speaking of aromanians, it would be cool to see them in the game
Yeah I would love to have a goal as Romania to set up an Aromanian state as a subject, would throw a wrench in the classic Greek-Turkish rivalry! : P
- 3
speaking of aromanians, it would be cool to see them in the game
"Terra Vlachorum", the 1919 request for the Pindus Principate at the Paris Peace Conference:Yeah I would love to have a goal as Romania to set up an Aromanian state as a subject, would throw a wrench in the classic Greek-Turkish rivalry! : P
"Terra Vlachorum", the 1919 request for the Pindus Principate at the Paris Peace Conference:
Principality of the Pindus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Genuine question: Why would Greeks and Serbs flee to Russia when they have independent culturally similar nations nearby?
Ah yes, the same Tatarchev that was part of the Bulgarian Secret Central Revolutionary Committee. I am sure the quote you have of him has everything to do with your implications that the organisation aimed to liberate broadly Christians and not that it wanted to liberate Bulgarians. Funny how VMRO, VMORO, BMORK, TMORO, BTCRK had nearly the same people within them and never ventured to liberate Kosovo, or Thessaly, or Cyprus or the Aegean Islands. Quite strange for an organisation supposedly focused on the liberation of Christians only.Known it's been a while, but I remember this existed and have now decided to continue, despite the other conversations that have started around it.
Yeah there was Aromanians and other peoples in the organisation.
It didn't have a purely Bulgarian character after Illinden, you even mention the autonomists ideas here yeah. There were pro-Bulgarian branches, as well as those for an independent Macedonia.
VMORO wanted to liberate Macedonia and Odrin/Adrianople/Thrace because they were Christians. But it was like a common enemy kind of thing, not because they were all Bulgarians or something. VMRO originally planned to only fight for Macedonia's liberation, but decided to liberate Odrin/Adrianople/Thrace as well.
Hristo Tatarchev said "Odrin was not included in our program from the beginning. All our attention was then focused on Macedonia; but later the idea began to strengthen in us, so that our organization included the Edirne region"
This little bit of history cracked me up reading the referendum results. "A King". Wow how specific. I'm surprised no one thought of voting for a Habsburg though. That surely would have raised Greece's prestige in the world.Speaking of greece, could we get the 1862 Head of state referendum and all the wild possibilities that could have come from that?
Mate, he says it there, they want to liberate Macedonia for Macedonia, and for one reason or another they tried to liberate Odrin/Adrianople/Thrace as well, due to their Christian population there. It probably has to do with how most of the population there were both apart of the Bulgarian Exarchate, which is why the organisation was called Bulgarian by the why. And since Kosovo, Thessaly etc were mostly not Bulgarian religiously, they decided not to liberate it I guess. I mean it says originally they only wanted Macedonia anyway, and most of the time they did focus there anyway, especially later on, with their just being an Odrin/Adrianople/Thrace branch.Ah yes, the same Tatarchev that was part of the Bulgarian Secret Central Revolutionary Committee. I am sure the quote you have of him has everything to do with your implications that the organisation aimed to liberate broadly Christians and not that it wanted to liberate Bulgarians. Funny how VMRO, VMORO, BMORK, TMORO, BTCRK had nearly the same people within them and never ventured to liberate Kosovo, or Thessaly, or Cyprus or the Aegean Islands. Quite strange for an organisation supposedly focused on the liberation of Christians only.
Right, so again, you are implying an ethnic meaning to his words, and not purely an organisational one. Where does he say that the reason for adding Odrin was that they were simply Christians?Mate, he says it there, they want to liberate Macedonia for Macedonia, and for one reason or another they tried to liberate Odrin/Adrianople/Thrace as well, due to their Christian population there. It probably has to do with how most of the population there were both apart of the Bulgarian Exarchate, which is why the organisation was called Bulgarian by the why. And since Kosovo, Thessaly etc were mostly not Bulgarian religiously, they decided not to liberate it I guess. I mean it says originally they only wanted Macedonia anyway, and most of the time they did focus there anyway, especially later on, with their just being an Odrin/Adrianople/Thrace branch.
