Print Page | Close Window

Bulgaria

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=1722
Printed Date: 26-Apr-2018 at 05:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Bulgaria
Posted By: tzar
Subject: Bulgaria
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 17:45
Do you know anything about Bulgaria?
It will be a pleasure for me to intodoce my country
Bulgaria is the second eurpean country which exist untill our days and the first slavs' country. In the ancient times bulgarian language was an official diplomatic language. Bulgarians culture exerted influance upon Russian and Serbian ones. Bulgaria was created by khan Asparuh in 681. The greatest bulgarian king (tzar) during the First Bulgarian Empire (681-1018) is Simeon I the Great. During the rule of him Bulgaria included the whole territories of today's Romania, Moldova, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece and a parts from Hungary, Bosnia and european Turkey. His ruling is called the golden epoch. He once for all put the Christianity as national religion and wage many wars on Byzantium and compeled the Byzantine emperor Roman Lapkin  to recognized him as a amperor of bulgarians and byzantines also compeler Byzantina patriarch to recognized an independence of bulgarian church. After Simeon Bulgaria was being ruled by Peter I (Byzantium officialy recognized  that Bulgaria is  tzarstvo (empire)), Samuel I, Aaron, Ivan Vladislav (last two ruled around 10 years). During the rule of last bulgarian was conquered by Bassilii II who after the batlle of villiage Kluch captured one bulgarian army, and blinded the whole army as left one with one eye to led the army to Bulgarian tzar (Samuel I who when saw them deid from hart attack)
  The greatest tzar of the Second Bulgarian Empire (1185-1396) is Ivan II Asen. During his ruling Bulgaria became one of the great powers in europen southeast.
The greatest bulgarian's enemy during the first and second empire is Byzatium



Replies:
Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 23:54
Good post, I have a Bulgarian uncle however he doesnt talk nearly much about history then he does math or psychology stuff like that....I am aware this is irrelevant.


Posted By: pytheas
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2005 at 13:11
Thanks for the information, Tzar!  I do get tired of reading only of western Europe in the Medieval era.  It seems that anything east of the HRE (Holy Roman Empire) gets forgotten or at least buried.  I'd like to encourace more Eastern Euopeans to share their histories of the period.

-------------
Truth is a variant based upon perception. Ignorance is derived from a lack of insight into others' perspectives.


Posted By: Imperatore Dario I
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 13:08
Im glad someone here wants to talk about the Bulgarian Empire. Its a really interesting kingdom, and if you can post some links, I greatly appreciate that!

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

Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.- Virgil's Aeneid


Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 20:56
whatw as more powerful a Bulgarian Empire, or a Serbian Empire under Dusan? I know Bulgarians gave lots of trouble to Byzantine's I don't really kow much about it though.


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2005 at 22:11
Well, Sarmata, it really depends on which time period you are referring to.  Like any other people, we have at times been strong, and at times been weak.

As for links, there is always the wikipedia.  However, I have noticed that it has become abused lately.  Nevertheless, here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria

What information about Bulgaria are you exactly interested in?


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 03:20
well basically during the times when they made Byzantines worry, if thats accurate Im pretty sure there was Byzantine emperor whow as famous for killing Bulgarians, Basil was it? Im really not too good with Byzantine history, or bUlgarian, but I am interested in how Bulgarians rose to power where they made Byzantines fear them and what happened to the BUlgarian empire?


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 12:27

Well, the largest reason for the Bulgarians to be an irritation to the Byzantines was that they (we), from the founding of Danube Bulgaria, grew in size at the expense of the Byzantine Empire.  However, they (under Justinian II) could not do much about it, and after a defeat, they recognized the Bulgarian state in 681 A.D., and the Byzantine Empire even had to pay a yearly tax to the Bulgarian nation.  So, even from the beginning, the Bulgarians irritated the Byzantines quite a lot.

Now, as the Bulgarian textbooks (and most others, I believe) go, in this nation there lived Slavs, Bulgars, and Thracians.  At its helm was Han Asparuh, son of Han Kubrat, leader of Great Bulgaria, which was situated north of the Black Sea (which disbanded on his death, some Bulgars going to form Volga Bulgaria, others Danube Bulgaria, etc).

What made Byzantines fear Bulgarians?  Probably the constant threat of a powerful enemy so close to the capital.  It was besieged by Bulgarians many times, and Tzar Simeon even proclaimed himself ruler of Bulgarians and Byzantines, a title which wasn't challenged.

As for the Byzantine Emperor famous for killing Bulgarians, it was Basil II.  He massacred thousands of Bulgarians after a victorious battle in 1014, and ordered 14,000 Bulgarian soldiers to be blinded and sent back to their country (for every 100, he left one soldier with only one eye, so that he could lead them).  So people called him Basil the "Bulgar-Slayer".  After this battle, Bulgaria fell under Byzantine yoke for about 150 years. 

In 1185, Peter Asen lead a revolt, and took the title Tzar Peter II (Bulgarian rulers called themselves Tzars starting with Simeon the Great).  To make a long story short, the Bulgarians again received independence.

Anyways, Bulgarian history is classified into parts usually, First Bulgarian Empire, Byzantine rule, Second Bulgarian Empire, Turkish rule, and modern Bulgaria (that is really over-simplyfying things, but it gives you a rough picture).

Anyways, there is a lot of history in Bulgaria, intrigue, power, religion, powerful fortresses, majestic capitals (ok, ok, don't blame me that I'm a bit stereotypic, you would be too), that I can't even begin to describe it all in one post.



-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 17:52
First about Serbia and Bulgaria- As Kubrat said it depends of the period which we are talking about. But during the time of Stefan Dushan Serbia rose as one of the greatest power in balkan district. He ruled Serbia from 1331 to 1355 so this is also the time when Bulgaria rose again after 60-70 years of economic and politic decline. After some copus on Bulgarian throne came tzar Ivan Aleksandyr. He was ruling Bulgaria about 40 years and he waged many wars on Byzantium and not one on Serbia. This peace became deeper with Dushan's wedding for Ivan Aleksandyr's sister - Elena. So I can't tell you which country was more powerful!
About rising of Bulgarian empire- As you understoond Bulgaria was founded by khan Asparuh with help of 7 slavs tribes and locac thracains. After him Bulgaria was ruling of his son Therevel. This is a time with deep peace between Bulgaria and Byzantuim. Therevel also helped Buzantine emperor in his war against the Arabians as won a battle under the wall of Conastantinopol. For this he received a title cesar and strategy territory around  town  Verea.
With his death Bulgaria is fallen in period on dynasty's crisis, which ended when on the throne came khan Krum. With him began the rising of Bulgarian empire. He coquered many territories and issued the first Bulgarian laws. Also Krum remaied in hsitory as Krum The Terrible because of one  war against Byzantium - after a battle emperor Nikifor was killed and from his skull Krum made a cup and drunk from it during the celebration of winning. Now this sound very scary and difficult for understanding but  for Bulgarians that was a big honour. Now we don't do such  things.
With his death bulgarian throne is inherited from Omurtag. That was a time of big crisis in Byzantium so emperor concluded a peace treaty with Bulgaria about 40 years. Omurtag's government made Bulgaria stronger and prepared it for next years of continuously wars against Byzantium, Serbian and Hungarian tribes.
 One of the most interesting ruler of Bulgaria is Boris-Michael. This is the ruler who adopted the christianity as national religion. Also made Bulgarian church independent from Constantinopol's Patriarch and Rome's Pope (this act is completely done from his son Simeon the Great). Also he established the Currilic as national alphabet with help of St. Cyril and Methodius' students. The Bulgarian historians consider that St Cyril and Methodius are bulgarians, because of Methodius' words that he is a slav from family closed to the emperor's one. At this time Bulgaria is the only slavs country. In this way were created bulgarians as nation,, because  untill then Bulgaria was presented as  a mess from slavs, bulgarians and thracians who were speaking different languages and had different gods
here you are another link for Bulgarian history



Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 17:58
ops i forgot the links
www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/
www.eunet.bg/books/history/

blagodaria na Kubrat za pomoshta


Posted By: Jorsalfar
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 18:00

Nessebur in Bulgaria is such a beatiful city.

