Since most of /his/ is clueless and ignorant about this region in general, i'd thought a general would be good to discuss the history of the region but of each past and present history of individual states aswell.
Also for future reference, "balkan" does not limit itself strictly to it's physical- geographical boundaries. Countries such as Romania, Moldova and Slovenia are also considered balkan because of common cultural traits in regards to customs, cuisine and such.
Having said that, let the discussions begin
>Countries such as Romania, Moldova and Slovenia are also considered balkan because of common cultural traits in regards to customs, cuisine and such.
Living in Yugoslavia doesn't count, mate.
Just look at that clusterfuck of states
It was better when it was ruled in an orderly fashion by the ottomans.
There isnt much to talk about.
The Greek city states and Hellenism, the Roman Empire and later the Eastern Roman Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.
Everything else either isnt remarkable, or there isnt enough historical evidence in writing by reliable journalists to make proper discussion about it.
And I imagine you created this thread to talk about either Dacia, or Bulgaria, or Serbia, since it stinks of /int/ and patriotism.
Please understand that the reason people dont talk about these is because there arent enough facts to talk about, and the threads quickly degenerate to insults and arguing whos entirely speculative theory is superior, and citing communist history revisionist sources as proof.
Anyways, I'll throw my dice.
Does any of you have the proper Roman names for the mountain passes in the Balkan/Haemus mountains chain?
They all have funny slav names now, or are called after the slav name for the nearby villages.
Do you have a single reliable primary historical source to confirm this? If so, do share it.
Flags are an /int/ thing. If you want international shitflinging go there. This is for history.
For example, is Macedonia more culturally greek or more culturally bulgarian?
>while Diogenes was relaxing in the sunlight in the morning, Alexander, thrilled to meet the famous philosopher, asked if there was any favour he might do for him. Diogenes replied, "Yes, stand out of my sunlight". Alexander then declared, "If I were not Alexander, then I should wish to be Diogenes."In another account of the conversation, Alexander found the philosopher looking attentively at a pile of human bones. Diogenes explained, "I am searching for the bones of your father but cannot distinguish them from those of a slave."
also a nation of less than 2 million people can't be wrong
Yugoslavia lasted from 1918 to 1941 as a kingdom and from 1945 to 1991 as a socialist federation. I fail to see how that's more significant than the connection Slovenes had with Central Europe for more than a millenia.
I don't know enough about the Macedonian dispute so I don't want to spout memes instead of answers.
Plus I don't come here to fling shit at anyone.
I'm here for the stormtards and their we wuz Greek/Romanz and shit
But this quote has nothing to do with the question asked, and you are just passive-aggressively insulting people based on their nationality, as fueled by your own nationalism in a thread on a history board on a japanese cartoon and comic based anonymous image sharing website.
Stop doing that. It serves no purpose and only ensures that a few more random people will dislike your own nationality for being butthurt enough for a representative of theirs, yourself, to do this.
Go to /int/, where this is tolerated. It shouldnt be tolerated here, and I am happy to see the police already deleting a few posts.
Now, about those Roman mountain pass names. I am still looking, if anyone knows.
Central Macedonia is now Greek.
North Macedonia is now Slavic/Bulgarian.
Ancient Macedonia was a Greek kingdom situated in both central and northern Macedonia
Their capital was in central Macedonia.
>I don't know
Present day Macedonia claims ancestral heritage from Alexander the Great. The people of Macedonia today speak a bulgarian dialect
So the question, are they more close to greek culture or to bulgarian culture
it's just one of the many imaginary boundary definitions that exist so it's as real as the presumptions you base it upon.
probably recent anti-russian and pro-german public opinion if I would harass a guess, right?
The most recent real boundary was the iron curtain, but you carefully omit that from your selective reading of history
Both Bulgaria and Greece are close to each other culturally, because they share the Ottoman Empire Balkan culture in food, architecture, expressions, vices and virtues.
Modern citizens of the Macedonian Republic are culturally closer to Bulgaria, but its not a stretch to say they are also close to Greece.
As I said, they are all alike. Consider this, Bulgarians have spent as much time being "Bulgarians" as they have being "Ottomans".
Dacia was inhabited by the dacians. An indo-european people related to the thracians south of the danube.
After it got conquered by rome, the present romanian people started to form
>South of the Danube, they were culturally Greek.
Also, i'll add that because of the major cultural influence, historians created the imaginary jirecek line, which shows the area of the balkans mainly inspired by latin and greek culture.
>the holy roman empire
I'm guessing the holy roman empire, and correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't exist in living memory, in the modern era, for many generations of people.
I'd say that's insignificant influence for modern day boundaries that are affecting living people, living in the modern era, with living memories and recent historical occurences (relatively speaking) that shaped their lives, the lives of their parents and their grandparents.
Slovenia doesn't share much culture with the balkans to be honest.
Yodeling and Lederhosen isn't exactly balkan.
The Roman Empire was relevant. Stop using these silly Eastern/Byzantine names, it was the Roman Empire. Everything else is just enlightenment germenics trying to justify calling their kingdom Holy roman Empire.
Bulgaria was a regional power at times, irrelevant at others. Its not important for history outside of stopping the first Arab invasion and somewhat influencing the Roman-Persian conflict by forcing the Roman Empire to divide their resources.
Serbia was mostly irrelevant at all points, and was almost never actually called Serbia. Just because a slavic kingdom included modern Serbia doesnt mean its Serbia.
>The Holy Roman Empire
We should really quit calling it that, and just name it Federation Of Germanic States or some such.
Greece and Croatia are decisively not balkan as well, at least their non deep-continental parts.
I'd suggest a visit to any of their islands to witness their architecture and culture there.
