|
Post by roflcopterlanding on Jan 19, 2011 10:44:41 GMT -5
Vasmer also uses sources that predated any renaming. I have no idea about the "many toponyms which are not included in his work". Perhaps there are serious, systematic studies that you can refer me to.
To mention two examples, since I came across them some time go, Losnitsa in Kastoria was renamed in 1928 and Limpochovo in Kozani in 1927 but Vasmer includes both of them.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 19, 2011 11:45:16 GMT -5
Pyrros, it is high time you publish your miraculous findings. As far as I remember, you claimed that 99.99% of the toponyms in Epiros are of Serbian origin. When are we going to witness this?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 19, 2011 13:05:01 GMT -5
Do you have any people with surname "Strelic" or "Strelica" in Bulgaria? Why do you equalize a toponym with a surname? Is any toponym also a surname? ?? Guy, you are weird, but your logic.... is it existing at all? I m telling you it means small arrow which is enough (it has a clear meaning in Bulgarian), it doesnt have to be a surname!!!!
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jan 19, 2011 13:12:53 GMT -5
There are surveys, and I’ve already posted some here, that indicate the main ethnic groups in Macedonia. And those have been listed as Bulgarians, Albanians, Greeks, and Turks. Serbs have always been listed as a relatively small minority. I’ve asked Pazar to provide sources that discuss the overall character of the population in Macedonia; however, he’s failed to do so. That’s one main difference between the sources I post and the sources he posts. Mine discuss Macedonia as a whole, the people in general; the average citizen etc. while his merely show that there was some Serb presence in Macedonia, which is something we’ve never disputed.
Kriv are you slow bro!? If the overall population of Macedonia some 100 years ago was noted as 1.5 to 1.8 million, and Bulgarians have been explicitly noted to make up 1.2 to 1.3 million of the overall population, who do you think was the majority!? Man some of you guys are really not all that bright. Albanians, Greeks, and Turks have been noted to make up most of the rest of the population. So as I said, Serbs have always been a minority.. a small minority at best.
As I said, the Serbs have ALWAYS been a minority in Macedonia. They’ve never even come close to making up a significant portion of the overall population. This has been verified by earlier Serbian sources as well, and obviously, it has also been verified by a wide variety of neutral scholars, authors, travelers etc.
The map I posted is your own source Pazar. The difference is that when you were plastering it all over the forums you never bothered to actually look at it closely. But then again, you never read your own sources anyway.. so I guess this is nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 19, 2011 17:59:24 GMT -5
"The map I posted is your own source Pazar. The difference is that when you were plastering it all over the forums you never bothered to actually look at it closely. But then again, you never read your own sources anyway.. so I guess this is nothing new."
No no no little buLgarin asen, remember (your memory tends to fade) you talking about the Beefed up version from wikipedia, d.head. Why didn't you use that map?
Poor poor thing, l'm sorry that serbs settled in your desirable Vardar before 9/10th century occupation of southern serbia by a political ruling empire of BuLgarska.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 19, 2011 18:10:34 GMT -5
"632- serbs settle on the Bolkans."
Sources state the 6th century (500AD+) not the 7th century (600AD+)
"681 - Bulgars had their STATE officially recognized (serbs will have their state centuries later)."
Yes, 681AD (Late 7th century) and their capital or in your Turkish 'Abode' was at the modern slavic named town called Pliska. Most of this turkish empire was behind the DANUBE at 681AD. The Serbs inhabited vast areas of the Balkans before the Turkish empire of BuLgari spread into serb inhabited areas after the 9/10th centuries with their politicial empire.
Why do l say political empire?, because this Turkish empire was not the natural empire or state of the slavic serbs (kosovo, vardar eastern serbia and todays western Bugarska). This empire didn't bring over BuLgari from Pliska to populate these regions because it was already filled with slavic serbs ;D
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 19, 2011 19:48:20 GMT -5
So it mentions the Serbs in this survey, who did the survey, when and where did you find it.
asen calm down, like I said, if the sources state the bulgarians as the dominant majority, yet don't mention the Serbs who we all know have had a traditional presence in the area, then it's either the source is a fraud, or the people making the survey couldn't differentiate between Bulgarian and Serbian.
asen, Skopje was the capital of the Serbian empire...can you see Serbia making today's Pristina the capital? No, you're not that stupid.
