User talk:Gligan/Archives/2006/November

Early Middle Ages
If you check the archives of this page, you will see that I was thwarted in my attempt to start a separate section about Kievan Rus, the largest state of early medieval Europe (and the one that dealt a death blow to the First Bulgarian Empire, by the way). I was told that this article presents a brief overview of Europe in general and it should not have separate sections about each country, lest it will be reduced to a mess. IMHO the section about the Byzantine Empire should stay (because it was culturally and politically the preeminent polity of the period), while all the rest (including "England" and "Italy") should go. Let's continue this duscussion on the article's talk page. -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Srbija
Do you know how many civilians were killed by Bugars after battle of Slivnica in 1885....And in 1915,when Bugarska was supposed to help Serbia and the allies,it became the traitor and attacked Serbia togather with Austro-Ugarska and Germany....Hundereds of thousands Serb civilians died 1915-1918 all accros Serbia,JUST BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO BECAME BULGARIANS....THEY RATHER DIED THEN SWITCHING TO ANOTHER NATIONALITY.....Not to menton how many people died from the hands of Bulgaria Fascist and Nazists in 1941-1945...Bulgaria,again,helped Germany in occupaing the Serb lands.......Only this time crimes were even worse...In the villige of Kriva Feja,where my father is from,more then 30 man was killed by the Bulgarians, and their houses were taken.....Bulgaria history is one full of bloody crimes...

YXYX 14:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia
For your information, it is Greater Bulgarian irridentism that claims today's Macedonian Slavs as Bulgarians. You said that they were Bulgarians back than and still are now (referring to the population of Mrnjavcevics' lands). --PaxEquilibrium 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are much more found to claim that Montenegrins are Serbs (much, much more), but that would be Serbian irridentism. Montenegrins were a recognized minority in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia in 1946, however Macedonians were never recognized in Bulgaria. You are whatever you wish to be. The Slavic Macedonians that formed 7 tribes during the Slavic migrations came even before the Serbs, and most surely before the non-Slavic Bulgarians. It might be true that those Slavs were gradually assimilated ("bulgarized"), but obviously not to the extreme point of staying Bulgarians, like the Slavs from eastern Moesia. --PaxEquilibrium 11:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * We've developed a number of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
 * The project's monthly newsletter will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:


 * Additional reviewers for the military history peer review and A-Class review processes are always needed!
 * Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
 * All project members are invited to help with this fortnight's project collaboration.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 17:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply
I have replied at Talk:Bulgaria. Todor→Bozhinov 12:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I see you're working a lot on Bulgarian military history, so you may want to take part in the WikiProject Military history/Balkan military history task force &mdash; just add your name to the list of participants. Todor→Bozhinov 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ами... за какво служи &mdash; координация на работата по точно тези теми, с които ти се занимаваш. По принцип щом работиш по някоя тема повечко е хубаво да се записваш, за да могат да те потърсят хора със същите интереси за консултация или ти да питаш нещо и т.н.
 * За Брегалница &mdash; просто представяш нещата и по двата начина, никаква паралелна статия! Пишеш "според сръбски и още не знам какви си източници е еди как си", "българските и които там други историци пък са на мнение, че..." и към всяко прилагаш бележки с източници (с cite web, cite book и другите). Изобщо &mdash; източниците са много важни за неутралността, затова ще те посъветвам да наблягаш и на тях. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 18:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

don't be silly
Nobody wants Macedonia, least of all the Serbs. The rules of the game have changed. Macedonia is the poorest Yugoslav republic. It's a weight on whoever carries it. Period.

There is one economic heuristic that holds in general today: poorer countries want to join, richer countries want to separate. --VKokielov 00:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - nationalism
I understand, perfectly (however - wasn't Macedonia conquered by Bulgaria afterwards?). But the Serbs interfered earlier than the 19th century. Throughout the Late Medieval Ages Macedonia was the "heart" of the Serbian realm.

What I am trying to tell you is that that concept of nationalism is archaic, old and still maintained only by people who no longer belong to this time, belonging to the 19th century (example is Austro-Hungarian monarch, Franz Joseph, who admitted that he's way out of the Habsburgs' time). If we come across ethnic origin, we will bump into many things - the Albanians pride themselves to be of Illyrian origin, however little Illyrian blood is in them. Serbs, for instance, have a lot of Vlach blood (then again, this depends which Serbs?). Croats could be easily called a multi-ethnic group, same as Bosniaks or even Montenegrins. The Highlanders are descendents of refugees from Kossovo under Turkish yoke. The Herzegovinians are ancestral Serbs. The Coastlanders are descendants of the ancestral romanized populace and the old Montenegrins draw origin even from the Illyrians! Yet they all belong to one people. The Kucs are a Montenegrin/Serb Highland tribe; they have Serbian/Montenegrin surnames and speak the Serbian language as well as physically resemble Slavs in general. But the Kucs are not Slavs. They are Albanians.

