|
nicetas
Feb 10, 2012 17:50:54 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 10, 2012 17:50:54 GMT -5
And it should follow that same fate.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 10, 2012 19:10:03 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 10, 2012 19:10:03 GMT -5
Stupid people, dumb race, non-white race (whatever that means).. one fact remains.
Bulgaria has made substantial contributions to the cultural and spiritual development of Slavs as a whole, as well as to the forefathers of your people (whoever they may be).
Tragic or not, it's real and historic. On the other hand, the Romanian "identity" came about in the mid 1800's via political deceit, historic manipulation, a change of the official language, and some unfounded asswipe desire to be connected to France.
In reality, my forefathers were among the key players that shaped the history of the region. Your forefathers were those that got 'shaped'.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 10, 2012 19:51:22 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 10, 2012 19:51:22 GMT -5
Your forefathers were nothing but a collection of retarded savages unaware of their origins; their legacy is seen today in your worthless people who lack confidence in who they are and where they hail from.
The Romanian identity is older than the Sun; the Bulgarian identity is a fraud. You could just as well change your name to Wall Street.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 3:53:32 GMT -5
Post by ioan on Feb 11, 2012 3:53:32 GMT -5
Do you have any proof for that? Is there any proof of the Romanians being pagans and Bulgarians or somebody else Christianizing us? Of course this is a rhetorical question. And what was your faith exactly? No one knows really! No one knows what people lived north of the Danube! As I said Gepids, Bulgars, Avars, Slavs and many others are all recorded to have lived on that land, but nothing was said about the Vlachs till 11 th century (south of the Danube). What we know for sure: you emerge on Bulgarian lands, have the same faith as the Bulgarians and your church language is Bulgarian. We dont know your previous faith. Was it paganism? Was it some form of christianity? It doesnt matter. Because your PRESENT faith was introduced through the Bulgarians in our language. As you should know the sources on the Romanians are scare (to put it mildly) till 11 century. Yet it doesnt mean we cant assume the most logical things like: IF you were present in the territory north of the Danube in 9th century, you have your PRESENT orthodox faith, because it was imposed by the Bulgarians which ruled Romania as their province. You start to sound like the Macedonians... Again we have here Romanians who claim something Bulgarian (at least in the begining it was Bulgarian) as their own. The archbishopric was established in 1018 by lowering of the rank of the autocephalous Bulgarian Patriarchate and its subjugation to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The first appointed archbishop (John of Debar) was a Bulgarian, but his successors, as well as the whole higher clergy, were invariably Greeks... There is not one source that says Ohrida Archiepiscopate was a Vlach bishopric in the diocese of Ohrida... Actually tlanguage that was used by that church wasnt Vlach (Protoromanian as I ve seen some Romanians refer to it though southern Romance languages do differ from Romanian alot), but Greek, which replaced Bulgarian slowly. Nothing Vlach here. At those times I m sure the Vlachs were adherents to the Bulgarian church (North and Central Balkans) and /Byzantine church (Southern Balkans). No Vlach institution on the Balkans existed at those times, let alone a church. No I m taliking about Bulgarian language. I dont care how you called it, its still Bulgarian language. And judging from the first "Romanian" document from 16th century I d say Romanian language at that time was 50 percent Vulgar latin + 50 percent Bulgarian. Slavic language in which you performed your messas was proven to be the language from which Bulgarian evolved since 19 century by German linguists. No one has proven them wrong till today nor anyone will. If you study your language closely you ll see that you have alot of Slavic words in your vocabluary. Most are proven to be of Bulgarian (Eastern southslavic) origin. Not of Serbian or Ukrainian origin and those slavs are also your immediate neigbours. One should wonder why... or not really - its enough to see what the church/administration language you used till (okey) 18th century and whose province Romania was for centuries. Its still quite late dont you think? I know that at those times big remormation in Romanian took place and enormous amount of slavic (bulgarian/eastern south slavic-to be more diplomatic) words were substituted with french/latin ones. Nicetas of Remesiana was never described as Latinophone/Vlach/Romanian in any source. There are 2 teories about his origin: Dacian and Greek. At the time he lived - 4th century, the Dacian language still existed (at least Bessian is attested in 6th century) thus if he was a Dacian he was not Latinophone... He deffinately have learned the language later in his life, but that doesnt make him Vlach or Romanian. Same goes for the Romanians and Nicetas. The Romanians are not entirely Dacian, you have many other peoples DNAs in you to claim that you are Dacians only. You dont even speak the same language! You have Slavic, Roman, Bulgar, Avar etc. blood... As a whole I stand behind my words: Nicetas was as much Romanian as Spartacus was Bulgarian. By the way Bessy were not your forefathers. They lived in Rodope mountains far away from Romanian. There are much more chances Bessy are Bulgarian/Greek even Turkish forefathers than Romanian. Nicetas was also Bishop of Remesiana, present-day Bela Palanka in the Pirot District of modern Serbia, which again is south of the Danube and has a little to do with the Romanians. Actually Serbs have more claim on him, or the Bulgarians seeing that we talk about Pirot here .
