George Miletic

[Novi Pazar]

"In the days before the Bulgarian Exarchate there came
to Veles as Serbian schoolmaster George Miletic, the
brother of Svetosar Miletic, the Serbian national leader
in Hungary. He was in Macedonia at the time of the
struggle for emancipation from the Greeks. As a good
Serb he also supported the struggle, but threw in his lot
with those who, taking Russia's advice, joined the Bul-
garian movement, and he became a Bulgarian leader in
Macedonia. To-day his son Ljubimir Miletic (whose



BULGARIAN ACTION IN MACEDONIA 153

name and surname are both Serbian) is professor at
the University of Sofia, and one of the bitterest
Serbophobes."

[ioan assen]

He was a real Serb who didnt try to falsify the real history and origin of the Macedonian Bulgarians. He was a real friend of the Bulgarian people. He was simply well educated person and knew that at that time Macedonia was populated mainly by Bulgarians. He later marries a Bulgarian Evtimia from Veles.
If most of the Serbs were like this person, we would ve had brotherly relationship with the Serbs. RIP George Miletic - a real Serb and a real friend of the Bulgarians!

[Novi Pazar]

^ Bulgarisation is quite easy! This gentleman above AT RUSSIA's advice JOINED THE BULGARIAN MOVEMENT!

PS Remember what l said that the Bulgarian Exarchate was fostered by Turkey and Secretly supported by RUSSIA, she financed all her expenditures.

READ AND LEARN:

STORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BULGARIAN
PROPAGANDA IN MACEDONIA, TOLD BY A CITIZEN
OF BITOLJ

"It is only thirty years ago since the Bulgarian propaganda first
began. Formerly there were none but Serb and Greek schools
in Old Serbia and in Macedonia. We were under the Greek
Patriarchate, and we suffered much under the Greek clergy. The
Bulgars speculated upon this discontent with the Greek clergy
when, in commencing their struggle for the Exarchate, they en-
deavoured to stir up the Serbian inhabitants of our Province also.
The Bulgarian agents and apostles came to us with honey on,
their lips and money in their pockets. They fell on our necks
as ' brothers ' — although we understood our ' brother ' but im-
perfectly — and promised us an end to our troubles if we would
join them in their struggle for the Exarchate.

" That we listened to the siren voices of the Bulgars must not
be laid to our charge ; all the world had forsaken us, and the
hand of the Bulgars was the first to be stretched out to help us.
Our kinsmen in Belgrade did not trouble themselves about us at
all ; our Serbian schools had been for the most part founded by
ourselves, and only a few patriotic Serbs were prepared to act as
teachers for us. Not until later, after the establishment of the
Exarchate, was a school for Old- Serbian students founded in Serbia ;
but it was closed again after a few years.

" But there was another circumstance which greatly assisted the
Bulgars in their propaganda. You know that we have become
used to calling ourselves 'Bugari.' Now this is something
different from Bolgari, but as the name signifies the same thing
as ■ Bulgars,' it was easy for the Bulgarian agents to persuade
us that we had been Bulgars of old. It is true that our language,
our folk-songs, and history are directly opposed to this assump-
tion; but necessity knows no law, and so we threw ourselves
into the arms of the Bulgars because nobody took our part, and
because they promised us deliverance from the Greek Church and
eventually even from the Turkish domination.


"At first the Bulgarian propaganda operated within modest limits,
because it naturally did not dispose of the means at its disposal
to-day. Besides this, the Greek and Serbian schools hampered
its progress no less than the Greek clergy. The latter ceased to
be an obstacle after the establishment of the Exarchate in 1870.
The Greek priests were replaced by Bulgarian, who immediately
inaugurated a brisk agitation. This naturally brought the Bul-
garians a great step forward.

