the Serb role in the manufacture of the 'Macedonia
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18298
Printed Date: 09-Jun-2024 at 16:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: the Serb role in the manufacture of the 'Macedonia
Posted By: Guests
Subject: the Serb role in the manufacture of the 'Macedonia
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 12:02
|
The following is an extract which is actually very consistent with educated anti-nationalistic Serbian opinion on the matter. The material clearly explains the slavic speaking population of the region was primarily Bulgarian and efforts to create the concept of "Macedonianism" were established. Novakovic's theory in particular and his quoted passage in 1888 is a brilliant piece of history which underlines the true foundation of the "macedonian" ideology. In 1822 the Serbian folklorist and linguistic, Vuk Stefanovich Karadjich (1787-1864), published the first work containing grammatical facts about the Bulgarian language. His primary aim was to point out that the Bulgarian language existed, even though it was absent in the dictionaries published in Russia during the late 18th century and which were deemed to contain all languages known at that time. Interestingly Karadjich's analysis of the Bulgarian language was based on the Macedonian dialects. Prior to formation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870, there was a small, but influential group of Serbians, mainly politicians and some academics, who supported the concept of a "Greater Serbia". However, this was not the popular view and most Serbians saw Bulgarians as their Slav brothers and foresaw a close future relationship. For example in 1867 the Bulgarian emigrants in Bucharest had negotiated an agreement with the Serbians which included the following paramount clause "The Yugoslavian kingdom will be composed of Serbians and Bulgarians, the latter comprising the territories of Bulgaria, Thrace and Macedonia" Ilija Garashanin (1812-1874) was a distinguished Serbian statesman and the main architect of Serbian state policy between 1843-1868. In 1844 he published a blueprint, known as "Nachertanije" (Outline), describing future Serbian territorial ambitions. A plan modelled directly on Dushan's medieval empire - that is including both Macedonia and Old Serbia. But, at the same time Garashanin also encouraged a diplomatic policy of strong support for Bulgarian revolutionary activity against the Turks. In fact it was 1848 Garashanin who arranged for the Bosnian Croat, Stefan Verkovich (1821-1893), on the pretext of completing Karadjich's linguistic research, to tour Macedonia and covertly collect ethnographic data ultimately be used as support for long- term Serbian hegemony. However in 1860, when the Serbian Academic Society published Verkovich's first volume of "Folk Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarian" awarding him the Serbian "Uceno Druzestvo" (Scholar's Society), in his preface Verkovich said: I call these songs Bulgarian and not Slavic, because if someone today should ask the Macedonian Slav "what are you?" he would be immediately be told: "I am Bulgarian" and would call his language 'Bulgarian'. Another champion of "Greater Serbia" was Professor Jovan Dragashevich who identified all Macedonians as latent Serbs. For example during the time of the First Bulgarian Legion in Belgrade (1862-4), acrimonious debate erupted between the Bulgarians and their Serbian hosts, over Dragashevich's "teachings" that Salonika was an integral part of "Old Serbia"It was also then that Georgi Rakvosky became conscious of increasing Serbian fanaticism and a desire by its politicians to annex Bulgaria both politically and culturally. These issues, together with settlement of the 1862 dispute between Serbia and Turkey, contributed to the expulsion of the Bulgarian Legion from Serbia. Inspite of the close relationship between Serbians and Bulgarians, finance from the Serbian government for the "education" of the Macedonian Slavs was initiated in 1866. This led to the "Institute for Serbian Schools in Old Serbia and Macedonia" (1868), formed to coordinate both the building of schools and educational policy. The Serbian Church had lent support to the Bulgarians in their struggle to establish the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870; Serbs in general rejoiced at the success of their southern Slav brothers. However when the limits of the Bulgarian Exarchate became defined in 1872, more Serbs began to reflect the long-term political implications. Moreover the Serbian Church had always considered itself heir to the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid, because of its past subordination to the Pech Patriarchate. Consequently the Serbian Church had requested in 1869 that Turkey only allow Serbian clergy to operate within Macedonia. Milosh S Milojevich (1840-1897) was the first Serbian to publicly challenge the prevailing consensus concerning the Exarchate's boundaries and the ethnic composition of the Macedonian territories. In 1873 he presented a paper to the Serbian Scholar's Society which characterised the Slavic population of Macedonia as Serbian - a basic repetition of Garashanin's beliefs. Milojevich's thesis was severely criticised by two other Society members, Stoyan Novakovich (1842-1915) and Milan Kujundjich. The latter described Milojevich as "..a cheap, mischievous chauvinist, ignominiously condemned by his fellow countrymen for having committed an unfriendly act against a good neighbour." Thus Milojevich's effort to publish a collection of 740 folk songs, gathered in Old Serbia and Macedonia, as examples of the Serbian language and culture, was rejected by the Serbian Scholars' Society as being flawed. Nevertheless, Milojevich still found strong support and instituted a society (called by Hristo Botev the 'gang of blackguards') which sent money, books and teachers to Macedonia and parts of north- west Bulgaria. Editorials also appeared in Belgrade newspapers like "Istok", stating that the Exarchate was a chauvinistic institution intent on 'bulgarizing' the Serbs of Macedonian. In answer to such accusations many eminent Bulgarians, including Hristo Botev (1875) and Liuben Karavelov (1874), wrote scathing replies denouncing both the actions of Milojevich and his supporters as well as the Serbian government's surreptitious complicity. The Russo-Turkish war of 1878 had a number of dire consequences for Serbian nationalistic goals. Because of its support for Russia, Turkey closed all Serbian schools within Macedonia. The Treaty of San Stefano in 1878 demonstrated to Serbian politicians that there existed a strong and general acceptance that Macedonia was populated by Bulgarians. Later in 1881 Serbian hopes to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina had to be abandoned, which meant redirecting its quest for an outlet to the Aegean - via Macedonia. These setbacks led Serbia to instigate the Serbo-Bulgarian war of 1885, which ended in its convincing defeat. Thus to accomplish, what it had failed to do militarily, Serbia now pursued two separate tactics to enhance its future claims to Macedonia. The first was based on proving directly that Macedonia was actually populated by Serbs not Bulgarians; the second involved fostering nascent Macedonian separatism (Macedonism) as a counter to Bulgarian influence. In the late 1880s several Serbian academics, particularly Dragashevich, Milojko Veselinovich and Stojan Protich rationalised the seeming contradiction of the Macedonian population's non- Serbian identity as follows. First, the term "bulgar" within Macedonia was in fact a generic term meaning a "common person", and as such had no ethnographic meaning. The term "bulgar" had thus been misinterpreted by both the Greeks and European travellers to signify national affiliation, thus leading to the erroneous conclusion that the people had a Bulgarian self- identity. Second, after formation of the Serbian state, the Turkish authorities were anti-Serbian, therefore most Serbs preferred to call themselves "bulgars" to escape persecution. Third, in the post Exarchate era, propaganda forced people to identify themselves as "bulgars" so that the necessary signatures would be available to establish a Bulgarian Church - that is the Exarchate had become an "institution for the Bulgarization of the Serbs". Spiridon Gopchevich, a Serbian diplomat and Milojevich adherent, made a brief to Macedonia in 1889 and on his return published an ethnographic map which characterising the Macedonian population right up to Nevrokop, Salonica and the Grammos mountains, as Serbian. The renown scholar, Vatroslav Yagich (1838-1923), editor of "Archiv fur Slavische Philologie" (1875-1923) made the following comment on Gopochevich's study - to attack the tendentiously uncritical arguments of Gopochevich is unnecessary; his work condemns itself. It is a pity about the good paper and fine printing, the two most admirable aspects of the book. Nevertheless, Gopochevich's study was accepted, endorsed and promoted by the Serbian government as further vindication of their position on the Macedonian Question. While previously Stoyan Novakovich had criticised the chauvinistic policies of