Tatarchev did have quite pro-Bulgarian Church views, and quite Bulgarian stance overall. He even wanted unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria, but just didn't think it was possible so advocated for an independent Macedonia. However, not all VMRO was the case, including other founders, look back at what I've posted before, Nikola Karev said Macedonians are their own thing.Right, so again, you are implying an ethnic meaning to his words, and not purely an organisational one. Where does he say that the reason for adding Odrin was that they were simply Christians?
This is the same guy that was part of Bulgarian Secret Central Revolutionary Committee. Since you fail to address it, I will. It was one of the organisations responsible for the Union of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia. Were there also Macedonians there?
Tatarchev was a Bulgarian. End of story. There is no such thing as a "pro-Bulgarian church nationality" or whatever Macedonist historians have come up to justify their claim that everyone and anyone born in a specific geographic area (that being Macedonia) has been a Macedonian since forever.Tatarchev did have quite pro-Bulgarian Church views, and quite Bulgarian stance overall. He even wanted unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria, but just didn't think it was possible so advocated for an independent Macedonia. However, not all VMRO was the case, including other founders, look back at what I've posted before, Nikola Karev said Macedonians are their own thing.
Anyway, Tatarchev said "All our attention was then focused on Macedonia; but later the idea began to strengthen in us, so that our organization included the Edirne region, where the fate of the Christian population, especially the Bulgarian, was no different from that of the Macedonian people and where the political, social and economic conditions were almost identical to those in Macedonia". You might say "Oh look he said Bulgarian", but then he'd want to liberate Muslim Bulgarians too no? He seems to be referring to religious Bulgarians here.
Yeah, Tatarchev was pretty Bulgarian. Ok. But again, look back at what I sent before. Not all Macedonians were. There were ethnic Macedonians.Tatarchev was a Bulgarian. End of story. There is no such thing as a "pro-Bulgarian church nationality" or whatever Macedonist historians have come up to justify their claim that everyone and anyone born in a specific geographic area (that being Macedonia) has been a Macedonian since forever.
And yes, the conditions in Macedonia and Adrianople were similar. There were Orthodox Greeks, Orthodox Bulgarians, Muslim Bulgarians and Muslim Turks.
To them, historians serve an entirely political purpose. Usually, the narrative is 'we have history dating back centuries, aren't we great?'
Hmm... Does Slovenia have any grand visions of centuries-old history? There might actually be one such Slavic countryName one Slavic country that doesn't do it
Before this goes off the rails again, I just want to give some context to our non-Bulgaro-NorthMacedonian friends.
If you don't know, North Macedonia doesn't have a traditional historian community. To them, historians serve an entirely political purpose. Usually, the narrative is 'we have history dating back centuries, aren't we great?'
The methods used by them are similar to those of conspiracy theorist (flat-earthers, ancient aliens etc.) where they have already decided what their version of history is, then just simply work around the evidence presented to them. In this case, the narrative is that the Revolutionary movements in late 19th, early 20th century Macedonia were all led by ethnic Macedonians. There is a problem, however. Pretty much all of those revolutionaries have declared a Bulgarian identity and we have the documents to prove it. Of course, North Macedonian identity cannot allow any common history with Bulgaria so, what is the solution? The Bulgarian church, duh!
According to the North Macedonians, the Bulgarian church was so powerful in the Ottoman Empire that it even convinced underground revolutionaries to declare a Bulgarian identity in their own diaries!
They, at least used to, claim to be full blooded Veneti I believe, though I don't think the vast majority do now.Hmm... Does Slovenia have any grand visions of centuries-old history? There might actually be one such Slavic country
Hmm... Does Slovenia have any grand visions of centuries-old history? There might actually be one such Slavic country
They, at least used to, claim to be full blooded Veneti I believe, though I don't think the vast majority do now.
Imo, I said before that most rational idea is growing Macedonia out of Western Bulgarian nationalism and, accordingly, make difference between Eastern and Western Bulgarian that encompasses all things:
- dominance of Eastern Bulgarian
- allows Macedonian base itself on Western Bulgarian to mark difference and coincide with areas spoken with Macedonian language (and claimed ones that coincide with Western Bulgarian dialect)
- have failure by Bulgaria to annex Macedonia maje local nationalist start campaigning for the Macedonia, especially under more autonomous rule by metropoly
"Slavic" doesn't need to be in that sentence.Name one Slavic country that doesn't do it