The Influence of Ancient Bulgaria

Bulgaria -- doesn't ring much of a positive bell does it? Under Turkish domination for centuries, then a short-lived monarchy, which aligned itself twice with the losing side in the World Wars, and then almost half a century of Warschaupakt goodness.

But that was not what Bulgaria had always been. Once upon a time Bulgaria was one of the three great powers in Europe. Back then, it was capable of bossing around the Byzantine Empire and keeping the Carolingians at bay. Bulgaria was where the Cyrillic alphabet was perfected, and was the first champion of the Slavic cause -- perhaps the greatest.

But what exactly was Bulgaria's position in those days? Does it fit into the same row as the Byzantines, Carolingians and the Caliphate?

I say it does. Ancient Bulgaria was a super power. It bitchslapped the Byzantines in practically every encounter, annexed the Avar kingdom after it was defeated by Charlemagne (pretty damn cheeky of Khan Krum), and was a greater danger to Constantinople than the Muslims after Leo III.

http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Bul/SIMEON2.jpg
Bulgaria at its greatest extent under Simeon the Great (kniaz 893-927, Tsar since 917)

there were several different kingdoms weren't there? depending on the autonomy and strengths of their neighbors.

The wizard

I agree with you on that , the kingdom of Bulgaria under Simeon was a super power , pure and simple .
http://www.bulgaria.com/history/rulers/simeon.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

there were several different kingdoms weren't there? depending on the autonomy and strengths of their neighbors.

---

Could you elaborate on that question?

Bulgaria was a power. Mainly because the Isaurians weren't the most illustrious emperors.....

But they remained a short time a power. Good administration and tactical genius destroyed them completely.

Let me present you my favourite Byzantine Emperor:
Basil II Bulgaroctonus(Bulgar slayer)

He completely destroyed the Bulgar state. No wonder his name....

Nokhor is right. They were dispersed after Simeon's death. It was easy for a genius like Basil II to destroy them.....

No, it was not. The Bulgar state after Prince Boris I was not some kind of loose confederation of states such as a steppe khanate. It was an Orthodox state, as advanced and powerful as the Byzantine one, turned Empire after Simeon the Great forced the Byzantine Emperor to recognize him as Caesar (a title second only to Basileus, hence the Slavic word Tsar).

Simeon the Great's son, Petar, ushered in an era of peace and prosperity for the Bulgarians, lasting throughout his 48-year rule. Bulgaria was rich and prosperous at the end of his rule -- but perhaps also too rich, in the sense of having become more decadent.

After a series of infighting for the Bulgarian throne, the Byzantines succeeded in getting the Rus' to invade Bulgaria (970). They plundered and destroyed, leading to a weakening of the Bulgarian state, but were eventually expelled from Bulgaria. In the meantime, John I Tzimisces invaded and captured Tsar Boris II. He escaped after eight years -- which of course meant the entire state apparatus of the Bulgar state was wide-open to corruption and intrigue for nearly a decade -- but was killed at the border by soldiers who thought he was a Byzantine.

His brother Roman rose to the throne, but the real power behind him was Samuel, the future Tsar and nemesis of Basil II. He ruled for twenty years, during which the Bulgar-slayer started his campaigns, which were pretty inconclusive.

Roman was taken captive by Basil II in 991 and died six years later, in 997. Samuel, who had practically ruled the nation as leader of the most powerful boyar clan in the Bulgarian state, rose to the throne.

For two decades the Bulgars and the Byzantines fought. It was a titanic struggle, but pretty inconclusive. Samuel took some fortresses and/or cities, Basil regained them. Basil attacked, but was repulsed. The war is extremely interesting, for in proportions it is unique in early medieval Europe and certainly in character -- instead of being a series of raids like war in post-Germanic Western Europe, it was a fight to the death, a struggle for survival, which is extremely akin to the Punic Wars, and then in particular the first one.