" In the year 1876 they made similar progress, and this like-
wise through the complaisance of the Turkish Government, as
the latter, immediately upon the Serbian declaration of war,
suspended all Serbian schools and expelled all the Serbian
teachers. Obviously the Bulgars at once made the most of their
opportunity and replaced the Serbian schools and teachers by
Bulgarian. The fugitive Serbian teachers applied to Belgrade for
help, but in vain. Otherwise the Serbian Government would at
least have gained this advantage, that the teachers (who were
all well known and popular with us, and whom we should have
welcomed back with open arms) would have returned after the
war, and continued their labours, or at least would have kept
alive our sympathies for Serbia.

" Also after 1878 and until now the Serbs did not trouble about
us, and left us entirely to the Bulgars, who, less indolent than
the Serbs, lost no time in establishing themselves here and in
Bulgarizing the people.

" At the head of the whole propaganda stands the Bulgarian
Exarch in Constantinople, assisted by his Secretary, Sopov
(Ofeikoff). He devotes £T 30,500 {nearly 700,000 francs) annually
solely to propaganda purposes. Besides this, the Bulgarian
Sobranje decided, immediately upon the foundation of the Bul-
garian Principality, to provide in their Budget 400,000 francs
annually for the erection and maintenance of Bulgarian schools
in our countries, and Eastern Roumelia decided to devote 60,000
francs annually to the same object. To-day united Bulgaria
spends fully 600,000 francs annually upon the Bulgarian schools
in Macedonia and Old Serbia. In addition to this the Bulgarian
Government annually assigns over 2,000,000 francs from the
Treasury for propaganda work. If this appears incredible to
you, consult the Bulgarian Budget. There you will find that the
Foreign Ministry annually receives 2,800,000 francs, although it
has neither Embassies nor Consulates to maintain. The Serbian
Foreign Ministry only receives 800,000 francs per annum -(of
which 100,000 are Treasury funds), out of which it has to maintain
ten Legations and four Consulates -General. Consequently the
Bulgarian Foreign Minister has at least 2,400,000 francs at his
disposal with which to carry on the agitation here, and to bribe
the European Press as well as individual authors. At first Kussia
also provided annual assistance ; I believe that since 1885 this
is no longer paid, but I may be wrong. Suffice it to say that
the Bulgarian Government and the Exarchate in all expend
3,700,000 francs on propaganda work each year.


" I have mentioned above that the Bulgarian Church is the main-
spring of the propaganda, and its focus. For a better understanding
I must add that it is the Porte itself— unintentionally, of course
— that drove and still compels the Exarchate to propaganda.

"When the Exarchate was instituted it embraced, inter alia,
Jive Bishoprics in the Danubian Bulgarian region and eight in
Old Serbia! Of these eight, viz. Sofija, Vraca, Vidin, Nis, Pirot,
Custendil, Samokov, and Veles, the five last mentioned had pre-
viously belonged to the Serbian Patriarchate of Pec ; it therefore
points to a boundless stupidity on the part of the Porte, or to
gross venality on the part of the then Grand- Vizier, that at the
very outset Serbian territory was to be handed over to the Bulgars.

" But this was not enough ! Article 10 of the firman in question
distinctly declares that those eparchies whose inhabitants unani-
mously, or even by a two-thirds majority, demanded it, should be
incorporated with the Exarchate.

"Hereby the Porte itself naturally opened bolt and bars to the
Exarchate. All of us Slavs were discontented with the Greek
clergy ; the prospect of hearing divine service in hierarchic Slav
did the rest ; and so the Bulgarian apostles had an easy task when
they came to our village and collected signatures.

" Scarcely was the Exarchate established than the agitation was
begun in Ochrida and Skoplje. The Turkish Commission, which
was to ascertain the wish of the people, everywhere found a desire
for the Exarchate, a suitable baksheesh did the rest — in short,
already in 1872 Bulgarian bishops were appointed for Ochrida and
Skoplje !