Mediterranean I would call it.
thats just cause they want to be asutrians so bad they retcooned their folk culture over time
used to be slovenci looked pretty much like a mountain version of zagorci/međimurci, still is in most lowland places
if it wasnt for that whole romanticism buisness you could all just faced the fact youre the same shit as all of us, just living in the alps
DUBious conclusion, especially considering I excluded the continental parts.
being almost completely surrounded by sea every day of your life for as far back as your people existed, shapes your culture via commerce, cosmopolitanism, cuisine etc, much more than any long dead empire would.
well you are a south slavic people speaking a south slavic language and generaly sharing all the etnologic aspects as most other slavs in the vicinity
the fact some of you wear lederhosen cant save you
Albanians are probably the most mysterious people to me.
Where did they come from? How did they suddenly pop in the balkans and their very first mention was only in the 12th century when the probably would have formed much earlier than that
Are they really descendants of local illyrian tribes or did they come from someplace else into modern Albania?
Anyone know more of this subject?
People in Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia speak same language.
Slovenians are Slavs too, but their language is separate and not fully intelligible by those mentioned above.
Bulgarians and Macedonians speak same Slavic language, distinct from above. Most notably they lack cases which all other Slavic languages have.
Albanians,Romanians and Greeks speak distinct languages.
>Are they really descendants of local illyrian tribes
illyrians probably form their population substrate like much of the yugoslavs
They cannot claim to be their descendants anymore than anyone else in the west balkans, especially considering that no linguistic link of any significance can be established
If anything, we are close to Kajkavian Croatians. Dalmatians, Bosnians, Serbs, Bolgarians? I don't think so. Different religion, different language, different culture. Since our ancestors settled in the Alps in the 6-7th century, we were far more connected to West Slavs, if anything. Only with the introduction of nationalism and pan-Slavism did our relationship with other South Slavs begin; before that, they were part of the Turkish raiders (except for the Uskoks, who were a small minority and seen as foreigners).
No one knows.
Albanians (and few historians) claim they are descendants of Illyrian people.
I personally have trouble believing that, because:
1) Illyrians were Latinized, and Illyrian language was pretty much dead by 3rd century. By logic of things, they should speak some version of Latin, not Albanian.
2) Albanian is first mentioned in 13th century. It's very weird that Byzantine, Norman or Slavic records make no mention of a distinct language in the region that was ruled by their states.
Byzantines even mentioned small Slavic tribes in Balkans by name, I really find it hard to see how they could've missed people speaking strange language on what was their territory.
Dude I'm a fucking Serb, Macedonians don't speak our language, their language is (almost) same as Bulgarian.
Also, you can't call the language ''Serbian''. Croats speak it too.
In Yugoslavia it was called Serbo-Croatian.
Croats are distinct people/tribe that came to Balkans in same period as Serbs.
You're thinking of Muslim Bosnians, who call themselves Bosniaks, and who are converted Serbs and Croats.
Also, Montenegrins are historically ethnically Serb.
>worth mentioning that slav means people that speak a common language which was founded of course by the macedonian's
Plenty of them can due to history in Yugoslavia and media exposure.
But Macedonian/Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian are not same languages.
I mean M/B is pretty intelligible, especially when read, but it's a different language.
Like I said, they lack cases.
its actually the opposite
serbs in bosnia = converted croatian catholics
during the ottoman occupation in bosnia, orthodox population was privileged and it made no sense for them to turn to catholicism
just look at this irony: serbian nationalist that sprays your bullshit has a surname "šešelj" which is found only in croatia, reporters even found the place and date when his family turned and become serbian
Yes, because of what I said.
Some Serbs in Bosnia are convert Croats, some are migrants, some were there for long time.
There's also plenty of Croats who were Orthodox few centuries ago, but converted to Catholicism.
You need to drop the idea that you can historically trace who was Croat or Serb from medieval period in certain area.
In border region (Bosnia), shit was chaotic in that aspect so you can't know that for sure.
Croatian ultranationalist is literally named Srb.
Once again, that shit is totally fucking irrelevant.
Serbs and Croats are Slavs who always shared similar culture and language, and who lived next to each other.
Borders don't indicate if someone was Serb or Croat. In fact, peasantry didn't give a fuck, we're talking about medieval period, Serbs and Croat ''nation'' was practically limited to nobles, and not even them had modern sense of belonging to a nation.
You can talk about Serbs and Croats from 19th century onward when Serb=Orthodox and Croat=Catholic came to be.
Not before that.
>Croatia didn't even exist
Croatia existed as independent nation in early medieval period, then became distinct part of Hungarian Kingdom with autonomy, and remained as such until 1918.
Dude, go back to /int/ if you want to fling shit with Croats and Muslims, this is a history board, and common popular myths are not history.
>so you can't know that for sure.
if you have some history knowledge and common sense, you actually can
>biggest ottoman enemy were the habsburgs, probably biggest catholics in europe
>catherine the great, after beating turks by the black sea ( i dont know the names of the battles but you can search for the aftermath) got her right for protection of the orthodox population under turkey (which bosnia was part of)
now use your logic, at that time only catholics were 2nd class citizens in turkey, and only they had a reason to convert to orthodoxy, and many of them did
You didn't read the definition of the word peninsula
just posted a random map like I do now, or like OP did
I suggest you return to /int/ because map spamming is their sport
seriously, go back to /int/
croatia became a kingdom in 925. when serbs were basically byzantine servants, and on top of that your "nation" has basically no true identity, serbian cousine/folklore/music is turkish, your flag is taken from byzantine, etc.
You're discussing totally different subject, and I agree with that.
I'm just telling you, you can't know for sure who was Croat and who was Serb in those times, unless we're speaking about where Serbs and Croats generally lived.
In border region like Bosnia, there aren't enough records and nature of ''nation'' in that time denies you the ability to accurately put Serbs and Croats at certain locations.