Then came the fateful battle. Kluch, I believe it was. No matter -- the fighting was inconclusive until Basil sent a large vanguard ahead to search for a way to get around the static Bulgarian defenses. This worked -- the Bulgarians were surprised and 15 000 men were captured. The story is well known -- every ninety-nine out of one hundred men were blinded, and the one left was left with one eye to lead them. Samuel saw what had become of his army -- and died on the spot.

But, with Samuel dead, what was the state of affairs? To the Byzantines -- barely anything. Basil II had finally won a good victory, and had recaptured most of Macedonia. But that was all. To the Bulgarians -- Byzantine diplomacy had deprived them of the Carpathian basin, which the Magyars had taken. And the aforementioned loss of Macedonia. But that was it. Almost a decade of war, and all Basil II had gained, even with his victory at Kluch, was a couple of border forts and Bulgarian ports. He had regained Macedonia, coastal Thessaly and Aetolia.

https://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1179/2170ee.jpg
Bulgaria at Tsar Samuel's death. Inset: the Bulgarian capital, Ohrid

Peanuts, of course. Even after Samuel's death the Byzantine advance was slow. Gavrail-Randomir, the new Tsar, was weak, and offered Basil II a peace treaty, recognizing the Byzantine Emperor as superior to himself. Considering Basil II wanted to annihalate the Bulgar state entirely, the fact that he accepted it showed that Bulgaria was not so easily toppled!

Gavrail-Randomir was assassinated in 1015 by his nephew Ivan Vladislav. Basil II tried to have him assassinated, but the attempt was frustrated. Then Basil opted to besiege the stronghold of Pernik, but was repulsed. In 1016 Ivan Vladislav even managed to secure an alliance with the Patzinaks to make war on the Byzantines, but the alliance broke down under the pressure of Byzantine intrigue.

The boyars were getting tired of this constant war, and since theirs was the power that had grown greatly since the time of Petar, they greatly weakened Ivan Vladislav's means to resist Basil. In 1018 the latter captured many towns in modern-day Albania and Macedonia, and even the Bulgarian capital Ohrid. Ivan Vladislav was killed trying to take the stronghold of Drach on the Adriatic. The boyars pledged their allegiance to Basil II en masse, and that was it. The First Bulgarian Empire was over.

Bulgaria's fall is a testimony not so much to the state's internal weakness, but much more so to Basil II's capabilities. However -- had Basil II faced a man of his own capabilities, leading a state as streamlined as his own, in other words: Simeon the Great, the chance is great that his name would not have been Bulgaroktonos. No, had Petar I been a ruler like his father, Simeon, or his ancestor Krum, I do believe that his had been the title Romanoktonos...

What influence? It seems to me they had no culture to speak of, and their only influence would have been pushing populations and messing up the ethnic makeup of the balkans.

Bulgaria was the country where Slavic culture was born. It was basically the first champion of the Slavic culture, and the greatest, rivalled only by Imperial Russia and possibly the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Stephan Dushan's Serbia is too short-lived and local to be nominated). Bulgaria was where the Cyrillic alphabet was invented, after Cyril's pupils came to Bulgaria fleeing from that Slavic state ruled by a Frank (forgot its name). The First Bulgarian empire stood at the cradle of the Balkans, shaping its history.

How come no influence? How come no culture? Please, BP, you know that is not true.

Well, about superpowers during the high middle age, a funny thing I read a while ago :

Around 800, the Abbassid Caliph built a huge throne room and 4 magnificient thrones which were supposed to represent the 4 most powerful rulers of the era.
One was built for the Caliph himself, one for Charlemagne, one for the Chinese Emperor, and the last one for the Khazar Khagan. Yeah, you read it right, nothing for the Byzantine Basileus (nothing for the Bulgar Ceasar either, although I'm not sure Bulgaria existed back then)

Wizard, would you be willing to help the AoVaF in some way for the Bulgar faction ?

Of course, but my military knowledge on the subject is limited to tactics and strategy mostly... Dunno if you can use that?