individuals like Milojevich, times had changed and now as an eminent Serbian statesman he felt it his duty to support Serbian claims to the Macedonian territories. Therefore initially Novakovich attempted to show that Slavic dialects of Macedonia were not part of the Bulgarian language but actually part of the Serbian language. However because his study was dismissed by noted academics of the period, including Yagich, Miletic, Oblak and Derzhavin, he realised that this strategy could not succeed. Subsequently Novakovich advanced a thesis that in the late 9th century Macedonia had three ethnic Slavic groups - Bulgarian, Serbian and "Slovene" - and that these divisions still persisted and were identifiable in the present population. He outlined his theory in "First Foundations of Slavic Literature Amongst the Balkan Slavs", a 300 page monograph published in 1893 by the Serbian Academy of Sciences. What Novakovich had produced was a blueprint for "de-Bulgarization" of the Macedonian Slavs by their "Macedonianization", if direct "Serbianization" could not be readily effected. The intent is explicitly confirmed by Novakovich's well known (and quoted) dispatch to the Serbian Minister of Education in 1888 ******** KEY HERE ***"Since the Bulgarian idea, as it is well known to all, is deeply rooted in Macedonia, I think it is almost impossible to shake it completely by opposing it merely with the Serbian idea. This idea, we fear, would be incapable, as opposition pure and simple, of suppressing the Bulgarian idea. That is why the Serbian idea will need an ally that could stand in direct opposition to the Bulgarianism and would contain in itself the elements which could attract the people and their feelings and thus sever them from Bulgarianism. This ally I see in the Macedonism or to a certain extent in our nursing the Macedonian dialect and Macedonian separatism." Novakovich's ideas were later amplified and extended, first by Iovan Cvijich, and later by Alexander Belitch. It is important to state that the theory of the three Slavic groups, propounded by Novakovich, Cvijich and Belitch was considered unsubstantiated by the available evidence; a position held by most academics including both Yagich and Niederle. During the 1880s Novakovich effected several important plans to expand the concept of "Macedonism" (Macedonian Separatism) amongst the Macedonian population. Although the Novakovich's strategy can only be described as a failure, its formulation and intent leads to some important historic conclusions regarding the national consciousness (within that era) of the Macedonian people. The Society of St Sava (founded in 1886) was the chief organ for dissemination of Serbian propaganda on the Macedonian Question and Novakovich was intricately involved behind its agenda and policies. During the same year four members of a secret Macedonian committee in Sofia, went to Belgrade to secure support for their proposed actions in Macedonia. Their plans included the restoration of the Ohrida Diocese, publication of a newspaper "Macedonian Voice" in Istanbul, opening schools where teachers used the "Macedonian" language, and to have all educational literature printed in the Macedonian dialect. Shortly thereafter Novakovich took up his appointment as Serbian consul in Istanbul, where he met with two members of the Macedonian committee to initiate the plan. Although this was only partially successful, Serbian schools were opened in Macedonia, and books were printed in the Macedonian dialect. The latter were based on increasing Serbian language content as the educational standard increased. However in 1898 when asked with respect to the reprinting of these texts in the Macedonian dialect, Novakovich recommended only the Serbian language should be used - the anticipated attraction of the Macedonian dialect had not eventuated. The Society of St Sava also offered well-paid scholarships to Macedonians in the hope they could ultimately be turned against the Bulgarian idea. Between 1888 and 1889 quite a number of Macedonians accepted these scholarships and went to Belgrade. They soon became aware of the obvious underlying reasons behind the program however, especially when they were forbidden to possess "Bulgarian" literature. Subsequently some 30 to 40 students left Belgrade to continue their education elsewhere, mostly Sofia. Among that group were some later very well-known figures - Dame Gruev, Petar Pop Arsov and Krste Misirkov. It must be considered more than coincidental that two of the latter individuals (PPA, and especially KM) shortly thereafter proffered views on the Macedonian Question that in essence supported the covert intent of Novakovich's theory. However it was during Novakovich's appointment as consul at St Petersburg that the staunchest and most dogmatic advocate of "Macedonism", Dimitur Chupovski, arose. Again we note that Chupovski and his small group of followers were directly supported by the St Sava Society and had an almost identical agenda to that of the four Macedonians that met with Novakovich in Belgrade during 1886. It did not matter to Novakovich that "Macedonism" was also essentially anti-Serbian, as long as it opposed or slowed the spread of Bulgarian influence within Macedonia. An important historic issue is the reaction to both Serbian propaganda and Macedonism within Macedonia itself. First, it is known that one of the main reasons for the establishment of IMRO by Dame Gruev in 1893 was to block the spread of Serbian influence into Macedonia, less it hinder the ultimate unification of the Bulgarian people. Thus although IMRO's short-term goal was autonomy, its long-term goal was unification, as had occurred with East Rumelia. There can be no doubt IMRO was a Bulgarian organization, protecting the Bulgarian national interest against the Serbs. Several other organizations also formed within Macedonia (1897) to oppose Serbian propaganda - the Revolutionary Brotherhood and the Charitable Brotherhood - the latter to specifically undermine Serbian schools, a strategy in which it was quite successful. Even earlier (1891), Gyorche Petrov, later a famous IMRO committee member, was so concerned by the obvious Serbian schemes that he spent his time exclusively on ethnographic research in Skopje to ensure the availability of indisputable evidence to support the "Bulgarian" character of the Macedonian population. As for "Macedonism", the memoirs of Hristo Shaldev which discuss Dimitur Chupovski, plainly show how few adherents this concept had in 1903. We also have to accept that Krste Misirkov only promoted the concept of "Macedonism" when he felt the Bulgarian position in Macedonia was irrevocably lost - as in 1903 after Ilinden (when he wrote "On Macedonian Matters") and after WWI. At all other times he was a staunch advocate of the Bulgarian character of Macedonia. Misirkov's pro-Macedonism arguments were resurrected and re-packaged by the Comintern in 1934 as evidence for a "Macedonian Nation". Novakovich did not live to see the success of the strategy he first devised in the middle 1880s - a plan which undoubtedly has prevented the historic reunion of the Bulgarian people. Dame Gruev and IMRO were correct in their assessment of the danger of Serbian influence. In his memoirs (finished 18 Aug 1947) Hristo Shaldev speaks for all Macedonian patriots when he writes "I am saddened that I cannot spend the remaining years of my life in Gumendje, and at the same time I am indignant that the youngest generation of Vardar Macedonia has disavowed both the achievements and self-determination of their fathers, grand-fathers and great-grand-fathers and has been misled by the Serbian theories of Professors Novakovich, Cvijich and Belich." It is ironic that a Serbian ploy would later be used as a platform by "neo-Macedonians" to establish a national character and IMAGINED ethnicity, even though the Vardar region is referred to as STARA SRBIJA (old Serbia) (especially the northern areas of FYROM, more so than the southern). Nevertheless, with deep research and an understanding of the political climate at the time, the evidence becomes astoundingly clear. The suggestion of a separate Macedonian ethnicity becomes more absurd with every piece of documentation that is dug up through the archives. Fortunately, I have materials which I am still translating from Serbian to English which refer to the established notions of "macedonianism" and its purpose which I will post in due course. Dikigoros1981 **note on IMARO: never forget the "A" when applying the acronym of this organisation. The "A" for Adrianople clearly identifies that the organisation had intentions to annex the Thracian region to a greater bulgarian state. Bulgarian foreign policy has always concentrated on this area. Thus it is interesting that "FYROMIAN" or the "neo-imagined ethnic Macedonians" never incorporate the Thracian regions in their extended maps, when really their chief organisation the IMARO which was later renamed IMRO, a couple of years after the failed Krusevo uprising) |
Replies:
Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 01:41
 ------------- |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 08:40
|
Very well written altough i have nothing todo with it, i've read it.