" At that time the Porte lived in constant fear of the plots and
intrigues of Serbia and Greece, while the Bulgarians appeared
to them as harmless raja (slaves). This explains the benevolence
with which the Porte regarded Bulgarian intrigues. The poor dear
little dreamt in its simplicity that the Bulgars would one day
become far more dangerous foes than Serbs and Greeks put together.
(And even to-day, after so many experiences, the Turks underrate
the political intrigue of the Bulgars, and fear Serbia, who has been
rendered quite harmless.)


11 The shameless Bulgarian agitation tempted not the Serbs, as
might have been assumed, but the Greeks to a counter-stroke. The
Greek Patriarch convened an Assembly of the Church, which pro-
claimed the Bulgarian clergy and their adherents 'heretics.' The
Bulgars of course lodged a protest against this finding, and the
dispute is not settled to this day.

" The events of 1876 caused the Porte to cancel Article 10 and
to depose the Bishops of Skoplje and Ochrida. Since then the
Bulgars have left no stone unturned to prevail upon the Porte
to restore Article 10 and to re-appoint the Bishops of Skoplje and
Ochrida. But it seems that even the Sublime Porte has at last
begun to smell a rat, because the berats (appointments) of the
Bishops have not yet been drawn up.

" The Exarchate revenged itself in 1880 by declaring the Parish
School Boards in Macedonia and Old Serbia its representatives,
and establishing a special ' School Department ' (skolsko popeci-
teljstvo) in the Exarchate. It is this School Department which
maintains and governs the Bulgarian schools in our country, and
if you bear in mind the incredible activity of the Bulgars and their
unanimity when it is a question of the idea of a Great Bulgaria,
you can imagine how firmly rooted the propaganda is to-day.

" Side by side with the lawful Greek Bishops the Bulgars have set
up their own ecclesiastic authorities which counteract the activity
of the former and render it illusory. In Ochrida, Skoplje, Debar,
Veles, Bitolj, and Salonica the Bulgarians have appointed rural
deans 1 (protojereyi) with excellent salaries. Every dean has his
Council, which attends to Church and school matters, and thus
these deans perform all the functions of bishops withoutvassuming
the title. The Greek Bishops, whom they simply override, are
powerless against them. Furthermore, the deans have all the
ecclesiastic and disciplinary power over the clergy in their hands.
In Salonika, for instance, this office had been entrusted to the
Archimandrite Kozeljev.

"Each dean is also provided with a deputy {namestnik), who may
also be a layman (lit. a member of the bourgeoisie). He is a
member of the Church School Council and assistant of the dean,
especially in his correspondence with the parishes concerned.
The deputies are paid by the Church School Council of the locality
in which the dean resides.

Where there are intermediary schools, their director and the
governors also belong to the Church School Council.

" Only a few of the adherents of Greece and Serbia, offer any
resistance to the Bulgarian propagandists. The former consist
first of all of such as know that we are not Bulgars but Serbs,
and who are swayed by their national sentiment; and secondly,
of such who feel spiritually bound to Serbia by our folk-songs, or
in whom the memory of the former Serbian rule here has been
kept alive by tradition, and finally by such as have been to Serbia,
or go there year by year to work.

'* The adherents of Greece consist of Greek or Hellenized persons
or enemies of Bulgarism. As a rule they go hand in hand with
the adherents of Serbia."

[Novi Pazar]

^ For the Bulgars to have all this money by late 19th century, who 50 years prior were unknown and poor as a third world country, speaks volumes!

[Archduke]

Only a dumb person will believe that because of the Exarchate somebody will change his ethnicity. :D:D

[Novi Pazar]

^ Read above carefully. This person was told to join the Bulgarian movement, by whom, Tseng or Tengri? No, by RUSSIA! Russia was financing Bulgars to the teeth for her to bribe and sell the propaganda of Macedonian Bulgars. Not too long before this, no one in Europe knew who the bulgars were. The Bulgars were a distroyed nation and extremely poor, the people (Bulgars) knew of themselves to be born as labourers.