|
|
elemag
Senior Moderator
Posts: 369
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 5:53:43 GMT -5
Post by elemag on Feb 11, 2012 5:53:43 GMT -5
Don't bother, Ioan. Let them spill their deeply rooted complexes. They are like a country that fakes its CV in order to prove some existence as a nation at the times when their neighbours were making history. Fake birthdate, fake address, fake education, fake religion, fake language, fake history experience. Real envy, though. Quite remarkable Hitlerlike rhetorics as well.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 6:32:51 GMT -5
Post by falansteru on Feb 11, 2012 6:32:51 GMT -5
interesting, very interesting;why, although both Serbs and Bulgarians and Roumanians could argue that they are descendants of the Dacians, only roumanians claim that? political reasons? ignorance? paradigm reflex?
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 8:51:35 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 11, 2012 8:51:35 GMT -5
Don't bother, Ioan. Let them spill their deeply rooted complexes. They are like a country that fakes its CV in order to prove some existence as a nation at the times when their neighbours were making history. Fake birthdate, fake address, fake education, fake religion, fake language, fake history experience. Real envy, though. Quite remarkable Hitlerlike rhetorics as well. What country fakes its CV? Fake language, fake education? Dude, Bulgarians were never educated, your language is worthless and disgusting. Your history is insignificant. We and the Russians had to liberate your worthless pathetic ASS!!! WTF is a fake address? It's not like we send a letter mocking the Mongols, saying they can't catch us and giving them your address! It wouldn't have worked, since they would've embraced you as their lost brothers.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 8:59:48 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 11, 2012 8:59:48 GMT -5
"And judging from the first "Romanian" document from 16th century I d say Romanian language at that time was 50 percent Vulgar latin + 50 percent Bulgarian."
Dumbass freak, that was a short letter written by an idiot Wallachian who used slang as hell. If you want to judge the linguistic nature of 16th century Romanian, you'd have to look at the books that were written by the likes of Grigore Ureche shortly after. Then, and only then, can you gain an insight in our vocabulary. But who the F are you to judge these things? You're not a linguist, you're just a dumbass Bulgarian. Get the F out!
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 9:02:43 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 11, 2012 9:02:43 GMT -5
"Protoromanian as I ve seen some Romanians refer to it though southern Romance languages do differ from Romanian alot"
And have you studied these languages in order to give a just assessment of their differences? You have not. But as the moron Bulgarian that you are, you're just spewing BS.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 9:13:58 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 11, 2012 9:13:58 GMT -5
@ Ioan, There are numerous Christian graves and artifacts from that period found in Romania. One of the most well known artifact is the Biertan Donarium „Ego Zenovius Votum Posuit”.
In the 11th century it was only the Vlach name that emerged. Before that we were known as Romans. See Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos who mentioned the Latin speakers in the Balkans as Romans while he calls the Greeks Romei.
If we go back in time a little we will have a clearer picture. Just some quotes, found in a hurry:
Year 536 AD, Procopius. "The Gepids conquered and ruled the city of Sirmium and almost all the fortresses of Dacia as soon as emperror Justinian has taken then from the Goths, they enslaved the Romans living there and went forward, plundering the Roman Empire..."
Winter 545-546 AD, Procopius "A large number of Sclavinian barbarians crossed the Danube, pillaged the lands there and took as slaves a large number of Romans."
Theophylact Simocatta: "During that time (597 AD) the khagan (it's about the Avars), rallying his troops, went forward through Thracian Moesia and attacked the city. Seeing that, Priscus came soon to the aid of the city [...] In the sixth day after leaving Tomis (Constanţa of today), when he heard that Comentiolus will arrive with the troops at Nicopolis (ad Istrum), the khagan gathered his troops and marched against him. [...] Then the barbarians placed themselves around the defences of the mountain passes that the Romans use to call in their fatherly language: cleisurae (Romanian clisură, meaning the same thing in Romanian as in Latin)."
That is the moment when the well known episode of „Torna, torna frater” took place.