And many travelers the same time stated in some sources that the population there would call themselves bulgarians or serbs at different times....Novi's theory about the Church sounds very possible..during this time the church had a lot of influence on how the people viewed themselves.
|
|
|
Post by macmako on Jan 19, 2011 19:50:21 GMT -5
Isn't it nice to have so many that know so much about population migration??? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 19, 2011 20:26:57 GMT -5
"I’ve asked Pazar to provide sources that discuss the overall character of the population in Macedonia; however, he’s failed to do so."
You are an imbecile, l done it nearly everytime, l guess for you, you need tables from 1872 onwards that break down the population as 1,236,000 bulgarians, 215,000 greeks, 150,000 albanians, 500 serbs.
Where there is a slava there is a serb. Never forget this wayne car.
Here is something for you:
" The earliest record of the *Slava* is from Macedonia. The Greek historian Skylitzes has given us a description of the *Slava* of the Serbian vojvode IVAC by the lake of Ochrida, as early as 1018. Vojvode IVAC worshipped the virgin Mary on August 15th."
BuLgari under Protogerov partially exterminated the Slava from Vardar and Pirin (completely) during the Exarchos period.
Another quote for the stupid BuLgarin (readers, bulgarian proganda never goes into detail like mine):
"All Macedonians know that their ancestors were Serbs, and a good many remember that in their youth the BULGARS WERE UNKNOWN IN THEIR COUNTRY. The following example alone will suffice to show how successful was the BuLgarian Propaganda in Macedonia. In the days before the Bulgarian Exarchate there came to Veles as Serbian schoolmaster George Miletich, the Serbian national leader in Hungary. He was in Macedonia at the time of the struggle for emancipation from the Greeks. As a good Serb he also supported the struggle, but threw in his lot with those who, TAKING RUSSIA'S ADVICE, JOINED THE BULGARIAN MOVEMENT, AND HE BECAME A BULGARIAN LEADER IN MACEDONIA. TO-DAY HIS SON LJUBOMIR MILETICH (WHOSE NAME AND SURNAME ARE BOTH SERBIAN) IS PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOFIA, AND ONE OF THE BITTEREST SERBOPHONES."
I don't entirely blame the Russians because weasel expats known as BuLgari influenced the Russian government in-favour of these scum bags, which resulted in a policy to enlargen BuLgarska at the expense of Serbs and Greeks.
Cont....
"But in spite of all hatred of the Greeks, in spite of the inducement of the Slav liturgy offered by the Bulgarian Church, and in spite of the Bulgarian propaganda, THE BULGARIAN SUCCESS IN MACEDONIA WAS NEVER COMPLETE. A GREAT PART OF THE NATION CONTINUED TO REMAIN SERBIAN IN ITS FEELINGS. ONE-THIRD OF THE INHABITANTS, FEARING BULGARIZATION, ACTUALLY PREFERRED TO REMAIN UNDER THE HATED GREEK PATRIARCHATE RATHER THAN GO OVER TO THE BULGARIAN EXARCHATE. MANY OF THOSE WHO JOINED THE EXARCHATE OUT OF HATRED FOR THE GREEKS STILL REAMINED SERBS IN THEIR FEELINGS. THE BEST PROOF OF THIS IS TO BE FOUND IN THE PRO-SERBBIAN INSURRECTION AGAINST THE TURKS, IN THE APPEALS TO THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN NOT TO HAND THEM OVER TO BULGARIA, AND IN SECRET AGITATIONS IN FAVOUR OF SERBIA."