------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 17:04
Wow, a Bulgarian who finds evidence for Macedonia's lack of an ethnicity, how suprising. Maybe Macedonia should be split between Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. This is just the same as people attempting to construct Macedonia, you are attempting to deconstruct Macedonia. Probably based on similar aims. As with all South East European history, I'm just slightly sceptical when it comes to attacks on ethnicities. When you are trying to impose Bulgaria onto Macedonians, its really a pointless activity. Ethnic History is such a pointless field in such a mindfield, there is no actual evidence. To debunk national Myths, especially ethnic ones, you have to come up with evidence that the a) The Macedonians are not desceded from Ancient Macedonians, b) provide evidence that the Macedonians aren't a seperate tribe c) Provide evidence that Macedonians descend directly from somewhere else, ie, Bulgarians. Is it suprising that the Bulgarian links to Macedonians are so close - obviously not. Does it prove anything, no. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 17:23
Although I do not understand the reason to rise the questions like the one that DespotSlav did (because I think that that sorts of discussion will not lead to anywhere else but flame wars), I have something to respond to you, Ovidius. The thing I would like to mention is that most if not all of historical personalities they are proud of (like Kliment Okhridski, Tzar Samuil, Miladinovi brothers, Goce Delchev etc.) considered themselves as Bulgarians. Which basically means that, yes, their history is closely related to Bulgarian one at least last 1400 years, starting from Bulgars of Kuber. If you doubt this then you are familiar with neither our national myths nor our history. Or you are Macedonian yourself of course.  ------------- . |
Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 18:15
|
I don't deny that Bulgarians and Macedonians are closely related or maybe even the same ethnicity. I just don't believe there will ever be any solid proof, not do i believe that these sorts of studies are irrelevant and are only ever likely to be used in an aggrivated mannor. Macedonians perceive themselves as a seperate entity. This may or may not be constructed. But lets face it, every ethnicity is, to some extent, manufactured over the centuries. National and ethnic myths may have some basis, or may not. They constantly change over the period. One example I heard recently was from a Historian of Montenegro. Who lived with a Montenegran family over a period of time and noticed how they change from being fervant Serbs into Montenegrans as the change in politics and change in allegence in the TV occurred. Does that make less Montenegran? Not really. These arguments are generally created for political purposes, to show a nations 'links' to a certain people or area. Part of Nationalism, not part of History, in my opinion. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2007 at 03:47
No doubts about that. Since 1944 :) With some people sent to death for declaration of their Bulgariannes. ------------- . |
Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 09:35
| Worse... while doing this, present day Macedonians are trying to steal history! It is as absurd as... for example, americans to say that king Arthur was american! |
Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 10:45
|
Trying to steal History? Americans that are from English stock can look back supportively to their English past... why not? They don't because they would rather look with pride back to their States past and not their ethnicity. Please explain how Macedonians are trying to Steal History? |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 11:01
|
I don't understand this expression either. ------------- . |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 13:16
| Macedonians are not trying in fact they already did steal some whole chapters of bulgarian history (clemet of ohrid samuil of bulgaria etc) I am not going through the most recent part of our history on purpose |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 17:50
It is still part of Bulgarian history isn't it? And one more thing -- you most likely consider them as Bulgarians separated from Bulgarian nation in 20th century. How could you then refuse to accept that Samuil and Kliment were part of their history? Another thing is that their view on the history is weird.------------- . |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 18:06
Which Macedonians ? Greek, Bulgarian or Slavonic origin Macedonians ?  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 18:13
|
So far discussions have been civil which is great, please keep up the
polite conversation. This is a topic in which I am not an expert, but I
will be watching closely, both to learn and to make sure this thread
progresses well.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 22:47
|
"To debunk national Myths, especially ethnic ones, you have to come up with evidence that the a) The Macedonians are not desceded from Ancient Macedonians, b) provide evidence that the Macedonians aren't a seperate tribe c) Provide evidence that Macedonians descend directly from somewhere else, ie, Bulgarians. Is it suprising that the Bulgarian links to Macedonians are so close - obviously not. Does it prove anything, no. "
First there is NOTHING that connect the "Ethnic Macedonia" with the Ancient Macedonians EXCEPT the name that they have given themselves.
Next the Macedonians were a seperate tribe, a Greek Tribe! Just like the Spartan, Thebans, Epirotans, Corinthians, Acarnanians, Acardanians. Messenians, Eubeans, so on and so on.
And yes there closeness to the Bulgarians does prove something. The vast majority of them are descendants of the Bulgarians. With the rest being Serbian in the North.
All their founders and heroes even claimed to be Bulgarians.
Misirkov stated that the Macedonians have become a distinct ethnic group due to the correct historic circumstances. That means through time they have come to differentiate themselves from Bulgaria proper due to the REGION they live in.
If you would like more elaboration on these issues I will be glad to give you the links and further info. All from FYROM sites!
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 23:17
|
Well, discussions are not "civil" there attacking Macedonian people and Macedonian nation. Bulgarians have there history with Hitler in WW2 ...Allies with HITLER 1941 (Axis powers) The Bucharest treaty from July and August 1913, Macedonia is DEMOCRATIC country and we have a right to be called what we LOVE. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 04:00
What is the difference between Bulgarian and Slavonic Macedonians? ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 04:13
You may find many topics in this forum concerning Ancient Macedonians and their ethnicity. Many point of view are discussed. Some of them strongly disagree that Macedonians and Epirotans were Greek tribes.
Whats the difference where is the info placed? Truth has a charasteristics of being invariant in respect to spatiotemporal transformations  ------------- . |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 04:36
Dont forget that the term Slavonic inlude also
-Serb Macedonian
-the Macedonian that do not want to be Serb or Bulgarian.
The term Bulgarian include the Slavonic and Bulgar heritage or/and the other heritage that you usually claim in this forum like the Thracian
 -------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 05:07
I don't usually claim anything. I post citates of Strabo, Malala, John of Antiochia, Procopius and Bulgarian sources as well as genetical and cultural anthropology research whereas your tactics of argumentation suggests extensive searching similar citates on nationalistic sites (like FYROMian ones). If you find them you are more than happy believing that my argumentation is defeated. Finally, you allow hidden cavalry for the final crash by citing Bulgarian historians stating that Bulgarians are drop of turkic blood in slavonic sea. But the problem is that your adjutants give you a wrong information and actually these are your troops that retreat. ------------- . |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 05:57
|
I am just post what serious academaic sources claim (Cambridge, Oxford et.c.) as about your history. If you think that your sources are more reliable from mine let others to judge. The Amalgamation theory is common among Balkan people.