No, you emerged from Asia and infested our lands, and you still do. Our present faith it is Greek rite Christianity, or better called Eastern Roman Chrsitianity, it always was. in an indirect way, you took it from us, not vice-versa.
Yet the sources of your Gipsy caravan state abound? The Bulgarian dominance N of Danube is proven by what?
It's not Bulgarian language, it's an artificial language created by some Greeks with the purpose of Christianizing the Slavs in Czech Republic of today.
That document you're talking about it's not the first document in Romanian, lol, it isn't even the oldest one that survived, it's just the oldest datable because it talks about a certain event that it's known exactly when it took place. There are entire manuscripts, religious ones, which are considered to be much older by at least 100-200 years, yet there is no certain way to date them although from seeing the archaic words in those manuscripts, Neacşu letter seem like a modern one. And 175 of the 190 words of the message, excluding the formal Slavonic introduction and ending, are of Latin origin.
I think the Crisobul of Basil II is a good enough source, there are others too.
About the institutions, Basil II, it's just that for example in 980 he placed the Vlachs in teh lands he controled under the rule of one Niculiţă. For sure institutions existed.
Now, befriending the Romanians was a very smart thing by the Byzantines if we read what happened next.
"In the year 1014, Basil considered everything ready for a final effort to complete the subjection of the Slavonian population of the mountainous districts round the upper valley of the Strymon. On reaching the pass of Demirhissar, or the Kleisura (remember Cleisurae how the Romans named the mountain passes?), then called Kimbalongo (what? Câmpulung? another typical Romanian place name?) , or Kleidion, he found it strongly fortified. Samuel had placed himself at the head of the Bulgarian army prepared to oppose his progress. The emperor found the pass too strong to be forced; sitting down, therefore, before it, he sent Nicephoras Xiphias, the governor of Philippopolis, with a strong detachment, to make the circuit of a high mountain called Valathista (wasn't it Vlahitsa?), which lay to the south, that he might gain the rear of the Bulgarian position. This maneuver was completely successful. On the 2gth of July, Nicephoras attacked the enemy's rear, while Basil assailed their front, and the Bulgarians, in spite of all the exertions of Samuel, gave way on every side. It was only in consequence of the gallant resistance of his son Gabriel that the king of Achrida was saved from being taken prisoner, and enabled to gain Prilapos in safety. The emperor is said to have taken fifteen thousand prisoners, and, that he might revenge the sufferings of his subjects from the ravages of the Bulgarians and Slavonians, he gratified his own cruelty by an act of vengeance, which has most justly entailed infamy on his name."
How does the Byzantines got the Romanian version of the place names? Romanians were on the Greek side, of course. That trick with Niculiţă worked. At that time most of Bulgaria of today was still inhabited by Romanians who were very sick of the stinking Barbarian intruders and saw the opportunity to get rid of them.
As soon that the Romanians got the chance to leave the mongoloid boat, that rotten boat sunk in a pathetic way. Will see this again later with the rise and fall of the Asans.
That was a purely formal law, the Slavonic was out of use for more than 100 years, and before that it was used alongside with Romanian. By 1750 it's to be expected that there were still some clerics that used it during liturgy but for surely that must have been a very rare sight.
Of course he was a Latinophone, Ever heard of the Jirecek Line?
Here are the surviving works of Niceta:
Libelli instructionis, De diversis appellationibus, De vigillis servorum Dei, De psaldomiae bono, Te Deum laudamus.
We are not entirely Dacian, did I said that? Nicetas was Christianizing and Latinising at the same time those of the Dacians and Thracians that weren't already Romans, beside that in the N of Balkans at that time the latinophones were the majority and most of those were of local Thracian, Celtic and Illiric stock.
Kekaumenos wrote the Vlachs of Thesally (Aromanians of today) are the former Dacians and Bessi so I think he knew what he was talking about and Paulin de Nola knew what he was talking about as well. You on the other hand have no idea.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 9:19:18 GMT -5
Post by ioan on Feb 11, 2012 9:19:18 GMT -5
What country fakes its CV? Fake language, fake education? its just an expression to dramatize how you rewrote half of your history based on... wishful thinking. And yes I mean the dark period till 11th century. who created the first slavic schools? Was it Vlachs? Or sorry at the time no one mentioned them! your bolyars and priest beg to differ. Even your great hero Vlad was fluent in Bulgarian. Really? Thats why Bulgaria had such influence on Romania? ? But yes I understand the envy. Your history doesnt start till 13-14 century. true the Romanians participated in the war. And we are constantly reminded about it by you. Which cheapens your people's contribution. A lot. use your brain. wow really? and what again is the connection with the Mongols?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 9:21:50 GMT -5
Post by ioan on Feb 11, 2012 9:21:50 GMT -5
And have you studied these languages in order to give a just assessment of their differences? You have not. But as the moron Bulgarian that you are, you're just spewing BS. I dont have to study them dumbfuck, but I ve read what linguists are saying. I have never seen anyone who claims Aromanian as Romanian for example.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 9:31:12 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 11, 2012 9:31:12 GMT -5
You piece of shit, those Slav schools were useless junk. Your culture had no meaning. It was crap. Slavonic is not Bulgarian, bitch! Bulgarian derives from Slavonic, not the other way around. And you are not Slavs, are you a Turkic people!
