Second Bulgarian State

Originally posted by Yugoslav Bulgaria was already a formed up and indepentent country.

I know that, it was just a joke. 

My opinion is that a theory about the wlachian origin based on that document, is more plausible than the daco-latin one. A common land of origin of the bulgars and wlachs would explain the centuries of peacefull coexisting and partnership.

Edited by czarnian - 10-Oct-2008 at 11:17

Please post it in Romanian, English or French translation.  I do not know other language...

Edited by Sahrian - 10-Oct-2008 at 11:58

Originally posted by czarnian You missunderstood me, I don't think that the romanian roots are to be found in modernday Serbia, Bulgaria or FYROM. According to that document their to be found near medieval Gread Bulgaria, not Dunabian Bulgaria. And you are absolutely right about the local nationalism :) and it really is a Balkan's disease. As for the russian text, it's almost the same as Rubruc's one.

Originally posted by Yugoslav M., since you're interested in Vlachs (a bit offtopic, but I'll just mention it), here's one interesting information.

Please read this under-average wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs_of_Serbia. Perhaps there are still some of them who even now think that they are Romanians and not a strange tribe of Serbs, in spite all the lies that were told to them.  

Originally posted by Menumorut Y., I don't understand what's the relevance of your quota from Saguna. Is sure that ethonyms have been used for naming people who actualy were not what that name designed, but in the ddocuments from 12-13th century I hardly believe by Blach are designed other people than the Latin-speaking one.

No, it's not 12th-13th century. It's 17th-20th century. The Croatian nobility and reigning intelligence officially denied any existence of Serbs on the soil of historical Croatia (Croatian lands under the Habsburgs, and those occupied by the Ottomans), until after ages of complaints the Croatian Parliament in 1867 by majority votes recognized that the "Vlach people or Serbian" is the equal and constitutive to the Croat people. Until then, the opinion was that they were anational 'vlachs', with many aims to convert them them, while the extremists considered other means...

Originally posted by Menumorut As for the map with the census, again I don't understand why you bring it. Surely is not about Slavic-speaking Vlachs but about Banat and Timoc Romanians.

I just thought you'd be interested to record that info...

Originally posted by Menumorut Originally posted by Yugoslav No, it's not 12th-13th century. It's 17th-20th century. The Croatian nobility and reigning intelligence officially denied any existence of Serbs on the soil of historical Croatia (Croatian lands under the Habsburgs, and those occupied by the Ottomans), until after ages of complaints the Croatian Parliament in 1867 by majority votes recognized that the "Vlach people or Serbian" is the equal and constitutive to the Croat people. Until then, the opinion was that they were anational 'vlachs', with many aims to convert them them, while the extremists considered other means... I refered to the Choniates and other medieval documents from 12-13th century. As for the Vlachs in Croatia, as I said on other topics, they are of Vlach descendance. I don't know if the Croatian were naming all the Serbs Vlachs, but the fact they were doing this with the Serbs in Croatia I'm prety sure is due to this fact.

I know. I drawed to what I was referring.

Here is a census of the 'vlach immigrants' to the coastal city of Klis from 1660:

1. Marko Gladojevic

2. Petar Grgurevic

3. Petar Curcevic

4. Simon Dadic

5. Jovan Dadic

6. Milorad Mihic

7. Milic Matasovic

8. Matija Dadic

9. Milos Perkovic

10. Djurasin Dadic

11. Djordje Kolic

12. Matija Korde

13. Filip

14. Nikola Opacic

15. Luka Beric

Inspection of the "vlachs'" actual names shows a different image. Naturally, there was a contigent of ethnic Vlachs (i.e. belonging to the same people as the ome in Wallachia), but they only appeared in one-two-several names in several of the censuses that were made.

