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
Powderkeg of Europe - Balkans thread
- Thread starter Shinkuro Yukinari
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
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
- 2
- 1
"Terra Vlachorum", the 1919 request for the Pindus Principate at the Paris Peace Conference:
Principality of the Pindus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Based and nice to see my idea has some historical background to it : P
- 2
And to @Al-Khalidi to not clutter Caucasian thread:
In 1836 independence of Serbia was still under question. While an autonomy and with quite a few rights, it was still under threat of full annexation or being military trampled by Ottomans at least until 1878-1879.
As for Greece... well, it could be said that a similar reason applies. Although in their case a major factor was that 1836 Greece, in those borders, was small and unable to host all refugees. In fact, security of Greece was only guaranteed by Great Powers defacto... which is not something to be taken for granted.
I would say that refugee streams in a possible event of triumph of Ottoman Empire AND using bashi-bazouks to terrorize locals into submission could be split among a few nations, especially heavily dependent on the willingness of Russian Empire to host them.
- 1
Speaking of greece, could we get the 1862 Head of state referendum and all the wild possibilities that could have come from that?
- 3
- 1
- 1
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"
- 2
- 1
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?
Hopefully there will be a way in-game for Greece (and other local players) to court a foreign power to help it realize its territorial ambitions.
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.
- 1
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?
- 2
- 1
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.
- 1
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.
- 2
Yeah, Tatarchev was pretty Bulgarian. Ok. But again, look back at what I sent before. Not all Macedonians were. There were ethnic Macedonians.
Macedonia and Adrianople both had Greek Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, and Muslims, yes. But in Macedonia, Macedonians were under these religions, as there was no Macedonian Orthodox Church, though Macedonians advocated for one. There was also some who called themselves ethnically Greek, Bulgarian, and Turkish in Macedonia too as well. No all all Macedonia was Macedonian, but there was Macedonians.
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!
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!
- 5
- 1
- 1
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
"Macedonians! Remember the world's winner, the great glory of Macedonia, the great Alexander of Macedon; Remember for the brave King Samoil, the Macedonian giant, for the marvelous Marko Kral, the Slavic glory, that Macedonian blood flowed through them; those of heavenly heights watch and bless our initiated work. To show worthy descendants of their descendants: to preserve their glorious names and to amaze the world with our courage, dexterity and self-sacrifice; to cut off from us the shameful yoke that suffocates us for five centuries." - Anastas Jankov, VMRO member (1902) Reform Newspaper
"Pretty much all of those revolutionaries have declared a Bulgarian identity" Yep, seems Bulgarian here eh?
"The methods used by them are similar to those of conspiracy theorist" Yeah, quoting the people themselves, it's historical revisionism!
Attachments
- 2
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
I think they do, especially when you talk about Carinthia and Istria.
Key difference is that they are pretty ok with borders, recognised as nation, separate culture and language, have full peace with Italy and Austria and the few disputes with Croatia are rather minor.
Which is very uncommon for Slavic countries
But returning to nationalism: there is a reason why historians tend to claim as much as possible and politicians endorse it. And that is the fact that it is far easier to concede that, in Macedonian context, Macedonians are not straight sons of the Alexander the Great than to ask Bulgarians to be recognized as own ethnos. Because in the atmosphere of the national rivalry nations try to press each other as much as possible to not fall under pressure.
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
This said, I do wonder about how detailed national maps will be.
Those are derived from border issues and former ethnic tensions.
A little bit like having the possibility of regional Bulgarian identities becoming their own nationality? I actually love that idea. Kinda selfishly, admittedly, because Ruse/Ruschuk has its own dialect, and is the largest city in Northern Bulgaria (at the time), meaning I would have decent shot of creating a Ruse/Ruschuk-dominated Bulgaria.
Mate, close the ListOfQuotesToDisplayInCaseOfArgumentWithBulgarTatar.txt, I've said what needs to be said. Either address the main issue of politicized North Macedonian history or don't bother.
- 2
- 1
"Slavic" doesn't need to be in that sentence.Name one Slavic country that doesn't do it
- 1