-------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 06:36
Yeah, and here we have another feature of your tactics. Somehow you consider that Oxford Cambridge and MIT produce better science than University of let us say Dundee. Which is wrong. In every case you should criticize the arguments but not the place where publication came from. In any case, once I even tried to follow your tactics posting article from Oxford and you just ignored it. So, basically you don't care about academic sources even if they came from Oxford  ------------- . |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 07:57
|
Even if the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe, there wouldn't be
any link to that tribe today. After Justinian I's neglect of the Balkan
provinces, the area became completely swamped by Slavs. Virtually every
city and province in the Balkans became filled with Slavs. Then in the
9th century, after an horrific outbreak of bubonic plague, Nicephorus I
began to repopulate some parts of Greece with Greek migrants from Sicily, Italy and Anatolia. I don't see how today's Macedonians can claim to be the direct descendents of the Hellenic people which populated Macedonia over 2,000 years ago. ------------- |
Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 08:04
Ermm? I am well aware that Modern Macedonians have no links to Ancient Hellenian Macedonians, nor was I claiming anything of that kind. My Claim is that there is no evidence, as Macedonians quite often claim and Bulgarians disagree with, that Macedonians were a seperate Slavic tribe or some sort of different ethnic group. Their hero's and founders call themselves Bulgarians, but that might not even be true. Most Montenegran hero's consider themselves Serb, but it doesn't change the national myth of the origin of hte Montenegran nationhood. They merely argue that it formed part of the lesser of two evils in someway. I don't want more information, I have plenty of places to go for this information. I'm just stating that there is no evidence for most of this nonsense, constructing ethnicities is just part of statecraft in South East Europe. So personally, I question it all and do not believe that anyone can make such strong statements on the matter. Nor do I believe that a Bulgarian, with obvious motives, can moan at the ethnic creativity of Macedonians. If you want I can provide information that shows Bulgarians are not Slavs too. Does it mean that Bulgarians are not Slavs, nope. In my world, real ethnicity and provable ethnicity is based on language. Macedonian is a different language to Bulgarian. Now, however constructed that is, it makes no difference. If Americans are Americans, then Macedonians are Macedonians.
I don't believe anyone is. There is, to some extent, some national pride based on the name Macedonia and the 'land', but I don't believe there is any great belief of ethnic continuation. Although I'm sure you'd be able to find some Macedonian texts that argue it. The normal argument, is that the Slav tribes either bred with the Macedonian populace or the Macedonians hid in the Moutains etc. There are all sorts of ways of arguing such ideas within national Histories. Its one of the reasons why Balkan National Histories are so much fun. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 08:48
It depends on what you are calling "direct". Are Englishmen direct descendants of Anglo-Saxes and Vikings living on their territories? ------------- . |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 09:12
Show me one publication from the Oxford that claim Thracian connection of the modern Bulgarians ?
-------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 09:28
I was showing article pointing to existance of non-hellenized non-romanized Thracians until 6-7 century AD. ------------- . |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 09:32
My question was specific and clear . Did Oxford (or any other serious academaic source) claim Thracian connection with the modern Bulgarian nation ?
-------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 10:01
What can one discuss with a person, who consider education institution as a "source"?
 Sources, my dear Akritas, are works of Procopius and Malala. Whereas people from Oxford make conclusions based an those sources. If you read works of your co-patriot Peter Charanis you will find that ethnic situation in Balkan Peninsula in early medieval times were complex and there were no clear Greeks, Slavs or others. This is by the way, related to Republic of Macedonia as well. Hence, your question, being specific and clear was not very smart. Sorry about this. ------------- . |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 10:42
Charanis...
The Bulgar" and Avar invasions of the Balkan peninsula in the sixth and seventh centuries created a demographic crisis. The cities of the interior were plundered and destroyed, while vast stretches of the countryside were left desolate and empty of their inhabitants. Hundreds of thousands of natives, Illyrians, Thracians, and Greeks were deported; thousands of others were killed.
(page 39)
The native Illyrians and Thracians of the occupied regions retired into the mountains, where they remained unnoticed till the eleventh century, when they emerged as Albanians and Vlachs.
(page 39)
The ethnic situation became more complicated by the appearance(beginning in the eleventh century) of Albanians and Vlachs, descendants of the Latin Illyrians and Daco-Thracians, whom the Slavs had pushed into the mountains when they occupied the Balkan peninsula in the seventh century.
(page 45)
Charanis clearly claim that there is not any connection between Thracian and Bulgarians.And as about the Greeks and his final conclusion ...
Fallmerayer's statement that there is no real Hellenic blood in the veins of the modern Greeks cannot, therefore, be accepted.
(page 41) -------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 10:59
|
Akritas, I refuse to discuss anything with you. Where you wrote citation "Hundreds of thousands of natives, Illyrians, Thracians, and Greeks were deported; thousands of others were killed." you "forget" its continuation: "Those deported were settled in the regions beyond the Danube, where, as we learned from the text concerning the Kouver, they intermarried with barbarians". And later that they lost their ethnical identity. Sorry, but you are not interested in finding the truth. Instead, you want to prove that Macedonian, pardon Greek dick is longer than ones of your neighbours.  ------------- . |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 11:39
..and as usual you forget the rest of the quote...
....Others no doubt stayed behind. This may provide a clue to the solution of the riddle concerning the origin of the modern Rumanians.
You are the one that hide the truth from your sources and not me.As for the rest is just....your known BSphilosphies
-------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 12:02
BSphilosphies
 You obviously don't know who are Bulgars of Kouver. They have no relation to Rumanian origin since they settled around Thessaloniki. Bulgarian addition to Manassian chronicle mention this as "at this time Bulgarians started to take this land". And later, Krum mentioned them as "uncles from Solun". ------------- . |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 12:15
Where Charanis mention Bulgars of Kouver ?
he said FOLLOWERS -------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 12:23
Akritas, your comments become worse and worse. Now Kouver is not Bulgarian. Who is he then? Greek? Read a bit bit more and come back prepared.------------- . |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 12:41
of course...the followers became Bulgarians...you replaced the Charanis words!!!
anyway is obvious that you continue your known trolling game and you are waste of time -------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 12:53
Akritas, my friend. Charanis wrote his articles for educated people. Thus he didn't mention obvious thing. The fact that you personally never heard about him (I mean Kouver) before does not make him less Bulgarian. ------------- . |
Posted By: Liudovik_Nemski
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 13:30
Oh for Christ's sake stop with this nonsence,Khan Kuber was one of the sons of Khan Kubrat-after his death they spread and each one took a part of the huge nation together with few nobles and everything! Khan Asparuh created Danube Bulgaria(today's Bulgaria) Khan Bayan stayed and defended his former lands to the death from the Khazars Khan Kotrag created Volga Bulgaria Khan Altsek settled in Italy And Khan Kuber who was unable to breach through the avars came south and settled in today's Macedonia. And i don't offend you in any way or claim something-when i said the upper thing about the Khans i gave you a historical fact. Sorry for the rough language but you macedonians always **ss me off when you try to manipulate history just like you did right now! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 13:48
|
Akritas is Greek speaking from Greek part of Macedonia, Liudovik. And there is no reason to be so expressive. He just don't understand obvious things ------------- . |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 13:54
|
Nemski Charanis in the beginning of the paragraph was clear as also and the end.
