|
Post by Anittas on May 24, 2011 6:14:29 GMT -5
I wonder why you changed the name of your country to Bulgaria. It's obvious you are well aware of your origins. Isn't it time to re-name the country?
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on May 24, 2011 6:18:40 GMT -5
Don't be a prick Or Basarbovski and Bucharest is simply too much for you to handle? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on May 24, 2011 7:09:34 GMT -5
Without feeling any kind shame, I can honestly say that I didn't know who he was. After some quick research, I found out that he is known as Sfantul Dimitrie cel nou also known under the name Sfantul Dimitrie cel Nou Basarabov, not under the name you were saying we called him. So much for that... However, according to this church site, he was Romanian living south of Danube, near Ruse. Thanks for adding fuel on my fire. lolz ramurainflorita.blogspot.com/2009/10/sfantul-dimitrie-cel-nou-basarabov.html
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on May 24, 2011 8:28:09 GMT -5
It’s unlikely that you took from the East Romans, and your contacts with them were limited.. very limited. On the other hand, your entire country and/or parts of it were provinces within the Bulgarian Empires for centuries. Your use of Old Bulgarian and the Cyrillic alphabet are a testament to the Bulgarian influence in your culture.
|
|
|
Post by vlaici on May 24, 2011 13:38:38 GMT -5
Its a matter of debate where the vlahs were. Its really a big amusement that you are mentioned so late (11 century first I think).
„The first mention of Vlachs in a Byzantine source is about the year 976, when Kedrenos (ii. 439) writes about the murder of the Bulgarian tsar Samuel’s brother by certain Vlachian wayfarers, at a spot called the Fair Oaks, between Castoria and Prespa.„
In my opinion, latinised population didn't matter in the eyes of the Greeks from Constantinopole, so, it wasn't mentioned. After Justinian, a Greek cultural evolution was to follow. With possible „Ioan„ influencing the othodox community. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by vlaici on May 24, 2011 13:48:31 GMT -5
„Others say that emperor Justinian is the first ever mentioned Rumanian in 6th century.„ You mean the quote about the Avars? I quoted just this article- www.friesian.com/decdenc2.htm„What Justinian was is a large but little noted part of the story. He is supposed to have come from a Latin speaking family in Macedonia. Now, a Latin speaking family in, say, Spain would mean people whose language would eventually evolve into Spanish; in Gaul, into French; etc. A Latin speaking family in Macedonia would thus be people whose language would eventually evolve into the Romance languages called "Vlach" south of the Danube and, north of the Danube, Romanian. So, in short, Justinian was a Romanian, whether in the modern or the ancient sense. A Romanian emperor of Romania. „ -Autor: Kelley L Ross
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on May 24, 2011 16:40:31 GMT -5
Vlaici, I must say that the term "Romanian" here is being used very loosely. This would potential lead us to make mistakes.
Vlach and Romanian back then wasn't one and the same thing. I've read that a more accurate name for the East Roman Empire would be "Romania" rather than "Byzantium". However, we must not confuse that term "Romania" (ie. The East Roman Empire itself) with the modern day country of Romania.
A designation of being "Romanian" during that period would be the equivalent to being a citizen of the Empire. ie. Romanian = East Roman citizen, regardless of ethnicity. So basically, "Romania" back in the day would have been used to designate "the land of Romans".. later when the Ottomans came, they altered that term to "Rumelia".
The truth is when Wallachia and Moldavia were united to form the modern day Romanian state, they were in the midst of a "reformation" type process. This was a time when the Romanian elite were trying to establish a name for their country and some sort of a "path" for their people. There was a period of about 200 years or so where the tendencies in Romania were to Latinize all non-Latin terms. Most Slavic terms in the Romanian language were replaced with Latin ones, the use of Old Bulgarian was halted, the Cyrillic alphabet was replaced with the Latin one and so on and so forth.
The name of Romania itself shows how the country gradually came to be known as Romania. Initially the name of your country was spelled "Rumania", then it became "Roumania", until it finally came to be "Romania". Politics comes into place here so I won't get into this topic as this was never really a part of history that interested me much, but I've read that some have proposed that the name "Rumania" had originally come from the Ottoman version i.e. "Rumelia". However, due to the political goals of Romania (or rather, the Romanian principalities) the government pushed to bring the new Romanian state as close as possible to the West, to the Latin lands, and hence to the Roman Empire itself.
