ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 7, 2011 23:32:44 GMT -5
I'm not convinced. I don't know much on the topic, but from the little that I do know.. he didn't make distinctions based on religion, at least not when it came to the Bulgars. It seems to him a Bulgar was a Bulgar, and that was that.
I can't answer this with accuracy, so I won't even try. I haven't really read many Bulgarian historians.. but I'd say that the more numerous conversions took place in the later years of the Ottoman Empire.
Either way, Vlad's time period is the early to mid 1400's. Bulgaria lost its independence to the Ottomans in 1396, some sources claim that the last independent Bulgarian city fell in 1422 I believe.
Anyway, simple logic tells me that it is unlikely for there to have been significant conversions in the first 50 years of the Ottoman conquest.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 7, 2011 23:42:46 GMT -5
what good is it fighting a powerful enemy if you keep losing? a bulgarian like you will never know.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 8, 2011 0:12:51 GMT -5
So what has it come to.. a Greek-Arvanite-Gypsy who thinks he's a Serb, claims that Macedonians are "Old Serbs" living in "Old Serbia" and a difference of opinion makes him call this supposed "Old Serb" a Bulgarian, who according to him are actually Serbs as well.
Basically in your own mind you've tried to insult a Serb by calling him a Serb.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 8, 2011 2:21:00 GMT -5
I'm not convinced. I don't know much on the topic, but from the little that I do know.. he didn't make distinctions based on religion, at least not when it came to the Bulgars. It seems to him a Bulgar was a Bulgar, and that was that. I can't answer this with accuracy, so I won't even try. I haven't really read many Bulgarian historians.. but I'd say that the more numerous conversions took place in the later years of the Ottoman Empire. Either way, Vlad's time period is the early to mid 1400's. Bulgaria lost its independence to the Ottomans in 1396, some sources claim that the last independent Bulgarian city fell in 1422 I believe. Anyway, simple logic tells me that it is unlikely for there to have been significant conversions in the first 50 years of the Ottoman conquest. I'm not convinced. I don't know much on the topic, but from the little that I do know.. he didn't make distinctions based on religion, at least not when it came to the Bulgars. It seems to him a Bulgar was a Bulgar, and that was that. I can't answer this with accuracy, so I won't even try. I haven't really read many Bulgarian historians.. but I'd say that the more numerous conversions took place in the later years of the Ottoman Empire. Either way, Vlad's time period is the early to mid 1400's. Bulgaria lost its independence to the Ottomans in 1396, some sources claim that the last independent Bulgarian city fell in 1422 I believe. Anyway, simple logic tells me that it is unlikely for there to have been significant conversions in the first 50 years of the Ottoman conquest. It makes sense for him to have spared the Bulgarians and settle so many as he could in Wallachia. His father did it in 1445 but later, he had to return them. It had to do with productivity, which is why both the Ottomans and Wallachia wanted to populate the region. The population growth was low due to war. A non-Christian could probably not be settled because they would not remain loyal to the principality if the Ottomans invaded (and they did so often). They had no reason to convert for the same reason as above. There were, however, Ottoman prisoners that were taken as slaves (in Moldavia), but these were few and mostly highly skilled work. The many wars that the Ottomans waged against Wallachia and Moldavia put a great toll on the economy and strengthened the position of the boyars. In order to increase productivity, Moldavia would even purchase Bulgarian Gypsies to work in the fields (Bulgarians could not be purchased). This, in turn, bankrupted the peasants, who were forced to sell themselves into serfdom. The economical and social result was a disaster. My point is that Vlad had every reason to settle the Bulgarians on his land and the source is credible; firstly, because this was a practice done by his father, thus it was nothing new; secondly, because they had no reason to exaggerate--this didn't portray him in a good light or a bad light. Many Bulgarians would later flee on their own to Wallachia to escape the Ottoman yoke; these Bulgarians would then be referred to as Serbs because Serbs who settled on Wallachian soil came from Austrian territory and didn't have to be returned to the Ottomans. With that said, I'm sure many Bulgarian civilians died by his hand, but at least we know that his intentions were not to kill them, but to have them settled. Do you have a source that claims he killed [Christian] Bulgarians?