That's my point.
Dude, you're literally discussing the basics of history. Not even our history books in high school and elementary deny Croatia existed, in fact we learn about Croatian Kingdom.
Just go back to /int/.
Look here, moron. Its a land mass surrounded by large bodies of water on three sides.
you really need proofs? jesus
>croatian first kingdom: 925.
>croatian coat of arms dates from 10th century, or even before date
>word "croat" is a autenthic name, unlike "serb" that is a derived word coming from latin "servus", its written in de administranto imperio
also there is no "serbia" untill some 12.th century, there were south slavic states like raška and duklja, but never serbia and croatian "dux" dates from early 9th century
You're just as bad as him though, so I suggest you go back to /int/ too.
Serb doesn't come from serf, nor were Serbs ever ''slaves of Roman emperor''.
There were some Slavs who fought for Byzantines and who were later settled in Anatolia and shit like that.
Stop shitflinging and go back to /int/ if you don't know shit about history outside of your nationalist myths.
>by the way, explain Sorbs in Lusatia, who had no contact with Byzantines
>South Slavic states
While they were South Slavic no doubt, they were also Serb (both Raška and Duklja).
And they came later, before them Serb Principality existed.
Look here, moron. Its a land mass surrounded by large bodies of water on three sides.
>Serb doesn't come from serf
and where does it come from? its actually a believed fact, its not bias, and its written by a byzantine emperor konstantine VII (i think) in D.A.I. So i even have a fucking medievel book and chapter to hold my arguments, you're the one that obviously crawled from /int/ and should go back there
just search some more before you post, that principality isn't even considered serbian, hell they even call the ruling dinasty "proto-serbian" because they know its all bullshit
>being so assblasted that he is considered balkan by everyone culturally AND geographically
Explain Sorbs in Lusatia. One ''fucking medieval book'' is no proof. Byzantines wrote a lot of shit, D.A.I isn't THAT reliable.
Also, how was Serb Principality not Serbian?
Dude, you might hate it but you're on same level as this guy above who wrote shit like ''Croatia never existed''.
Croatian myths about Serbs=Serb myths about Croats. Absolute fucking bullshit. That's not history.
That feel when instead of Yugoslavia there should be Romania and instead of Romania some eastern slavs
Funny how things turn out
whats there to explain? first metioning of "sorbs" was in the 7th century, and thats the period about which konstantine is saying serbs first came to the balkan and got their name
also, how do you explain serbia/serbs being mentioned as servia/serfs in almost every document and map untill late 19th century
did you hear about ilija grašanin? he is the biggest history revisionist in the balkans, he's idea about history is not about writting the truth but writting things that would make a nation stronger, and your stupid /int/ ass is falling for it
Build highways. On the left of the highway, a pasture and a farm. On the right of the highway, a church and a park.
>Dude, you might hate it but you're on same level as this guy above who wrote shit like ''Croatia never existed''.
he's not, i have a backing for all of my "theories", you're just an average wiki historian and you should stop generalizing you twat
>greekcunts massacres catholics in konstantinopol
>crusaders btfo them
>bawwww bad catholics destroyed """"eastern roman empire""""" D:<<<<
not saying that venece wasnt the biggest jew that had its fingers in the balkans tho
We would have finally have cultural contact with our romance speaking brothers
But slavs got in the way and basicly isolated us from the rest of civilized Europe
You fail to understand what I'm implying.
There's Slavic nation called Sorbs which lives in Lusatia, in Eastern Germany. They had no contact with Byzantines.
Yet they still call themselves Serbs (Serby). Now why would some tribe which had no contact with Byzantines call themselves ''slaves''? Do you see how retarded your claim is?
It's obvious Serb is a word of Slavic origin.
That's just how it was written in past. B became V in foreign transliteration.
Also, why would Greeks (and Greek was in use in 7th century ERE) give Latin name? Why not use Greek word for ''serfs''?
Also, why the fuck would Serbs in Balkans used ''slaves'' as their name? Doesn't that appear retarded to you?
Of course I did and he claimed much shit but so are you.
You're some autist who can't comprehend that being Croatian nationalist and spouting Croatian myths is absolutely same as being Serb nationalist and spouting Serb myths.
>Orthodox/Catholic shitposting reaching new levels of memery
>Catholics remove Orthodox Churches in Italy
>Orthodox remove Catholic happy merchants from Constantinople, might have overdone it admittedly
>Catholics proceed to Crusade against Orthodox East Roman Empire as retaliation
And which were your theories?
''Croatia never existed'' or ''Serbs are slaves and I know because of one apocryphal story from D.A.I.''?
Both are false. And believe it or not, reading Wikipedia which often uses foreign sources is much superior to reading works of local ''historians''.
There is no difference, the term "Byzantine" came centuries after the dissolution of the Roman Empire by historians to mark the east part that was kinda different to the west in terms of religion and cultures.
>Orthodox remove Catholic happy merchants from Constantinople, might have overdone it admittedly
Are you implying this was because of the curches business? Because you'd be wrong, latin merchants were offed because they had cornered the market and the empire had a worse credit situation towards them than modern Greece toward Germany.
Byzantine Empire-later European name for Eastern Roman Empire. It's citizens considered themselves Roman and their rulers saw themselves as successors of Roman emperors.
It's just a matter of terminology, Eastern Roman Empire=Byzantine Empire.
roman empire was split administratively
the western part was quickly overrun by goths and other tribes
they later established their own kingdoms and tried to usurp the title of the roman emperor from the still very alive eastern part, thus calling it (derogatorily) "empire of the greek" and "byzantine empire"
(Western)Roman empire - Catholics. Used latin.
(Eastern)Byzantine empire - Orthodox. Used greek.
