Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2012 2:32:33 GMT -5
Искал бих да съобщите следващата информация на Д-р ист. н. Йордан Колев който е написал статия "Българското национално малцинство в Добруджа" при сайта Ви. www.point-of-view.org/?p=369Цитирам: "Много по-късно румънските автори се позовават на „Statistica din Romania. Bucuresti, 1879, p. 3″, според която трите основни етнически групи в Добруджа са: румънци, наброяващи 31 177, турци и татари 32 033 и българи - 28 715 души, при население общо от 106 943 души." Българският автор на тази онлайн статия има фалшификованите/официални румънски данни. В книга "O escursiune botanică în România şi Dobrogea" (автор A. P. Alexi) на страница 14 има статистика с истинските данни. Цитирам: българи 31 772 румънци 21 718 турци 16 483 липовани 10 958 татари 6549 руси 6162 гърци 3195 немци 2471 евреи 1951 арменци 803 други 308 общо 106 943 This piece of information is extremely important because it is the first Romanian proof/acknowledgement that Bulgarians were a majority in Northern Dobruja when Romania conquered it in 1878. Up until now the only proofs regarding this were Bulgarian (documents of Bulgarian Exarchate if I'm not mistaken) which could be dismissed on grounds they are biased.
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Nov 15, 2012 21:37:33 GMT -5
Oh, no, where are they now? The dingos must have eaten them.
|
|
|
Post by amateurs on Nov 16, 2012 4:40:17 GMT -5
And before you Mongols came to Europe, what people formed a majority on the lands you stole?
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 16, 2012 8:00:54 GMT -5
And before you Mongols came to Europe, what people formed a majority on the lands you stole? a more accurate question would be, what language did those proud "Dacians" spoke before the west decided to latinize them? long answer : Serb and Bulgarian short answer : Slavic Why is Romania STUFFED with SLAVIC toponyms, whereas latin toponyms in Serbia/Bulgaria are counted with one hand? The stories about the "arrival of the slavs" reoccur everywhere in the intrenet, but the plain reality is that non-slavs, basically came to live on ex-SLAVIC lands... same patterns in : GERMANY GREEECE ALBANIA TURKEY AUSTRIA HUNGARY So you think Romania is any different ?
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 26, 2012 9:43:55 GMT -5
a more accurate question would be, what language did those proud "Dacians" spoke before the west decided to latinize them? long answer : Serb and Bulgarian short answer : Slavic Why is Romania STUFFED with SLAVIC toponyms, whereas latin toponyms in Serbia/Bulgaria are counted with one hand? The stories about the "arrival of the slavs" reoccur everywhere in the intrenet, but the plain reality is that non-slavs, basically came to live on ex-SLAVIC lands... same patterns in : GERMANY GREEECE ALBANIA TURKEY AUSTRIA HUNGARY So you think Romania is any different ? So the Thracians were Slavs LOL And the Slavs didn't came in the Balkans in the 6th century? funny idiot Pyrros again ;D did i hear some rat running around? PS read some Milojevic/Deretic you piece of sh it.
|
|
|
Post by amateurs on Nov 26, 2012 16:10:12 GMT -5
"a more accurate question would be, what language did those proud "Dacians" spoke before the west decided to latinize them?"
There was no such thing as the west back then. There was the Roman Empire and the Greek World. The West is a political and cultural term that came about centuries later. The Romans had much more in common with the Dacians than with the Germanic people in the north. But you knew that, didn't you, Pyrros? But you couldn't help but posting some more BS.
And Dacian was not Slavic.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 27, 2012 3:50:44 GMT -5
^
The Slavs - Natives and Conquerors
Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians never existed as nations and there never existed such languages as Thracian, Dacian and Illyrian. For God's sake, how the Slavs could have assimilated the huge masses of the native Balkan population without war; and how it could have happened that the Romans hadn't noticed any single war between the Balkan "aborigines" and the Slavic "newcomers"?
Romans mentioned the Illyrian kings Bardyllis, Grabos, Pleuratus, Cleitus the Illyrian, Glaukias, Bardyllis II, Monunius, Mytilus, Pleuratus II, Agron, Pinnes, Skerdilaidas, Pleuratus III, Gentius, Ballaios, Queen Teuta, Bato/Baton ((from 4th BC - 1st century AD); Dacian, from Charnabon to Burebista and Decebalus (5th BC - 2th AD); and the Roman mentioned many of the wars they (Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians) fought against Romans and among themselves.
In the middle of the 5th century AD the Slavs "crossed" the Danube river and the all "ancient" Illyro/Dacio/Thracian people immediately disappeared without the trace. The Serbs and Croats "invaded" the Balkan Peninsula 150 years later (the beginning of the 7th century!) and no one spotted (noted) any conflict between the "autochthonous" people and their "conquerors".