[Archduke]

^ Read above carefully. This person was told to join the Bulgarian movement, by whom, Tseng or Tengri? No, by RUSSIA! Russia was financing Bulgars to the teeth for her to bribe and sell the propaganda of Macedonian Bulgars. Not too long before this, no one in Europe knew who the bulgars were. The Bulgars were a distroyed nation and extremely poor, the people (Bulgars) knew of themselves to be born as labourers.

In the other thread i posted you maps before 1872, which say that Macedonia is clearly Bulgarian land, but your serbian brain can't accept it i see. :picard1:

[Novi Pazar]

^ I post you sources that claim of the confusion between Boulgaroi and Bolgar.......yet you keep going around in circles, read again for the nth time:

Milojko Veselinovic (in 1888), Jovan Dragasevic (in 1890) and Stojan Protic attempted to fix more or less precisely the meaning of the term “Bulgar” (in Serbian “bugarin” and in Bulgarian “bulgarin”). “Under no circumstance,” wrote Veselinovic, “will an inhabitant of Macedonia or Southern Old Serbia call himself a ‘bolgarin’ or ‘bulgarin,’ but only (and then out of necessity) ‘bugarin,’ which is a sign that a Serb is speaking, since lu becomes u in the pronunciation of a Serb alone and of no one else.” As distinct from Protic, who, writing on “Macedonia and the Macedonians” in Odjek, asserted that Macedonian Slavs took the name name “Bulgar” from the Latin “vulgaris,” Veselinovic claimed that it was derived from the Greek “vulgaros.” Dragasevic, who, as an ethnographer, was a member of the Serbian delegation to the Berlin Congress, held more or less the same view on the origin of the term “Bulgar” as Veselinovic. His derivation is from the Greek Boulgaroi, which means the common people. He goes on to say that the word Bolgaroi, which was applied to the Bulgars proper, “signifies a definite nation,” while Boulgaroi indicates only the cultural level of the people. Later, the Greeks confused the two expressions, “particularly as the Byzantines could not regard even those in the east as being civilized, and also both these peoples [in the eastern and western halves of the empire], although differing from one another, were related. Subsequently, the uninitiated took these expressions as meaning the same thing, i.e., as being the name of a nation.” Bolgar and Boulgar,” he continues, “are two quite different expressions: the former, in Latin Bulgar and Slav bolgar and bugar, is the name of a nation that never crossed the Rhodope Mountains and Despotova Gora, which separated it quite naturally and inevitably from the peoples to the west of these mountains.....Boulgar designates the people, or plebs; it is the equivalent of the Latin Vulgar, and means the ‘lower class’ of the people in a country.” Dragasevic also agrees that fear of the Turks was the reason why the Serbs in Macedonia called themselves Bulgars: they followed the whim of their masters, while “many used this alien name instead of their own in their dealings with citizens on whom they were economically dependant.” “During the Turkish regime,” says Cvijic, “the name ‘Bulgar’ as applied to the raya spread beyond Bulgarian districts [ and came to be applied] to serfs and peasants farming land on a tenant basis. The area controlled by this extremely oppressive regime extended to Skopje and beyond......Applied, as it was, in this sense in the Vardar districts, the name ‘Bulgar began to penetrate as far as Kosovo and Metohija, while one Russian traveller in the seventeenth century applies the name even to Serbian peasant farmers in the area of Sarajevo, in Bosnia. In the extreme west of the Balkan Peninsula, in Dalmatia and Croatia, the name ‘Bulgar’ signified ill breeding, and probably for this reason the inhabitants of these areas called their simple folk poems ‘bugarstice.’” Vatroslav Oblak confirms the view of Veselinovic that in Macedonia and west Bulgarian dialects vocalic l is replaced by u, particularly in those areas where Bulgarian comes into contact with Serbian, while the same phenomenon cannot be found in the east and south of the areas over Bulgarian is spoken. “Both by its geographic extent and by its sporadic appearances, this u shows that we are here concerned with Serbianisms. Indeed, in almost all dialects characterized by u instead of l, we find other traces of Serbian influence, as, for example, u for a. Particular mention should be made of the name bugarin with all its variations, which one finds throughout almost the whole of Macedonia (except, perhaps, some southern and southeastern districts) in the form bugarin.”