We can thank the Slavs for whatever contribution they have made. We can thank you for the kebab. Now get the F out and make me a falafel!
|
|
elemag
Senior Moderator
Posts: 369
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 12:10:22 GMT -5
Post by elemag on Feb 11, 2012 12:10:22 GMT -5
The usual purpose of schools is to educate the population. No schools, no educated people. Make your conclusions at what level your shepherds were for quite a long time. Yeah, recognizing that your favourite sheep or goat is in a must is a kind of knowledge too, but not a very progressive one.
Actually it had quite a lot of meaning, influencing millions of people in Europe.
Falafel is Arabic. And btw, there are much more kebap shops in Romania than in Bulgaria.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 12:50:05 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 11, 2012 12:50:05 GMT -5
Are you insane? You're talking to us about education? We had Medieval and Renaissance scholars. WTF did you have? You're calling us shepherds? Dude, Lolz ... those shepherds founded the Romanian-bulgarian Empire. You had nothing. You still have nothing. Let's just wait for your country to go under, ok?
|
|
elemag
Senior Moderator
Posts: 369
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 13:40:41 GMT -5
Post by elemag on Feb 11, 2012 13:40:41 GMT -5
Yeah, you had such but what pains you that you had nothing during the centuries you like to talk so much about. In the times we had books, you could only speak to your sheep.
Well, that's what's been recorded for your kind.
There was no empire under this name and no shepherd would be accepted as a ruler. Rulers at that time had to be nobles. You didn't have such. King of goats was not and still isn't considered as a noble title.
We had two empires, the second one being subjected to Romanian attempts of historic theft due to the lack of any achievements. What achievements, even notes of your existence.
Are you typing with your fingers or with your fangs?
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 14:00:08 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 11, 2012 14:00:08 GMT -5
Justian I was of half proto-Aromanian. So there you have it. And we have talked a lot about the Romanian presence prior to the 11th centuries. It's not our fault that the Bulgarian mind cannot grasp these things. Even the Swedish vikings met us north of Danube and referred to us as Vlachs. Get real, dude.
Bulgaria is an illusion. It's all in your mind. When it comes down to it, you'll have to choose between being Romanian, Macedonian, Serb, Turk, or Gypsy.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 15:13:21 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 11, 2012 15:13:21 GMT -5
We had two empires, the second one being subjected to Romanian attempts of historic theft due to the lack of any achievements. What achievements, even notes of your existence. Talking about thieving? Let's bring the witnesses. First Choniates: Notice at the end: "Peter the Vlach, brother of Asan"Then Robert de Clari: And third, a contemporaneous French chronicle: I'll keep the heavy artillery, Geoffroi de Villehardouin whose chronicle is easily available, in reserve. I don't want to make your life more miserable.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 16:05:48 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 11, 2012 16:05:48 GMT -5
They know all that shyt. We've been telling those stuff for years. Nearly a decade, actually. If you're braindamaged, sources won't do you any good. A pest, is what they are.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
nicetas
Feb 11, 2012 17:05:58 GMT -5
Post by ioan on Feb 11, 2012 17:05:58 GMT -5
@ Ioan, There are numerous Christian graves and artifacts from that period found in Romania. One of the most well known artifact is the Biertan Donarium „Ego Zenovius Votum Posuit”. What does the Biertan Donarium proof about the people that lived north of the Danube? Nothing except that there might have been Romans living there or simply Avars or other savages who have captured Roman objects in their wars with them in the south? However resorting to artifacts found on once territory to fill up the vast gap is a tactic used by people .... with huge gaps in their history. again no sources about this claim. We know you were reffered to as Vlachs. The romans were the Byzantines which were citizens of the Roman empire, not the Romanians. So the quotes doesnt concern the Romanians. Can you gives any proof that the Byzantines refered to the Romanians as Romans and meant actually Romanians? Waiting. Still havent seen such a source.
|
|