Print Page | Close Window

Most...Stubborn Balkan Nation?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18642
Printed Date: 27-Sep-2022 at 15:50
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Most...Stubborn Balkan Nation?
Posted By: Spartakus
Subject: Most...Stubborn Balkan Nation?
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 18:58
So,who is the most stubborn nation in the Balkans?Wink

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)



Replies:
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 19:06
My vote goes to Serbia, absolutely superb tenacity in WWI and admirable partisan performance in WWII.

-------------


Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 22:33
Turkey - stubborn in a bad way.

-------------
Opium is the religion of the masses.

From each according to his need, to each according to his ability.


Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 22:38
Montenegro, they held out against everybody!


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 22:45
Serbia, though I won't use the word "stubborn". They held their land from Ottoman Empire for some time, and resisted fiercely against Austria and later, Austria-Hungary. They held outnumbered, against better equiped Austrian armies... and they did so without the help of Russians until the Germans came... and even then, they were able to successfully escape, only to strike at other times. Though I would often question their policies and their... overwhelming feeling of nationalism... Serbia is the nation worthy of respect.

-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: kasper
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 00:39
For sure Montenegro.

-------------


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 04:58

Disputed question with possible disputed meanings. lol



-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 05:31
Originally posted by pekau

Serbia, though I won't use the word "stubborn". They held their land from Ottoman Empire for some time, .


After the battle of Kossovo 1396- Serbian princes (with few exceptions) where simply puppies of the Ottomans...that s why they "held their land for some time".
Anyway "stubborn" could be interpreted in many ways!


-------------
http://protostrator.blogspot.com


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 06:26
Originally posted by pekau

Serbia, though I won't use the word "stubborn". They held their land from Ottoman Empire for some time,
 
Brainstorm wrote:
After the battle of Kossovo 1396- Serbian princes (with few exceptions) where simply puppies of the Ottomans...that s why they "held their land for some time".
Anyway "stubborn" could be interpreted in many ways!
 
The holding of land for some time doesn't go much for Serbia, they weren't able to hold on too much...This is true for some other instances.
 
But not many of the Serbian princes became "puppies" of Ottomans...This is also true for some instances but not Serbia, which had been mostly under direct control of Ottoman Empire.


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 07:25
I think Turkey can't be considereed a part of the balkan.

I mean I think personaly the first 4 in the list aren't nations in of the Balkan


-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 07:28
geez, that question is like comparing apples with apples

-------------


Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 11:03
OK, let's have a thread about the best kind of apples ;)


Posted By: Serge L
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 11:28
I voted Croatia for their stubbornness at maintaining with us old issues dating from WWII (for instance, proibition for Italian to own land in Croatia).
However, they will had to can them if the want to join the Union.


Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 11:47
Originally posted by Timotheus

Turkey - stubborn in a bad way.


Care to explain more?


-------------


Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 13:50
Originally posted by Dan Carkner

OK, let's have a thread about the best kind of apples ;)
ok


-------------


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 16:03
I like teh Granny smith apples the best hmmmmmmmmmmmmm GrannyTongue

if this poll wasn't started by a well respected member like Spartakus I would think this was a ment as  flame bate.

because most of who is the most..........threads are or end up in one


-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 23:57
Originally posted by Serge L

I voted Croatia for their stubbornness at maintaining with us old issues dating from WWII (for instance, proibition for Italian to own land in Croatia).
However, they will had to can them if the want to join the Union.
 
That is because the Italians have been trying to take away Croatian coastal lands for centuries. I completely understand their phobia of Italian landownership.
 
 
 
My vote goes to Serbia, stuborn in a bad way. An almost nonexisten diplomacy, bad human rights record, tenacity to start wars.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 00:06
Originally posted by pekau

Serbia, though I won't use the word "stubborn". They held their land from Ottoman Empire for some time, and resisted fiercely against Austria and later, Austria-Hungary. They held outnumbered, against better equiped Austrian armies... and they did so without the help of Russians until the Germans came... and even then, they were able to successfully escape, only to strike at other times. Though I would often question their policies and their... overwhelming feeling of nationalism... Serbia is the nation worthy of respect.
 