Ill have to travel to Bulgaria soon.



Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2005 at 13:51
Welcome!
You won't be  sorry for this!


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2005 at 14:22
Niama zashto tzar 

-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2005 at 21:47
I have a question. What is the relation between present Bulgaria and Bulgares?

There was people called Bulgares and they had two kingdoms (one on the shores of Volga another Danube) at some point and I thought they were turco-altaique tribes (related to Turcs).
How Slavs came into the picture?
I enjoy this thread.


Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2005 at 07:17

Ah it's a long story! I will try to make it short

Yes Bulgars are turco-alataique tribes. Theirs motherland were around Altai (i think in Kazahstan). During the great migration of people they (Bulgars) populated the area north of Black sea and founded there a counrty named Great Old Bulgaria. This country existed untill 7 century i think when broke down under atacks of Hazars (i don't know thier name in anglish). At the time Bulgaria was ruling from khan Kubrat, he had (i think) 5 sons or more!Some of them stayed there and fought against the Hazars and others like Asparuh, Kotarg,Vund deceided to went somewhere else and Asparuh came here and founded today's Bulgaria. Kotarg went to area of Volga and founded there a country Volgka Bulgaria which was existing untill XV century. Vund went in today's Turkey  around lake Van and others in Italy. When bulgars came here theses territories were populated from slavs and thracians, so they want to be independent from Buzatium and joined in an union agist them, because slavs were more than bulgars and tharacains they assimilated others nation in the course of time.



Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2005 at 07:45
This is the short version of these events.
I hope ro understand me because my english sometimes is awful


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2005 at 10:38
Originally posted by tzar

This is the short version of these events.
I hope ro understand me because my english sometimes is awful

I did understand you and thank you for a very nice explanation. It does look like Bulgaria has an exciting history.


Posted By: Jorsalfar
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2005 at 13:58

Originally posted by cavalry4ever

Originally posted by tzar

This is the short version of these events.
I hope ro understand me because my english sometimes is awful

I did understand you and thank you for a very nice explanation. It does look like Bulgaria has an exciting history.

Indeed.I should study it more closer



Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2005 at 15:39

If you want you can try these links

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/History%20of%20Bulgaria - http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/History%20of%20Bul garia

http://home.no.net/bhb1/bg-h03e.htm - http://home.no.net/bhb1/bg-h03e.htm

or search in historychannel for bulgaria.

I like the most first link. There are also list of bulgarians rulers (on bottom)

or go on http://www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/ - http://www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/

or just type on google history of bulgaria. Also can try to search for macedionian question. this is a link about it

http://www.hri.org/docs/macque/text2.html - http://www.hri.org/docs/macque/text2.html

Macedonian question is a very painful topic about us Bulgarians



Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2005 at 19:48
Everyone here should keep in mind that, as in all countries and nations, the history has been influenced by the whims of politicians...

Many ideas that were promoted during communist Bulgaria were promoted with a purpose, not just because they thought they were correct (this of course, has happened in every country around the world). Archaeologists primarily focused on the Slav part of our heritage. (because of the obvious ties to Russia)

I say this because many new discoveries are being made in Bulgaria these days, concerning the Bulgars and the Thracians. For example, this 500g gold mask, found in Bulgaria, signifies that we might have much more heritage from the Thracians than we realized.



Anyways, with that said, here is a link which I find very good:

http://vesselka.freeservers.com/Bulg.htm#encyclopaedia - http://vesselka.freeservers.com/Bulg.htm#encyclopaedia

-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2005 at 06:01

Yes, you are right Kubrat. There are so much, that we don't know about the Thracians. This mask, i think, belongs to the one of Greatest thracains ruler Sevt III and there is so much tombs in "the valley of thracians rulers" with which we are not acquainted

Most of people even don't know that Orfey wasn't greek but thracian and he has been living in territories of today's Bulgaria in area of the Rodophs and river of Marica. Also somewhere in Bulgaria is a place where Alexandar The Great has been chosen to be a king. And if it be discovered it will be equal to discover the holy graal, because this is a sanctuary of Dionisous (the god of wine and he also is a thracian) and there thracians have done their holy rituals and boded the future.About stronghold Perperikon which is one very mysterious place and we know only a little about it. Even some weeks ago we discovered his try name. And also thracians rulers are joined in the Troian war on the side of Troi.

We will be witnesses of very interesting events in the coming years!!!!!



Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2005 at 19:32
Due to the enthusiasm here about Bulgaria, I have started a project to make a longer article for the main site.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1846&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1846& ;PN=1&TPN=1


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 20:31
Originally posted by Kubrat

Due to the enthusiasm here about Bulgaria, I have started a project to make a longer article for the main site.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1846&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1846& ; ;PN=1&TPN=1


I enjoyed your article. I knew bits  and pieces about bulgarian history, but this puts them into a serious historical context.
Could you write something about Bulgare-Frankish alliances?
I am also glad that Soviet era haze is coming down on history of Bulgaria.


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 21:39
Yup, thanks .  I'm just hoping I find the time to finish it completely.

-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: JasSum
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2005 at 19:18
Good propaganda. Too bad that in all those points you put a lot of lies.

1. Samoil is a MACEDONIAN tzar.
Why? WEll first of all he recived the crown from Rome not from Konstantinopol. Obvious reasons. He was found of the erretic movemant also known as "bogomili". And even more important, he was fighting AGAINST the roman empire (now knowns as eastern roman empire or byzant) So the crown he recived was from Rome, and can't be linked to any other crowns.

2. Bulghk-ar, the origin is obviuos. Even today anyone that went in bulgaria can notice one good point. The people that are the origin of the state are of mongol origin. Todays mixture of those mongols with slavic, macedonian, thracian, turish people are known as bulgars.

3. About the mask. 3 of them were found in Macedonia, but during the occupations they were "borowed never to return".


Stop spreading lies.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2005 at 20:58

Originally posted by JasSum

Good propaganda. Too bad that in all those points you put a lot of lies.

1. Samoil is a MACEDONIAN tzar.
Why? WEll first of all he recived the crown from Rome not from Konstantinopol. Obvious reasons. He was found of the erretic movemant also known as "bogomili". And even more important, he was fighting AGAINST the roman empire (now knowns as eastern roman empire or byzant) So the crown he recived was from Rome, and can't be linked to any other crowns.

2. Bulghk-ar, the origin is obviuos. Even today anyone that went in bulgaria can notice one good point. The people that are the origin of the state are of mongol origin. Todays mixture of those mongols with slavic, macedonian, thracian, turish people are known as bulgars.

3. About the mask. 3 of them were found in Macedonia, but during the occupations they were "borowed never to return".


Stop spreading lies.

That is correct,I agree with you all this is propaganda.



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


Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2005 at 12:54
I am not so sure as you that /Samuel/ is macedonian tsar.  He has moved capital from Preslav to Ohrid, because Preslav were conqueted from Byzatine emperor Ioan and about the mask it has been found only  before some months and territories which has never been called Macedonia - east from town of Stara Zagora if you don't believe me look on the map! I have never lied for anything my dear boy!!!!!!!!!!!! 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2005 at 18:24

Originally posted by tzar

I am not so sure as you that /Samuel/ is macedonian tsar.   