...The Bulgar" and Avar invasions of the Balkan peninsula in the sixth and seventh centuries created a demographic crisis....
as about the army of the Kouver Charanis was also clear..
An episode described in the Miracula indicates that other invaders who were not Slavs settled in the region of Thessalonica later in the seventh century. This is the episode involving Kouver, a Bulgar whom the Khagan of the Avars had placed at the head of a mixed group under his domination. This group consisted of the descendants of Christian natives whom the Avars had I carried away many years previously (about sixty years before, we are told) I and the Avars, Bulgars, and other barbarians under the domination of the Khagan with whom these Christians had intermarried.
This army was not composed from Bulgarians only but also and from and other races. If you (with Anton) want to consider this army as Bulgarian then you are WRONG. Thats why Charanis was clear as about the origin (FOLLOWERS) and who are the descents of them ...ROMANIANS.
He doesnt mention anything as about the Bulgarians.
-------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 15:31
|
If you think that truth is achieved by frequent bolding and underlying "you are WRONG". Read Charanis more carefully. He wrote that "...ROMANIANS" are not descendants of "FOLLOWERS" but of those who stayed on the left side of Danube. Second, he mentions that those who stayed might explain origins of Romanians, which means that this might be one of hypotheses but not proven fact. Third, places where those people stayed (not followed Kouber) belonged to Bulgarian state for centuries (almost since the times of Kouber) and obviously got mixed more and more with Bulgarian and Slavonic tribes. Forth, Kouber tribe's story is farther traced by sources that I gave you (addition to Manasy chronicles in Bulgarian and "uncles from Solun") which Charanis didn't mention. Fifth, "Avars, Bulgars, and other barbarians" did not contain many Avars since they fought with Avars. Sixth, those people most likely were Bulgars in major since Kouber himself was Bulgarian (and supposed to be son of Kubrat, or Kubrat himself according to prof. Setton) and was ruling them. Seventh, Avar khanate itself was to huge part composed by Bulgarians since they competed with Avars for ruling the khanate (Bulgars lost this competition). Many of those arguments were not mentioned by Charanis. But what comes from his work clearly that medieval history of Balkans is permanent intermixing of different tribes and-- this is my conclusion -- cultures. In his other work he pointed to policy of Byzantine Empire to move populations which also supports the fact of heavy intermixing of different tribes. The fact that our cultures (except language and religion) are very much similar means not only mixing of people but also mixing of cultures. So, please, stop taking citations out of the whole context and start to use your own gray cells. ------------- . |
Posted By: NikeBG
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 17:00
|
Uhm, guys, what does your personal debate about the medieval Kuber have
to do with "the Serb role in the manufacture of Macedonia"? I thought
this topic was supposed to be about how one nation can be artificially
(and perhaps to some degree forcefully) created even in these modern
times, something, which can be a quite good lesson to anyone (be it to
protect or to help create more such artificial nations)! Btw, in relation to the comparison with the States - I agree that Macedonia could be compared to some degree with the USA, whereas both the USA and Macedonia consist mainly of one type of people (British-Bulgarian), but with a very strong mixing (although the States, due to many many reasons, are much greater mixed). Also, both nations are speaking not a separate language, but a dialect of their original language (American English (mind you, there is no such thing as American language) and Macedonian Bulgarian (to some degrees even better preserved Old-Bulgarian than the literary modern Bulgarian)). Of course, after some time, when the distance between the "colony" and the "motherland" becomes bigger and "political correctness" enforces it, considering the possible future political situations, the "colony" could separate from its mother and become a distinct grown-up "child" not only in its own eyes, but also in the eyes of the other nations, tired of remembering the days when that child was born (I hope you don't have problems with my metaphores). However, I feel I should point out one distinction between the USA and Macedonia (except the more obvious distinctions in the state of power, authority, wealth etc.) - while the States were initially a normal colony, created by the British Empire itself, which then grew up and went its own way, many people express their frustration that the Macedonian child has been forcefully taken away from its mother and turned into a real modern janissary, this time by the hands of fellow Slavs and Orthodox Christians. Those people express even greater concern (and it's quite logical, I might add) that we can now see the well-known result of the successful turning into a janissary - after being brainwashed into the new "faith", the janissaries quite often showed great zeal and fanaticism in fighting exactly those people where they came from. If the situation was like with America, where Brittain itself created a colony, which then broke off, I believe most of those concerned people wouldn't have much of a problem - which mother isn't happy that her child has grown strong enough to care for itself (although, of course, it's still inevitable that every mother would keep wishing to still take care for her "little" child)? Or to put it into simpler words - personally I would have no problem if Macedonia was a normal independent from us country (actually, it might eventually be even better for us, as we would have less problems, which we can see in FYROM). However, the problem that I see is that the modern Macedonians want to monopolize (and thus steal) certain historical figures, states and others, which might belong to them to some degree, but belong not only to them. F.e. it's clear that they can consider Tsar Samuil as their king, as he was a king of Bulgaria and at those times Macedonia was the greater part of Bulgaria. However, Samuil doesn't belong only to Macedonia, as he was a king of whole Bulgaria and not only the region of Macedonia (or the later Byzantine tema Bulgaria, which covers most of the region of Macedonia, plus the Serdica and eventually Bdin regions). About Alexander the Great I would prefer not to speak, as, although I personally believe that he's a Greek (or at the very least - strongly Hellenized), there are still debates about his ethnicity. In all cases, however, the modern Macedonians could hardly be called descendants of the ancient Macedonians, as the two are surely of quite different ethnotypes - modern Macedonians (from the Republic of Macedonia) are mostly Slavic, while the ancient ones were either Greek, Illyrian, Thracian, separate Macedonian or a strong mix of those. Of course, the modern Macedonians DO have some blood of those ancient Macedonians in them - this is absolutely inevitable. It might be even one percent (or it might be 20 or more, I can't say), but there is at least a small bit left! Just like all other nations in the Balkans have at least one small bit (or not so small - that's a matter of further researches) left of the previous inhabitants! I believe it's been seen enough times already - genes don't die so easily! Culture might change, language might change, religion might change, but it's extremely hard to completely eradicate physically an entire ethnos! So, all modern nations today are more or less mixed with the remnants, possibly culturally assimilated, of previous populations (remember that only the Basques might be an autochtonic population in Europe - all others have at a certain time invaded their lands). The Bulgarians have assimilated not one or two ethnoses, so it's not so surprising to expect that the Bulgarians themselves could be assimilated into other cultures. That's the usual course of history... However, it's better to assimilate peacefully, like in the case of the States and turn Macedonia into "Switzerland of the Balkans" instead of assimilating it through a forceful and painful (not only for the inhabitants of Macedonia, but also for their other neighbours, especially the ones they initially were a part of) way. Ok, I slipped up again! Basically, what I'm saying is that if the people of Macedonia had broken off by their own will and without any forceful interference from other countries, we would much easier swallow it and work with them, the way we see today the United Kingdom and the United States side by side. However, when you've seen a child being taken away from its mother, you can't expect the mother to just stand there and do nothing, as if it wasn't her child that was taken! And imagine how this mother would feel if years later her own child, after being turned into a janissary, comes and attacks her, denying all ties with her! But, yeah, these are the Balkans - the powderkeg of Europe. And the rather hot temper of its inhabitants often lead to such or similarly painful situations... alas... ------------- |
Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 10:32
|
Quoting Charanis? Please. How exactly does charanis know anything? He is certainly an interesting scholar and really worth looking at if you are interested in early ethnographic history etc. But please, his works are 50/60years old. From Charanis, Seton-Watson and any other pre-war Historian you care to cite. Their works are from a different age, they convey the feelings of the time. Where do you think they got their information from? What sort of theoretical background did they have? etcetc. They do not stand up to modern historiographical criticism or work on the region. |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 10:59
|
Charanis, Seton, Vryonis, Ostrogorsky and Vaisilyev are the best writers regarding the The Serb role in the Macedonian Question. The first Serbian attempt to proselytize the slavophone inhabitants of -------------
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 16:42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash
Even people in Pakistan claim to be direct descedents of Ancient Macedonians (something that maybe is true)
As we know , Slavs were organized in little settlements ,sklaviniae.