But they never called themselves that way. Rome never died with it's western half, since the capital was moved to constantinople long before that.
>the western part was quickly overrun by goths and other tribes
Don't forget to mention that the east routinely bribed off invading barbarians with gold and assistance in traversing their land towards the west.
it's acknowledged by a lot of Byzantists that the 'massacre of the Latin Quarter' was not nearly as severe as it's portrayed in the West. It would constantly be used to demand reparations; primarily from Venice.
I'd recommend reading the segment in book 'Byzantium and Venice."
>There's Slavic nation called Sorbs which lives in Lusatia, in Eastern Germany. They had no contact with Byzantines.
yea, they're called "sorbs", were called by franks and just like the most slavic tribes were given a name, unlike the "hrvat" for ex.
if you think byzantine and frankish empire had no connection then you're even dumber then i thought
>That's just how it was written in past. B became V in foreign transliteration.
oh, so konstantine called serbs serves and explained where the name comes from AND serbia was always mentioned under the name "servia" because of some translation error. God what a mind melting coincidence
>Also, why would Greeks (and Greek was in use in 7th century ERE) give Latin name? Why not use Greek word for ''serfs''?
latin was the official language for elites in byzantinium untill the end of the heraclus reign. You know what it says in DAI about when and who gave the serbs name they have? Heraclus.
>Also, why the fuck would Serbs in Balkans used ''slaves'' as their name? Doesn't that appear retarded to you?
you're a great historian my friend
tell me, why would serbs use byzantinium flag even tho they were their vassals in early midages? why would they use turkish customs when they were under their boot for 500 years? And most importantly, why the fuck are you asking me you dumb fuck
anyhow im done with you, you're just some retarded /int/ poster that thinks he found his safe heaven in this newly opened board where everyone will cite wikipedia and play kukulele together on a guitar
pepe posting would suit you way more, because far as i've seen you have no historical knowledge what so ever, you just bash every other unpopular opinion by asking them retarded questions, so fuck off
>the 'massacre of the Latin Quarter' was not nearly as severe as it's portrayed in the West
The point was not its severity, it was its periodic repetition (5-7 times in the 12th century alone), when you murder family members of 3 generations of Doges you should kind of expect them to answer in kind.
>anyhow im done with you, you're just some retarded /int/ poster that thinks he found his safe heaven in this newly opened board where everyone will cite wikipedia and play kukulele together on a guitar
>pepe posting would suit you way more, because far as i've seen you have no historical knowledge what so ever, you just bash every other unpopular opinion by asking them retarded questions, so fuck off
you keep equalizing me with some idiot that basically only said "croatia never existed", which is like me saying your mom is a stupid whore that shouldve swallowed your stupid selfe, when everyone knows its untrue and meant to trigger idiots like you, am i correct?
Yeah, I know. I feel stupid for thinking I'd see a more civilized discussion here, but it's just croato-serbian crap (missing bulgarians, really) and outsiders saying "lol nobody cares, lol better off under ottomans" like usual.
Guys, can't we just settle to the fact that:
Serbs and Croats more or less share the same language
Each of them had their own medieval entities
Each of them used these medieval entities and culture in the 20th century for the purpose of nation-building and creating a patriotic spirit based on heritage and such.
And they are used today to outline their differences now that they are independent.
But if they were a single country these differences wouldn't exist and their commonalities would be stressed more, and not their differences
The ERE was heavily greek from the start but it wasn't until heraclius that it became THE official language, in fact most of the things that made the empire different from the RE stem from Heraclius' reforms and the reaction to the muslim conquests, see the theme system
>were given a name
No Slavic tribe was ''given a name'', unless you count some Slavs adopting regional name (that came much later ie. Macedonians), or case of Bulgarians and Russians. But that was adoption of ruling group's name, not taking foreign name for yourself.
Byzantine and Frankish empire had connection, but I don't see what does it have to do with this story. You're talking about Byzantine sources.
Constantine was talking about something from 7th century, in 10th century. He wasn't direct witness of those events.
Besides, Serbs were enemies of Byzantine Empire, of course he would write bad shit about Serbs.
>Latin was the official language
True, but not by the end of reign of Heraclius. Not like this matters, I just pointed out to one problem, however it's debatable, you're right.
>why would serbs use byzantinium flag
What does that have to do with anything? Serbian and Byzantine nobility married frequently in those times, people adopted other symbols, etc. etc.
I fail to see what does it have to do with anything, no one ever said Byzantine culture didn't influence Serb culture a lot.
Actually very few ''Turkish'' customs exist in Balkans, it's mostly general Muslim or Byzantine customs. Turks themselves adopted a lot of Byzantine culture. And customs stuck during centuries of Ottoman rule, what's the problem here? Croats also had Ottoman influence.
>you're just some retarded /int/ poster
Nope, that's you, given your nationalist narrative. And I visited /ex-yu/, I know exactly which guy you are.
Go back there so you can fling shit with your autistic buddies, this is not the board for that.
>what's the difference between the byzantine empire and the roman empire?
No difference. The Byzantine meme was created by the Austrians so they can call their federation Roman Empire.
During the existence of the Eastern Roman Empire, they just called themselves Romans and nobody else ever thought of calling them otherwise.
>rename an empire because we don't agree with the name they gave themselves
Is this a legitimate post?
The area that postures as Macedonia today has historically been a void with no noteworthy kingdom or culture to build a modern national foundation on. It happened almost by accident that it was incorporated into the vaguely defined Macedonian region due to serving as some kind of Macedonian hinterland (Macedonia Inferior/Secondary as the Romans put it) after Macedon started extending its influence. The more moderate contemporary Macedonian realizes this, that the problem is mostly that they have nothing else to call themselves.
