a more advanced culture than the bulgars, gave the bulgars their language, which became the official language of both church and state". In 817, Theophanes noted that the Bulgars had crossed the Danube and reached Varna, where they subdued seven slavic tribes.
I had also read from somewhere that the Bulgars for along period remained a self-sufficient community and adopted toward the subjugated slavs the attitude of a leading caste, which looked down upon the slavic population and maintained a jealous watch to ensure that the slavs should not attain to high places in the state administration.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 7, 2008 1:21:47 GMT -5
The Serbs are good at falsifying our history. Now I get how u managed to brainwash the Macedonians into hating us!!!! The history of the Bulgarian state in the Balkans begins with the arrival of*group of Bulgars, under the leadership of Khan Asparuch, in the region around Varna. More precisesly, in the "Ongul", in todays Romanian north Dobrudga. There is not a single fact that points to their exact number. Pliskova? Hek I ve never heard this "name". Also never heard of Abobe, whatever that is. It sounds like an African village! Really? I never heard about this too. Long? 100-120 years is more? Subdue? Some Greek sources speak of an union against the Greek. Otherwise I really dont get how 50 000 Bulgars managed to "subdue" the million Slavs, who according to u were superior culturally. true More advanced? When Bulgars were building stone towns and the slavs grass houses! More like Cyril and Methodius wrote the Slav alphabeth for Velikomoravia. Then The Bulgarians were writing in Greek. Boris saw a way to culturally differenitiate Bulgaria FROM Greece and ANNOUNCED Slavic for official, since some of his citizens were Slavs (but there were Bulgars and Thracians also). And if Slav culture was more high, why Serbia became powerful some 300 years after Bulgaria and due to the Bulgarian influence? Subdue? Are u sure he said it?
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 7, 2008 2:50:04 GMT -5
This is the part I disagree most: "the bulgars imposed their rule upon the slavs, who, since they possessed a more advanced culture than the bulgars, gave the bulgars their language, which became the official language of both church and state".
What is this advanced Slav culture is beyond me. This is one of the most stupid statements I have read in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Mar 7, 2008 8:19:46 GMT -5
I posted this once in the old boards ... and dear old Maggie (the then Fyromaniac moderator) deleted it. Mind you this is not the only existing reference by external observers concerning the population of the area. This particular commentary is from a book originally published in 1900 called 'Turkey in Europe' written by Sir Chalres Eliot (which I believe was a pseudonym). For your interest only:
pp. 321-322
Leaving the railway at Gratzko, a few stations south of Veles, I proceeded by road to Ochrida, through Monastir, across the centre of Slavonic Macedonia. Railways are generally supposed to stimulate and develop industry, but in Turkey, though they may have this effect on the larger centres, they have the special property of destroying roads in their vicinity and hence producing greater stagnation in remote districts. Formerly the road between Gratzko and Monastir was a great highway for traffic and one of the finest chausses in the country, but after the construction of the Salonica-Monastir railway it only served local needs and was allowed to fall into disrepair, and has in many places become almost impassable. The landscapes of Central Macedonia, though more picturesque than the scenery at the sides of the railway, are almost equally monotonous, and the same description will serve for half-a-dozen localities—a wide, dreary plain surrounded by wooded mountains and showing little trace of life except a few peasants struggling to till the soil with very primitive instruments. On the lowest slopes of the mountain straggle a few Bulgarian and Turkish hamlets, the latter easily distinguishable by their minarets. High up are one or two apparently inaccessible Vlach villages, and in some kind of gorge opening into the plain lies almost invariably the principal town of the district.
