ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 8:55:46 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 17, 2012 8:55:46 GMT -5
Most people here are bad with geography, so I'd say the majority don't even know where Romania is. But a lot of the ones that have heard of you tend to make the same association. However, unlike the way a European would see it, people here don't really seem to care whether "Romanian = Gypsy" or "Romanian = European".
I wasn't really talking about "image". Just saying that a lot of people seem to associate you with Gypsies..
I have never referred to myself as a "European", I think this shows weak character. The truth is even if you see yourself as a "European", the people who your countrymen hold in such high regards will never see you as an actual "European".
I've noticed that some Romanian women here consistently attempt to link themselves with the West, and Italy or France in particular.. changing their last names and what not. One example, "Veresiu" becomes "Valentina". How gay is that?
As for me, I'm a Bulgar.. plain and simple. If that makes me European, then so be. If that makes me Asiatic, ok. If it makes me a Slav, fine. When need be, I've always identified as Bulgarian here; and I usually go out of my way to make it clear that Bulgarians are Bulgarians, we don't need any of the BS labels that you keep talking about.
That is a faulty use of terminology. It is only a handful of recent historians that have referred to it under this term in an attempt to differentiate it from the preceding Bulgarian Empire; basing this term on the fact that there are some uncertainties on the ethnic origin of Asen.
It is not uncommon for modern historians to label past historic entities with artificial terms in order to make it easier to distinctly identify time periods. One classic example is the term "Byzantine Empire". Even though this term has become mainstream (unlike the term "Bulgarian-Vlach Empire"), it is nothing more but an artificial label.. the empire was never known under that name. The more accurate term for Byzantium is "The East Roman Empire". So, much like we have 'The West Roman Empire' and 'The East Roman Empire'; we also have 'The First Bulgarian Empire' and 'The Second Bulgarian Empire'.
This is false. Historians are divided on their conclusions; some say Vlach, some say Cuman, some say Bulgarian, and others say they're mixed.
Don't worry about Bulgarian sources. I've repeated this a thousand times on this forum. The sources that are usually presented from Bulgarians here are non-Bulgarian. I've provided you with non-Bulgarian sources on multiple occasions in the past that show that historians are divided on their conclusions pertaining to this matter.
Again, this is false. I've shown you non-Bulgarian sources that say otherwise, which clearly you've chosen to forget. But again, this is not the point, no point in beating around the bush.. the ethnic origin of Asen is irrelevant. It is a known fact that the whole dynasty has self identified as Bulgarian, they've all claimed a Bulgarian identity.
Ok.
LOL. Ok, Gyppo.. you're closer to the "Europeans". I guess what I was talking about above is not isolated to Romanian women.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 9:31:44 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 17, 2012 9:31:44 GMT -5
To say that people associate us with Gypsies can mean different things. I've been traveling in Europe and met many people and although they were aware of our minority presence there, they understand the difference. No, being European is not weak. It's what you are. You either are European or you're not. I don't know about the people who change their last name, so I can't speak for their practice.
The Bulgarian-Vlach empire is a translation from the 13th century name of the Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars, so it's not something created recently to distinguish it from the First Bulgarian Empire. Yes, contemporary sources from Asens time name him as Vlach; and he fought for the Vlach and the Bulgar Empire.
Now that you are Asiatic and all, I think you should show some respect to your neighbors who let you stay in Europe and who liberated from your other Asiatic masters.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 10:59:38 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 17, 2012 10:59:38 GMT -5
Of course not, but clinging to "European" as your identity is. Those who are asked about their background and reply "European" are weak. And so are those who change their names in an attempt to present themselves as something other than what they actually are.
The term "Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars" is not the same as "The Bulgarian-Vlach Empire". The latter is an inaccurate representation of reality, while the former is merely a statement pertaining to the major ethnic groups within the empire.
The Second Bulgarian Empire is a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire, or rather of the Western Bulgarian Empire. The dynasties of the Second Bulgarian Empire claimed direct descent from the dynasties of the First Bulgarian Empire. They claimed the Bulgarian identity, and as such their ethnic origin is irrelevant.
