Wo had a mightier empire: Bulgarians or Serbs?

[ioan assen]

All are welcomed to vote.
I say Bulgarians, because:
1) as a territory Bulgarian empire was bigger than Dushan serbian empire: think Krum, Simeon, Samuel, Ioan Assen II etc.
2) culturally the Bulgarian schools influenced Serbia, Russia, Romania while the same cant be said about Serbian culture.

[poiuytrewq0987]

We did, obviously. It's not even comparable.





vs

[Wulfhere]

Who had the mightier empire: Luxembourg or Liechtenstein?

[Hurrem sultana]

non

[Onur]

I think the Serbian state cannot be considered as an empire at all.

The medieval Serbian state was just a vassal country of Byzantines and after that, it was only independent for few decades `till they have been subjugated again by the Ottoman empire.

I say Bulgarians, because:
1) as a territory Bulgarian empire was bigger than Dushan serbian empire: think Krum, Simeon, Samuel, Ioan Assen II etc.

Well, the ones who created and ruled the empire was not Bulgarians but they were Bulgars and later Cumans. They had different culture and they were speaking different language than the present day Bulgars. Their names such as Ioan, Samuel, Simeon was their baptism names but in fact, their original names was mostly different.

It`s questionable whether today`s Bulgaria truly represents the heritage of Bulgar and Cuman monarchies or not.

[American_Hispanist]

neither.

[ioan assen]

I think the Serbian state cannot be considered as an empire at all.

It was for some time. It ruled shortly over Bulgarian populated Macedonia and Greek populated parts.

The medieval Serbian state was just a vassal country of Byzantines and after that, it was only independent for few decades `till they have been subjugated again by the Ottoman empire.

omg. Sorry but Turks are delusional - you probably think you only had an empire, eventhough its the most despised one?

Well, the ones who created and ruled the empire was not Bulgarians but they were Bulgars and later Cumans.

Or you try your best to link to yourself the empire of those who had it. neither Bulgars nor Cumans have alot to do with presentday Turks. Even if Bulgars spoke Turkic, claiming you are linked with them would equal Bulgarians to claim Vistula Veneti as Bulgarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti

They had different culture and they were speaking different language than the present day Bulgars.

That could be the truth for the early Bulgars (though there are countless teories on their origin, including slavic - turkic one is just one of the theories), but intermerrages with slavs are not rare - on the contrary: as early as 9th century we can see the Bulgarian ethnogenesis is on fast pace, judging by the name of Omurtag son: Zvinica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvinitsa.

Their names such as Ioan, Samuel, Simeon was their baptism names but in fact, their original names was mostly different.

Ioan Assen II was anything other than Bulgarian???????????http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Asen_II_of_Bulgaria
uou uou
Samuel wasnt Bulgarian???????????????? Who "baptized him" if he was born christian? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_of_Bulgaria
Simeon was born christian. Who baptize him??????????? He was to become a high rank church clerik, he studied in Constantinopole

It`s questionable whether today`s Bulgaria truly represents the heritage of Bulgar and Cuman monarchies or not.

First and second and third states/empires were called Bulgaria. Cumania was situated in Romania. The only people questioning this is the gelous Turks.

[Vojnik]

Bulgarians easily. It's not even comparable.

[Archduke]

[YOUTUBE]RKQFoINKCBg[/YOUTUBE]

[Vulcho]

Bulgaria obviously. But what's the point of opening a thread about it? It's petty, and only shows we have fallen more, as today our two countries are more or less equal.