Quote:

---

Bulgaria was the country where Slavic culture was born. It was basically the first champion of the Slavic culture, and the greatest, rivalled only by Imperial Russia and possibly the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Stephan Dushan's Serbia is too short-lived and local to be nominated). Bulgaria was where the Cyrillic alphabet was invented, after Cyril's pupils came to Bulgaria fleeing from that Slavic state ruled by a Frank (forgot its name). The First Bulgarian empire stood at the cradle of the Balkans, shaping its history.

---

Did you say slavic culture? Russia has had more writers scientists and musical composers then any other country in eastern europe except for greece.

Cyrril and Methodius were greek(romans), not bulgarians, we've talked about that.

Also the alphabet resembles that of the byzantines, they didn't invent anything new, just modifyed many of the letters.

Speaking of influence this is how I view true influence: Rome was influential because it built roads and introduced new systems of city-building and societal order, because of their advanced systems of law, order, and education. Greece had influence because they developed intellectual pursuits in an unprecedented level that can rival today's IMO. What has Bulgaria done? All you've talked about is wars and land grabbing.

This price of land in the Balkans has been paid dearly, and it is not easy to talk about. I remind you that millions of Blugars had to move back to bulgaria after the independece of Macedonia, which was ethnically bulgar somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Did you say slavic culture? Russia has had more writers scientists and musical composers then any other country in eastern europe except for greece.

Cyrril and Methodius were greek(romans), not bulgarians, we've talked about that.

Also the alphabet resembles that of the byzantines, they didn't invent anything new, just modifyed many of the letters.

Speaking of influence this is how I view true influence: Rome was influential because it built roads and introduced new systems of city-building and societal order, because of their advanced systems of law, order, and education. Greece had influence because they developed intellectual pursuits in an unprecedented level that can rival today's IMO. What has Bulgaria done? All you've talked about is wars and land grabbing.

This price of land in the Balkans has been paid dearly, and it is not easy to talk about. I remind you that millions of Blugars had to move back to bulgaria after the independece of Macedonia, which was ethnically bulgar somehow.

---

I don't mean to be rude, but can you list me some of the "famous" composers from Greece? I know Greece had plenty of scientists yes, but I don't recall Greece having an active "classical" music scene. Russia had one, yes, but it wasn't well developed until the 19th century, while I can not remember hearing AT ALL of Greece's classical music...so care to enlighten me?

Thank you for your time and cooperation ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

What's that I smell? Nationalism? The desire for every citizen of a now-defunct European state to claim it was once the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Naaah, can't be that.

---

Oh, please tell me how a Jewish Dutch Antillian can be a Bulgarian nationalist. The solution to that problem will solve all problems of short-sightedness, ignorance and radicalism that bring forth extreme nationalism in the world :)

Regarding BP. The Cyrillic alphabet was a perfection of the Glagolithic one. It is possible that the Glagolithic alphabet was the result of St. Cyril's mission to Great Moravia, but that is still merely an assumption. The so-called 'Cyrillic' alphabet was a perfection of the Glagolithic one, which was made under the patronage of the Tsar, the father of Simeon the Great. Thus it is a product of Bulgarian culture and prosperity, and indirectly Greek, I guess you could suppose.

Please also point me to something of the Byzantine Empire, that is to say the post-Heraclian Eastern Roman Empire, that is to be considered amazingly superior to anything Bulgaria was able to produce. That's right -- there isn't anything. Bulgaria was as cultured as the Byzantines, producing as many works of literature and art as Byzantium itself. This was not any kingdom of stereotypical barbarians sitting on mounds of skulls, you know.

BTW -- Cyril and Methodius had a Slavic mother. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Could you elaborate on that question?

---

hey Wiz,

not including greater bulgaria north of the black sea, or volga bulgaria but strictly talking about the balkan bulgarias.

one could argue the first bulgarian state came to an end when tzimisces conquered bulgaria and made the khan publicly divest himself of his regalia and become a byzantine patrician, and the state was absorbed into byzantium.

could also argue that the second state arose with samuel and came to an end with bulgaroctonus, and the 150 cyclopses/cyclopii?

and the third state arose under peter II and ended when the ottomans conquered bulgaria.

by the way, i just learned about the eunuch tsar roman I and the swineherd tsar ivailo which just makes medieval bulgarian history that much cooler in my estimation.