Are saying that Bulgaria was ruled by two kings at same time, one Boris and other Macedonian King Samuel  immposible or in Bulgaria evrything is possible.Ebate krvta tvoja tatarska



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


Posted By: JasSum
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2005 at 08:34
I am talking about the golden mask in the museum in sofia. The throne was moved to Ohrid when Ohrid was rebelated from roman army (byzant army).

And trust me, i study this.

And as i thought, you cant coment on the rest of my reply ..
:}


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2005 at 10:27

Originally posted by Macedonian

Ebate krvta tvoja tatarska

Please do not write in language other than english, it's against the rules of the forum and disrespectfull to the rest of the forumers. There's a non-english part of the forum for such discussions.



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2005 at 14:29

Yiannis don't pay attention to such people like him. If you want I can translate to you.

To Macedonian- my dear boy Boris I Michael was ruling from 852 to 889 and Samuel 997-1014 and please DO NOT INSULT ME! Do you understand me or want to tell you on Bulgarian ....ooh I'm sorry..... on Macedonian!

JasSum - First I don't want to comment other part of your message because i said it in one of my previous post. Bulgars are turks tribes, not mongols- they never have been and never will be. Second- About Samuel, I'll just ask you this -everybody here know that the Byzantine emperor Basil II called himself "Bulgar-slayer" after battle near Kluch. So my question to you is simple - just explain us, why he /Basil II/ did not call himself "Macedonians' slayer" after according to you he had fought against the "Macedonian" tsar.Third after Samuel capital was also moved to Prespa /I think/ and after him there were another 2 tsars- Gavrail-Radomir and Ivan Vladislav, but about them you /i mean the macedonians/ don't know or most of you don't know.

I  don't want to trust you........



Posted By: JasSum
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2005 at 20:12
Ostrogorski is pretty sure when he wrotes that Samuil has nothing with Bulgaria. He had nothing with the "yellow race".
About Vasil II. There were some indications that he got that name after fighting bulgars on the eastern border of the empire. Macedonia is on the west. Your statemant that bulgars are turks in origin is giving more relevance to this. Turks were on the eastern border of the empire as well as some of them left on the balkans.
And as we know he was killed people on the east, and he killed noone from samuils army. He tooked their eyes, but he killed noone. And his nickname is slayer. So think again before accepting everything your nogood govermant gives you as history.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2005 at 20:31
Originally posted by Yiannis

Originally posted by Macedonian

Ebate krvta tvoja tatarska

Please do not write in language other than english, it's against the rules of the forum and disrespectfull to the rest of the forumers. There's a non-english part of the forum for such discussions.

Yanko thank you for the info.But he speak macedonian and we can understand each other.



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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2005 at 21:55
Originally posted by tzar

Yiannis don't pay attention to such people like him. If you want I can translate to you.

To Macedonian- my dear boy Boris I Michael was ruling from 852 to 889 and Samuel 997-1014 and please DO NOT INSULT ME! Do you understand me or want to tell you on Bulgarian ....ooh I'm sorry..... on Macedonian!

JasSum - First I don't want to comment other part of your message because i said it in one of my previous post. Bulgars are turks tribes, not mongols- they never have been and never will be. Second- About Samuel, I'll just ask you this -everybody here know that the Byzantine emperor Basil II called himself "Bulgar-slayer" after battle near Kluch. So my question to you is simple - just explain us, why he /Basil II/ did not call himself "Macedonians' slayer" after according to you he had fought against the "Macedonian" tsar.Third after Samuel capital was also moved to Prespa /I think/ and after him there were another 2 tsars- Gavrail-Radomir and Ivan Vladislav, but about them you /i mean the macedonians/ don't know or most of you don't know.


 

The son of Peter ,Boris ruled 969-972



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


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2005 at 03:26

Originally posted by Macedonian

Yanko thank you for the info.But he speak macedonian and we can understand each other.

My name is Yiannis so I'd appreciate it if you could spell it correctly.

When it comes to the "mutual understanding" part, you and JasSum, same as Tzar who's Bulgarian, can understand what you write - since you speak the same language - but the rest of the forumers don't.

So, once again, write in languages other than english only in the "non-english language forum"

Here it is for your convenience: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=20 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=20



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2005 at 03:56

Originally posted by JasSum


And as we know he was killed people on the east, and he killed noone from samuils army. He tooked their eyes, but he killed noone. And his nickname is slayer. So think again before accepting everything your nogood govermant gives you as history.

He devestated King Samouel's army! I don't understant where do you get the things that you write.

Here's Ioannes Skylitzes' record of the battle:

The emperor [Basil II] did not relent, but every year he marched into Bulgaria and laid waste and ravaged all before him. Samuel was not able to resist openly, nor to face the emperor in open warfare, so, weakened from all sides, he came down from his lofty lair to fortify the entrance to Bulgaria with ditches and fences. Knowing that the emperor always made his incursions through [the plain] known as Campu Lungu and [the pass known as] Kleidion ('the key'), he undertook to fortify the difficult terrain to deny the emperor access. A wall was built across the whole width [of the pass] and worthy defenders were committed to it to stand against the emperor. When he arrived and made an attempt to enter [Bulgaria], the guards defended the wall manfully and bombarded and wounded the attackers from above. When the emperor had thus despaired of gaining passage, Nikephoros Xiphias, the strategos of Philippopolis, met with the emperor and urged him to stay put and continue to assault the wall, while, as he explained, he turned back with his men and, heading round to the south of Kleidion through rough and trackless country, crossed the very high mountain known as Belasica.

On 29 July, in the twelfth indiction [1014], [Xiphias and his men] descended suddenly on the Bulgarians, from behind and screaming battle cries. Panic stricken by the sudden assault [the Bulgarians] turned to flee, while the emperor broke through the abandoned wall. Many [Bulgarians] fell and many more were captured; Samuel barely escaped from danger with the aid of his son, who fought nobly against his attackers, placed him on a horse, and made for the fortress known as Prilep. The emperor blinded the Bulgarian captives -- around 15 000 they say -- and he ordered every group of one hundred to be led back to Samuel by a one-eyed man. And when [Samuel] saw the equal and ordered detachments returning he could not bear it manfully nor with courage, but was himself struck blind and fell in a faint to the ground. His companions revived him for a short time with water and smelling salts, and somewhat recovered he asked for a sip of cold water. Taking a gulp he had a heart attack and died two days later on 6 October.

 

Some relevant reading: http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Stephenson_basil.htm - http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Stephenson_basil.htm

http://www.geocities.com/nbulgaria/bulgaria/kleidion.htm - http://www.geocities.com/nbulgaria/bulgaria/kleidion.htm

http://www.findword.org/sa/samuil-of-bulgaria.html - http://www.findword.org/sa/samuil-of-bulgaria.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/battle_of_kleidion - http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/battle_of_kleidion



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2005 at 04:47

[/QUOTE]

The son of Peter ,Boris ruled 969-972

[/QUOTE]

Boris I Michael is a son of khan Presian and this who you are talking about Boris II was ruling only one year 970-971 and was killed when truing to run out from Constantinopole.... so what about him???. After him tsar became Roman/977-997/ and then Samuel/997-1014/.

....But why did you write only this sentence on macedonian then?

JasSum I can show you much maps of Europe from that time, but I can see Bulgaria only on the west border of the empire  Even you don't know what you are talking about. First you maintain the thesis that bulgars are mongols and now you are agree that they are turks!