[Novi Pazar]

Reminder to the forgetfull Bulgar above, there was known; TURKISH SERBIA and maps were printed prior to your 19th century in-accuracies!

Do you want me to provide you the link once more?

[Archduke]

Do you want me to provide you the link once more?

No i want from you to explain me the maps before 1872 which i showed you. :D

[Novi Pazar]

^ And l want you to explain to me the Turkish Serbia maps printed wayyyyyy before your mis-information?

[Archduke]

^ And l want you to explain to me the Turkish Serbia maps printed wayyyyyy before your mis-information?

Belgrade was also known as Bulgarian city but now it isn't. :D

[Crn Volk]

Belgrade was also known as Bulgarian city but now it isn't. :D

What does Belgrade mean in the proto-Bulgar (Turkic) language?

[ioan assen]

What does Belgrade mean in the proto-Bulgar (Turkic) language?
What does Pliska and PRESLAV mean in Bulgar language? I guess it meant what it means today.

[Crn Volk]

What does Pliska and PRESLAV mean in Bulgar language? I guess it meant what it means today.

Not very Turkic sounding....

[ioan assen]

Not very Turkic sounding....
indeed yet those are the names of the Bulgar capitals. I think Belgrade doesnt sound out of place next to them.

[Crn Volk]

indeed yet those are the names of the Bulgar capitals. I think Belgrade doesnt sound out of place next to them.

But you still haven't translated Belgrade into Turkic Bulgar. Maybe a Chuvash can help you

[ioan assen]

But you still haven't translated Belgrade into Turkic Bulgar. Maybe a Chuvash can help you
Why should I translate it? It makes perfect sense in Bulgarian.

[Novi Pazar]

What does Belgrade mean in the proto-Bulgar (Turkic) language?

Exactly, it means NOTHING! I'm getting dumb (childish) replies from Armani. Why were these maps printed with the name Bulgaria prior to 1872, well, read the following:

How foreigners gathered their information on the inhabitants of the areas through which they passed may be seen from two examples. The French consul Pouqueville, who journeyed through Greece and parts of Turkey and Macedonia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, was accompanied by a young Greek who simply called all Slavs Bulgars. Franz Bradaska says of Hahn that he was insufficiently acquainted with the ethnic relationships of the areas through which he travelled, and did not even know Serbian. “I am not at all surprised,” says Bradaska, “that he was unable to obtain detailed information about everything: in the first place, his journey was too hasty; in the second place, his servants and escorts were Albanians; and in the third place, he knew no Slav language. In particular, this ignorance of Slav explains his inability to distinguish between Bulgars and Serbs and the fact that, relying on his Albanian guides, he copied down inaccurately several Slav names which had been written quite correctly on the attached sketch of the terrain by major Zah.”


These travellors relied on locals who, one, could distinguish any Slav, to them, a slav is just a slav, and secondly, the Greeks called all slavs BULGARS because they viewed slavs as inferior and dirty low class of people. I don't think the Bulgars here with their hyper-nationalism will understand this.

[ioan assen]

Greeks called all slavs BULGARS.
In the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja a Croat calls the Macedonians "of the Bulgar race". The cronicle is from 12 century. All observers called the Macedonians Bulgars including the other Balkan slavs. You continue to post propaganda rejected by all historians.

[Novi Pazar]

In the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja a Croat calls the Macedonians "of the Bulgar race". The cronicle is from 12 century. All observers called the Macedonians Bulgars including the other Balkan slavs. You continue to post propaganda rejected by all historians.