All this sounds to me ludicrous, even sillier than the description of the Slavic warriors in Maurice's Strategikon, where they were described as "underwater ambushers" who were "breathing through long cane stalks". Nobody seems to be bothering to check the mentioned "underwater strategy" to see is such a "military assignment" feasible at all. Of course, it is not feasible! You cannot lie under water and breath through the cane stalk as well as it is impossible to conqer and assimilate the "aborigines" without the war.
In this specific Balkan case, the "natives" and the "conquerors" were the same people - the Slavs!
|
|
|
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Nov 27, 2012 7:22:43 GMT -5
That's pseudo-history.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 28, 2012 3:06:35 GMT -5
^ show me something which proves otherwise. Was their a war and how could Slavs simply JUST assimilate so many ethnicities in such a relatively short time? There are too many indications of Slavs being natives and the conquerors, but if there is something from a Roman source explaining the opposite please share it.
|
|
|
Post by amateurs on Nov 28, 2012 8:40:07 GMT -5
^ show me something which proves otherwise. Was their a war and how could Slavs simply JUST assimilate so many ethnicities in such a relatively short time? There are too many indications of Slavs being natives and the conquerors, but if there is something from a Roman source explaining the opposite please share it. Dude, wtf u talking about? The Dacian Empire was a powerful state, how can you say it didn't exist? And of course there was a Dacian and a Thracian language, omg, wtf u on? lola
|
|
|
Post by amateurs on Nov 28, 2012 8:42:25 GMT -5
The Bessi continued to exist far longer. Novi, dude, you shouldn't post this kind of stuff. It makes you look bad. Seriously, not trying to pick a fight, but that's just crazy talk, dude!
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 29, 2012 0:48:28 GMT -5
^ O.k amateurs, if l were to talk about my ancestrial area of Bosnia, Vardar, Montenegro and Serbia, there isn't anything to suggest that the Serboi or the undifferential Slavs before them fought with the native Illyrians, i.e, the Illyrians WERE EXTERMINATED during the very early centuries AD by Romans!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2012 7:59:09 GMT -5
^ O.k amateurs, if l were to talk about my ancestrial area of Bosnia, Vardar, Montenegro and Serbia, there isn't anything to suggest that the Serboi or the undifferential Slavs before them fought with the native Illyrians, i.e, the Illyrians WERE EXTERMINATED during the very early centuries AD by Romans!O IDIOT!!! The Romans never exterminated anyone. They were empire-builders not wholesale-butchers (a favorite serb pastime). The Romans did not exterminate the Britons and the Picts in England, even after Queen Boudicca's bloody and brutal uprising. They did not exterminate the Gauls, the Celts and the Iberians of France and Spain. They did not exterminate the Greco-Macedonians. They did not exterminate the berbers of Egypt and North Africa and not even the deeply hated Carthaginians were wiped out, despite having fought multiple wars of survival. But, for your convenience and favor, only the Illyrians were EXTERMINATED !!1!! Only in that ill-connected epileptic double-think brain of yours does the following thought process grab hold: according to you, the Slavs who are historically documented to migrate to Balkan are the true natives whereas the Albanians who are never observed to migrate into Balkan are the invader species.
|
|
|
Post by amateurs on Nov 29, 2012 8:13:09 GMT -5
^ O.k amateurs, if l were to talk about my ancestrial area of Bosnia, Vardar, Montenegro and Serbia, there isn't anything to suggest that the Serboi or the undifferential Slavs before them fought with the native Illyrians, i.e, the Illyrians WERE EXTERMINATED during the very early centuries AD by Romans! The Illyrians were assimilated, not exterminated.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 2, 2012 6:01:18 GMT -5
^ O.k amateurs, if l were to talk about my ancestrial area of Bosnia, Vardar, Montenegro and Serbia, there isn't anything to suggest that the Serboi or the undifferential Slavs before them fought with the native Illyrians, i.e, the Illyrians WERE EXTERMINATED during the very early centuries AD by Romans!O IDIOT!!! The Romans never exterminated anyone. They were empire-builders not wholesale-butchers (a favorite serb pastime). The Romans did not exterminate the Britons and the Picts in England, even after Queen Boudicca's bloody and brutal uprising. They did not exterminate the Gauls, the Celts and the Iberians of France and Spain. They did not exterminate the Greco-Macedonians. They did not exterminate the berbers of Egypt and North Africa and not even the deeply hated Carthaginians were wiped out, despite having fought multiple wars of survival. But, for your convenience and favor, only the Illyrians were EXTERMINATED !!1!! Only in that ill-connected epileptic double-think brain of yours does the following thought process grab hold: according to you, the Slavs who are historically documented to migrate to Balkan are the true natives whereas the Albanians who are never observed to migrate into Balkan are the invader species. I only am concentrating on Illyrians Thelema, lets not bring in others into this discussion because it will easily DISTORT the real picture. John Wilkes: Roman treatment of Illyrians south of the Drin had reached a brutal climax following the victory over Macedonia in 168 BC. In attacks by the Roman army on Macedonian allies in northern Epirus and Illyris, 70 communities were destroyed, 150 000 of the population enslaved and the countryside devastated.