About Basil II: its not written by me or any bulgarian propagandist

From 986 until 1014 there was warfare between Byzantium and Bulgaria, interrupted from time to time by Basil II's intermittent expeditions to settle crises on the eastern front. Basil II enlisted Venetian help in protecting the Dalmatian coast and Adriatic waters from Bulgarian aggression. Year by year he slowly penetrated into Samuel's territory, campaigning in winter as well as summer. In 1001 Basil liberated Philippoupolis, in 1003 Verroia, Larisa, Servia, Skopia, and Edessa in Macedonia, were also liberated by the Greek army.

During this period the region of Kalavria prospered. The cities of Kroton, Vari, Righion, Taras, Ydrous, Kallipolis in southern Italy were the centers of greek literature, commerce, and education. Aghios Nilos, Vartholomaios and Ioannis Philagathos were the greatest scholars, in the region of Kalavria. The Byzantine rulers of these regions are called Katepano. But these regions are in constant threat from Arab invasions and pillages. In 1003, a Venetian fleet under commandment of doge Petros II Orseolos saved the city of Vari from arab siege. The Venetians helped, because they had signed a treaty with Basil, which gave them access through Ellispontus for their commercial activities, and they, in return were obliged to defend Greek cities in southern Italy, from arab raids.

Finally, holding northern and central Bulgaria, he advanced toward Samuel's capital, Achris (northern of Prespes lakes), and won the crushing victory, that gave him his nickname, "Slayer of the Bulgars". The battle took place in Kleidi (Kimvaloggos), on 29 July 1014. His general Nikiphoros Votaniates managed to surround the enemy defence lines, causing the Bulgars to surrender in a state of panic. It was then that he blinded the whole Bulgarian army, leaving one eye to each 100th man, so that the soldiers might be led back to the Tzar who died of shock shortly after seeing this terrible spectacle. Thus the revived Bulgarian kingdom (that stretched from adriatic to black sea and from Dounabe river to Thesally), after decades of wars against the Greek state was incorporated into the Byzantine Empire. But only on 1018, Basil completed his campaign against Bulgarians, and then he visited the provinces of his empire, who were released from the bulgarian threat. It was then that he visited Athens to pay his respects to the great capital of ancient greeks. Later he sailed from Piraeus to his capital Constantinople, where he was received with great honors and entered through Golden Gate

And about Ostrogovski - is  he this who you called the founder of today's Macedonia. It's so funny - he is a bulgarian /born near Kjustendill or Blagoevgrad/ and was working for the Serbians' government and after this for serbians' propaganda, but this which is more funny of all is that he has never spoken macedonian. This great founder never even tried to said a word on macedonian......



Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2005 at 04:57

Yiannis just open one textbook of macedonian history and you'll be shocked from this which you will be reading



Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2005 at 09:47
Originally posted by Macedonian

Originally posted by Yiannis

Originally posted by Macedonian

Ebate krvta tvoja tatarska

Please do not write in language other than english, it's against the rules of the forum and disrespectfull to the rest of the forumers. There's a non-english part of the forum for such discussions.

Yanko thank you for the info.But he speak macedonian and we can understand each other.

That he can understand you is not the point . The point is as Yannis said - It is against the rules of the forum and rude to the other members so please refrane from the use of other languages in all but the forign language forum.



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


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2005 at 20:09
Besides, recently, they found a border stone from Tzar Samuil's reign, specifically stating he was Tzar of the Bulgarians.

Ostrogorski is pretty sure when he wrotes that Samuil has nothing with Bulgaria. He had nothing with the "yellow race".


Yes, we are very yellow.  As yellow as this smiley , in fact, I have a Mongolian cousin! (No disrespect meant to Mongolians, I'm just trying to prove a point).  No Bulgarian is 'yellow'.

3. About the mask. 3 of them were found in Macedonia, but during the occupations they were "borowed never to return".


Sources please?

So think again before accepting everything your nogood govermant gives you as history.



That's a really hypocritical statement.  Where did you get your information?  From a government whose propaganda was aimed at making Macedonian Slavs feel seperate from every other peoples on the Balkans!


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2005 at 20:23
people last warning : Please keep the discussion on topic and civil of this thread will follow the way of many others at this moment. It would be a shome to have this end in such an undignified manner.

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


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2005 at 20:30
You're right Dawn, I apologize if any of my remarks were offending to anyone.

-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Rava
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2005 at 10:51
Well, if some Polovcy (Kumans) joined Bulgars, its possible that some Bulgars could be "yellow" in terms of hair color. . Kumans means probably "yellow hair people" in ugro-altaic languages.


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2005 at 17:37


Well, actually, my cousin is blonde, and so was his dad. 


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Hellinas
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2005 at 21:00
Originally posted by Yiannis

Here's Ioannes Skylitzes' record of the battle

 The emperor blinded the Bulgarian captives -- around 15 000 they say -- and he ordered every group of one hundred to be led back to Samuel by a one-eyed man. A



Actually the action of blinding the Bulgarian soldiers is said to have been a lenient form of punishment, since treason was punished by death.


Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2005 at 10:53

Temperary locked because some can't stop flaming.

Edit: I cleaned up the last page of this thread and unlocked it. Now please feel free to continue with discussion on topic. but any indication of continued flamming will result in a permanent closure. Thank you for your cooperation.



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


Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2005 at 13:26

Thank you.

That really is the best which you can do!

What were we talking about?



Posted By: KurganRatnik
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2005 at 13:35
Very fascinating

-------------
'endow your greatest fears'-Kpt. Danylo Kurkowicz


Posted By: Thracian
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2005 at 20:27

This is 'Velic Ternovo' (today) - capital during 1185-1393 A.D. second bulgarian kingdom



Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 02:36

Originally posted by Rava

Well, if some Polovcy (Kumans) joined Bulgars, its possible that some Bulgars could be "yellow" in terms of hair color. . Kumans means probably "yellow hair people" in ugro-altaic languages.

Actually Bulgaria has been ruling by Kumans dynasty - Terter /Eagle/. And quite Kumans have settled in Bulgaria!



Posted By: Thracian
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2005 at 04:11

The kumans dynasty - the tsars did have bulgarian in them right?



Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2005 at 07:08
I've answered to you but not in english! Yes Bulgarians had them in right. The first tsar from this dynasty - Geogre I Terter was one of most powerful boliars in Bulgaria at this time and others boliars hoped that he could stop Ivailo /or Ivailo's uprising/. His son Teodor Svetoslav is one of the greatest Bulgarians tsars. Actually kumans were used as allies from most of Bulgarian tsars - Asen I, Kalo'an, Ivan Asen II and etc. They populeted territories of today's south Romania and until 12 century this territories were part of Bulgaria.


Posted By: Red_Lord
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 07:41

In a Bulgarian song is said:"beutiful girl,kuman girl".

This can be sign that kumans were high,blond and beautiful people.I'am also blond-brown.And a big percent of bulgars+macedonian bulgars are blond or with brown hairs.



-------------
"The slave is fighting for freedom,free is fighting for perfectness"
Yane Sandanski


Posted By: Red_Lord
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2005 at 02:34
TZAR,HAPPY BIRTHDAY

-------------
"The slave is fighting for freedom,free is fighting for perfectness"
Yane Sandanski


Posted By: Monteleone
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2005 at 17:20

Hello all,

Perhaps someone can help me? I'm searching for information on Salan or Zalan the bulgarian duke who had his capital in Titel.