Let's not get snippy with each other, okay? ~:grouphug:

[QUOTE=The Wizard] a Jewish Dutch Antillian

What is that ? ~;) What came first ?
Btw , I am not a Bulgarian but still I think that Simeon's kingdom was one of the super powers of Europe at the time . As The Wizard said , even the Byzantines and the Franks-Carolingians did not manage to beat them , on the contrary .

The Byzantines have destroyed, thoroughly and with great care, the so-called "superpower" of the Bulgarians. Bulgarian kingdom was dependant on the small Bulgarian nobility (those of Turkic descent) and certainly was nothing like a champion for Slavic rights and similar revisionist nonsense. Gee, Wiz, for a Jewish Dutch you seem extremely panslavist... back then there was even no mention of anything like a "Slavic" identity or whatnot. The Bulgarian nobility wasn't even Slavic...

Whatever, after Basil ruined them once and for all, the Bulgarians never, ever again made inroads into the main body of the Byzantine empire and for the larger part were happy to sit on their asses and pray the great powers of the time didn't notice them. I am afraid they did, though - namely the Ottomans.

Bulgaria a superpower? Yeah, and donkeys can fly...
...are you on the payroll of the Bulgarian foreign office, wiz? you reproduce extreme nationalistic propagand found in some places on the net that are restricted to Bulgarian propagandists only.

Wow, it looks like all of the Byzantophiles are extremely touchy on this issue. :dizzy2: ~:eek: ~D

If you ask me, the facts look solid, and a little bit of trumpeting on ancient Bulgaria's behalf is more than justified. What exactly is the problem? What's to gain in pissing on someone else's parade?

..

And Wiz, do you mean that you live in the Antilles? Wow, that can't suck ~:cool:

DA

If you had read my post, Rosa, you would have realized that the First Bulgarian Empire's destruction was not a testimony to the its internal decrepancy, but to Basil II's genius and determination. Had any ruler of real note, not Samuel, lead the Bulgarians, and had any other power -- the Patzinaks or, God forbid, something far more powerful such as the Fatimids -- attacked, the Byzantine Empire could not have won in the space of a single ruler, even of the likes of Basil, or even Heraclius. Nay, it would have had to fear for its existence the way Basil had to pour all his attention into his warring with the Bulgarians.

And you have a misunderstanding of what happens to invaders turned warrior aristocracy, my friend. Tell me -- what do Russians look like? Like Swedes? No, they are more akin to Poles or even Serbs. Then tell me -- what do Turks look like? Like Mongols? No -- more like Greeks. Even tell me -- what do Greeks look like? Ten to one that they look more like Mycenaeans than Dorians if we knew for sure what they looked like.

So if you did not get my point yet -- the invading Turkic or Indo-Iranian Bulgars were a drop in the sea of Slavs. By the time Kniaz Boris I came to the throne they had been integrated into what was the Slavic aristocracy, and the new culture that was Orthodoxy that stepped over all ethnic boundaries brought even more integration. So no. This was not a group of horse-riding, stereotypical barbarians straight out of Conan who enslaved entire peoples to fight for them. This was a single culture, as advanced as the Byzantine one, the first amongst the Slavs.

And I won't even reply to your allegations. It speaks more of your bias than my own. Rosa, I had thought you to be above such things.

Del Arroyo -- nah, not anymore. But I was born and raised there. :)

Sorry about the allegations, wiz, it's not my style and you know it. But the stuff you posted is not something I'd expect from you either. I've seen stuff like that in a forum that shall remain unnamed, posted by guys with names like "Czar Simeon" or "GreatBulgaria". I've read panslavist bull before and certainly, attributing a "championship of the Slavs" at a point in time when there was no concept of "a Slav", and to people that were not even Slav, is really begging for an explaination.