You Bulgars are a funny lot. LMAO They were called Bulgars during the late 19th century.

Jordan Ivanov couldn't find much before the Exarchos period (1872 - 1912), and this man was the CHIEF of all things Bulgarian in Macedonia. Good luck LMAO

[ioan assen]

You Bulgars are a funny lot. LMAO They were called Bulgars during the late 19th century.

So let me repeat what you just said:
Greeks called the Macedonians Bulgars because they called any slav Bulgar, right? So u are implying that the Macedonians were never Bulgars, just simply slavs and being slavs Greeks named them Bulgars. Yet I present to you a Croatian source that called Macedonians Bulgars and your answer is: we talk about 19 century and the Croatian source is 7 centuries older? Well even better Novi: so the Croats (Balkan slavs) also called the Macedonians Bulgars from time immemorial. Thus your "teory" is invalid since not only the Greeks, but also another Balkan slavs thought the Macedonians are Bulgars.
Also your teory is quite stupid because the Greeks authors recorded your early history. If it wasnt for Administration Imperio we would have had zero info on your settlement on the Balkans.

[MegaArgus1]

"In the days before the Bulgarian Exarchate there came
to Veles as Serbian schoolmaster George Miletic, the
brother of Svetosar Miletic, the Serbian national leader
in Hungary. He was in Macedonia at the time of the
struggle for emancipation from the Greeks. As a good
Serb he also supported the struggle, but threw in his lot
with those who, taking Russia's advice, joined the Bul-
garian movement, and he became a Bulgarian leader in
Macedonia. To-day his son Ljubimir Miletic (whose



BULGARIAN ACTION IN MACEDONIA 153

name and surname are both Serbian) is professor at
the University of Sofia, and one of the bitterest
Serbophobes."

i will try to ignore the bullshit posted by the bulgarian members and can only say that if george and his son ljubimir became what you say they became they don’t deserve any consideration from the serbian nor macedonian side
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7710/18426117301967607692410.jpg

[Novi Pazar]

i will try to ignore the bullshit posted by the bulgarian members and can only say that if george and his son ljubimir became what you say they became they don’t deserve any consideration from the serbian nor macedonian side
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7710/18426117301967607692410.jpg

Mega, my friend, please, look it up. I don't talk crap here, more will be revealed, i'm the whistle blower because wars were fought because of the very propaganda we read from the net. I ask everybody here to go to their libraries and research OLD TEXTS not ones written after 1990.

[Novi Pazar]

"So let me repeat what you just said:
Greeks called the Macedonians Bulgars because they called any slav Bulgar, right?"

Read and learn, once more:

His derivation is from the Greek Boulgaroi, which means the common people. He goes on to say that the word Bolgaroi, which was applied to the Bulgars proper, “signifies a definite nation,” while Boulgaroi indicates only the cultural level of the people. Later, the Greeks confused the two expressions, “particularly as the Byzantines could not regard even those in the east as being civilized, and also both these peoples [in the eastern and western halves of the empire], although differing from one another, were related. Subsequently, the uninitiated took these expressions as meaning the same thing, i.e., as being the name of a nation.” Bolgar and Boulgar,” he continues, “are two quite different expressions: the former, in Latin Bulgar and Slav bolgar and bugar, is the name of a nation that never crossed the Rhodope Mountains and Despotova Gora, which separated it quite naturally and inevitably from the peoples to the west of these mountains.....Boulgar designates the people, or plebs; it is the equivalent of the Latin Vulgar, and means the ‘lower class’ of the people in a country.” Dragasevic also agrees that fear of the Turks was the reason why the Serbs in Macedonia called themselves Bulgars: they followed the whim of their masters, while “many used this alien name instead of their own in their dealings with citizens on whom they were economically dependant.” “During the Turkish regime,” says Cvijic, “the name ‘Bulgar’ as applied to the raya spread beyond Bulgarian districts [ and came to be applied] to serfs and peasants farming land on a tenant basis. The area controlled by this extremely oppressive regime extended to Skopje and beyond......Applied, as it was, in this sense in the Vardar districts, the name ‘Bulgar began to penetrate as far as Kosovo and Metohija, while one Russian traveller in the seventeenth century applies the name even to Serbian peasant farmers in the area of Sarajevo, in Bosnia. In the extreme west of the Balkan Peninsula, in Dalmatia and Croatia, the name ‘Bulgar’ signified ill breeding, and probably for this reason the inhabitants of these areas called their simple folk poems ‘bugarstice.