Any info would be helpful

Thanks



Posted By: giani_82
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2005 at 03:13

Salan or Zalan was, according to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum" title="Gesta Hungarorum - Gesta Hungarorum , a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria" title=Bulgaria>Bulgarian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke" title=Duke>Duke who ruled in the territory of present day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojvodina" title=Vojvodina>Vojvodina in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_century" title="9th century - 9th century . He ruled in the territory of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backa" title=Backa>Backa , between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube" title=Danube>Danube and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisa" title=Tisa>Tisa rivers and capital city of his Dukedom was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titel" title=Titel>Titel .

He was vassal of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria" title=Bulgaria>Bulgaria , but we cant say for sure was he of Bulgarian origin or from local http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples" title="Slavic peoples - Slavic population. It is possible that he was descendant of Great Kean, a Bulgarian ruler who conquered territory between Danube and Tisa.

His name might not be real. There is theory that his name means "the salt man", so it could be a name given to him by the authors of the chronicles, describing the role he had: supplying salt for his suzerain (Simeon the Great, Bulgarian Emperor).

At the time of Hungarian conquest (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/896" title=896>896 ), Bulgarian Emperor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_I_of_Bulgaria" title="Simeon I of Bulgaria - Simeon came to the aid to Duke Salan and even the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine" title=Byzantine>Byzantine Emperor sent auxiliary troops against the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians" title=Hungarians>Hungarians . Hungarians defeated Bulgarians and Byzantines in the early http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_century" title="10th century - 10th century and Dukedom of Salan fall under Hungarian rule.

Main historical source about duke Salan is historical chronicle known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum" title="Gesta Hungarorum - Gesta Hungarorum , written by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter" title=Peter>Peter , a high priest in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buda" title=Buda>Buda , during the time of Hungarian King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bela_III" title="Bela III - Bela III in the late http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_century" title="12th century - 12th century . The 10th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard" title=Lombard>Lombard chronicler, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liudprand" title=Liudprand>Liudprand , also wrote about a Hungarian victory over Bulgarians and Byzantines in the early 10th century.

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

This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalan

There you could see an image of his province. For sure it doesn't sound like a slavic name.



-------------
"Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising everytime we fall."
Confucius


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2005 at 03:48

"Main historical source about duke Salan is historical chronicle known as Gesta Hungarorum"

1. The only source.

2. The Gesta Hungarorum is not a chronicle. It is a gesta, which is genre of literature. Basically it is the medieval form of historical novel.



Posted By: Monteleone
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2005 at 10:30

Ok Raider,

I see you are from Hungary.

How would you like to translate the Anonymus Gesta Hungarorum into English? I would be happy to pay you. I've been trying to find an English copy for several years but it's just not there.

Here is a  Hungarian version: http://mek.oszk.hu/02200/02245/02245.htm - http://mek.oszk.hu/02200/02245/02245.htm

 

 



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2005 at 12:26

 

Monteleone:

Sorry, I can't help you. My English knowledge is limited, and I have other obligations.

I think you can order it from:

http://www.ceupress.com/books/html/CEMTVol1GestaHungarorum.html - http://www.ceupress.com/books/html/CEMTVol1GestaHungarorum.h tml

or

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/9639116319/102-8031216-2774559?v=glance - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/9639116319/102 -8031216-2774559?v=glance



Posted By: Monteleone
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 00:02
Originally posted by Raider

 

Monteleone:

Sorry, I can't help you. My English knowledge is limited, and I have other obligations.

I think you can order it from:

http://www.ceupress.com/books/html/CEMTVol1GestaHungarorum.html - http://www.ceupress.com/books/html/CEMTVol1GestaHungarorum.h tml

or

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/9639116319/102-8031216-2774559?v=glance - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/9639116319/102 -8031216-2774559?v=glance

This one is from Simon of Keza. I have a copy of this. I was looking for the one by the Anonymous chronicler written about 1125. If you kow of anyone that may be interested, let me know

Or if anyone knows of primary sources for the Bulgarian Emperor that conquered north of the Danube prior to the Magyars arrival?

Thanks.

 



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 05:40

Monteleone:

Your 're right, I confused them.

I have asked some of my friend, but nobody really interested. Sorry!



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 04:51

 

Here is a link:

http://www.mek.oszk.hu/01900/01954/html/index307.html - http://www.mek.oszk.hu/01900/01954/html/index307.html

A Carpathian Basin before the Hungarian conquest according to the gesta of Anonymus.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 08:38

 

Monteleone:

I have found this:

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum - http://wikisource.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum  



Posted By: The_Last_Byzantine
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2005 at 17:05
The big tragedy of the Second  Bulgarian kingdom was that its kings did not understand that The Byzantine empire was not only an enemy but also their best friend,since for hundreds of years the empire protected the Balkan peninsula from persians,arabs,turks...During the 13th and 14th centuries bulgarian kings contributed a lot  to the depopulation of the byzantine lands and in this way to the decline of the Byzantine empire.This bulgarian improvidence is one of the causes for the ottoman fast success.


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 11:26
You are right. All Balcan kings and rulers were shortsighed, fighting among themselves, instead of uniting against the common threat. Sometimes I ask myself how could they have been so blind in the face of the oncoming catastophy. The 500 years of Ottoman slavery were a horrible tragedy and we, the Balcan nations, are all responsible for our own foolishnes.


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 16:12

 I agree with both the_last_Byzantine and the_Bulgarian, the Balkan powers were incredibly short-sighted in not seeing the very real threat the Turks presented to them all.

 I dare say also the West was even more short-sighted its effective destruction of the only thing stopping the Muslim tide in favour of an impoverished and ultimately doomed Latin Empire goes far far beyond stupidity.

 However i'm sure at the time the Bulgars saw that turning down the opportunity to gain from the tottering Byzantine empire and the total chaos that was the Balkans in the 13th century was an opportunity they couldnt afford to miss.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 22:23
To their credit, the Bulgarians played an important role in repelling the Arab invasion of Constantinople under Maslamah in 717.

Their actions post-1204 are understandable I think. Byzantium had been withering from its core for years and steadily losing ground to the Turks, unlike in the 8th and 9th centuries when she proved herself vigorous enough to fight on if only given the chance. Many of these Bulgarian rulers didn't want to destroy Byzantium but instead wanted to pick up the tab and take her place. The Serbians also aspired to this under such rulers as Urosh. Partly through their lack of resources (naval, military, political organisation, historical legitimacy) and partly through their mismanagment of trying to become the new Byzantium (Ioannitza and his atrocities against Greeks, wanton destruction in Byzantine lands), the Bulgarians couldn't quite fill the gap.


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


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2005 at 03:02

You are all very correct. What's really ironic though, is that Byzantium was the first state to bring the Turks to Europe, using them as mercenaries in her wars with Serbia, Bulgaria and the civil wars for the throne.

If I'm not mistaken the first serious anti-Turk coalition in the Balcans was assembled by prince Lazar. At least one bright man in Balcan pilitics...



Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2005 at 03:37

Most probably because, they know,the turks attacking balkain is  not all turks, but only a small turkish state. Infact It was smallest one.

 



Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2005 at 17:17
Originally posted by Mortaza

Most probably because, they know,the turks attacking balkain is  not all turks, but only a small turkish state. Infact It was smallest one.

 



That's correct, the Turks were far from being the united Empire they were in later times. Many individual tribes went where they wanted and even fought eachother. I think the Byzantine Emperors who brought the Turks into Europe either used mercenaries, or otherwise Emperors such as John VI called upon his Ottoman allies to whom he was tied by a marriage alliance. It was only a matter of time before these Turks realized just how weak the Balkans were and decided to invade without a Byzantine invitation.