My point is that countries go through different political regimes and different parts of history are emphasized during different time periods. As a result, there's much of your history that is purposefully being swept aside if it doesn't match the Daco-Roman origin theory. The situation in Bulgaria was virtually the same during communism.. for us during that time, only the Slavic element was emphasized and all others were completely overthrown as something of no significance.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on May 24, 2011 17:54:01 GMT -5
It’s unlikely that you took from the East Romans, and your contacts with them were limited.. very limited. On the other hand, your entire country and/or parts of it were provinces within the Bulgarian Empires for centuries. Your use of Old Bulgarian and the Cyrillic alphabet are a testament to the Bulgarian influence in your culture. Our contact with the Byzantine Empire was very, very close. The only thing these kind of comments of yours can accomplish is to reveal your ignorance about Romanian history. The Byzantines were among the first to recognize our principalities; they were the ones that recognized our rulers and granted them titles; they were the ones that named the patriarchs. In fact, Moldavia had a small diplomatic conflict with the Eastern Roman Empire over the position of a patriarch in Bugeac. Our monastaries taught Greek and Greek philosophy was very well known to us (Plato is pictured in the 15th century Voronet monestary--which, together with other Moldavian monasteries are listed on Unesco World Herritage. Our laws, ethics and some of our customs were of Eastern Roman origin. We not only were influenced by the Byzantine culture, we also embraced it and saught it--we were a part of it! Our early princes viewed themselves as dukes that were part of an extension of the Byzantine Empire and some of our historians speculated that if the Eastern Roman Empire was to re-establish its regional power in the Balkans, Wallachia and Moldavia would gladly have recognized their suzerainty. Yes, parts of modern Romania were vassal states to the Vlach-Bulgarian Empire. As I said, if you create a third Romanian-Bulgarian Empire, we might join you, as long as you do the work while leaving the thinking part to us. Addendum: many of our religious words, including the word for God, is taken from Latin via the Eastern Roman Empire! Shame on you, Ivo, for insulting us by denying us our historical link and herritage from the Eastern Roman Empire. Your hate for Romania will consume you.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on May 24, 2011 18:17:56 GMT -5
The truth is when Wallachia and Moldavia were united to form the modern day Romanian state, they were in the midst of a "reformation" type process. This was a time when the Romanian elite were trying to establish a name for their country and some sort of a "path" for their people. There was a period of about 200 years or so where the tendencies in Romania were to Latinize all non-Latin terms. Most Slavic terms in the Romanian language were replaced with Latin ones, the use of Old Bulgarian was halted, the Cyrillic alphabet was replaced with the Latin one and so on and so forth. The name of Romania itself shows how the country gradually came to be known as Romania. Initially the name of your country was spelled "Rumania", then it became "Roumania", until it finally came to be "Romania". Politics comes into place here so I won't get into this topic as this was never really a part of history that interested me much, but I've read that some have proposed that the name "Rumania" had originally come from the Ottoman version i.e. "Rumelia". However, due to the political goals of Romania (or rather, the Romanian principalities) the government pushed to bring the new Romanian state as close as possible to the West, to the Latin lands, and hence to the Roman Empire itself. My point is that countries go through different political regimes and different parts of history are emphasized during different time periods. As a result, there's much of your history that is purposefully being swept aside if it doesn't match the Daco-Roman origin theory. The situation in Bulgaria was virtually the same during communism.. for us during that time, only the Slavic element was emphasized and all others were completely overthrown as something of no significance. Jesus Christ, Ivo, you may have good intentions, but you don't know what you're talking about. First of all, the name of Romania comes from Român and Wallachia was also known as Tara Romaneasca [Terro Romanum]. So the name of Romania was not revolutionary, because Wallachia was already known as the Land of the Romans (Romanians). Yes, the country was first called as Rumânia; then România; then during the 50s, it was Romînia; then it reversed back to România. When it comes to the Romanian name, here are the reasons: 1. In Romanian, many words and names ending with -o became -u. However, when it comes to Romanian, there were two versions: rumân and român. To make a long story short, we first went with the rumân version, then the român version. Compare this to Norway, which to Norwegians is known as Norge (bokmål, rigsmål) and Noreg (nynorsk). 2. When Romania was formed, the name was adopted by different countries with different versions. In German and the Scandavian languages, Rumania became Rumänien/Rumænien--except for Norwegian where it's known as Romania. When we changed it to Romania, the French called it Roumania (because the sound of -o in French is written as -ou). The English adopted the French spelling. It's that simple. It's for that reason that you have three different spellings for Romania in English and three different spellings for Romania in Romanian. Ivo, do me a favor. Say and feel whatever you want about Romania, but when making a factual statement, make sure it's accurate. When it's not, it may happen that I, or someone else, invests energy in correcting you; and you, and others, invest your energy in reading your corrections. And it seems that you are incorrect in most of your assertations. I beg you: be more precise and industrious in your research. If needed, be more critical of what you hear. If you heard it from someone south of Danube, always seek a second opinion from someone (it don't need to be a Romanian) north of Danube. In fact, everything you learned from sources south of Danube should be relearned. Everything!
