• This topic has 5 voices and 28 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #341909

    Anonymous

    First premiere will be on the 5th of July 2013, when we will commemorate the 1 150. anniversary of the arrival of the Saints to the Greater Moravia.

    A producer is Ján Oparty, director and scenarist of documentary movies mostly, a director is Ivo Trajkov from Skopje (Macedonia) who lives in Prague, and a scenarist is Ondrej Šulaj, known for scenario to the movie Sokoliar Tomáš (Tomas and the Falcon King). Actors will be chosen also by their ethnics – we will see actors from Slovakia, Czech rep., Macedonia, Greece or Germany. Common people will be played only by Slovak actors. Oparty said they're going to choose the best Slovak actors nowadays. Place of shooting will vary as well. People will see Bratislava, Devín, Nitra and Komjatice (Slovakia), the centres of Saints' mission in Greater Moravia, then places in Germany, Macedonia and Rome. The city of Solún (Greece) will be replaced by a city in Croatia, probably Trogir. Near of Nitra will grow settlements from times of Greater Moravia (9.-10. cent.).

    http://www.pluska.sk/slovensko/spolocnost/cyril-metod-budu-platne.html

    #357908

    Anonymous

    I'm veery very curious what kind of history is chosen for this movie… And I guess the Slovaks will look like pagan primitives which became enlightened by those two Saint guys :D The other thing I suppose, is that the people won't be called as Sloveni, but Slovania. The difference is, Slovania means common, undefined Slavs and Sloveni means Slovaks till the 15.-16. century (that's why Slovenky, Slovensko, slovenský, slovenčina). Ok I guess this movie will be… I deeply apologize myself for the next word… BS !

    #357909

    Anonymous

    Rep for this fantastic news.  ;)

    I just saw your response but I still think this is positive. Maybe it is not fair that they will not use the proper ethnic determination but still this is nice for Slavs in general.

    #357910

    Anonymous

    In general you're right, Krstjanin, people even abroad can learn some facts about the past of this Slavic state, but on the other hand what facts they will see? The same is with another movie Svätopluk I., actually the greatest king of the G. Moravia. This is why I'm so worried about it.

    #357911

    Anonymous

    I look forward to see the movie.

    Quote:
    The other thing I suppose, is that the people won't be called as Sloveni, but Slovania. The difference is, Slovania means common, undefined Slavs and Sloveni means Slovaks till the 15.-16. century (that's why Slovenky, Slovensko, slovenský, slovenčina).

    Whether the Slovaks already existed as a separate nation? How can you be sure?

    #357912

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    I look forward to see the movie.

    Quote:
    The other thing I suppose, is that the people won't be called as Sloveni, but Slovania. The difference is, Slovania means common, undefined Slavs and Sloveni means Slovaks till the 15.-16. century (that's why Slovenky, Slovensko, slovenský, slovenčina).

    Whether the Slovaks already existed as a separate nation? How can you be sure?

    Speaking of nations in that time would be a nonsense. Lets say of ethnics. Slovaks had to be separated ethnic, because all of the Slavic ethnics around them identify themselves otherwise. In the north there were Polans (Poles).. were Sloveni between the Tatra mountains, river Morava and Danube Polans? No, they were not, there's no evidence they would indetify with the Polans. In the west there were Czechs (historians say of the Czechs in those times and nobody wonders, that's OK for all). Were those Sloveni Czechs? No they were not, because Czechs had complained about the Sloveni's hegemony over them and with help of Franks they fought against the Sloveni. In the east there was Kievan Rus – different state with different ethnics – not too much evidences about relations with them. In the south there were Carantanians, again another state although with similar language, but linguists are able to determine the borders between Slovak and Slovenian topographic places in the 10. cent. And the last ones South Slavs – again different states with different languages – an example : Proglas is a mix of South Slavic language from around Solun with the language of Sloveni.

    So every ethnic around the Slovaks was individual with own name, but only the Slovaks are those undefined, common Slavs without any name and any characteristics. Come on ;)

    #357913

    Anonymous

    Nice elaboration. But, just look here "Theories regarding the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks
    So many theories, don't get heart attack! ;)

    #357914

    Anonymous

    Slovaks and Slovenes have an identical situation as Germans, only in Slavic version.

    Slovaks and Slovenes are remains after the break of Moravia which was basically an union of different Slavic tribes, thus when it broke up because of Hun invasion those remnants of Moravia were mixed up thus Slovak-Slovene=Slav, basically they simply made their names by their ethnicity of which they were made of… similar thing is with Germany, as Germany is basically a union of different Germanic tribes (thought today considered as a ethnic sovereign state and nation) but it has a same story, many different Germanic tribes unified under name Germany derived from the latin phrase Germania which is simply an ethnicity label Germanic – Germania – land of Germanics…

    So that's all folks simply Slovaks and Slovenes as such under those names didn't exist, they only started to exist after Hun invasion, but Slovaks and Slovenes lived there, yes, they were there only under different names and different identity which was due to happenings and other reasons transformed into Slovak, Slovene indicating simply various Slavic folk of different tribes.

    #357915

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Nice elaboration. But, just look here "Theories regarding the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks
    So many theories, don't get heart attack! ;)

    Wikipedia is not any source for me ;) I'm just using the logic, not theories of mostly self-appointed historians with real anti-Slovak passion. That is what happens in Slovakia nowadays – everything that could be in favour of the Slovaks, is promptly denied by the media and state historians and it's declared as nationalistic and fascist, moreover Czech media use to make fools of us. I'm sorry but it gets on my nerves. Don't perceive it personally, please.