It is the national affiliation that matters. One feeling might win over a people - and then other, but that still doesn't change who those really are/were. In Montenegro Orthodox Slavs can't really decide if they are Montenegrins or Serbs. Today, Bunyevs, Janyevs and Shoktzs are recognized peoples - while they were Croats before. The generalization of one nation's origin comes down to the generalization of saying "Montenegrins are lazy" or "Bosnians are stupid". Do you understand? --PaxEquilibrium 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but yet again Serbs were in Macedonia even before the Bulgarians. :)
 * As far as I remember, no one denies (not even the Macedonian government) that Samuil proclaimed himself "Czar of the Bulgarians". But I do not know what lies in that statement so much contradicting/mysterious... --PaxEquilibrium 16:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the Slavicized people known as "Serbs" came to the Balkan peninsular in the first half of the 7th century => 620s and 630s. They settled in West Moesia, Kosovo, Metohija, Macedonia and the surrounding lands. There they built the very first Serbian city on Earth (cca 626): Servia, in southern Egean Macedonia, which still stands today as a major tourist attraction of Greece. However, the Serbs didn't like much those lands; what simply because they were practical slaves to the Imperial crown, and what simply for "touchy" reasons. Some Serbs did say, but most went back towards Singidunum. Among those who stayed (Greater Serb nationalists argue how Macedonia had been ethnically Serbianized already then), 3 (of the many) Macedonian Slavic tribes were formed (some of them completely losing a Serbian "national" - if such a word can be used for the Medieval Ages = feeling). It all then amounts to the half-truth that Macedonians indeed have some Serbian origin. ;) This became the main reason for the later Medieval Ages Serbs' conquests of those territories. They wanted their "Promised, Holy Land" (see Jews for a good comparison).
 * Thanks for that kind compliment. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the first of the Serbs' conquests of Macedonia were in the second half of the 12th century. They continued on across the 13th century. Northern Macedonia was already a component part of the Serbian realm. Note also that this very same part of Macedonia (which includes Skopje) has remained populated by Serbs even in Ottoman times, and only after World War II and the exile of almost 300,000 Serbs from (mostly northern) Macedonia is that the area was completely ethnically Macedonian (and Albanian). The whole of Macedonia was slowly conquered across the late 13th and early 14th century, and since the first half of the 14th century was fully a part of it. Macedonia was conquered by the Ottomans (fully) almost a hundred years later, so I wouldn't precisely draw 30 years. Of course, it was not a really long-time held occupation of the "promised holy land", but areas have to be differed - as northern Macedonia (today the area around Skopje) was indeed historically and in every way a part of the Serbian kinship, and has remained throughout the ages, whereas other parts may have had little or no cultural importance. Then yet again - it's the Macedonians' themselves' culture that is most important in Macedonia for centuries.
 * Hm... depends what kind of joining do you suggest and what do you consider by "better"? --PaxEquilibrium 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Better for Macedonians because of the growing Albanian population - yeah; but also bad for Macedonians that want their own country, where they are in a majority. Bad for Albanians, because they will lose a giant share of the population of the country. Bad for Serbs - they don't really like Bulgarians messing in Macedonia, and even nowadays see them as competitors; fear of numeral loss and die-out. As for other people of Macedonia - Vlachs, Turks and Romas - depends. They might not care, they might depending on their numbers in Bulgaria. Then yet again - it mostly depends which nationalities would Bulgaria constitutionally recognize? Tell me, since Bulgaria is the state of the Bulgarians today - what would be the national recognitions (constituent) of the enlarged Bulgarian state?
 * Well, I repeat - it depends which territories you mean. Skopje was capital of the Serbian monarchy from the second half of the 13th century to late 14th century. And those are feudal statelets. A country "Serbian Empire" normally existed, but numerous feudalists were very powerful. They all called on "how they serve the Empire!" while they were fighting for their personal gains. AFAIC, the traditional deeply carves spiritual existence of an Empire is the only thing that kept them together. Vukasin's title was "King of Serbia" and Uglesa's "Despot of Serbia" - and they were component subjects of the Empire. So was the Realm of Serres (modern-day eastern Greece - approximately Macedonia). Simeon later created an independent realm - but Thessaly and Epirus (and Albania) made his Empire. The actual inheritance of Serbian statehood was passed on the Mrnjavcevics (a. k. a. Macedonia), as the very last "hero" - Kraljevic Marko Mrnjavcevic was the very last wearer of the traditional Serbian crown (up to his death in 1395 - the "legitimacy" was then taken by his Ottoman overlords). The 15th century late medieval Despotic Serbia to which you refer (while Macedonia was Ottoman Turk-held) has no continuation with the High Medieval Serbian realm and shares (almost) no continuation. --PaxEquilibrium 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that that will be good for Macedonia's population. Political pressure over 100% of its population (especially the Macedonian part)? --PaxEquilibrium 20:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)