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on May 25, 2011 9:53:33 GMT -5
Anittas, as I already mentioned.. there's no hate toward Romania or Romanians. And I rarely read Bulgarian sources, if ever.
The information that you've provided is interesting, however, it's based on way too many "ifs", "ands", and "buts". There's much speculation. I won't bother getting in to that, particularly about the part of how the "East Roman Empire" recognized the 'Romanian' principalities especially considering that when the Vlach principalities were just begging to get established the East Roman Empire was on its way out as a politically significant entity. But as I said, I won't get into this as it would be a rather extensive discussion with no purpose really.
All that I've expressed is in no way meant to "put you down" or to "insult your heritage", but we must address all theories in order to get closer to the truth. This is especially true for topics that are a bit more “open ended”. Regarding these Balkan theories..
- Greeks claim to be Ancient Greeks. - Macedonians claim to be Ancient Macedonians. - Romanians claim to be Dacians, or Daco-Romans. - Some Bulgarians claim to be Thracians.
My opinion is that all these “theories” are BS. Each of the modern Balkan nations probably has some portion of this ancient blood, but the main supporting factor of all these is nothing more but wishful thinking. Genetics are not advanced enough to conclude such things with accuracy, especially considering there’re so many other facts that contradict such findings.
Out of all the “connection to the ancients” theories, I’d say the Albanian/Illyrian claim is most acceptable, the rest are nothing more but political fairly tales.
Anyway, what has always baffled me about Romanian history is that you seem to pride yourselves in the history of the Roman Empire. Now, Romanians for the most part are firm supporters of the Daco-Roman theory.. yet they fail to realize that the Romans considered the Dacians as barbarians who they raped, murdered, and pillaged their lands. Furthermore, the Roman "occupation" of 'Romania' was brief and it never actually incorporated all of the lands of modern day Romania.
So what we have is the Romans briefly occupied a part of the lands that are known as Romania today, they murdered the men, raped the women, and probably stole everything that was worth stealing.. and this is precisely what baffles me. To pride oneself in these events just seems unnatural to me.
But then again, my pride comes from knowing that we defeated the East Romans in battle and at war century after century. Especially the fact that Bulgarians were the only people who conquered East Roman soil, forced them to pay tribute, and had the Romans officially recognize Roman land as Bulgarian.. in the history of time, the only other time when this occurred was when the Western Roman Empire officially “gave” Pannonia to the Huns, but then again, Atilla’s main striking forces were Bulgar tribes.
So I guess this phenomenon is so astonishing to me because I pride myself in the achievements of my people, where as you seem to pride yourself in the achievements of a people that conquered you.
Bulgaria, all of Bulgaria, was conquered and turned into an East Roman Province for a bit longer than 160 years or so. So we've been under Roman rule longer that you've been under Roman rule, and let me tell ya.. this is not a "bright" part of Bulgarian history, it's not something we are proud of, and in Bulgaria it is seen as the equivalent of Ottoman rule.
A slave for the Romans or a slave for the Ottomans is no different. A slave's a slave. That’s that.
|
|
|
Post by vlaici on May 25, 2011 10:37:20 GMT -5
Vlaici, I must say that the term "Romanian" here is being used very loosely. This would potential lead us to make mistakes. The truth is when Wallachia and Moldavia were united to form the modern day Romanian state, they were in the midst of a "reformation" type process. This was a time when the Romanian elite were trying to establish a name for their country and some sort of a "path" for their people. There was a period of about 200 years or so where the tendencies in Romania were to Latinise all non-Latin terms. Most Slavic terms in the Romanian language were replaced with Latin ones, the use of Old Bulgarian was halted, the Cyrillic alphabet was replaced with the Latin one and so on and so forth. . Yes, but the author is well aware of the liberties he takes when using the Romanian term in these circumstances and eras. There was a period of no more than 60 years (1821- 1883) or so where in Romania were to Latinize a part of the Latin terms. It was made without effort because it fitted. The language of 1883 is the language I talk. They had replaced the Bulgarian and Greek neologisms with French and Italian terms. It was just the necessary time to replace the „caftans” with German (nemţeşti) clothes. Without forgetting our eastern faith.
|
|
|
Post by vlaici on May 25, 2011 10:55:23 GMT -5
Sorry, I misspelled it. It's " Bogdaproste" evidently. So? Why do Romanians use that term? What is its significance? And where does it come from? Shed some light on the matter. Would you do that for us? One think that there are 2 steps in Rumanian Christianity. The first one is naive, non institutionalized. It gave us the latin terms= Dumnezeu, cruce, creştin, credinţă, biserică, rugă şi rugăciune, cuminecare, a boteza, înger, păgân. Those terms we understand today. The second, institutionalized, gave us the terms from Bulgarian, like bogdaproste and from Greek- aghiasma. Those terms we fully understand only with special education.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on May 25, 2011 17:08:10 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Ivo, but you confuse me. You bring up a bunch of subjects that not always relate to each other; and when I reply, you say you'd rather not continue. And then you bring a whole bunch of other subjects, including Balkan national identity, Roman invasion of Dacia and Roman view of the Dacians. What am I supposed to do now? Should I start replying to these new subjects that you bring up and ignore the other ones? Are you even here to hold a dialogue or to hear your voice?