Though the Bulgarians have become completely Slavised and can with difficulty be distinguished as a body from the Servians, yet the faces of the Macedonian peasantry have a look which is not European, and recalls the Finns of the Volga or the hordes of the Steppes. Lives of sullen obstinate labour and minds occupied ceaselessly with petty questions of household thrift, unillumined by any ideal or romance, have rendered the features of men and women alike flat, rigid, and stony. The Turkish peasant shares this capacity for continuous animal toil and indifference to distractions; but the conviction that he is naturally the superior of all Christians gives him the dignity which arises from a privileged position, whereas the Bulgarians after centuries of ignominy have only just succeeded in asserting their independent existence as Christians. Yet that labor improbus which specially characterises the race might no doubt produce as remarkable results in Macedonia as in Bulgaria.
p. 332 We can hardly be wrong in considering that the original Bulgarian type is preserved in the somewhat Mongolian figure and features which are common in the eastern part of the Balkans, and are found as far west as Ochrida - heavy frames with broad, flat, stolid faces, small eyes, and straight, black hair.
p. 338 The Slavonic population east of the Struma, and much of that between the Struma and Vardar, is mixed, but homogeneous with the population of Bulgaria, which is also mixed. It would appear that the original dividing line of language and customs between Servia and Bulgaria passed near Nish, and that before 1876 the people of that town, which is now thoroughly Servian, called themselves Bulgarian. Of the remaining Macedonian Slavs, an impartial observer can only say that they are intermediate between the Serbs and Bulgarians; but I think that traces of Mongolian - that is, Bulgarian - physiognomy can be seen as far west as Ochrida.
|
|
rex362
Senior Moderator
Pellazg
PELASGIANILLYROALBANIAN
Posts: 19,058
|
Post by rex362 on Mar 7, 2008 11:40:44 GMT -5
"High up are one or two apparently inaccessible Vlach villages,"
and how does this author constitute how he knows its a vlach village ?
this author is doing a pre 1900 summary of what he can see or is told ....if he was anywhere on the streets of Manastir he would notice that only 10%-15% of the people are slavs ...in that time the majority in Manastiri were Albanians and Jews ...
if that auther wrote his observations in the 1930's he would see 50% slavs in Manastiri if he did his observations in 1970 he would see 90% slavs and no jews
The Slavonic population ?? everybody knew the slav lingo ...even the albs ,jews, vlachs,roma.......so the whole population looked Slavonic to this author...
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 7, 2008 11:52:08 GMT -5
Just a few years later, this peasantry started a massive rebellion against the Ottomans and there isn't a single Mongoloid face that can be seen on the photos from that time. May be this is the fastest face features change in the history of mankind.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Mar 7, 2008 17:56:47 GMT -5
Just a few years later, this peasantry started a massive rebellion against the Ottomans and there isn't a single Mongoloid face that can be seen on the photos from that time. May be this is the fastest face features change in the history of mankind. They've missed the few that I've met in Australia ...
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Mar 7, 2008 17:57:52 GMT -5
"High up are one or two apparently inaccessible Vlach villages," and how does this author constitute how he knows its a vlach village ? this author is doing a pre 1900 summary of what he can see or is told ....if he was anywhere on the streets of Manastir he would notice that only 10%-15% of the people are slavs ...in that time the majority in Manastiri were Albanians and Jews ... if that auther wrote his observations in the 1930's he would see 50% slavs in Manastiri if he did his observations in 1970 he would see 90% slavs and no jews The Slavonic population ?? everybody knew the slav lingo ...even the albs ,jews, vlachs,roma.......so the whole population looked Slavonic to this author... What no Vlachs in Monastir? Mainly Albanians? ... I don't think so ...
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 8, 2008 0:38:02 GMT -5
"The Serbs are good at falsifying our history. Now I get how u managed to brainwash the Macedonians into hating us"
No its not about falsifying, its about stating the facts, however you may interpret them is up to you and l know it won't change your opinions, but why not throw it in and have a debate.
"There is not a single fact that points to their exact number."
Whatever number they were it doesn't dismiss the 'fact' they were far less than the slavs who arrived before them.
"Pliskova? Hek I ve never heard this "name". Also never heard of Abobe, whatever that is. It sounds like an African village!" & "Really? I never heard about this too." & "Long? 100-120 years is more? Subdue? Some Greek sources speak of an union against the Greek. Otherwise I really dont get how 50 000 Bulgars managed to "subdue" the million Slavs, who according to u were superior culturally."
We can agree that the Bulgars settled first around the Danube Delta, right?....and from there they began to subdue slavs. Subduing doesn't mean it happened all at once but it occured gradually over some decades, would you agree?.