The "real Macedonia" is indeed Greek and located in Greece. They also have the most continuity with Macedonian and Greek civilization. The funny thing is that Alexander's conquests homogenized the Greek world more than anything else, killing the dialects and introducing Koine which has covered the Greek world ever since. History didn't end in 500 BC as the contemporary Macedonians like to pretend it did, and Macedonia being called barbaric by elitist Greeks doesn't make them Macedonians.
With that said, a Macedonian culture or identity hasn't existed in millennia neither on the Greek side or Slavic side. It is purely a regional construction. There were waves of motives for a separate Macedonian state: an innocent attempt to carve out a multicultural state between the warring Balkan states in the 19th-20th century; as a Bulgarian vassal after failing to annex outright (compare Dobrujan Internal Revolutionary Organization, Thracian Internal Revolutionary Organization); an attempt to fuse "Macedonian" nationalism/expansionism with communism under a federal Yugoslavia against capitalist Greece; as a way to dissipate Bulgarian identity. The motives are many.
Country names are forgeries and there were enough retards in the past who created shit they wanted to gain some legitimacy but in reality it didn't make any sense.
According to your logic, then Russia is the legitimate successor of the Eastern Roman Empire.
They were a single country and the differences outweighed the similarities to the point of Serbia invading.
Cultural heritage is totally different, Croatia was influenced by Catholicism, Italy, Austria and Hungary while Serbia had little to none of those. National literature of Croatia is completely unrelated to Serbia in any way until the late 19th century and that's almost irrelevant. There was and is some since the 30s, but it's not important.
>Russia is the legitimate successor of the Eastern Roman Empire
Certainly Russians like to think that, they have the two-headed eagle as their imperial symbol and they've always striven for control over the Straits.
What was so fucked up about the Thracians? They liked war, wine, women, gold, and horses.
Gee, I dont know.
Redpill me on the Bulgarian Empire.
>a blight on the ERE
In the end, it fell to Asian forces, which is a shame. Bulgarians slowly became closer and closer culturally to the populations to the South of them, first by adopting Christianity, and then by dynastic marriages.
Well not only that.
The original argument for Russia being the successor of the roman empire is the fact that some russian prince (his name is slipping my mind right now) married the last empress of the eastern roman empire, when the ottoman invasions were in full swing and Constantinople's collapse was almost close.
So they kinda cheated their way into claiming that by some archaric arbitrary rules of marriage.
Cyril and Methodius were from Thessaloniki, which despite popular belief, has never been Slavic or even owned by Slavs.
Because roman blood floods through our veins.
And we were masters at dodging invaders
Found it. This is what i was talking about.
>Stirrings of this sentiment began during the reign of Ivan III of Russia who had married Sophia Paleologue.
>Sophia was a niece of Constantine XI, the last Byzantine emperor. By the rules and laws of inheritance followed by most European monarchies of the time, Ivan could claim that he and his offspring were heirs of the fallen Empire, but the Roman traditions of the empire had never recognized automatic inheritance of the Imperial office.
Ciryl and Methodius did not create Cyrillic, it was created by their students under the patronage of Bulgarian kings.
Cyrillic to the left, Glagolitic to the right.
nigga the text on the right is exactly like the text on the left if you cross your eyes
>Why do the Romanians have a romance language instead of a Slavic one just like everyone else?
A good writting about old Vlach language: (before the romanian languege reforms of 18-19th century, and "radical latinization" of modern romanian language) Interestingly, Romanian language is full with phrases and words from modern (19th century) French or the modern Italian languages, which simply did not exist in the era original ancient latin speaking populations.
The ecclesiastical language of the Wallachians indicates a strong connection with Macedonia. The Wallachian language shows a strong Slav influence and shows a relationship with the Albanian language. A second group of linguists was involved in researching the Rumanian (Wallachian) language: M. Gaster, G. Moldovan, Sextil Puscariu, C. Weigand, G. Murnu and others. This group took into consideration the information from the Byzantine Chronicles, studied the geographical locations where the language was spoken, and attempted to reconstruct the origins of the Rumanian language. (Török, p. 205) After reading the researches of these scientists, Sándor Török concludes that there is no trace of Dacian influence in the Rumanian language. There is also no trace of influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans, the Huns, Goths, Gepidae, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania.
tl;dr Macedonia is the rightful descendant of the Roman Empire and Romanians are dirty slavs.
>only where the hellinistic period and slavic literacy started, no biggie
The Hellenistic period is an arbitrarily defined era post-Alexander for when Hellenism spread eastwards which I don't see any relation to today's Northern Macedonia.
Slavic literacy, while appreciated, isn't exactly a national foundation, m8, and especially not "Macedonian".
Hmm, how peculiar, I wonder why they speak THE SAME FUCKING LANGUAGE as the Serbs if they're so fucking special.
You guys seem to be under the influence of politicians directly responsible for the balkanization of Yugoslavia.
The country was a politically correct compromise between peoples that insist on calling themselves separate names when in fact they are the same South Slavic people.
Slovene language is distinct and as the anon >>89231 nicely explained it's due to their exposure or lack thereof to south Slavic peoples such as catholic, orthodox and muslim Yugos that are one and the same (Croats, Serbs and '''''''bosniaks'''''''').
I seriously wonder why Yugoslav Commies weren't more aggressive in the conversion to the Yugoslav ethnicity and language and wonder why they kept calling it Serbo-Croatian/ Croato-Serbian.
Minor note; I live in Bosnia, the melting pot of these three '''''''''ethnicities'''''''''' and can in sound mind attest: WE UNDERSTAND EACHOTHER 99,99% of the time (the differences are smaller than those between US and British English).
Or an era when all the greek city states were united. You said the area didn't matter, not referencing any "national foundations". It's bulgarian, 19th century becomes macedonian, you don't have to put it in quotes to emphasize your point foreigner.