These slavs couldn't be concidered as a unique nation rather than a bunch of separate tribes...
The 8th and 9th century the slavic settlements were so many that many people migrated to the aegean coast cities (such as Salonica) but these who stayed in inlands ...
Progressively they were absorbed and exchanged cultural elements such as linguistic idioms... At the Byzantine - Bulgarian wars, according to some opinions ,emperor Nikiforos I removed the slavic populations out of Macedonia and probably replace with other (at the majority Greek) due to the fact that Macedonia was going to be conquered like Moesia and Dobruja...
In today's Greece , the residents of its northern region(Aegean or Greek Makedonias)do not consider themselves mainly as descendants of ancient Macedonians but direct descendants of refugees from the Asia Minor and Pontos.
The percentage of indigenous residents can claim that has direct cross-correlation with their ancient Macedonian or Thraces, because does not exist any serious scientific proof for the opposite(anyway, in 21 century it is difficult for someone to support soething like that because of the thousands of years adventurous history that took place in the Balkans)
In conclusion, Anthropologist are in able to make some conclusions but those maybe either different or be interpreted by a different way... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Liudovik_Nemski
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 13:56
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x304JNlww3s - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x304JNlww3s A very informative video  -------------
|
Posted By: Liudovik_Nemski
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 14:10
|
The comintern is very proud to present you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpMn__6tOU - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpMn__6tOU NOTE:Look on 0:47 this is a page from a FYROM-ian school history book.They claim that Petar Delyan(the one who led one of the biggest Bulgarian uprisings against the byzantines) is macedonian who led the uprising to restore the "macedonian" tsardom of Samuil.Nothing surprising here but-look at the medieval picture they've placed next to the text:There is a croud on the right and above it it says BOULGAROI  Their propagandist "historians" can't even read greek.-------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 04:53
Is it? During the whole movie it was explained to us that Macedonian nation is in fact Bulgarian and then at the end -- absolutely unexpected conclusion -- Makedonia is Helas Also I don't understand why everybody blaim Russians and Soros for everything...------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 04:56
This basically is true not only for Macedonian nation but every other Balkan nation as well. ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 04:56
|
double post ------------- . |
Posted By: Liudovik_Nemski
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 07:59
They wanted to say that the region has much greek heritage(notice what pictures they show).The modern greeks admit that the population is bulgarian however They don't want the land,just want the brainwashed fyromians to stop stealing greek history.-------------
|
Posted By: Liudovik_Nemski
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 13:49
How exactly did the commies create Bulgaria? -------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 11:51
I meant that nations in 1800s (including Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs) were rather artificial and could be rather different from what they are now. And the way of "creation" of those nations was exactly the same -- flag, heroic past, pathetics, patriotism and nationalism. ------------- . |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 13:39
|
The Fyrom's nation is mixed slavic and Greek as well (it is more likely to be slavic due to the "nation's" cleanising of the early 1900s ) but i don't really see anyone to mention the great Albanian minority of the region.... If there is somone who has to concern about a nation living in Fyrom, is the Albanian state... I think that Albanians should have the first word about todays Fyrom not the rest of as... -------------
|
Posted By: Arbër Z
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 11:07
Why should Albania and albanians be concerned about a nation living in FYROM?
Albanians in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are not a minority, but one of the nation-forming ethnicities. Albanian is official, as well as other languages, and they can use their national symbols (albanian flag and anthem) in their institutions (municipalities etc). They have political and cultural rights, and they have echonomical power. And I am sure in the future they will have even more rights, and they will be totally integrated in all the dimensions of the life in that country. ------------- Prej heshtjes...! |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 11:25
Agree Arber with your quote and specially the bold one. -------------
|
Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 16:29
|
I'm really happy to see western-bulgarians (macedonians) that still clame they are descendants of Alexander the Great (the ancient Hitler ).It somehow improoves my mood.
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 18:00
He wasn't ancient Hitler. He was Ancient grecoman ------------- . |
Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 18:43
| Call him as you want exept for ancestor of todays Macedonia. |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2007 at 17:15
|
He was an inhabitant(and king) of the ancient Macedonian region and as
far as we know, Greek. Jaqiello, you've to reconsider about your
previous post . Because if Alexander was a "Hitler" ,according to you
of course, then there would be really much more "evil" rulers than him
in antiquity;) Arber , i didn't want to say something different than this you've posted... Indeed Albanians are the most populous ethnic community in Fyrom after the slavic people of this region, but quantitative the Albanians are about 26% of the total population ...so is there a standart percentage which differentiates a nation forming ethnicity from an ethnic minority? In the case of Fyrom may this not the point (i mean the percentage of Albanians) but the confrontation of the Albanian population which takes place in this state, which makes me to concern about the stability of its republic, the stability of the southern Balkans, and Fyrom's course to European completion  Well , things may became better the last years but are the Albanian people satisfied enough so that there is not any chance to see armed Albanians to protest like in Tetovo? I want to hope that Ohrid agreement gave the solution... -------------
|
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2007 at 18:46
|
I don't understand, does this thread claim that the Serbs invented the Macedonians?
------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: NikeBG
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2007 at 05:26
|
No, it says that the Serbian state tried to make them directly "Southern Serbs", while the communists are actually the smarter ones, who came with the idea of a separate nation (as there was such an idea to create also a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDOe6UqNMEI - Dobrudjan , Shop and Thracian nations, which failed before that).
------------- |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2007 at 12:44
Oh. Well, I'm glad it's now all finished. Bulgaria is in the EU. FYROM is on its way too!  ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2007 at 05:45
Dont rush.... -------------
|
Posted By: Liudovik_Nemski
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2007 at 06:22
If FYROM enters the EU they won't be able to continue with the anti-Bulgarian and anti-Greek propaganda.Also they'll probably force them to change the false history they study there so it will be best to accept them |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2007 at 08:21
|
I'm not sure about that. BTW the Republic of Macedonia is already a candidate to the EU, like Croatia and Turkey, which means that it's on its way. History taught at schools is not a prerequisite, nor even concern to Europe. ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2007 at 08:48
And Turkey was and is candidate State but........the rules are for all the States and specially for FYROM that has serious political problem with Greece. And i dont know as about Bulgaria. Did Bulgaria recognize a "ethnic" Slavonic Macedonian minority(OMO) in her State (Pirin area) as FYROM claim ?
