• This topic has 21 voices and 45 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 47 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #435054

    Anonymous

    @aaaaa What does the cross have with that?

    #435057

    Anonymous

    Manifest destiny. It’s a mandate given to us by God :P

    #435058

    Anonymous

    @aaaaa I genuinely thought you weren’t trolling this time :smiley: 

    #435066

    Anonymous

    @aaaaa You are a legend man  :D

    #435089

    Anonymous

    Absolutely not. The ethnic group that forms the plurality would be politically and culturally dominant in such a state, as Serbs were in Yugoslavia and Czechs in Czechoslovakia. The foundation of a pan-Slavic state can only be at the expense of the less populous Slavic ethnicities.

    #435136

    Anonymous

    What’s wrong with the powerful being also culturally dominant?

    #435143

    Anonymous

    @aaaaa Problem is when you are smaller part of that country 

    #435146

    Anonymous

    @aaaaa 

    “Nothing”. I’m just saying that it’s inevitable to be that way, and as such, all smaller cultures would be marginalized, which I consider to not be beneficial for the smaller ethnic groups should they participate. Would you really like for your culture to be displaced?

    #435148

    Anonymous

    @KnezIvan So you should aspire to be big. Don’t try to diminish excellence, aspire to be excellent youself. If some medieval ruler had succeeded in uniting the balkans for long enough we could’ve fared a lot better later on, instead of having to throw our lots with even stranger people now.

    #435149

    Anonymous

    Some historians point out that if Tsar Simeon had managed to place himself on the throne in Constantinople, Bulgaria would have been fully assimilated into the Byzantine culture. Oh, yes, we would have been big, but it’s questionable whether we’d even be speaking Slavic today or Greek, for example. So it’s a fair point. It’s another matter that in this day and age you don’t need to be politically suppressed in order to assimilate into another culture (the fact we’re all communicating on English here is evident enough).

    #435153

    Anonymous

    @NikeBG 

    Unlikely. Who do you think inhabited Bulgaria before the Slavs and the Turkic Bulgars invaded? Greek or Latin speaking Roman citizens. The Roman citizens likely outnumbered the Slavs and the Turkic Bulgars, and yet Slavic language and culture still prevailed. Those Roman citizens who didn’t assimilate were either resettled along the coast, or resettled north of the Danube (thus creating Wallachia). The same thing probably would have kept going on if Constantinople fell to the Bulgarians, I don’t think a Hellenized “conquest dynasty” scenario would’v happened.   

    #435155

    Anonymous

    @aaaaa Don`t worry, I aspire to greatness. But for me greatness is to be educated, renown, book lover, athlete, culture admirer, patriot etc. Balkan in his history, beside Romans, never had any “power” so powefull tu put whole this area under one command. That is one problem, other problem is that this area was a frontier area for a long time. West and East Roman empire, Frankish and Byzantine empire, Christian Europe and islamic Ottomans etc. Third problem is our strong identity. Croatia and Bulgaria were under some rather strong foreign powers, but we didn`t lose our identity. And this goes for all southeastern Europe, not just Balkans, espec. areas populated with Slavs. So as you se, from my perspective, our situation was rather different than it was in Germany, France, Italy during their “uniforming” under one “culture”. 

    #435159

    Anonymous

    My dreams are simpler. All I want is to taste the tears of my enemies, see them driven before me, hear the laments of their women and the cries of their children.

    @TartaryOfTheBalkans
    Check this podcast: http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/
    There’s a lot about the first kingdom, and the population exchanges, especially. Fun fact – all of Greece was overrun with Slavs, the emperors transferred population from Asia Minor to restore greek culture. Just like they did with the Thessaloniki area in early 20th century.

    @NikeBG – Aye, probably. Still, Constantinople was where the greatest threat was comming from. Can’t fault him for attempting to eliminate it.

    #435164

    Anonymous

    Talking about patriotism and early statehood is real mumbo jumbo when knowing that nations in Balkans didn’t exist until mid 1800’s or even later, and they started to form in late 1700’s. Those kings and their feudal lords that ruled over these lands in past, they really didn’t care about nation as most of you do today, but rather over their land and wealth. There is nothing more to it. Beside that most nations in Balkans have 500 years of reign discontinuity at the territories they hold today. Those 7th – 13th century Slavs that lived on this area had different mental and behavioral pattern then people today, and not to mention some people where this gap in reign discontinuity is bigger like for example Ancient Greeks vs Modern Greeks

    #435165

    Anonymous

    @Shaokang 

    Talking about patriotism and early statehood is real mumbo jumbo when knowing that nations in Balkans didn’t exist until mid 1800’s or even later, and they started to form in late 1700’s.”

    Balkan countries didn’t exist from roughly the late middle ages until the 1800’s. Identifiable cultural and linguistic groups (or nations) such as Bulgarians existed before the Ottoman conquest and continued to exist during the entirety of Ottoman rule, and there’s absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise.

    The Bulgarian national revival (emergence of cultural nationalism) happened during the late 1700’s, but that’s certainly not to suggest that they weren’t an identifiable group before that.

    The Bulgarian state in it’s current form was founded in 1878, but that’s certainly not to suggest that Bulgarians were always a stateless people before that. 

    Those kings and their feudal lords that ruled over these lands in past, they really didn’t care about nation as most of you do today, but rather over their land and wealth.”

    You mean like every single leader of every single polity before the French Revolution ever? The phenomena of patriotism towards a political entity or pride in one’s (secular) culture wasn’t a thing in any place in the world before the late 1700’s. What’s your point? That patriotism is wrong? 

    Whether or not a monarch is patriotic towards the people he governs or the land he possesses isn’t relevant to the national character of the state. The culture and language that dominate the state are what define it’s national character. The culture and language of the Slavic Bulgarians dominated the First and Second Bulgarian Empires. Therefore, their national character was Bulgarian, and they were Bulgarian states. 

    Beside that most nations in Balkans have 500 years of reign discontinuity at the territories they hold today.”

    Discontinuity in what? Statehood? So? They speak the same language and keep the same self-identification since the fall of their statehood, there’s nothing that attests otherwise.  

    Those 7th – 13th century Slavs that lived on this area had different mental and behavioral pattern then people today”

    Uh… Okay? So people acted differently in the 600’s than they did in the 2010’s… And? How’s that relevant?  

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 47 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

6 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Petko (the pet store)
  • Shnickstara89
  • ▽eurus▽
  • LCaine
  • Drizzt
  • ☭Lil Commie☭