>Croats are distinct people/tribe that came to Balkans in same period as Serbs.
You are half right.
Croats are a distinct tribe that came at the same time as the Sorbs. The Sorbs arent the Serbs.
The Serbs are a confederacy of a bunch of tribes, including the Sorbs.
The tribes that make up the Serbs didnt arrive all at the same time. They were instead united by the bulgar khans trying to relocate them to live in their land, and their refusal.
Central Europe is pretty well defined. The East-West is a meme as it's purely a left over of the cold war and is geographically speaking retarded
>Croats are a distinct tribe that came at the same time as the Sorbs. The Sorbs arent the Serbs.
>The Serbs are a confederacy of a bunch of tribes, including the Sorbs.
That's what literally every balkan slavs are, a confederacy of tribes that eventually molded under a single name while assimilating the more numerous native populations already living there.
Are you stupid though? The East-West is a left over of the Cold war, no one stated the cold war didn't exist, and is purely a political split that has nothing to do with Geography aside from one political camp being in the east and the other in the west.
>that has nothing to do with Geography
who argued geography except you?
the only reason people like you post for central europe existing is HRE or something (that has borders not even consistent with your definition btw), not to mention that it imploded generations ago.
Slavs are eastern europe, deal with the fact.
>who argued geography except you?
Not him, but the terms "east" and "west" are well, you know, geographical.
>Slavs are eastern europe, deal with the fact.
Slavs are not limited to Eastern Europe at all. I mean they even live in fucking far east Asia.
>who argued geography except you?
You, when you're splitting Europe in cardinal directions that do no coincide with actual cardinal directions, you idiot.
>the only reason people like you post for central europe existing is HRE or something (that has borders not even consistent with your definition btw), not to mention that it imploded generations ago.
Has nothing to do with the HRE but with it's position within Europe, thus "central".
>Slavs are eastern europe, deal with the fact.
Which is a fucking retarded thing to say because it's an extreme generalization. Some Germans live further east than Slavs and some Slavs live further west than Romance speakers.
>I mean they even live in fucking far east Asia.
semantics, modern european slavs were pretty much molded under communist rule up until the 90s and as the vehement antithesis to that afterwards
>You, when you're splitting Europe in cardinal directions that do no coincide with actual cardinal directions, you idiot.
you know that the center of europe is actually lithuania and not germany I gather or does semantics only work when they help your argument?
Freestyle drawing of what people normally mean when they say
Poland is the one faggot who cant decide where they are, because they hold rightful german clay.
That map is retarded. I'm genuinely wondering how is Czech republic central while Hungary and Slovakia are eastern, since I'm pretty sure those countries are far more similar to Czech republic than to Belarus or Macedonia.
Here we go again with people being wrong and then calling it semantics.
>you know that the center of europe is actually lithuania and not germany I gather or does semantics only work when they help your argument?
Did the baby use google? There is no particular centre point of Europe agreed upon, it depends entirely depending on what you define the borders of Europe as and take measurements from thus you have several of different claims of what the centre point of Europe is.
Czech and Slovakia divided exactly because one is central cultured, the other eastern cultured.
Hungary is... odd. I wasnt sure about it. I still think their USSR culture is stronger than their german Austrian culture.
Reminder what some more educated people think is central europe. Unlike random drawn maps on 4chan.
>Czech and Slovakia divided exactly because one is central cultured, the other eastern cultured.
Jesus fuck, not true at all. Both of them belong to the catholic/protestant ex-Habsburg cultural sphere. You could make a claim that Czech was more urban and industrial while Slovakia was more rural and agrarian, but neither of them was eastern (if by eastern we mean eastern orthodox Slavs).
And as far as I know, culture was never an issue during the dissolution of Czechoslovakia.
>if by eastern we mean eastern orthodox Slavs
Religion is part of culture, of course, but its not ALL of culture.
Czech is culturally part of Bohemia, in my opinion from having traveled. This is just anecdotal evidence, of course.
I havent been to Slovakia, but I am let to believe that its a typical slav post USSR shithole.
>THE SAME FUCKING LANGUAGE
That's not peculiar at all. Slavs once spoke same language. Out of that Slavic language, modern Slavic languages came to be.
Slavs in Balkans spoke same language when they came to Balkans, however some diverged (Slovenes, Bulgarians, Macedonians).
Croats and Serbs didn't diverge, that's all.
Croats and Serbs are and were separate entities/tribes/nations/whatever.
In 19th century, division was made based on religion. All Catholics became Croats while all Orthodox people became Serbs.
This isn't that complex at all, what makes it complex is nationalist ''history'' and myths.
>Slavs in Balkans spoke same language when they came to Balkans, however some diverged (Slovenes, Bulgarians, Macedonians).
Bulgarian and Macedonian diverged in the last 50 years, with active help from Belgrad.
But you have no argument. Your counter argument to the fact Slavs can, and are, more westward than some Romance or Germanic speakers was by calling it semantics. You protested to Poland and Germany being lumped together but East Germany and Poland were lumped together for 50 years as part of the Soviet bloc, thus east, as well as the Warsaw pact. You claim Slavs were under communism but so were Non-Slavs including Germans, by that definition they are likewise eastern.
Essentially you boil down to "feels" because you "feel" slavs are east and everyone else is west disregarding their actual geographic position and resorting to meme's like "kid" and telling someone to leave the board, lel. This is without even bringing up the fact Eastern Europe =/= Slavic
>Religion is part of culture, of course, but its not ALL of culture.
It's not just religion. Slovakia technically didn't even exist as a separate entity until 1939, for centuries it was just northern Hungary, then Austria, then Austria-Hungary, then Czechoslovakia. It was never in the same sphere as the eastern Slavs (Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians). The Slovak people themselves were nothing more than Slavic-speaking Hungarians and until the explosion of nationalist sentiments in the 19th century even identified as such. Even today, despite their mutual antagonism, the difference between Slovaks and Hungarians is merely linguistic.