 
Anyone could have beated Austria in 1914, they were the sick man of Europe, just like the Ottoman state had been in 1800. Austria is on par with Italy in this time period when it comes to military efficiency, which was virtually non existant. The only miltary trump card they had was their military alliance with the German Empire, whose Army was the best and most efficient in Europe, and could spare men in the early stages to help the Austrian infantry out, alongside, invading France, and Russia, truly an amazing feat even though their effort had been futile from the start. They had Bosnia, Hungary with all their dependancies on their side and lost to an overwhelming Ottoman army, thereafter, they were vassals to the Ottoman Sultan, they had no say in any matter, the principalities were virtually a part of the Ottoman Empire. The only two countries that actually held out would be Bosnia, and Croatia for decades during the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans.


Posted By: Balaam
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 08:24
So thats what/where the Balkans are.....

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 09:27
Originally posted by Balaam

So thats what/where the Balkans are.....
?


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 09:40
Originally posted by Balaam

So thats what/where the Balkans are.....
 
LOL


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 09:48
Originally posted by es_bih

 
Anyone could have beated Austria in 1914, they were the sick man of Europe, just like the Ottoman state had been in 1800. Austria is on par with Italy in this time period when it comes to military efficiency, which was virtually non existant.
 
 
This statement is really silly Confused 
 
Please read the thread(s) dedicated to this topic in the past, which you can find using the function search.
 
 


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 10:03
Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Serge L

I voted Croatia for their stubbornness at maintaining with us old issues dating from WWII (for instance, proibition for Italian to own land in Croatia).
However, they will had to can them if the want to join the Union.
 
That is because the Italians have been trying to take away Croatian coastal lands for centuries. I completely understand their phobia of Italian landownership.
 
  
 
 
From the Italian point of view you can say the same about the attempts of the Balkanic Slavs to take away those coastal lands from Romance speaking people living there since the times of the Roman Empire.
 
Anyway I voted for Serbia too Smile
 
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 11:44
Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Serge L

I voted Croatia for their stubbornness at maintaining with us old issues dating from WWII (for instance, proibition for Italian to own land in Croatia).
However, they will had to can them if the want to join the Union.
 
That is because the Italians have been trying to take away Croatian coastal lands for centuries. I completely understand their phobia of Italian landownership.
 
  
 
 
From the Italian point of view you can say the same about the attempts of the Balkanic Slavs to take away those coastal lands from Romance speaking people living there since the times of the Roman Empire.
 
Anyway I voted for Serbia too Smile
 
 
 
Key word Romance speaking not Italians themselves my friend. Italy is confined to very clear borders. Across the coast is not Italy it's imperalism. I'm sorry but the Croatian point of view seems more reasonable of the two. The Croatians are a composition of those Illyrian, and Romance speaking components alongside the Slavic ones. They represent more the heritage of that region in my opinon.


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 19:50
Originally posted by Dan Carkner

OK, let's have a thread about the best kind of apples ;)
 
Ok... if Serbia is an apple, then... what is Turkey/Ottoman Empire? A huge watermelon!
 
Ack- , apples don't taste that great anyway. Let's talk about... sugar!


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 23:42
Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by es_bih

 
Anyone could have beated Austria in 1914, they were the sick man of Europe, just like the Ottoman state had been in 1800. Austria is on par with Italy in this time period when it comes to military efficiency, which was virtually non existant.
 
 
This statement is really silly Confused 
 
Please read the thread(s) dedicated to this topic in the past, which you can find using the function search.
 
 
 
It is not silly it is a proven fact, Serbia was not a might to toy with, Serbias military was not on part with the west. They beat the advancing Austrian army nevertheless. It is not a silly statement, it is an observation of the fact. They were not a great military power. The reason Germany kept being allied with them was because of Wilhelm II not Bismarck, Wilhelm II had no foresight, nor tactical knowledge, Bismarck saw the wisdom of a Russian alliance over one with Austria.


Posted By: Balaam
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2007 at 05:24
Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Balaam

So thats what/where the Balkans are.....
?
 
 
 
I never knew what country's made up the Balkans and was always too lazy to look it upLOLLOL


-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2007 at 06:31
i think we should of had a separate option for the Maniotis.


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2007 at 18:15
The title's slightly controversial.

If we go throughout history, Albanians could've been considered a part of Turkish nation and Macedonians either Bulgarian or Serbian (Montenegrins still of Serbian).

BTW, Bosnia and Herzegovina is hardly a nation.