Of course, another theory is that they were in every way already slavicized - i.e. they are of Vlach ethnic origin, nomadic, in the Serbian Medieval realm, but they speak the Serbo-Slavic language as their native speech and they did not understand the Vlachs' speech, they bring forth the Serbian Orthodox Church to which they're faithful, they do not bear Vlach names, but Slavic, and their surnames have already been slavicized before migrating, as well as they bring Serbian culture and traditions along with them, including primarily music & folklore, epic tales about Stephen Nemanya, Czar Dousan, Marko Kraljevic, Milos Obilic, Vukasin & Uros, etc...

Originally posted by Sahrian Yugoslav, this is not an argument. Many Romanians from Serbia have even today Serb names, at least almost all the representans of the Romanian community from Serbia whom I've seen watching our TV channels have Serb names. I can't understand why in your Balkan states (Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania) you can't face the truth and accept once for all that 'Vlachs' are the same people as Romanians and that only history separated them from us. Why don't you stop to tell them that they are just a people 'related' to Romanians or even that theay are in fact a strange tribe of Serbs, Bulgarians etc.? Here in Romania we have never tried to tell such bulls**t  to your co-ethnics. Just inquire and you'll see that I speak the truth. P.S.: For your info, some part of my ancestors were Aromanians who came in Romania from Epirus at the beginning of the 20th century.

Tell me, when a man has no knowledge of Romanian, but speaks Bulgarian, when he cherishes Bulgarian national heroes that fought against the Turks and holds no memory of any Vlach hero, when he does not bring Vlach traditions, and clothing, but Bulgarian, and when he / she is subject to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church...what makes them Vlach really? I already noted to you before that, of course, there's a possibility that these Serb refugees have some Vlach ethnic origins, according to one of the two theories, from the lands they came from, some centuries behind, so?

That's because of assimilation, and exactly what I noted. However, I should incline that there hasn't quite been assimilation of the Vlach population until almost the 19th century, as massive pockets managed to greatly survive, and after that a quick process of assimilation had occurred.

I do not deny that they are of the same descent as the people of the nation of Romania, all of them Vlachs, including the completely assimilated and disappeared by now MauroVlachs, but a compltely another thing and fact is that in the Medieval Serbian realm, "vlach" (in many occasions with a small "v") was the naming of nomads, and everyone who knows at least a little knows that in western Yugoslavia, Vlach is Orthodox (despite there were Catholic Vlachs).

But such a blatant thing as "all Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia are originally Vlachs" is blatant ignorance, and actually standard fascist ideology (Ustasha & similar), who consider in general Vlachs (not even connecting them in any way, to Romania, in the unimagineable quantity of their ignorance), filthy, anational, primitive people, who'd best be wiped off the face of the earth for its own good.


Edited by Yugoslav - 14-Oct-2008 at 16:09

Originally posted by Sahrian Originally posted by Yugoslav Tell me, when a man has no knowledge of Romanian, but speaks Bulgarian, when he cherishes Bulgarian national heroes that fought against the Turks and holds no memory of any Vlach hero, when he does not bring Vlach traditions, and clothing, but Bulgarian, and when he / she is subject to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church...what makes them Vlach really? I already noted to you before that, of course, there's a possibility that these Serb refugees have some Vlach ethnic origins, according to one of the two theories, from the lands they came from, some centuries behind, so? I've never sustained that "all Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia are originally Vlachs", perhaps you've made a confusion, and I also didn't consider that all people called 'Vlachs' were indeed 'Vlachs', even if some ancestors of them could have been. I did refer to those 'Vlachs' who still speak 'Vlach' (i.e. Romanian) language and who have no choice but to learn at school what Bulgarians, Serbs etc. have to tell them about their 'Vlach' history, and who have no knowledge about Romania excepting that She is a foreign country. Actually I posted in this thread only to argue for the fact that those 'Vlachs' from Choniates were the same 'tribe' with our (Romanian) ancestors, but still no serious answer until now :(.

I have expressed some page back some non-Romanian/Bulgarian opinions on the matter.