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


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2005 at 18:02

 Had Byzantium been stronger during the 14th century I see no reason why it couldnt of recovered Anatolia, the Catalan company smashed the Ottomans and the Karamans in western and central Asia Minor leaving it open to reconquest. This was as pointed out partly due to the fact the Turks were so divided at the time, so had Andronicus II not effectively disbanded the best regiments of the army and the entire navy then the future for the Turks would of looked bleak instead of Byzantiums.

 Such as it was Byzantine weakness and the constant warfare in the Balkans, between the Bulgars, Serbs and Frankish principalities etc left them all open to destruction when the Turks finally got their act together.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: NikeBG
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 07:18
It is even worse when you think about the fact that the Turks would've never conquered whole South-East Europe, if it wasn' for their Balkan (and Christian) vassals. Or as one man had said once: "The horrible truth is that the Balkans fell under the sword and the sabre of the Balkaners themselves." Or to quote the German historian Hamer (sp?): "The Ottomans advanced and conquered Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks, using the courage of Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks. And furthermore it's a shame that among the first to haste accepting to be Ottoman vassals were those, which were not on the first line of the battle. And for what? Again mainly for small politics and short-sightedness - so that they could fight with anyone, who's not Turkish vassal and with Turkish help to beat them. But because of this the Ottomans have such a big success and become such a big power - the splintered Balkan nations not only miss the chance to unite against the common enemy, but they also offer their services to the Ottomans. Hah, even the "famous" (at least here) Bulgarian-Serbian hero, Krali Marko, well-known from the folk songs for his great battles with the enslaver, actually died while performing his vassal duty, fighting on the side of the Turks in Dobrudzha! Yeah, Bulgarian and Balkan history as a whole are full of moments of unseen greatness and unimaginable disasters... Maybe that's why it's so interesting (and btw I wonder why hasn't anyone filmed something from it for the wide audience)?!


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 07:35

Actually, there was a movie about the fall of Constantinople, but this is all there is.



Posted By: NikeBG
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 07:42
Oh, do you know what's its name? And what (or whose) production is it? It would be interesting to see even this little...


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 07:49

I don't know, but there's a thread on it somewhere. You should check it out.



Posted By: Isbul
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 07:54
Wasnt this threat only for fantazing what the "eventual" future movie of "the Fall" will be.Not that there is such movie.It actualy doesnt

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


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 10:21

 It is fair to mention though the fierce resistance the Serbs offered the Turks, atleast unlike some they had the guts to stand up to them on more than one occasion. Although the Serbs were largely defeated had they been helped by their neighbours then perhaps the calls for a crusade from the west would of been unnecessary.

 I believe the Balkans had enough power by itself to stop the Turks if it united against its common enemy whilst it had time to do so, Byzantium had provided that kind of unity for centuries the constant squabbling and wars in the Balkans however instead of replacing Byzantiums uniting influence only sought to weaken it and in turn weaken the Balkans as a whole.

 The Turks at times probably couldnt believe their luck that so many people were so blind to the danger they represented.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 11:27
I think it was the Dusan Empire which eventually led to the overall breakdown of the Balkans. Had the empire withstood, then I would say it would have brought enough unity to challenge the Turks, but the fast breakdown and the black hole that followed made it easy for the Turks to pick at the divided ashes. The empire further split the southeast balkans into even smaller feudal states and princelings, weakened Constantinople even further, created even more wars, which occured after Dusans distributions of land to other peoples. The balkans had a chance more then ever to stop the Ottomans after their breakdown in the early 15th century. Yet nothing happened. The Balkan peoples main problem was the, as John Fine said "I'll lead but I wont follow" mentality. It needed an empirial conquerer to unify all of them. Without a uniter, an Alexander so to speak, there was nothing. It reminds me of the ancients, the divided Greek kingdoms and cities against Persia, except even further divided through languages and ethnicities.

It is fair to mention though the fierce resistance the Serbs offered the Turks, atleast unlike some they had the guts to stand up to them on more than one occasion


After Kosovo, the Serbs never again even tried to attack the Ottomans, except in an occasion where Hunyadi was involved. George Brankovic was very careful never to even tempt the Ottomans into an attack.

. Although the Serbs were largely defeated had they been helped by their neighbours then perhaps the calls for a crusade from the west would of been unnecessary.


The Crusade of Pope Pius II completely failed. He died right after calling for it. Not only was it ignored, but it even further brokedown after his death. Which left Hunyadi and Scanderbeg completely out in the cold. Scanderbeg had attacked the Orind valley and broke a treaty signed with Mehmed Ii, similar with Hunyadi. Now they had a dead Pope and Crusade and an angered Sultan.


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


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 12:13

 I agree it is very similar to the ancient Greek city states fighting among themselves, Macedon united most of these states and Alexander showed what a united people could achieve against a great power in Asia. That kind of power was out of the grasp of the Balkan states of the 14th and 15th century, but they could at the very least have kept the Turks out of Europe.

 It really wouldnt of been very difficult, cooperation between the Balkan states with perhaps naval aid from Venice and Genoa (assuming those two could stop fighting each other for any length of time) would of assured that the Turks never got a foot-hold in Europe. 

 Who for a long while had no effective navy of their own, though even if the Balkans could of united I doubt the Venetians and Genoese could of put their differences aside or put the preservation of the Christians in south east Europe ahead of trade. Their selfishness is a chief reason why the fragmentation of South East Europe continued and Byzantiums impoverishment was assured. Its difficult to believe they could so often opt for short-term gain over long-term security and prosperity.

---

 When I say the Serbs should of been helped by their neighbours I don't mean in the form of a crusade, but could not Constantinople have sent men, the Bulgars, even the Latin rulers in Greece? it was after all, in all of their best interests to see the Turks defeated and expelled from Europe while there was still time.

 Leaving the Serbs to stand alone in a near suicidal gesture of resistance at Maritsa and Kosovo ensured the only significant power left in South East Europe was totally annihilated. As fragmented and divided as Serbia was after Dusan's death it was still the strongest of a whole host of divided and fragmented powers in the Balkans.

 It may well have made no difference, had all of the Balkans thrown everything they had in with Serbia, then perhaps they'd of all been destroyed sooner than they were. But they were going to be swallowed up eventually, they might aswell have gone for it whilst they had atleast some strength left to them and had not had to suffer the indignity of vassalage to the Sultan.

 Of course it's easy for me to say all this, but its surely better to give yourself a chance no matter how small rather than accept to suffer first humiliation and then destruction anyway.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 12:39

Leaving the Serbs to stand alone in a near suicidal gesture of resistance at Maritsa and Kosovo ensured the only significant power left in South East Europe was totally annihilated.

I dont understand why  do you  think,  It is suicidal, specialy maritsa  war.

At that times, ottoman powers are not large, they  have only 2-3 big cities.

 



Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 12:50
It really wouldnt of been very difficult, cooperation between the Balkan states with perhaps naval aid from Venice


Venice. hmmm, Venice couldnt careless about the Balkan situation. Infact, on many occasion it worked against the Balkan christians. Its main concern was maintaining open trade in the Aeagean. Helping the christians of the Balkans came later. They took did not wish to anger the Turks. The Balkans could have pushed the Turks out of a significant part of Europe. But when Anatolia and the east was concerned it was pure dream to think they could penetrate that far. Venice was there for its interests. Its aid would have been great, but it was not ally to put any reliance upon. For us Albanians, the Venetians were as much of an enemy as the Turks. They often worked for the them. Infact, when Scanderbeg went to Brankovic for an alliance, Brankovic stated that he would aid scanderbeg against the venetians if thats what he was concerned with, but if the Turks were involved, He could forget about it.

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


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 12:54
Originally posted by Heraclius

 It is fair to mention though the fierce resistance the Serbs offered the Turks, atleast unlike some they had the guts to stand up to them on more than one occasion. Although the Serbs were largely defeated had they been helped by their neighbours then perhaps the calls for a crusade from the west would of been unnecessary.