Clarification is needed.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2007 at 20:05
Originally posted by Yugoslav




BTW, Bosnia and Herzegovina is hardly a nation.

 
Angry
 
Please do not get me started on this crap.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2007 at 20:09
Originally posted by Balaam

Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Balaam

So thats what/where the Balkans are.....
?
 
 
 
I never knew what country's made up the Balkans and was always too lazy to look it upLOLLOL
 
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2007 at 20:11
Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey.


Posted By: Balaam
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 04:01
Yeh I worked out what it is now from the poll but thanks anyway

-------------


Posted By: Mortazaa
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 07:54
we go throughout history, Albanians could've been considered a part of Turkish nation and Macedonians either Bulgarian or Serbian (Montenegrins still of Serbian).
 
bla bla, are you  serbian?


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 12:58
Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Yugoslav




BTW, Bosnia and Herzegovina is hardly a nation.

 
Angry
 
Please do not get me started on this crap.


For reference see these two (an encyclopedia):

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

"Bosnia and Herzegovina" is not quite a nation. Please do start => heck, man; this is a forum! Wink


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 13:06
Originally posted by Mortazaa

we go throughout history, Albanians could've been considered a part of Turkish nation and Macedonians either Bulgarian or Serbian (Montenegrins still of Serbian).
 
bla bla, are you  serbian?


I beg Your pardon?


Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 13:22
Its got to be Romania. They are so stubborn, they can't even accept they are in the Balkans!

Central Europe, Pah!

Balaam - I study the Balkans, yet I'm constantly being reminded about how I don't really know what countries are in the Balkans. Depends on who you ask and what period you ask them! Big%20smile


Posted By: Arbėr Z
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 13:31
Originally posted by Yugoslav

The title's slightly controversial.

If we go throughout history, Albanians could've been considered a part of Turkish nation and Macedonians either Bulgarian or Serbian (Montenegrins still of Serbian).

BTW, Bosnia and Herzegovina is hardly a nation.

Clarification is needed.
 
oh my god Yugo, you are a genius. Can you explain us more regarding the albanians and their turkish ethno - nationality?
 
And yes, you should beg your pardon, and wait for apologies if you continue posting nonsense!
 
About the topic, well...ok I wont comment it


-------------
Prej heshtjes...!


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 14:29
Originally posted by Arbėr Z

Originally posted by Yugoslav

The title's slightly controversial.

If we go throughout history, Albanians could've been considered a part of Turkish nation and Macedonians either Bulgarian or Serbian (Montenegrins still of Serbian).

BTW, Bosnia and Herzegovina is hardly a nation.

Clarification is needed.
 
oh my god Yugo, you are a genius. Can you explain us more regarding the albanians and their turkish ethno - nationality?
 
And yes, you should beg your pardon, and wait for apologies if you continue posting nonsense!
 
About the topic, well...ok I wont comment it


By the fact that the Ottomans were one nation, which included most parts of the modern-nation Turks and Albanians (but some Greeks and Slavs [Bulgarians and Serbs] too; although not to that far extent). Today however everything is recorded to the Turkish nation.

Why's that nonsense? If you posted "Yugoslavia" as a nation too, I'd daresay it's controversial because "Montenegro", "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Serbia", "Macedonia", "Croatia" are all already mentioned).

EDIT: Did you know that a regional Egyptian dynasty was founded by an Albanian? However, you could read this only in several places as a side-info; mostly you'll here he was a Turk (Ottomans, remember?).


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 14:42
Originally posted by es_bih

Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey.


Uh, NOW I understand; this poll is referring to Balkan COUNTRIES. Star


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 01:14
Originally posted by Yugoslav

Originally posted by es_bih

Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey.


Uh, NOW I understand; this poll is referring to Balkan COUNTRIES. Star
 
......


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 19:36
Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Yugoslav

Originally posted by es_bih

Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey.


Uh, NOW I understand; this poll is referring to Balkan COUNTRIES. Star
 
......


Speak, man. Big%20smile


Posted By: Arbėr Z
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 14:26
Originally posted by Yugoslav

Originally posted by Arbėr Z

Originally posted by Yugoslav

The title's slightly controversial.

If we go throughout history, Albanians could've been considered a part of Turkish nation and Macedonians either Bulgarian or Serbian (Montenegrins still of Serbian).

BTW, Bosnia and Herzegovina is hardly a nation.