>post USSR shithole
It was never a part of the USSR and neither was Hungary for that matter.
Neither did Serb, point is all Catholics became Croats in 19th century and all Orthodox Christian became Serbs. That's when REAL modern nations came to exist in Balkans.
That's when we can really start talking about where Croats lived and where Serbs lived.
>look, this area was ruled by Croat king, that means everyone here is Croat!
>look, this area was ruled by Serb king, that means everyone is Serb!
>look, this one record mentions X living here, it was always ours!1!!!
I'm against this bullshit, because it's completely dumb and people and ''historians'' from Balkans just cherry-pick some date when some king ruled something to make ethnic claims.
It's didn't diverge much though. But yeah, communists are the main creators of Macedonian identity (though idea didn't originate from them).
>And neither was Bulgaria, but that doesnt mean their culture isnt entirely USSR constructed.
Modern Bulgarian identity was established long before Communist takeover in WWII, starting with the first literary works of the national revival in the 18th century.
And none of that has anything to do with the USSR nor my point.
You just listed a few random facts that are irrelevant to my point.
Bulgaria was heavily influence culturally by the USSR, as was Hungary, as was what later became Slovakia.
your argument being:
>Slavs are not limited to Eastern Europe at all. I mean they even live in fucking far east Asia.
my counterarguments being: semantics
If we are talking about east asian slavs you are way out of the conversation.
>the terms "east" and "west" are well, you know, geographical.
my counterarguments being: "central europe" is not geographical either
if you try to counter by calling the east/west divide nonsense despite being more geographically correct than central europe at least don't backpedal when proven wrong
you were the one that pretty much closed the conversation by posting "semantics is not a valid counterargument" and on the very next post responding with "different people measure the center of europe differently"
you are dancing around the (hurtful to your post 90s new found nationalism) realization that you have more in common with your fellow slavs than the swiss and dutch
and with that I bid you a good final post, I have no delusions that you will once again repeat the same things
I'm legit curious how Hungarian, Slovak or Bulgarian cultures are "USSR constructed" but Czech culture is not. They were a part of the Eastern Bloc for the same amount of time as all the other countries.
>Bulgaria was heavily influence culturally by the USSR, as was Hungary, as was what later became Slovakia.
Care to list some points? Did Hungarians become Orthodox Christians? Was their local food replaced by Russian food? Was their national music replaced likewise?
I don't think anyone would deny the cultural exchanges (as they went both ways) but how exactly, in the case of Bulgaria, is their culture a USSR construct
Idea of Croatian nation goes back to the 15th century. Nobleman would say they were Croatian. The hey now Catholic are Croats and Serbs are orthodox is mentally retarded. Read a bloody book, you have a pretty large amount of renaissance Croatian literature.
It's true we share some culture with Turks, which is normal when we lived in the same state for centuries.
You could say we're more similar to Turks than Western Europeans.
But that doesn't make us Turks.
Turks don't exist genetically, most Turks are Turkified Anatolian and Balkan people.
We don't speak Turkish outside of borrowed words, and we don't feel Turkish. Finally, Islam is an important element of Turkish identity, and we aren't Muslim.
So no, we aren't Turks.
>my counterarguments being: semantics
Ah, so you have no argument? That wasn't even my post though, retard.
>you were the one that pretty much closed the conversation by posting "semantics is not a valid counterargument"
Ah, so when you no longer have an argument all you have to do is say "semantics" and that's your victory whistle.
>you are dancing around the (hurtful to your post 90s new found nationalism) realization that you have more in common with your fellow slavs than the swiss and dutch
Aww, so cute, making assumptions.
>and with that I bid you a good final post, I have no delusions that you will once again repeat the same things
Indeed I will as you have failed to even address the main points of my post and are now simply running off. I'll give you another chance though, please elaborate on to how Slovenes are Eastern Europeans and East Germans are Western Europeans.
Exactly. That's like 1% of population in those times.
I never said Croats didn't exist before 19th century, I just said Croats in the modern sense of the word didn't exist.
Maybe, but that's how it came to be. Let's be real, people in regions like Bosnia didn't really give a fuck about being Serb or Croat in that time. Religion was important, and finally modern Balkan nationalism originated on religious basis, when some other difference was lacking.
The soviet cultural sphere drinks tea and lives in concrete buildings.
The germanic cultural sphere drinks beer and lives in brick buildings.
The soviet cultural sphere eats a lot of bread and cooked vegetables.
The german cultural sphere eats a lot of sausages and preserved meats.
The soviet cultural sphere eats and parties at home, and visit each other in homes.
The german cultural sphere eats and parties at restaurants, and do celebrations in restaurants.
Stuff like that.
I meant specifically fruits preserving, not all preserves in general.
All of the things you listed are normal in all the countries we named so far. Hungary and Slovakia are also historically part of the Germanosphere (which is what "central Europe" initially meant).
>I meant specifically fruits preserving, not all preserves in general.
Fruit preserving is also common in Czech culture.
>The soviet cultural sphere drinks tea and lives in concrete buildings.
>The germanic cultural sphere drinks beer and lives in brick buildings.
This is false, again. The soviet "cultural sphere" drinks spirits and beers. Czechosloavkia is one of the countries with the highest beer consumption and also renowned for its beers. The germanic "cultural sphere" is divided between Wine and Beer, in Austria for example more Wine is consumed than Beer. The part about concrete and brick is fucking hilarious though.
>The soviet "cultural sphere" eats a lot of bread and cooked vegetables.
>The german "cultural sphere" eats a lot of sausages and preserved meats.