When l say culturally superior it means a culture that is much more advanced, spirtually, traditionality, culture and learning. The Mongols managed to distroy advanced civilisations in their march ward west, this is what l mean.
"And if Slav culture was more high, why Serbia became powerful some 300 years after Bulgaria and due to the Bulgarian influence?"
The bulgars were a ruling caste over the slavs, as they were the ruling elite (politicially).
When the Bulgars first came to the region around Varna, the Slavs were already, for the most part, Christian, while the Bulgars were pagans. The official conversion of the Bulgars took place in 865: on September 14, 865 (Zlatarski). At this conversion, a Greek bishop who was the head of a group missionaries sent to convert the Bulgars, baptized Boris, who received the name of Mihailo. Zlatarski says: "we know nothing. By all appearances, it would seem that the new faith spread gradually, for in some places heathenism persisted for a long time afterward". The point being here was that Christianity was the faith of the Slavic population. The introduction of Christianity into Bulgaria dealt a serious blow at the country's dualism in favor of the Slavic element. Zlatarski says: " through Christianity, Boris became master of the Bulgarian Slavs, who during his regin were the ruling nation and consequently constituted the power and might of the Bulgarian state. From khan of the Huns and Bulgarian, he became emperor of the slavs and Bulgars". From the arrival of the Bulgars in the Balkans to the conversion of Boris there had passed an interval of 186 years. The ethnic unification especially in the view of the smaller number Bulgars , took place place extremely slowly. During the whole of this period, the stubbborn impatience displayed by the Bulgarian ruling caste toward the slavs, whom they were reluctant to recognise as their own equals, is particularly noticeable. An Arabic writer known as Mas'udi, who died in 956, has recorded how the Bulgars concluding a peace treaty with Byzantium, sold young Slavs of both sexes as slaves. Schafarik also says that that the slavic tribes who were subjugated by the Bulgars paid them tribute-particularly in Upper Macedonia-and that their princes gave sole recognition to the supreme authority of the Bulgars.
"Subdue? Are u sure he said it?"
Thats what he had said, not me.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 8, 2008 0:41:09 GMT -5
"What is this advanced Slav culture is beyond me. This is one of the most stupid statements I have read in a long time."
When the Bulgars arrived they were pagans while the slavs christian.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 8, 2008 7:59:20 GMT -5
Novi, being pagans does not mean they were not advanced in many spheres as astronomy, agriculture, military tactics, society structure and so on. Slavs were on a lower level in any aspect. Besides, they were very tolerant in terms of religious believes. Khan Kubrat, the founder of Old Great Bulgaria, was Christian. So was Tervel, his grandson, the very person who helped the Byzantines to destroy the Arabs after 2-year siege.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 8, 2008 13:53:51 GMT -5
No its not about falsifying, its about stating the facts, however you may interpret them is up to you and l know it won't change your opinions, but why not throw it in and have a debate. Debate? On what? U try to persuade the fyroms that we are Tatars (and I dont get the hate towards them, they are people like all of us), that we differe phisically from the fyrom people, when u know perfectly well they are pure Bulgarians. But due to you will to rule them u did your best for them to hate us. True. Right I disagree. How can 50000 savages subdue the culturally superior slavs? Now seriously, there were people from Slavic origin in the rules circle from the very begginning, there are text from which we hear about names of close to the ruler people that could be only slavic. I personally think it wasnt a subduing but cooperation that later led to the mixing of Thracians, Bulgars and Slavs into what is todays Bulgarians. No I think mixing happened gradually. Then u are wrong. Slavs were more uncultural than the Bulgars. Tnx to the Bulgars Slavs and Thracians got a very strong state with stone capital. Stone ruins from the Bulgars still stand around Madara too. So? Are u trying to say the Bulgars were Mongols? Cause that really is wishful thinking. I agree the Mongols destroyed including Bulgaria, but the Bulgars were state builders. Christianity didnt always go hand in hand with high culture, especially in the period u are refering. Nation? I dont think they were nation at the time. But after his reign began the forming of the Bulgarian nation. We arent 100 percent sure the title was khan. Whats left is "kanasubigi" which means ruler from heaven in Persian. serbian wishful thinking.at the time the people of Bulgaria were called by outsiders only as Bulgarians. but the slav names of the ruling class points to a different thing. quotes please. nonsense, not a single fact. please i demand sources.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 8, 2008 18:29:22 GMT -5
"Novi, being pagans does not mean they were not advanced in many spheres as astronomy, agriculture, military tactics, society structure and so on. Slavs were on a lower level in any aspect. Besides, they were very tolerant in terms of religious believes. Khan Kubrat, the founder of Old Great Bulgaria, was Christian. So was Tervel, his grandson, the very person who helped the Byzantines to destroy the Arabs after 2-year siege."