The integral armies of the Second Bulgarian Empire have always been identified as Bulgarian. Vlach elements, on the other hand, have always been recorded as "contingent participants", "irregular forces", "support forces", etc. as were the Cumans.
Let us stay!? My forefathers are among the few people in Europe who actually earned their place on the continent.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 11:33:58 GMT -5
Post by darkernative on Feb 17, 2012 11:33:58 GMT -5
Ivo, on a completely unrelated matter: were you in london around a month ago? I had interesting conversation with a bulgarian guy visiting london who had told me more or less the same thing about the same thing.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 12:39:10 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 17, 2012 12:39:10 GMT -5
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 13:19:13 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 17, 2012 13:19:13 GMT -5
It wasn't me, but good to know that there are more like minded people. Gyppo, again, your lack of knowledge is evident. I'll post a list of Bulgarian Historic Achievements here, similar to the Romanian one.. but probably 10 times longer and 1000 times more impressive.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 13:21:21 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 17, 2012 13:21:21 GMT -5
Sit tight.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 13:36:48 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 17, 2012 13:36:48 GMT -5
Go ahead, Bulgo! I bet you have a lot of achievements. That's why you transformed a beautiful civilized European land into an Asiatic sh*t hole.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 13:39:55 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 17, 2012 13:39:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 14:25:21 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 17, 2012 14:25:21 GMT -5
I'm waiting your list, Ivo; and I'll sit tight. I'm mostly interested in the Bulgarian achievement in the field of art, philosophy and science.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 14:33:28 GMT -5
Post by ioan on Feb 17, 2012 14:33:28 GMT -5
well fuckittas you are able to spew your garbage because of a Bulgarian.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 14:41:55 GMT -5
Post by ioan on Feb 17, 2012 14:41:55 GMT -5
How did your forefathers earned their place? by making a state in a windy place that changed european history with it achievements. yet your forefathers accepted my forefathers culture, used their language and held them in high regard... even if we accept that Asens were vlahs, they didnt believe in any of the bulshit you try to preach to us like: that they felt "roman", that they saw romania (byzantine empire) as their state: no, the people you claim today restored the nomadic camp, claimed the nomadic kings as their ansestors: as a whole obviouslly they held in high regards the Bulgarians, not the "Romans"... you have nothing to do with that great culture - dont kid yourself. go to your churches and reread the books written in the despised by you and adored by your forefathers bulgarian.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 15:00:32 GMT -5
Post by ioan on Feb 17, 2012 15:00:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 16:09:05 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 17, 2012 16:09:05 GMT -5
It was a windy place just because bandits like the Slavs and Turks (your ancestors).
As for changing European history... Probably they did changed it but in very bad way.
You had no culture, that which you claim as yours is E Roman (Byzantine) culture. Our ancestors held that culture in high regard because it was theirs originally. And I don't care what Asans believed in. Of course they didn't saw the Greek Romania as their state, after 600 years having to survive amongst savages, Romanians become very different from the Greek speaking Romans. Beside, some conflicts between Latins and Greeks were already in place before 600AD. The E Romans were in Asans time the enemies while Rome was far away and through the conquest of Constantinople and parts of Balkans, it became an enemy as well. So they turned toward the unwashed Sclavonic priests to establish the state apparatus. It was the worse idea they could have. Through the Sclavonic priests, the Gipsy camp was back in place and was destined to fall quickly like a Gipsy camp that it was.
Those ruined walled cities with Christian churches inside, that we see all along the Lower Danube, all ended their existence around 600 AD when the Asiatic beasts invaded. There lived our ancestors.
A few of those cities continued to exist even after 600, one of then is Durostorm a name inherited in Romanian as Dârstor. That proves that Romanians lived there for the entire period between 600 and around 1400 when the name Dârstor appeared in Romanian documents.
There took place an episode mentioned by Leon Diakonos. When Sviatoslav of Kiev was trapped by the Byzantines inside Durostorum, the local nobles gathered at a council that they called in their language „komentos”. Now this is the Latin word „conventus” which was preserved in Romanian as „cuvânt”.