-------------
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2007 at 09:00
|
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 14:04
|
I think the main reason for Serbians' claim about Macedonia (when it conflicts with the Bulgarian ideology) is that they "came to Macedonia before the Bulgarians". Macedonia (or just northern Skopje region, to be more precise) is a part of this "Old Serbia" which represents the original Serbian land in the Balkans and their, ehm, "promised land" (lol). ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 02:40
This the place that you the Serbs consider it as the lung of the Serbia is the Vardar Region(todat FYROM).
-------------
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 09:35
And when did Serbs come to Macedonia? Do you include for example Okhrid in this region? Promised by whom? ------------- . |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 15:25
Sorry? ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 15:48
|
1) What Serb role? Serbs ruled Macedonia for some 100+ years, it can be 108 or so.This was Byzantine for more then few hundred years, and Bulgarian. Milutin 1281-1321 took Skoplje by 1300, most say 1295, but whatever.Whole of Macedonia wasnt Serb untill Dusan.Stefan Decanski controlled more of Macedonia 1321-1330, but Dusan expanded Serbian borders to the south, and not west, as some claim, and took land, where present day Hilandar is, but never Sallonica. ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 15:58
Which place Serbs identify as lung of the Serbia ? -------------
|
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 16:01
|
I believe they say heart, but whatever Its Kosovo, as they claim. Though Serbian state wasnt born in Kosovo as they say, but in Sandzak region, or Raska, by Serbs.Thats where Stefan Nemanja ruled from 1167-1196, died in 1200. He was famous for killing his brother Tihomir.He gave his other brother Mutimir newly conquered Serbian lands in Travunja(Trebinje), while other remained catholic. ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 16:03
In the first half of the 7th century (630s most probably, but could've been 620s also; most frequently mentioned year is 626, although I've also seen 631). I'm not not sure, but I don't think it included the Ochryd. Promised by Constantinople, i.e. (Eastern) Roman, Byzantine Emperor Flavius Heraclius Augustus. This was was later religiously transformed to "promised land" in the eyes of the Nemanyiden, as the land promised to the Serbs "by God himself" and then nationalistically-romantically into "Old Serbia" with the forthcoming of modern Age of Romantic Nationalism and the birth of nation-states, as the "Heart of the Serb people". ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 16:18
Biblical reference to the "promised Land" aka Israel to the Jews. In other words, the area is considered by Serbs alongside Kosovo in a way as "holy" "ancestral" land.
|
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 16:20
Depends which territory you consider. If you count the northern Skopje Macedonia (the only one about which Serbian historiography in reality cares), then it should be counted perhaps even from the end of the 12th century (or beginning of 12th). If the north is just counted, it's some 200-300 years. Skopje was conquered by Stephen Nemanya in the 1180s and was twice captured by the Serbs in the first half of the 13th century. Stephen Uros II Milutin reconquered it in 1282; the only difference being that it remained in Serbian hands until the Ottoman Turks took it. But then again, that's statehood - the 400 years of Ottoman rule can't be counted that Turks actually lived in controlled land (as Turks were always a minority in the Balkans). ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 16:23
|
Serbs along with Croats came to Balkans in 626 A.D Croats were a new tribe, whose leader was Porga.He, expanded Croat influence, and mixed with tribes that was there(Avars, Illyrians, whatever Serbs were setlled in 626 A.D IN Macva and Sumadija.Byzantine king gave them worthless land full of mud.His name was Heraclious, but under pretest, that if they want land, they most convert to faith of Byzantines, which was todays Orthodox Christianity.They accepted and settles.Serbs took Kosovo in 1200 period, and lost it again by 1400, whole of Kosovo.Though, we could argue, their rule was a more dynamic in building, so you could get a claim, this was theirs for longer period.From 1389-1912 this was Ottoman period. So, i dont see the logic,,but hey ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 16:29
|
Turks were never majority in the Balkans.Actually they were majority.Its funny, but here is the deal By 1878, most of population of Bulgaria was Turkish and Muslims.Turks were town folks, along with Bosniaks.Albanians lived in highlands mostly.By 1670, Albanians started coming from highlands and settling in towns, first was Djakovica, or Gjakova.Tetovo, Gostivar, Skoplje, were Turkish towns Prishtina was a Turkish majority town untill 1920 period.In Kosovo, Turks were majority in towns, but they didnt have a strong rural base(Villages) like they had in Bulgaria, today there are hundreds of Turkish villages in Bulgarian, and some exist in Macedonia as well.So, after 1912, they fled to Turkey.Most of land was bought by Albanians, who Turks sold land in towns, or Bosniaks, later day period In 1954 when Turks were selling lands in Gornjo Orizare, then Turkish village, refufees Bosniaks, from Sandzak, who Aleksandar Leka Rankovic exiled, bought that village, and today Orizari was a big Bosniak village near Veles.But, most of land, was sold and re-sold in later period.Turkish townfolks then assimilated also into Albanians, where Albanian villages existed, or Bosniaks Turkish present or majority was certainly clear in Bulgaria and Macedonia. ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 16:42
Yes, "heart", and it also includes northern Macedonia (Skopje region) and Sandzak (split between Montenegro and Serbia). Again, it depends. One Serbian state was born in eastern Herzegovina. Many Serbian states were born in Montenegro (if not most), but I'd dare not attribute such importance to Rashka (modern Sandzak) like Serbian historians traditionally do. The cultural culmination and statehood was born in Kosovo and Macedonia. Stephen Nemanya ruled in since 1166 or 1168, not 1168. The more probable theory on his death is that he died on 13 February 1199. Stephen Nemanya never killed his brother Stephen Tihomir (lol, famous  ). He didn't have a brother Mutimir, it was Miroslav, and he placed him after 1170s not in newly conquered lands, since he never ever conquered the Hlm (Zachlumia). It was already his. What do you mean by "other remained Catholic"? ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 17:09
No, they didn't. Serbs settled that year (626) in the geographical region of Macedonia (including parts of Kosovo) - this "Old Serbia". Sumadija was colonized by Serbs a lot later (late 13th, 14th and most of 15th century), and Macva too. His name was like I mentioned, Emperor Flavius Heraclius Augustus. If you think conquest from states that were later created by the Serbs (modern Serbia was created only in 1804, for four centuries it was Ottoman Turkey), then they conquered most of Kosovo around the late 11th century. They lost Kosovo to the Turks not in 1389 (that was just the Battle of Amsfeld, a single battle without any territorial gains - that according to one point of view the Turks lost), but in 1455. So yeah, they (the Ottomans) ruled Kossovo in 1455-1689 (when the Serbs liberated it) and then again in 1717-1910 (when the Albanians liberated it) and finally in 1911-1912 (when the Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro conquered it). Then again, it's just political statehood, we could say that in 1557-1766 Serbs were locally in charge in Kossovo because they had autonomy within the Ottoman Empire in that time period. ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 17:22
|
I could have made a mistake in a name Stefan Nemanja had 3 brothers.He was from Ribnica, todays Podgorica that was Catholic.One brother was killed, another stayed put, and another brother accepted orthodoxy and was given land in Travunja region.Mandic gives a detail desciption of that.I guess i should read this passage bit later, say what he says ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 17:23