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 2:47:58 GMT -5
So what has it come to.. a Greek-Arvanite-Gypsy who thinks he's a Serb, claims that Macedonians are "Old Serbs" living in "Old Serbia" and a difference of opinion makes him call this supposed "Old Serb" a Bulgarian, who according to him are actually Serbs as well. Basically in your own mind you've tried to insult a Serb by calling him a Serb. i am blond idiot, check my youtube, you know guitar, music, arts, and other such things that plain mongols cannot understand.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 8, 2011 3:37:48 GMT -5
In order to increase productivity, Moldavia would even purchase Bulgarian Gypsies to work in the fields (Bulgarians could not be purchased). Strange words from a Romanian - when we know that most Bulgarian gypsies came from Romania. You had alot of gypsies because your boyars (bulgarian title by the way, as well as voivoda) stopped their migration towards western Europe so they have slaves.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 8, 2011 3:43:38 GMT -5
So what has it come to.. a Greek-Arvanite-Gypsy who thinks he's a Serb, claims that Macedonians are "Old Serbs" living in "Old Serbia" and a difference of opinion makes him call this supposed "Old Serb" a Bulgarian, who according to him are actually Serbs as well. Basically in your own mind you've tried to insult a Serb by calling him a Serb. Indeed. In quotes like this it shows what Gyrro really thinks: that the Macedonians indeed have Bulgarian origin. He may bore us to tears with his fairytales about the "southern Serbs" in Macedonia (and even in Greece - of which the Greeks rightfully have never heard of) yet again we can always rely on the moment when he looses his temper - then we get to see his true feelings. I m sure Gyrro knows deep inside that the Torlak Novi has Bulgarian origin, but will never admit it, except in a rage .
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 3:47:27 GMT -5
Strange words from a Romanian - when we know that most Bulgarian gypsies came from Romania. You had alot of gypsies because your boyars (bulgarian title by the way, as well as voivoda) stopped their migration towards western Europe so they have slaves. vojvoda bulgarian word??? ha ha ha quote of the milenium!!!! signature material!!! LMAO Come to VOJVODINA to explain your theory. warning : in Serbia prostitution is prohibited by law (in contrast with Bolgaria). so watch out when whoring yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Sept 8, 2011 4:09:54 GMT -5
In order to increase productivity, Moldavia would even purchase Bulgarian Gypsies to work in the fields (Bulgarians could not be purchased). Strange words from a Romanian - when we know that most Bulgarian gypsies came from Romania. You had alot of gypsies because your boyars (bulgarian title by the way, as well as voivoda) stopped their migration towards western Europe so they have slaves. Is that such a shock to you that the Gypsies arrived in Romania caming from South of Danube? Probably you believe they teleported themselves straight from India.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 4:30:07 GMT -5
one thing i know is that bulgarian immigrants in Crete as black as indians. And many bulgarians who are supposed to be "non-gypsy" are very very dark.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 8, 2011 4:40:27 GMT -5
In order to increase productivity, Moldavia would even purchase Bulgarian Gypsies to work in the fields (Bulgarians could not be purchased). Strange words from a Romanian - when we know that most Bulgarian gypsies came from Romania. You had alot of gypsies because your boyars (bulgarian title by the way, as well as voivoda) stopped their migration towards western Europe so they have slaves. I don't know about this. If this is the case, then it must have occured later. Yet why would the boyars stop their migration to Western Europe (which is accurate, because they owned them as slaves), yet allow them to settle in Bulgaria? Indeed, the Gypsy migration occured from the south, ever since the Byzantines allowed them to enter the Balkans. However, this was not about migration, but about purchasing them as slaves from Bulgaria. There are financial records that show this. I'm not sure what upsets you about this. The word boyar and voivod was taken from Slavonic and unlike other words, such as bogdaproste, we did not receive it from the Bulgarian Slavs (source: DEX).