We didn't dropped from the skies, it's your pathetic Asiatic ancestors that dropped from who knows where.
And look at yourself, you are claiming all sort of obscure primitive figures of Turks as your ancestors. What have the Slav speakers of today to do with the Turkic nomads called Bulgars that opened camp around here?
We preserve the language, ethnic name, religion and several cultural aspects from our Roman ancestors from Justinian time, but what do you have to do with Asparuh? You don't have their language, culture, anything. You didn't even contributed to their camp. Even more, I've taken a look on the list of those Bulgar khans and some names made me wonder: Sabin and Pagan. Those are Latin names, both are very obscure rulers, it seems to me like an brief overthrow of the Turkic khans whit the power taken for a short time by the Latin natives. Both Pagan and Sabin were accused by the savages of wanting to establish relation with the Byzantines. Wander why...
And your history starts in 1900 or something when you got rid of Ottomans, not by yourself of course.
I don't claim them Bulgo, it is you that claim them. All the contemporaneous sources either Greek, French or German, hardly or marginally mention Bulgarians involved in Asan brothers fights. It's always about Vlachs and sometimes about Vlachs and their Cuman allies.
It's Pope that was writing to Caloian not vice-versa. And when the hell your primitive race was descending from Rome?
Here you go:
A detailed account by an eye witness, you could start with:
Alexius, to do his will and commandment, and did him fealty and homage as to their lord-all except John, who was King of Wallachia and Bulgaria. This John was a Wallachian, who had rebelled against. his father and uncle, and had warred against them for twenty years, and had won from them so much land that he had become a very wealthy king.
The Vlachs didn't thought themselves Roman, they were Roman, they always called themselves Romans and the Vlach etnonym with it's variants means just that. Romania of Caloian time had become something different as well, it turned into a Greek state, Justinian era, when the Empire was Latin, was long gone, more than 600 years had passed.
The author claimed he found those things in some old manuscripts and beside that there are other informations that support that.
About vacuum, your whole history is a vacuum. Thats why you claim the deeds of Turks and Romanians as your own, it's your bad luck that the descendants of the Ottoman Turks still exists, you would have claimed Ottomans too just to fill another gap.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 16:44:55 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 17, 2012 16:44:55 GMT -5
What achievements, dude? What achievements?
As for the Byzantine impact on our culture, it is undeniable. The ethic codes and our laws were Byzantine, the terminology and the religious words were Latin (god, church, angel, etc.) None of these were Bulgarian.
Apart from a single Vlach tribe, all Vlachs refer to themselves as rumân (român) or aromân. Even the Vlachs in Istria. And yes, all these Vlachs trade their identity to the Roman identity. This is no secret and carefully described in various ancient sources. He favored Catholicism because it was in his political interest to do so; just like Skanderbeg did centuries later. We also had rulers who, at times, favored Catholicism over Orthodoxy.
Greek had replaced Latin centuries before the time of Asen.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 17:07:02 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 17, 2012 17:07:02 GMT -5
Wallachia was a Bulgarian province for quite a while. Acquaint yourself with history as a whole, and you will notice that territories, provinces, and notable lands of significance have often be attached to personal titles of rulers to make them appear "grand".
Wallachian =/= Vlach.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 17:18:25 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 17, 2012 17:18:25 GMT -5
Wallachia was never a Bulgarian province.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 17:23:51 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 17, 2012 17:23:51 GMT -5
^ That's called denial.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 17:25:45 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 17, 2012 17:25:45 GMT -5
Actually you are right, Wallachia was not a Bulgarian province. The lands where Wallachia was founded upon in the 14th c. were a Bulgarian province.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 17, 2012 17:30:09 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 17, 2012 17:30:09 GMT -5
Lol, what fanaticism can do to men... First of all this is the English translation. The French called Romanians „blac”, in the same text Bulgarians apear as „bougre” or something like that. Bougre later will came to mean homosexual. So if Wallachian ≠ Vlach ≠ Blac then Bougre ≠ Bulgarian.
|
|