"So u are implying that the Macedonians were never Bulgars, just simply slavs and being slavs Greeks named them Bulgars. Yet I present to you a Croatian source that called Macedonians Bulgars and your answer is: we talk about 19 century and the Croatian source is 7 centuries older? Well even better Novi: so the Croats (Balkan slavs) also called the Macedonians Bulgars from time immemorial. Thus your "teory" is invalid since not only the Greeks, but also another Balkan slavs thought the Macedonians are Bulgars.
Also your teory is quite stupid because the Greeks authors recorded your early history. If it wasnt for Administration Imperio we would have had zero info on your settlement on the Balkans."

This source of yours talks about Samuil is a Bulgar and his empire is Bulgarian. The people whom Samuil was ruling OVER was NOT Bulgarian....GET THIS IN YOUR HEAD:

The Bulgars and Slavs were still a SEGREGATED MASS EVEN TILL THE 10th Century!

This is what Jirecek said when he referred to the replies given by Pope Nicholas I to the questions put to him by Emperor Boris, "that the Bulgarian ruling stratum had not yet become fused with the subjugated Slavs"

- C.J. Jirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren, pg. 156

Murko also remarks that in the tenth century the Bulgars were still a separate people.

- M. Murko, Geschichte der ulteren sudslawischen literatur, Leipzig, 1908, pg.25

The western part of the empire, chiefly the territory of the Macedonian Slavs, displayed a persistent tendancy toward separatism and a lack of interest in the idea of a Bulgarian state.

WHY?

One can look up at the series of rebellions the Macedonian Slavs had during Bulgarian Empire ruling over them. Notables are:

Peter Deljan
Tihomir (not even Bulgarian name)
Manuel Ivac
Djordje Vojteh

Djordje Vojteh's uprising, for instance, was pro-Serbian in orientation. Manuel Ivac was recorded by Skylitzes to have a Serbian Slava at Ohrid.

[Methmatician]

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7710/18426117301967607692410.jpg

This picture is ridiculous. You're using a lion (a personification of Bulgaria) for the Macedonian side. And a Bald Eagle for the Serbian side, which is wrong for the following reasons; the Serbian eagle has two heads, not one, and the Bald Eagle is the national symbol (and sometimes personification) of the United States of America (I don't think Serbs would want a symbol of America representing Serbia).

[Novi Pazar]

^ Medvjed, they can use what they want. Serbs borrowed the eagle from the Byzantines and the Albanians borrowed their flag from the Byzantine WAR FLAG. Bosnians borrowed their religion and customs from whom?

[Methmatician]

^ Medvjed, they can use what they want. Serbs borrowed the eagle from the Byzantines and the Albanians borrowed their flag from the Byzantine WAR FLAG. Bosnians borrowed their religion and customs from whom?

Bulgaria, then Ottoman Turks. And I thought the Albanians got their flag from a Skanderbeg's flag (which came from a Albanian noble family?) :confused:

[Novi Pazar]

^ Look it up, if you don't believe me, their flag was a direct COPY from the Byzantine war flag.

[Novi Pazar]

"Bulgaria, then Ottoman Turks."

You can run, but you will never be able to hide from your Serbian ancestry LMAO

PS I sometimes wonder why the Bosniaks have kept their *ic* suffixes.

[Methmatician]

^ Look it up, if you don't believe me, their flag was a direct COPY from the Byzantine war flag.