Clarification is needed.
 
oh my god Yugo, you are a genius. Can you explain us more regarding the albanians and their turkish ethno - nationality?
 
And yes, you should beg your pardon, and wait for apologies if you continue posting nonsense!
 
About the topic, well...ok I wont comment it


By the fact that the Ottomans were one nation, which included most parts of the modern-nation Turks and Albanians (but some Greeks and Slavs [Bulgarians and Serbs] too; although not to that far extent). Today however everything is recorded to the Turkish nation.

Why's that nonsense? If you posted "Yugoslavia" as a nation too, I'd daresay it's controversial because "Montenegro", "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Serbia", "Macedonia", "Croatia" are all already mentioned).

EDIT: Did you know that a regional Egyptian dynasty was founded by an Albanian? However, you could read this only in several places as a side-info; mostly you'll here he was a Turk (Ottomans, remember?).
 
It is nonsense, and tautologic.
 
Are we all romans just because the roman empire (which lasted even longer than the ottoman) held the balkans for centuries?
 
Did i know about Mehmet Ali? Do you have any idea what kind of people frequent this forum? Or perhaps you thought we are here to discuss Formula 1?


-------------
Prej heshtjes...!


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 18:26
Originally posted by Arbėr Z

Originally posted by Yugoslav

Originally posted by Arbėr Z

Originally posted by Yugoslav

The title's slightly controversial.

If we go throughout history, Albanians could've been considered a part of Turkish nation and Macedonians either Bulgarian or Serbian (Montenegrins still of Serbian).

BTW, Bosnia and Herzegovina is hardly a nation.

Clarification is needed.
 
oh my god Yugo, you are a genius. Can you explain us more regarding the albanians and their turkish ethno - nationality?
 
And yes, you should beg your pardon, and wait for apologies if you continue posting nonsense!
 
About the topic, well...ok I wont comment it


By the fact that the Ottomans were one nation, which included most parts of the modern-nation Turks and Albanians (but some Greeks and Slavs [Bulgarians and Serbs] too; although not to that far extent). Today however everything is recorded to the Turkish nation.

Why's that nonsense? If you posted "Yugoslavia" as a nation too, I'd daresay it's controversial because "Montenegro", "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Serbia", "Macedonia", "Croatia" are all already mentioned).

EDIT: Did you know that a regional Egyptian dynasty was founded by an Albanian? However, you could read this only in several places as a side-info; mostly you'll here he was a Turk (Ottomans, remember?).
 
It is nonsense, and tautologic.
 
Are we all romans just because the roman empire (which lasted even longer than the ottoman) held the balkans for centuries?
 
Did i know about Mehmet Ali? Do you have any idea what kind of people frequent this forum? Or perhaps you thought we are here to discuss Formula 1?



That cannot be applied in that case. Tell me, which nation claims heritage (fully founded, and with global support) of the Roman Empire? None. Because that is extinct. However, the Ottomans are not extinct. They "are Turks", roughly said.


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 18:36
One nation which claim heritage to Ancient Romans,is the Romanians.

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 18:49
I think "Yugoslav" is just trolling.


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 10:09
Originally posted by The Hidden Face

I think "Yugoslav" is just trolling.


What? Why on earth did You come that conclusion? Cry


Posted By: Yugoslav
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 10:28
Originally posted by Spartakus

One nation which claim heritage to Ancient Romans,is the Romanians.


Yes, but they descend from romanized Dacians, and do not claim heritage of the entire Roman civilizations (which should logically most likely go to the Italians, but doesn't).


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 15:12
Yet,they are the only Balkanians who claim heritage from Romans,not only from Romanized Dacians.

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 15:30
ah sh*t. Pleasee. If serbs are not turks, than albanians are not.
 
why do we even talk about this bullsh*t?
 


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 05:58
Originally posted by Yugoslav


By the fact that the Ottomans were one nation, which included most parts of the modern-nation Turks and Albanians (but some Greeks and Slavs [Bulgarians and Serbs] too; although not to that far extent). Today however everything is recorded to the Turkish nation.
by your definition we all are Turkish. Many Albanians fought with and against the ottomans throughout their history and generally no matter what side they fought for they fought well.

heard of the millet system?




Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2015 at 12:29
One for all all for one!Smile


Posted By: Aeoli
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2015 at 14:33
In Turkey, Bosnians and Albanians are known like that



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com