A century & a half later, Strabo records:
"...at the present time desolation prevails in most parts, while in the areas still inhabited they survive only in the villages and among the ruins".
John Wilkes The Illyrians Chapter: Prehistoric Illyrians Page: 208 Blackwell Publishers 1992PS Every Empire is brutal (American, Russian, Roman, British, Spanish, Portuguese etc....). I don't want to hear excuses, PLEASE!
|
|
|
Post by amateurs on Dec 2, 2012 6:24:48 GMT -5
Novi, the Romans committed what would be deemed today as genocide, or democide, on many people and tribes, including the Gauls (Celts) in present-day England, France and Spain; Dacians, Illyrians, Germanics, and various populations of Asia Minor.
That doesn't mean that they exterminated any of these people. They might have exterminated them as a political faction or even culturally, in the sense that they killed their elite, but they didn't kill them as a nation.
The citations that you posted here doesn't say the Illyrians were exterminated. On the contrary, it says they survived "only in the villages and among the ruins."
But let's get real here. This isn't about history, it's about politics.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 2, 2012 17:40:38 GMT -5
^ Amateurs, your not wrong, but what l did mean with extermination was one, yes, genocide on illyrians, and two, the assimilation of them (whoever did survive), it ended the Illyrians, they became history.
What l really want to know is how did the Slavs manage to quickly absorb people in a relatively short period. How did they fly under the raidar from Roman leaders/governors, where were the WARS between the natives, i.e Illyrians, Thracians etc....Wheres the reistance? I'm sure people just don't want to give up and choose to be a Slav without resistance!
Let me give you a hint on my Serbian Slavs:
Byzantinum was depopulated (wars and other pestinence). Byzantines (East Romans) invited Serboi to settle depopulated regions (Albania, Northern Greece, Fyrom) of their Empire to HELP protect them, it occurred similarly with the Romans of modern Northern Italy (Germanics invited into territory).
I also believe the other reason why Byzantines brought Slavs (Serboi) into their Empire was to quell the Greek element inside their territories, they were threatened by the Greek element and it was political!
PS Why do you think writers always speak of Southern Italy once having more GREEKS than Greece itself?
|
|
|
Post by amateurs on Dec 3, 2012 9:48:56 GMT -5
The reason why the Byzantines brought in the Serbs (or Serboi) is more or less the same reason they brought in the Bulgars. I don't know how quickly the Slavs were able to assimilate the local population in the region, but I do know that in Bulgaria, for instance, it took longer; and the Vlachs, who were mentioned there some time in the 10th century, were not yet assimilated. I suspect that this really is about Albanians, and whether the Illyrians could've survived long enough to give birth to the Albanian nation. I believe they could have, and nearly all studies point in that direction.
As for Slavs, no, they are not indigenous to the region. And to answer your question, how they could've taken the land with little, or no resistance; it's simple to answer. Without a military presence, the people were demilitarized. They could not defend themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 3, 2012 17:35:46 GMT -5
The reason why the Byzantines brought in the Serbs (or Serboi) is more or less the same reason they brought in the Bulgars. I don't know how quickly the Slavs were able to assimilate the local population in the region, but I do know that in Bulgaria, for instance, it took longer; and the Vlachs, who were mentioned there some time in the 10th century, were not yet assimilated. I suspect that this really is about Albanians, and whether the Illyrians could've survived long enough to give birth to the Albanian nation. I believe they could have, and nearly all studies point in that direction. As for Slavs, no, they are not indigenous to the region. And to answer your question, how they could've taken the land with little, or no resistance; it's simple to answer. Without a military presence, the people were demilitarized. They could not defend themselves. I also know with the Bulgars, their leading Tartar element and their subjugated Slavic subjects were segregated from each other up until the 10th century (per Murko's statement). What is really interesting there were only approximately 50,000 Bulgars when they arrived and formed their first Abode (681AD Nth Bulgaria). The reason l suspect it took longer (assimilation of Vlachs) was primarily due to numbers and a stronger resistance. In the case of Albanians, if we assume, they were the decendants of Illyrians, then, how did they manage to one, avoid Romanisation post devastation, and secondly avoid complete slavicisation, with such a minimal size (1,000 souls against 1,000,000 souls)? PS We could say that everybody is not originally indigenous to their current area, i.e, homeland of I.E speakers is Southern Russia!
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 3, 2012 17:39:02 GMT -5
^ One other point, why arn't the Aromanians of Albania completely Albanianised?
|
|