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Sept 8, 2011 4:53:36 GMT -5
Boyar itself it's originaly not originally Slavic but a word of disputed origin.
Back to subject, AFAIK a lot (most?) of the Gypsies in Bulgaria speak Turkish and are Muslim so for sure those are not from Romania. And again after the Romanian Gypsies were released from slavery in XIXth century there was a wave of migration to other countries, some even moved to Hungary, some probably to Bulgaria but a strange fact is, because they were outcasts, the Gipsyes become very conservative, some Gypsies in Hungary still speak Romanian language as their mother tongue.
I was surprised to find this amazing old song on Youtube.
Although the stupid Hungarians are teaching them this language is Beas or something like that not Romanian anyway. Nothing new under the sun.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 5:14:02 GMT -5
Boyar itself it's originaly not originally Slavic but a word of disputed origin. in bulgarian it is boljar, in russian it is bojarin, phonetically the lack of 'L' strengthens the similarity with the ukranian/russian word. Anyway, the root of the word must be SERBIAN (slavic) as, Boj=battle. bojar = the warrior
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 8, 2011 7:04:35 GMT -5
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 8, 2011 7:08:59 GMT -5
As for Boyar/Bolyar my dear ROMAnian friends: According to most sources the word is of Proto-Bulgarian origin. Some believe that it is composed of the roots bai ("noble, rich") and är.[2] Another possibility is that the word originated from the Bulgarian title boila ("noble") which is attested in Bulgar inscriptions[3] and rendered as boilades or boliades in the Greek of Byzantine documents.[2][4] This title certainly did enter Old Russian as áûëÿ (bylya). groznijat.tripod.com/pb_lang/pbl_1_2.html - the BULGAR INSCRIPTION with BOILA. It was great to have a short "discussion" with you.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 8, 2011 7:13:46 GMT -5
As for the gypsies I d wanted to stress the fact that it was your boyars (Bulgarian title - another proof of Bulgarian influence over Wallahia - the title is NOT FOUND IN SERBIA - for Gyrro) were the ones that stopped the gypsies migration and forced them to slavery in Romania. Later there are recorded settlements of Romanian gypsies in Bulgaria not vice versa.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 7:34:04 GMT -5
^^^ take it easy Jovane.... don't take it all this sh1t very seriously ;D
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 8, 2011 9:25:49 GMT -5
If you can't hold a serious debate in a serious matter without insulting, then go fvck yourself and don't waste my time on this. I've spent some time to look up the source in the book and write it here because I took you and Ivo's question in good faith. No one talked about the word boyar. We were discussing a completely different subject that has no relation to boyars. Did you even go to school? Apart from your useless English, you are also useless in structuring your argument. To answer your irrelevant crap, according to DEX, we did not receieve the words boyar and voivode via Bulgarians. I believe our linguists are more competent in this field than you. I wouldn't give a damn if we did receive the word from you. It wouldn't make my problems go away.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 8, 2011 9:33:15 GMT -5
lol, ioan destroyed once again.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 8, 2011 10:49:28 GMT -5
Like I said, I don't know much on the matter of Vlad and his affairs.. but this bit here is interesting. If you'd like to elaborate, I'll be happy to read more.
Voivoda is a shared South Slavic word. However, its use in Romania is most definitely attributed to Bulgaria rather than Serbia.
Lol. Bulgaria was the only Slavic power that had control of the lands of modern day Romania. All medieval Slavic influences on your culture and language are attributed to Bulgaria.
The words you've written here are completely unfounded, and very hypocritical. Your user name alone shows that you're not prepared to have a proper debate. It appears you prefer to synthesize your own version of history, which is completely different from reality.
Gyrro and Pazar tend to follow a similar approach, they'd usually misquote sources from authors they haven't even read. And practically everything they write is quoted out of context in some pathetic attempt to misconstrue actual fact in support of their heavily biased pro-Serbian propaganda.
Gyrro giving Anittas another rim job. Gyrro the jobber. Lol.
|
|