You say that there is much "if" and "but" and much speculation surrounding the things I said; you then say that you don't want to touch on those subjects, particulary on the issue of the Romanian principalities being recognized by Byzantine. What makes you think that is speculation? What makes you think that it's factual and based on documents? Why would that be a controversial issue when it's not challenged by any historian? It's really black and white here. Are you even knowledgeable about these issues? If you are, argue why you think it's speculation. To say that the Byzantine Empire was in decline when we were nationbuilding is not a valid argument.
You are not the only military faction that forced the Romans (Western or Eastern Empire) to recognize the land you conquered from them and pay tribute. The Visigoths accomplished that objective before the Huns; and the Ottomans--prior to their conquest of the whole of the Eastern Roman Empire, forced them to recognize their newly conquered land and pay them tribute. And much more.
What was your nickname here before, Ivo? You remind me of another Bulgarian who talked a lot but got the simplest of the things wrong. Even the things that I have no real interest in discussing, you get them wrong.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on May 26, 2011 9:24:51 GMT -5
Anittas, if you’re having difficulty following I apologize. I know what I’ve read, and the things are not as clear cut as you present them.
Regarding the Vlach principalities, they were both founded in the 14th century. This is fairly late in the game, especially if you’re talking to me about how the “East Roman Empire recognized them”. Would you care to share the extent of the political interaction between Wallachia and Moldavia with the East Roman Empire?
Really? Tell me more, educate me. What was the name of the province(s) which the Visigoths conquered and the Romans recognized? I’m interested in these sorts of topics, so go ahead, enlighten me.
The Ottomans found an empire in ruins, an empire deeply troubled by internal turmoil, which is really the only reason why they succeeded. They conquered a crippled political entity, which no longer had footing of its own. It’s all about value, and the value of the East Roman Empire had nearly been extinguished by that time.
Much more eh? I assume you mean many more, as in there were many more who achieved this. So let’s hear ‘em, give me a couple more examples.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on May 26, 2011 10:17:25 GMT -5
Ivo, I think you are Kotrag. If you are, please acknowledge that.
When I said much more, I meant that they forced the Byzantines to concede to other of their demands, such as marrying off their princesses to the sultans.
But yeah, I can give you one more example: Charlemagne.
The Visigothinc Kingdom compromised several Roman provinces in Hispania. King Euric forced the Romans to recognize his kingdom as an independent country. He succeeded.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on May 26, 2011 11:24:19 GMT -5
Dude, Ioan is Latin. You took the name from the Byzantines. Let it go. There's no reason to think we took the name from you and not the Greeks. Do you think you were the only people we were in contact with? How arrogant! It turns out it is Romanian, Welsh and Bulgarian: www.behindthename.com/name/ioanSo we are in the begining: in which book and in which language the name was first attested: Bulgarian or Romanian? Of course it is in the Bulgarian language. Thus we know via the documents that Bulgarians used it centuries before the Romanians.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on May 26, 2011 11:34:40 GMT -5
Plus our kings used it. Your voevods/rules also used it often: this can be a sign of Bulgarian influence. According to this site its a slavic (=Bulgarian) name: Ioan is a Slavic boy name. The meaning of the name is `God is Gracious`. Where is it used? The name Ioan is mainly used in Romanian and in Bulgarian. www.i-am-pregnant.com/names/boy-names/Ioan
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on May 26, 2011 13:32:24 GMT -5
And this is significant!? These political marriages were a common occurrence with Bulgaria, and again, this ain’t really much of an achievement to be proud of. So if this is your “much more”, then you must have really low standards.
Perspective my friend, it’s all about putting things in perspective. What did Charlamange do exactly, what was the time period in which he excelled, and how much value did the Western Roman Empire have by the time Charlamange came about? Much like the Ottomans found an empire in ruin, Charlamange found the same in the west.
Regarding the Visigoths, I don’t know much about them particularly.. though what I do know, is that their major success against the Roman Empire came only after the Huns had already broken the backbone of the empire.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on May 26, 2011 13:55:47 GMT -5
You asked me for examples. I gave you examples.
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on May 28, 2011 5:54:37 GMT -5
Bulgarians never had the chance to receive full civilization and culture like we did. While our scholars studied at Vienna, Prague, Berlin, Breslau and Paris, their intellectuals studied at Istanbul, Skopije and Sankt Petersburg.
|
|