Probably, but then again, the Byzantines stole the double-headed eagle from the Sumerians. Serbia, Montenegro, Russia, etc. All of their eagles were taked from Byzantine eagle (which used to be single-headed before the 11th century btw).


You can run, but you will never be able to hide from your Serbian ancestry LMAO

I already know of my Serbian ancestry, Novi Pazar :rolleyes:


PS I sometimes wonder why the Bosniaks have kept their *ic* suffixes.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5uew0rlyK1qe3h9l.png

It's how the Bosnian language operated. Son of Avdo=Avdović ('ov'=Son of. 'ić'=little).

[Novi Pazar]

^ Well, Bosniaks believe they arn't slavs and are closest to the Turks from Turkey. Some have even gone to the extreme and said they were originally Turks that were Slavicised by Serbs :picard2:

Do you ever *feel* imbarressed for getting mistaken for a Croat or Serb because you have the ic suffix?

What the hell am l talking about here, this forum is about history regarding Macedonia, not Bosna.:picard1:

[Methmatician]

^ Well, Bosniaks believe they arn't slavs and are closest to the Turks from Turkey. Some have even gone to the extreme and said they were originally Turks that were Slavicised by Serbs :picard2:

Where do you get your info from, honestly? Most Bosniaks think they're Slavs, others (anti-Serbs) think of themselves as Slavicised Illyrians.


Do you ever *feel* imbarressed for getting mistaken for a Croat or Serb because you have the ic suffix?

No one ever mistakes me for a Serb or Croat because of my name, it's because I say I was born in Bosnia, or it's because the way I look (but then again, I've been told I look Turkish).


What the hell am l talking about here, this forum is about history regarding Macedonia, not Bosna.:picard1:

you could have put that at the start of your post, and you're the one who asked me about Bosnia in this thread.

[Novi Pazar]

"Where do you get your info from, honestly? Most Bosniaks think they're Slavs, others (anti-Serbs) think of themselves as Slavicised Illyrians."

I don't believe in this Illyrian BS, because there is no evidence of Slavs (Undifferentiated) who fought and Slavicised locals, and even worse, a quick assimilation process :picard1:

"No one ever mistakes me for a Serb or Croat because of my name, it's because I say I was born in Bosnia, or it's because the way I look (but then again, I've been told I look Turkish)."

Probably makes you *feel* good inside, hey Medvjed ;)

"you could have put that at the start of your post, and you're the one who asked me about Bosnia in this thread."

Thats why l did this:

:picard1:

[Methmatician]

I don't believe in this Illyrian BS, because there is no evidence of Slavs (Undifferentiated) who fought and Slavicised locals, and even worse, a quick assimilation process :picard1:

So if Illyrians live in Illyria, then disappeared when the Slavs came, what do you think happened? If there was a war, it would have been recorded (such as the war with the Avars), so the logical explanation would be that the Illyrians were assimilated (slowly or quickly) into Slavs, Albanians, and possibly Greeks.


Probably makes you *feel* good inside, hey Medvjed ;)

I've been told I look like a lot of different ethnicities (Serb, Croat, Polish, Albanian, English, etc) so I don't really take such observations into consideration.

[Insuperable]

So if Illyrians live in Illyria, then disappeared when the Slavs came, what do you think happened? If there was a war, it would have been recorded (such as the war with the Avars), so the logical explanation would be that the Illyrians were assimilated (slowly or quickly) into Slavs, Albanians, and possibly Greeks

Illyrians were pushed towards south hence why there is nation called Albania :picard1:

[Methmatician]

Illyrians were pushed towards south hence why there is nation called Albania :picard1:

I thought you didn't believe in the Illyrian= Albanian theory?

[Insuperable]

I thought you didn't believe in the Illyrian= Albanian theory?

I also said several times that I was trolling too

[MegaArgus1]

dHcK790GcaY