When I say Turkish majority in the Balkans, I do not count local people that converted (insultingly referred to as "Poturice"). And I mean whole of Balkans. BTW it's interesting that you mention it, as the 1931 Kingdom of Yugoslavia population census lists that 41% of the population of Prishtina, or relative majority, was Turkish. It received Albanian majority during and/or after WWII. Yes, there's also an autochtonous Turkish minority in Kosovo. ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 17:33
Ribnica is near modern-day Podgorica, yes. Tihomir was not killed, he drowned himself in the river of Sitnica in Kossovo. Two other brothers (Stracimir and Miroslav) were given parts of Serbia to rule. They all (together with Nemanja) converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 13:09
|
Balkan short history John Fine Read it 
------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: Krum
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 15:23
That is a total bulsh*t. Turkish population wasnt majority in the bulgarian lands. ------------- It is only the dead who have seen the end of war. Plato |
Posted By: Krum
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 15:41
Interesting!I didnt know that serbs have such a claims for a land that actually was in their control only for a short time. The territories of today Fyrom were inhabited by slavs,greeks and later by Kuber's bulgars.After that was formed the bulgarian nationality and the majority of the population of Vardar Macedonia was bulgarian,while in Aegian Macedonia was greek.Serbs and albanians were always a minority in this lands.I never heard about serbs in Macedonia until 12th and 13th century when began their expansion.But again i'll say that serbians have never achieved demographical superiority in the lands of macedonia.In medieval even regions of Nis,Branicevo and Belgrad ware inhabited mostly by Bulgarians.------------- It is only the dead who have seen the end of war. Plato |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 16:43
Actually the 7th century immigration is not just a Serb myth invented to prove "national right", but actual historiography. One of their cities, Servia, remains to this day in southern Greek Egean Macedonia. The only difference is that many (to my opinion most) White Serbs left subsequently and colonized Rascia, Bosnia, Doclea, Travunia with Canalites, Zachlumia and Pagania. It is then that the non-academic Serbian irredentist propaganda ideology births how the Slavs from than to present-day are actually those same Serbs continually from the 7th century (totally false, perhaps only true in the minds of the Serbian Radical Party)! However, there is an interesting info about the 7 Slavic tribes that settled Macedonia (from whom today's Macedonians mostly descend, many Bulgarians and some Serbs too). Historical fact is also that 2 (or 3, can't remember, will look if you're interested) Slavic tribes actually descend from those White Serbs that came in the first half of the 7th century. True, but the fact that Serbs had demographic superiority in northern Macedonia is not quite such a myth (the area around Skopje). According to Serbian historians, Serbs populated northern Macedonia up until WWII, and that is probably correct, because the Allies noted that 120,000 Serbs have fled permanently Vardar Macedonia during and after WWII. The data of purges by the Ottoman Turks in the 19th century (no data is present for just northern or even all of Macedonia, but more than 400,000 Serbs were expelled from Ottoman possessions [Macedonia, Kosovo, Sanjak, Albania,...]). BTW, statehood does not mean a lot, but local presence and attitude of the population. Just count for how many years is Sumadija (center of modern Serbia) or even Macva is in Serbia? Or even more absurdly, do that with Vojvodina. Just look at the figure you get. Serbs are the only Balkan people that crazily moved all the time, and they don't have a compact homeland from which the Bulgarians and Croats... "draw their strength" (lol, was that a proper usage?) ;) ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 17:21
|
..to be correct, that city the White Serbs possessed in the Theme of
Thessalonica was "Ta Serbia", and Zonara mentions it in the 10th
century under a local Slavic name (which are one of the reasons for the
Serbian nationalistic claims for Macedonia): "Srpciste". Today it's
possibly roughly modern-day Servia (still bears its name). Other than these, there is only one occasion that dates before the 12th century. A Slavic colony in Asia minor populated by Slavs removed from the Balkans (back then the policy of Emperor was to brake the Slavic Barbarians for easier control), the "City of the Serbs" ca 680 and in 681 the local Serbs had their own Bishop, Isidor. The Byzantines stated that they took these Slavs from the Serbs living in the Vardar valley. Their colonies in Asia Minor completely died out by the 13th century. Other than this, there is no at all mention of "Serb" in Macedonia before the 12th/13th century. Bulgarian population of Nis, Belgrade and Branicevo - well, it depends on which time period. Remember that in times like those and taking to granted "Slavs" were an ethnic group (perhaps "Orthodox" as the leaste inner division), it's quite *natural* for the population of one town to be Bulgarian and then Serb later on just after several decades. Then again, I didn't hear data 'bout Bulgarians to the west as in Belgrade (I know a lot about Nish Bulgarians, but I haven't heard anythin' 'bout Branicevo either), I thought they just ruled the areas. ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 18:12
|
Krum, sorry to burst your buble, but they were ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 18:29
When were Turks majority in Bulgaria? How do you know?------------- . |
Posted By: violentjack
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2007 at 01:54
|
First Ethnic Bulgaria pre San Stefano was bit smaller then today Sofia was a small town in 1878, main Town was Plovdiv.Majority of settlements were in Rhodopi mountains and all were Muslim.Sofia was actually muslim village or small town untill 1878.All muslims were exiled, and what not Muslims were some 20% of Bulgaria by world war 2 Now, they are 12% I read Ottoman censuses in place, that compromises modern day Bulgaria ------------- Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite |
Posted By: Liudovik_Nemski
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2007 at 04:08
Oh yes of course maybe that's why during the russo-turkish war 1877-78 the turks were planning to exterminate the whole population of the town in order not to leave any supplies in their retreat.The city was saved by the western diplomats in it which said that they won't go away and that they will be staying in with their families,the turks fearing a international scandal spared the city only because of them. |
Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 16:03
|
In the end, one could compare the whole situation to that which is in Montenegro. If history is studied, why might get a far lot (if not 50 times more) *absurd* situation than the one with Macedonia. That's why I don't understand why should this case be so shockingly presented (e.g. like someone said only case in the history) - obviously this is not the single case in history.  ------------- "I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." |
Posted By: Burdokva
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 06:46
Large groups of Bulgarians fled from Eastern and Southern Thrace after the carnage of the April Rebellion, Russo-Turkish War of '77-'78 and the subsequent Liberation. The Ottoman archives demonstrate which territories were inhabited by predominately bulgarian population- Thrace, Macedonia, Misia. San-Stefano Bulgaria was formed after the territories given to the Bulgarian Exarchy with the sultan's ferman from 1870. The majority, not all, of the villages in the Eastern Rodopi may have been Muslim (and are still today), but Muslim does not mean Turkish. These people are pomaks, ethnic Bulgarians who became muslims after the forsefull muslimisation (forgive me if it's a wrong term) in the 1680's. "Pomaks" itself means "someone who was forced to became Muslim". Sadly, today parties like DPS speculate with this and present the pomaks as ethnic Turks. And with the worsening educational system and lack of historically and nationaly conciuos politicians it's no wonder why many people belive it... ------------- Unity makes Strenght |