This is false again, the Polish Kielbasa, ever heard of it? Meanwhile, where do you think the word Kraut came from for Germans?
>The soviet cultural sphere eats and parties at home, and visit each other in homes.
>The german cultural sphere eats and parties at restaurants, and do celebrations in restaurants.
Do you mean socialist era commieblocks? That's common in all ex-commie countries, including East Germany.
Prague in the pic, by the way.
>The soviet cultural sphere drinks tea and lives in concrete buildings.
bullshit, in Bulgaria we drink a lot of beer and homemade hard liquor and wine, we also export a lot of wine
>The soviet cultural sphere eats a lot of bread and cooked vegetables.
again, bullshit, we eat a lot of fruits.vegetables since the climate is good, but we also eat a lot of meat
>The soviet cultural sphere eats and parties at home, and visit each other in homes.
that's like the stupidest thing I've heard
>The Czech part of it. Thus Czechia being part of the germanic sphere. This the division.
So Czech republic is not part of the USSR cultural sphere now? But they were part of the Soviet block my man.
To me it seems as if your broad generalizations are not working at all, and indeed it seems as if your "theory" was simply something you conjured up with nothing to back it up and then went in search for "proof". This the Czech republic is not in the USSR sphere (despite being equally to Slovakia and Hungary) because your theory would not longer fit.
>Heavily german culture, as their country owns german land.
Top fucking lel, tell me more when Krakow was owned by the Germans. Meanwhile those "german lands" were a part of Poland before the partitions and the rest of it was a part of Poland before Germany became a thing. Funnily enough it's called the Polish Sausage and not the German Sausage.
>Bulgaria's earliest commercial brewery was established in Plovdiv by the Swiss Germans Rudolf Frick and Friedrich Sulzer in 1876. It became a large and modern factory in 1879–1881 with the help of another Swiss expert, Christian August Bomanti. Production began in 1882 in the Kamenitsa area near the city and continues today, its successor being the Kamenitza brewery. The first brewery in Varna dates back to 1884, when the contractors Kasabov and Vtichev opened up a small factory.
So 10 years before the 20th century. Excuse me for being so colossally wrong.
I guess that factory (which had no bulgarians involved in it) was producing 20 beers a day that I didnt account for.
Meanwhile people in the Persian region have been making beer for 7000 years, and germanics have been drinking it seasonably for at least 700.
>we also eat a lot of meat
Who is this "we"? Bulgarians eat less meat than germanic people. Less meat than pretty much everybody around them.
>talk bullshit about tea in soviet period
>get told we drink INDUSTRIAL beer 70 years before soviet times, but also wine and spirits
>muh 700 years of beer guys!
again, this board is pure shit
>I guess that factory (which had no bulgarians involved in it)
Well, you could have tried to read the entire thing I posted
>Meanwhile people in the Persian region have been making beer for 7000 years, and germanics have been drinking it seasonably for at least 700.
And your point is? Spirits and wine were more popular in the balkans how does that invalidate that plenty of Beer is drunk in Bulgaria?
I don't really see where you're going with this.
Excuse me, I just forgot that people get fiercely nationalistic and patriotic about beer, as if I am somehow emasculating the whole nation by stating the fact that there is no beer culture in Bulgaria, never was and probably never will be.
tl;dr my fault, I forgot I am arguing with subhumans.
>emasculating the whole nation by stating the fact that there is no beer culture in Bulgaria
But there is a beer culture in Bulgaria... "Today, Bulgaria ranks 15th by beer consumption per capita, with 73 litres a year."
I'm not even Bulgarian.
There you go >>>/pol/ is that way. This is /his/ and blatant racism isn't allowed, read the sticky.
>Czechs don't live in concrete buildings
>Czechs don't preserve fruit
>Hungarians and Slovaks somehow have a "Soviet tea culture"
Just some of the insane bullshit you managed to claim in this thread before getting BTFO, please stop posting before embarrassing yourself further.
And where does the information for this even come from? Sales in supermarkets? If that's the case then no wonder it shows this. A huge portion of the population here buys directly from villages, or relatives living in villages, mainly because people are scared of the "evil" GMO, but also because it's cheaper.
>let me tell you about your country
The one thing that we have very much in common with other soviet states is that statistics usually mean shit.
>The one thing that we have very much in common with other soviet states is that statistics usually mean shit.
It is true that the soviet sphere of influence usually is in denial of statistical facts. Thats another thing I forgot to mention, and contrast with the more secular and rational central europeans.
People in Bosnia gave plenty of fucks. It's an area where national identity has historically been quite important as well as religious beliefs.
Francis friars wrote about the Croatian population for centuries and most had a sense of national identity.
Other differences were more prominent then, language wasn't unified, Croatian had 4 major dialects that are massively different from modern Croatian. That's one pretty large difference that became smaller. Literature is another clear pointer in how Croatian national idea formed, but since this isn't /lit/ but a slightly less retarded /int/ I can't expect you to have read anything except maybe high school readings.
And finally nobleman shaped the peasants as well as church and both had the idea of an ethnicity wholly different from the Serbs for long before Serbs even became a part of Croatian history.
You could make a point that Orthodox population of Croatia became Serbian due to it being a part of the Serbian orthodox church, but such a case is impossible to make for Croatia.
>I never said Croats didn't exist before 19th century, I just said Croats in the modern sense of the word didn't exist.
Nobody on the Balkans existed in the modern sense then.
Even the state of Greece was pretty much made up under Ottoman times. Before that there was no such thing as "Greece" or "greek nation".
Look up when nationhood was invented and developed. Its a more recent invention than you might think.
This is true. Many if not most rural people in eastern Europe like to slaughter their own pig at home rather than buy meat at a retail store.
A good indicator would be the amount of pigs slaughtered per capita, rather than a sales map.