 I believe the Balkans had enough power by itself to stop the Turks if it united against its common enemy whilst it had time to do so, Byzantium had provided that kind of unity for centuries the constant squabbling and wars in the Balkans however instead of replacing Byzantiums uniting influence only sought to weaken it and in turn weaken the Balkans as a whole.

 The Turks at times probably couldnt believe their luck that so many people were so blind to the danger they represented.

Yea yea, if my ant had balls she whas my uncle.

Also dont forget to blaim Turks for everything, like

Question: "Why does it rain today?"

Answer: "Its becuz of Turks who did win against Byzantian empire and captured Constantinople + the Balkans with luck, no tactics but just luck"

Man before i get mad, get the hell out off here or post those bully's in Historical amusument forum.



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 13:01
Originally posted by DayI

Originally posted by Heraclius

 It is fair to mention though the fierce resistance the Serbs offered the Turks, atleast unlike some they had the guts to stand up to them on more than one occasion. Although the Serbs were largely defeated had they been helped by their neighbours then perhaps the calls for a crusade from the west would of been unnecessary.

 I believe the Balkans had enough power by itself to stop the Turks if it united against its common enemy whilst it had time to do so, Byzantium had provided that kind of unity for centuries the constant squabbling and wars in the Balkans however instead of replacing Byzantiums uniting influence only sought to weaken it and in turn weaken the Balkans as a whole.

 The Turks at times probably couldnt believe their luck that so many people were so blind to the danger they represented.

Yea yea, if my ant had balls she whas my uncle.

Also dont forget to blaim Turks for everything, like

Question: "Why does it rain today?"

Answer: "Its becuz of Turks who did win against Byzantian empire and captured Constantinople + the Balkans with luck, no tactics but just luck"

Man before i get mad, get the hell out off here or post those bully's in Historical amusument forum.

 I hope thats the end of your little tantrum, you don't want to look to ridiculous now do you?

 I simply pointed out that if the various powers in the Balkans hadnt been so pre-occupied fighting each other and tearing the place apart they may have resisted the Turks who ended up conquering the entire Balkan area.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 13:07

Originally posted by Iskender Bey ALBO

It really wouldnt of been very difficult, cooperation between the Balkan states with perhaps naval aid from Venice


Venice. hmmm, Venice couldnt careless about the Balkan situation. Infact, on many occasion it worked against the Balkan christians. Its main concern was maintaining open trade in the Aeagean. Helping the christians of the Balkans came later. They took did not wish to anger the Turks. The Balkans could have pushed the Turks out of a significant part of Europe. But when Anatolia and the east was concerned it was pure dream to think they could penetrate that far. Venice was there for its interests. Its aid would have been great, but it was not ally to put any reliance upon. For us Albanians, the Venetians were as much of an enemy as the Turks. They often worked for the them. Infact, when Scanderbeg went to Brankovic for an alliance, Brankovic stated that he would aid scanderbeg against the venetians if thats what he was concerned with, but if the Turks were involved, He could forget about it.

 I agree thats what I mean when I criticised the attitude and actions of Venice and Genoa to a lesser extent, it almost goes without saying that they were in for whatever they could get, in the end all that mattered was trade whether it was with Serbia, Constantinople, the Turks or whoever. Trade is trade no matter who

 My point was if Venice could of been convinced an alliance against the Turks was in their long-term best economic interests then their naval support would of been invaluable. Since Serbia didnt have a navy of its own and Byzantiums had long since faded into insignificance, a navy would of been of paramount importance. In the end Venice wasnt overly bothered who was in charge of the Balkans aslong as they could maintain their trade throughout the region.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 13:17
Originally posted by the Bulgarian

If I'm not mistaken the first serious anti-Turk coalition in the Balcans was assembled by prince Lazar. At least one bright man in Balcan pilitics...

Who's an anti-Turk is a bright man to you? Hmmmmm....

Originally posted by the Bulgarian

You are right. All Balcan kings and rulers were shortsighed, fighting among themselves, instead of uniting against the common threat. Sometimes I ask myself how could they have been so blind in the face of the oncoming catastophy. The 500 years of Ottoman slavery were a horrible tragedy and we, the Balcan nations, are all responsible for our own foolishnes.
500 years Ottoman slavery HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmm.

Originally posted by Heraclius

 Had Byzantium been stronger during the 14th century I see no reason why it couldnt of recovered Anatolia, the Catalan company smashed the Ottomans and the Karamans in western and central Asia Minor leaving it open to reconquest. This was as pointed out partly due to the fact the Turks were so divided at the time, so had Andronicus II not effectively disbanded the best regiments of the army and the entire navy then the future for the Turks would of looked bleak instead of Byzantiums.

 Such as it was Byzantine weakness and the constant warfare in the Balkans, between the Bulgars, Serbs and Frankish principalities etc left them all open to destruction when the Turks finally got their act together.

 

Originally posted by Heraclius

 It is fair to mention though the fierce resistance the Serbs offered the Turks, atleast unlike some they had the guts to stand up to them on more than one occasion. Although the Serbs were largely defeated had they been helped by their neighbours then perhaps the calls for a crusade from the west would of been unnecessary.

 I believe the Balkans had enough power by itself to stop the Turks if it united against its common enemy whilst it had time to do so, Byzantium had provided that kind of unity for centuries the constant squabbling and wars in the Balkans however instead of replacing Byzantiums uniting influence only sought to weaken it and in turn weaken the Balkans as a whole.

 The Turks at times probably couldnt believe their luck that so many people were so blind to the danger they represented.

 



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 13:20

^^^  you totally misunderstood what i'm saying.

 Its a figure of speech "Couldnt believe their luck", its to illustrate the divided and fragmented situation of the South East Europe at that time, which made the conquest of the Balkans easier for the Ottomans than it would of been had it been unified under 1 strong power.

 Sounds like common sense to me.

 EDIT: Its surely easier to destroy a lot of small and comparatively weak nations than it is to destroy 1 or 2 unified powerful ones.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 13:28
Originally posted by Heraclius

^^^  you totally misunderstood what i'm saying.

 Its a figure of speech "Couldnt believe their luck", its to illustrate the divided and fragmented situation of the South East Europe at that time, which made the conquest of the Balkans easier for the Ottomans than it would of been had it been unified under 1 strong power.

 Sounds like common sense to me.

 EDIT: Its surely easier to destroy a lot of small and comparatively weak nations than it is to destroy 1 or 2 unified powerful ones.

You have lots of words like; if, had and luck. So my conclusion of youre posts whas "Did we rule balkans and anatolia by luck no military tactics and such?"

As for the "bulgarians" out here, what you do is exact the same as Macedonians do with "We are the ancient Macedonians". Its the same story with the same lie. 



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 13:33

 We are discussing history, its full of what ifs and hads and maybes, not all of it belongs in the "Historical amusement" section.

 I'm sure theres more than a few Turks out there who entertain what would of happened IF or HAD some battle been won, some war not been lost, some Sultan not ruled.

  Just because what i'm saying wouldnt of favoured the Turks doesnt give you the right to say to me "Man before i get mad, get the hell out off here" who exactly do you think you are to talk to me or any other members like that?

 I somehow doubt you'd be so annoyed if I had offered a few what ifs that favoured the Ottomans would you, I wonder why.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 13:44
Originally posted by Heraclius

  Just because what i'm saying wouldnt of favoured the Turks doesnt give you the right to say to me "Man before i get mad, get the hell out off here" who exactly do you think you are to talk to me or any other members like that?