    #357916

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Wikipedia is not any source for me ;) I'm just using the logic, not theories of mostly self-appointed historians with real anti-Slovak passion. That is what happens in Slovakia nowadays – everything that could be in favour of the Slovaks, is promptly denied by the media and state historians and it's declared as nationalistic and fascist, moreover Czech media use to make fools of us. I'm sorry but it gets on my nerves. Don't perceive it personally, please.

    Hahaha, exactly same situation here! (just worse, this is Balkan, you know).

    #357917

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    So that's all folks simply Slovaks and Slovenes as such under those names didn't exist, they only started to exist after Hun invasion, but Slovaks and Slovenes lived there, yes, they were there only under different names and different identity which was due to happenings and other reasons transformed into Slovak, Slovene indicating simply various Slavic folk of different tribes.

    Again that Hun invasion.. Invasion of the Huns happened in the 5. century, learn it please finally! :D

    … so again. The name Sloveni is written into Proglas, it's linked to the inhabitants of the core of Greater Moravia, not to any people around them. That's why I am Slovenka. Prince Rastislav in the 9. cent.  said to the Byzantium's ruler: We, Sloveni, the simple folk… Is it an identity? I guess so. Names of another tribes are not known, so it's only a hypothesis for this region. Ok see you later, I'm going home :)

    #357918

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Again that Hun invasion.. Invasion of the Huns happened in the 5. century, learn it please finally! :D

    Oh i when reffering this do mean by Hun=Magyar. Sure, Moravia fell to Magyar invasion, thought i find Magyars to be a later transformation of tribe originally first known as Huns.

    Quote:
    … so again. The name Sloveni is written into Proglas, it's linked to the inhabitants of the core of Greater Moravia, not to any people around them. That's why I am Slovenka. Prince Rastislav in the 9. cent.  said to the Byzantium's ruler: We, Sloveni, the simple folk… Is it an identity? I guess so. Names of another tribes are not known, so it's only a hypothesis for this region. Ok see you later, I'm going home :)

    It is an identity, but not a national one but rather an ethnic one  ;)

    #357919

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    Quote:
    Again that Hun invasion.. Invasion of the Huns happened in the 5. century, learn it please finally! :D

    Oh i when reffering this do mean by Hun=Magyar. Sure, Moravia fell to Magyar invasion, thought i find Magyars to be a later transformation of tribe originally first known as Huns.

    And that is the biggest mistake you can do. First of all, only Szekelys in Romania are considered to be descendants of the Huns, not Magyars. The only thing proto-Magyars and Huns had in common, was similar martial style – and this said a Magyar friend of mine. You see, that is enough for Magyars to consider themselves as Huns.

    Invasion of Huns = 5th century.
    Invasion of proto-Magyars = 10th century (907 Battle of Bratislava).

    Almost 500 years is pretty difference.

    Quote:
    … so again. The name Sloveni is written into Proglas, it's linked to the inhabitants of the core of Greater Moravia, not to any people around them. That's why I am Slovenka. Prince Rastislav in the 9. cent.  said to the Byzantium's ruler: We, Sloveni, the simple folk… Is it an identity? I guess so. Names of another tribes are not known, so it's only a hypothesis for this region. Ok see you later, I'm going home :)

    It is an identity, but not a national one but rather an ethnic one  ;)

    I said it too in my previous post :)

    Posted: by: Svätoslava Posted on: May 19, 2011, 02:45:48 PM
    Speaking of nations in that time would be a nonsense. Lets say of ethnics.

    #357920

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Whether the Slovaks already existed as a separate nation? How can you be sure?

    There needs to be distinction made between nation and state.

    Slovaks indeed never existed as separate state (except for during WWII) until 1993. Idea of Czechoslovakia only first came into being after Versailles Treaty (when Austro-Hungary fell apart).

    However, Slovak nation as such, has existed always, just never had nation state of their own. First state created out of independent Slavic tribes which included Slovaks was Moravian Empire, then came Hungarian Empire, then came Hapsburg Empire, then came Austro-Hungarian Empire, then came Czechoslovakia and then only much later did Slovaks have own state.

    One can question theory that Slovaks and Slovenes were once one and same people divided by Huns, that is possible. I think fact that their name is very similar, their flags, their folk costumes, their cuisine, their architecture etc. is no coincidence, so I personally believe it, but no doubt that Slovaks have existed as folk since ancient times:

    image

    So, when Hungarians say that Slovakia is artificial nation, maybe they only have right to extent that they have never had own state before (unlike Hungarians, who have had state since 1000 AD), but they cannot deny existence of their folk as nation.

    #357921

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    And that is the biggest mistake you can do. First of all, only Szekelys in Romania are considered to be descendants of the Huns, not Magyars. The only thing proto-Magyars and Huns had in common, was similar martial style – and this said a Magyar friend of mine. You see, that is enough for Magyars to consider themselves as Huns.

    Invasion of Huns = 5th century.
    Invasion of proto-Magyars = 10th century (907 Battle of Bratislava).

    Almost 500 years is pretty difference.

    Yeah, but that actually isn't important, because the point of my post was aimed at another thing, not the magyar/hun transitions.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

6 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Fia
  • kony97
  • (o)possum tamer 🐀 (kris)
  • Glockamole
  • Tujev
  • Lucifer Morningstar