PS SUCK EGGS SCUM BAG. WHY DO YOU THINK TODAY THE VARDARIANS FEEL CLOSEST TO THE SERBS.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 20, 2011 0:14:48 GMT -5
Sources state the 6th century (500AD+) not the 7th century (600AD+) LIES It is explicitely written in De Administratio Imperium: The Unknown Archont is a conventional name given by historians to the Serbian leader who led the White Serbs from their homeland in north-eastern Central Europe to settle in the Balkans in the early 7th century. The main record of this person is in the De Administrando Imperio, a book written in the 950s by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos. He is described as having led the Serbs from White Serbia during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (610-641). On their way to the south, they vanquished the Avars and eventually settled in Thessaly, a province which Heraclius granted to them with a view of protecting Byzantium from further Avar incursions. The Serbs later moved to the area which had been dominated by the Avars prior to their arrival: Rascia, Bosnia, Zachlumi, Trebounia, Pagania, Neretvia and finally Duklja. The Unknown Archont was displaced early after the settlement of the Serbs, as other tribal chiefs vied for power. He died in 680. www.spcoluzern.ch/index.php?pg=2007&lang=enwhich is on the Bolkans near Shumen and Varna. 681 marks the OFFICIAL recognition of the Bulgarian state, which ecompasses all of Moesia (while Kuber rules in Macedonia). The state exists since 6 century in Ukraine. There was nothing Turkish in the Bulgar state. not certain. We have Moesia. wrong. The serbian areas are described in De Administratio Imperium anf they include ONLY western Serbia/republika srubska. Any empire is political so that remark is irrelevant. The serbs didnt settle in the abovementioned areas. Nothing like that is mentioned in the sources. Those were slavs from the Bulgarian (southeastern) slavic group. There were no serbs in those areas. Bulgars were settled in all of Bulgaria and mixed with slavs from Bulgarian group and locals.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jan 20, 2011 3:41:36 GMT -5
Do you have any people with surname "Strelic" or "Strelica" in Bulgaria? Why do you equalize a toponym with a surname? Is any toponym also a surname? ?? Guy, you are weird, but your logic.... is it existing at all? I m telling you it means small arrow which is enough (it has a clear meaning in Bulgarian), it doesnt have to be a surname!!!! because STRELITSAS was a surname idiot.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 20, 2011 6:48:32 GMT -5
no idiot, it comes from the word strela which means arrow.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 20, 2011 6:48:55 GMT -5
Nowhere it says he was Serbian, Pyrro. It is your assumption as always, connecting ancient names with modern ones, regardless of the fact their formation has changed a lot. I guess your next claim will be that Sotirio Voulgaris was Serb as well, only his lack of knowledge preventing him from having the family name of Servos.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jan 20, 2011 7:14:01 GMT -5
no idiot, it comes from the word strela which means arrow. I know where it comes from IDIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT. And this surname was met in Peloponese @ 1400 (Strelicas)+ and in todays Yugoslavia (Strelic) . Search for it . IDIOT.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jan 20, 2011 7:16:33 GMT -5
Nowhere it says he was Serbian, Pyrro. It is your assumption as always, connecting ancient names with modern ones, regardless of the fact their formation has changed a lot. I guess your next claim will be that Sotirio Voulgaris was Serb as well, only his lack of knowledge preventing him from having the family name of Servos. have i ever denied the obvious connection between names, toponyms starting with "voulg" "boulg" with Bulgaria?
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 20, 2011 7:22:29 GMT -5
Strelitsas, Pyrro, is 50/50. This word is both Bulgarian and Serbian and since it is mentioned nowhere the guy was Serbian, then it is obvious that it is your wishful thinking that determines his as such. p.s In those times the suffix 'itsa' was common among Bulgarians, now it is gone. As for Strelic - it doesn't play a single role in this dispute. Just as Strelov wouldn't.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 20, 2011 7:38:04 GMT -5
Nowhere it says he was Serbian, Pyrro. Of course, all sources point that he was greek. However we have to have in mind we are dealing with this brainwashed thing not some person with a sense.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 20, 2011 7:43:54 GMT -5
Damn, my poop has more originality than this topic's discussion. If I was moderator I'd delete every thread related to Bulgarians and Serbs in Macedonia.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 20, 2011 8:22:53 GMT -5
"LIES"
"Archaeological evidence in Serbia and Macedonia conclude that the White Serbs may have reached the Balkans earlier, between 550-600, as much findings; fibulae and pottery found at Roman forts point at Serb characteristics and thus could have been a fraction of the early invading Slavs who upon organizing in their refuge of the Dinaric region, formed the ethnogenesis of Serbs and were pardoned by the Byzantine Empire after acknowledging their suzerainty."
Archaeological evidence. However, BuLgari fabricate their evidence, remember the stone inscription?
I've read the rest of your post Ioan and its rotten from the core....now, l call that LIES!
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 20, 2011 8:33:01 GMT -5
too many "could", "would", "may"... hardly a source, rather a fabrication of the greatest scale!!! your so called "archeological evidences" are just suppositions with nothing to back them up.
|
|