I got offended whit youre silly if's, maybe's, had's and luck's. WHo i exactly am? Well i am the who got blaimed for everything whats not good or bad in here. Dont you see "The bulgarian"s post with Lazar whas the first prince who started anti-Turk coalition, so whas he bright man for him because being anti-Turk!

Originally posted by the Bulgarian

You are right. All Balcan kings and rulers were shortsighed, fighting among themselves, instead of uniting against the common threat. Sometimes I ask myself how could they have been so blind in the face of the oncoming catastophy. The 500 years of Ottoman slavery were a horrible tragedy and we, the Balcan nations, are all responsible for our own foolishnes.

Originally posted by the Bulgarian

You are all very correct. What's really ironic though, is that Byzantium was the first state to bring the Turks to Europe, using them as mercenaries in her wars with Serbia, Bulgaria and the civil wars for the throne.

If I'm not mistaken the first serious anti-Turk coalition in the Balcans was assembled by prince Lazar. At least one bright man in Balcan pilitics...

 



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 13:48
Originally posted by Heraclius

 I somehow doubt you'd be so annoyed if I had offered a few what ifs that favoured the Ottomans would you, I wonder why.

We dont talk much with if's, had's and luck's we only talk of what did happen past and what we gonna learn of it. I find it childish and foolish talk with if, had, luck and maybe's. Thats why i posted first "if my ant had balls, she whas my uncle"

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 13:50

 What are you telling me this for? what has what somebody else said got to do with me?  if you have a problem with him fine I honestly couldnt care less about your quarrels with other people, if your that offended let the forum mods sort it out.

 I don't understand how you can be so offended by what i've said, not once have I made the Turks out to be the scourge of the planet, not once have I tried making them out to be unworthy of their conquests or made their enemies out to be saints or perfect. I've simply suggested how a united Balkans as opposed to a divided one could of made a difference to events.

 From the way your reacting it seems any debate even remotely negative towards the Turks should be banned, i'm getting really tired of everytime anybody even dares to say something that doesnt favour the Turks they get jumped on and berated.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 13:58
Originally posted by DayI

Originally posted by Heraclius

 I somehow doubt you'd be so annoyed if I had offered a few what ifs that favoured the Ottomans would you, I wonder why.

We dont talk much with if's, had's and luck's we only talk of what did happen past and what we gonna learn of it. I find it childish and foolish talk with if, had, luck and maybe's. Thats why i posted first "if my ant had balls, she whas my uncle"

 By "we" I assume you mean Turks, ifso the amount of content on the "historical amusement" section of this forum by Turks on various "what ifs?" proves you wrong.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 14:03
Originally posted by Heraclius

Originally posted by DayI

Originally posted by Heraclius

 I somehow doubt you'd be so annoyed if I had offered a few what ifs that favoured the Ottomans would you, I wonder why.

We dont talk much with if's, had's and luck's we only talk of what did happen past and what we gonna learn of it. I find it childish and foolish talk with if, had, luck and maybe's. Thats why i posted first "if my ant had balls, she whas my uncle"

 By "we" I assume you mean Turks, ifso the amount of content on the "historical amusement" section of this forum by Turks on various "what ifs?" proves you wrong.

THERE IS A HUGE(!), BIG(!) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEDIEVAL HISTORY SECTION AND HISTORICAL AMUSEMENT SECTION!!

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 14:05

 Do you somehow think putting everything in REALLY BIG LETTERS and BOLD will make any difference to the fact you've made something out of nothing?

 To tell you the truth your boring now, i've tolerated this stupidity long enough, you can talk to yourself from now on, because I won't provoke your hostility anymore by posting on this topic.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 14:11
Actually you arent the guy wich i wanna discuss with, but yea i did happin in a notverywell way, hope to see ya more in amusement section

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: NikeBG
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 10:18
Man, history here really gets hot quick! Especially between Balkaners (btw this is probably some syndrome - if you say even one "not-good" word for my nation, you're in a personal war with me)! Maybe this is because most of the Balkan nations (or actually all, cuz I can't think of one which isn't) are living in the past instead of the present. So what? You're (DayI) insulted because you've interpreted something the way you like, so that you could start quarelling with people (type "Oh, do you see how bad are they by insulting us?")? Well, sorry man, but I'd suggest you to chill out! Past is past! No matter how much we discuss the "what if"s, we won't change anything. And only a fool would think there's use to argue so heartly about "what if"s. It's only suggestions of alternative history! And personally I think that you would prefer this alternate history than someone writing about all the bad things you're country had done in the past. And so that you don't get me wrong again and start blaming - I admit that every country has done terrible and barbaric things! Yours, mine and all else! If you want, I could even admit one (the only one I know btw) we've done - the "Revival process" at the late times of the Communism, when most of the Bulgarian Turks were forced to change their names with purely Bulgarian ones. Are you happy now? Good! Now stop blaming and heating up for what can't be changed!

Edit: Oh, not to forget to mention that I have nothing personal against you! I may not like Turkey as a state very much, because of our "common history", but I have nothing against the Turks, especially ones I don't personally know. In fact, for the Turks as a whole I have a rather good impression - most of the Turks I know are good and hard-working people. And lately there are even many cases where the Turks in one mixed (Muslim-Christian) village are helping with money and work to repair a Christian church, which IMO is a very honorable thing for them to do! So, no offence!


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 11:02
Lets all kiss and make up. LOL


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 11:30

Originally posted by NikeBG

Man, history here really gets hot quick! Especially between Balkaners (btw this is probably some syndrome - if you say even one "not-good" word for my nation, you're in a personal war with me)! Maybe this is because most of the Balkan nations (or actually all, cuz I can't think of one which isn't) are living in the past instead of the present. So what? You're (DayI) insulted because you've interpreted something the way you like, so that you could start quarelling with people (type "Oh, do you see how bad are they by insulting us?")? Well, sorry man, but I'd suggest you to chill out! Past is past! No matter how much we discuss the "what if"s, we won't change anything. And only a fool would think there's use to argue so heartly about "what if"s.
Its the same point that i whas talking about to "Heraclius" and also that's why i sayd "If my ant had balls she whas my uncle", -i agree with u

 It's only suggestions of alternative history! And personally I think that you would prefer this alternate history than someone writing about all the bad things you're country had done in the past. And so that you don't get me wrong again and start blaming - I admit that every country has done terrible and barbaric things! Yours, mine and all else! If you want, I could even admit one (the only one I know btw) we've done - the "Revival process" at the late times of the Communism, when most of the Bulgarian Turks were forced to change their names with purely Bulgarian ones. Are you happy now? Good! Now stop blaming and heating up for what can't be changed!
Why should i hate you? Only annoying point is blaiming such stuff to others all the time when discussing history.

Edit: Oh, not to forget to mention that I have nothing personal against you! I may not like Turkey as a state very much, because of our "common history", but I have nothing against the Turks, especially ones I don't personally know. In fact, for the Turks as a whole I have a rather good impression - most of the Turks I know are good and hard-working people. And lately there are even many cases where the Turks in one mixed (Muslim-Christian) village are helping with money and work to repair a Christian church, which IMO is a very honorable thing for them to do! So, no offence!
I have the same opinions about yours country but also nothing todo with local people. 

So "komshi" have a nice day.

 



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 12:07
So komshi is a turkish word? heh, that means neighbor in Alb. I never knew that...

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


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 12:22
Originally posted by Iskender Bey ALBO

So komshi is a turkish word? heh, that means neighbor in Alb. I never knew that...
 yeps, its actually Komshu means neighbour but ive heard it a lot in Bulgarian border (when i whas to plan to enter Turkey).

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -



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