I agree your right to some aspect, l mean look at the mongols!. I'm not trying to say that Bulgars are savages like ioan thinks. The mongols at the time were militarially superior than all because they had the greatest vehicle, horses!. But in terms of cultural advancement they were lacking peoples advancement in places like the middle east and west asia. They as a people advanced as a political unit.
Pagane, those Khans converted, you know that. I'm sure that not everything that the Bulgars did was bad, there are many good deeds as well.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 8, 2008 18:34:55 GMT -5
"quotes please."
C.J.Jirecek. op.cit,. p.133
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 8, 2008 18:39:07 GMT -5
Pliska (Bulgarian: Плиска) is the name of both the first capital of Danubian Bulgaria and a small village (formerly known as Aboba) which was renamed after the historical Pliska after its site was determined and excavations begun. [edit] Historical Pliska Pliska was the capital of Bulgaria between 681 and 893 AD. According to a Bulgarian chronicle, it was founded by Khan Asparukh. It is called Pliskusa by Georgios Kedrenos and Anna Comnena. It had an area of 23 km² and was surrounded by a moat and earthwork ramparts. The walls of the inner fortress were 2.6 meters thick and about 12 meters high. Pliska was sacked by the Byzantine army in 811, but the invaders were soon driven out by Khan Krum (see Battle of Pliska). Khan Omurtag brought in artisans and craftsmen to improve the city. In 886, Boris I founded the Pliska Literary School (after 893 Preslav Literary School), which was headed by Naum of Preslav. In 892, the city became the scene of a pagan revolt led by King Vladimir. After the crushing of the revolt, Vladimir was dethroned and the third son of Boris I, Simeon, was installed into power. One of the first steps of the new ruler was to move the capital to Preslav, a fortified town in the vicinity of Pliska, probably because of the steadily strong pagan influence in the old capital. The importance of Pliska gradually waned throughout the 10th century with the concentration of power and resources in Preslav. The city was destroyed during the assaults of the Kievan Rus' and the Byzantine Empire between 969 and 972 and was not rebuilt again. The ruins of the city of Pliska lie 3 km north of the modern village of Pliska. The site of the city is currently a National Archaeological Reserve. [edit] Modern Pliska Under Ottoman rule, the village known as Pliska since 1947, was instead caled Aboba, a name which it kept until 1925, when the name was changed to Pliskov, a variant of its current name. The settlement has a population of 1124 and is located 146 m above sea level in Shumen Province at the south end of the Ludogorie plateau. It is approximately 400 km northeast of Sofia, at [show location on an interactive map] 43°22′N, 27°7′E en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliska
|
|
pirej
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by pirej on Mar 11, 2008 16:08:56 GMT -5
We are just Macedonians, i can see somebody is jelaous
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 11, 2008 16:26:49 GMT -5
Jealous of what? Your glorious history that started in 1992?!
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 13, 2008 20:17:21 GMT -5
Sorry Pirej, l agree with Pagane here. Your people from the Vardar should realise your ancestry which is from peoples east and north of your country.
Don't take it as an offense just have a think about it.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 14, 2008 2:42:44 GMT -5
North? I dont think so. They are Bulgarians. They know it, but they are thought to hate us. By who? Should we look to the north? Serbia should look in Bosnia, Montenegro and NOT in fyrom, it was never a serbian teritory ethnically speaking. Just look in Pirin Macedonia and u ll find the biggest Bulgarian patriots.
|
|
pirej
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by pirej on Mar 30, 2008 18:29:59 GMT -5
Само вие продолжете да сонувате.
|
|