WHY wiz? You of all people should know that the medieval "culture" of the Slavs is just a Byzantine ripoff, and I am being generous attributing any sorts of culture to the Bulgarians of that era. A culture advanced as the Byzantine one? I think you've lost all sense of proportion, my friend. I am not a big fan of Byzantium (christianity, you know) but comparing the Bulgarians with them is probably the silliest comparison ever made between two cultures.

On the other points... we are not talking about the 21st century, we are talking about the 7th, 8th and 9th century, when the Bulgarians were still a distinct ruling class among "the sea of Slavs". We are talking 1200 or 1300 years before today. Also, I am not talking about a hypothesis here, but facts of history. Byzantines destroyed and conquered the Bulgarian kingdom not once but twice. That's what happened, the rest is just wishful thinking...

I agree with Rosa. I can't see how byzantine culture(the inheritance of the entire roman civilization plus christianity) can be compared with bulgar culure of the 12th and 13th century.

I find it sad that we always talk about history in terms of who conquored who all the time. War did have drastic effects but it's not even half as important as the political, philosophical, and cultural elements of history that get ignored most of the time.

That's why I brought up that Cyril and Methodius were born in Thessalonica, Greece. This was an important roman center, and even If they were fully of bulgar ancestry, they still came from an entirely byzantine environment.

It would be great if both sides of the debate would discuss the same point rather than picking a viewpoint favourable to their side.

The Wiz put forth a premise that there was a relatively short-lived period of time in which Bulgaria was a "superpower". He presented a timeline showing that militarily Bulgarian was more than a match for the great superpower of the time, the Byzantine Empire - Bulgarian victories, then a period of stalemate and then eventual defeat by the Byzantines. Seems like a pretty decent case that for a while (100+ years?) one could look at Bulgarian as a "superpower".

Then the counter arguments arrive from the Byzantine "team". Apparently, because they have not a leg to stand on with regards to the military aspect of the "Bulgarian superpower" premise, the counter argument twists the discussion away from the military and on to the cultural aspect. From this point the discussion turns into a display of chest-thumping, "my dad is better than your dad" playground antics. And for what? The level of offense expressed in some of the posts seems out of place considering these events tool place 1000 years ago. Beside, Bulgaria may have had no culture and eventually lost, but it is still on the map today...and Byzantine may have had culture and won, but it shows nowhere on any modern map. Shall we call it a draw? ~:cheers:

I don't mean to pick on the Byzantine supporters, it could have easily gone the other way as we have seen in countless threads having anything to do with this area of the world. The constant :duel: between any and all of the sides in this type of discussion is taken way too seriously for there to be any kind of civil dialog between the parties. Is it so hard to disagree and present your side of the argument without using petty insults and condesending terms? I want to smack my head down on the desk everytime I read this crap. I'm starting to think that I have to resort to closing every Balkan/Greek/Macedonian/Turk thread the moment the first cheap shot insult is posted in order to get the message across. I'd rather not do that with this thread nor any other such thread because there is usually the seed of a very interesting discussion buried within. Sigh...
[/moderator rant off]

Please resume, but nicely. :saint:

Greg,

We've had this chat before (and in pm) about the way those things are. Wiz was putting forth not his opinion on some (fictional or not, this is not the point) "Bulgarian superpower" of an equal cultural status to that of Byzantium, but word-after-word modern Bulgarian propaganda. The same propaganda that claims as feats of the "glorious Bulgarian nation" the archeological findings attributed to the pre-Thracian population of the area (Varna cemetery, for instance) the same propaganda that claims that the whole Balkans, minus Constantinople, Athens and Peloponesus, should be part of "the Great Bulgaria".

That is what annoyed me. This is not about "who's daddy has the bigger car or the longer dick", this is about delicate matters that require thought and consideration and handling with care, because this is not "something happening a thousand years ago" but a very well-crafted effort to present claims on lands of the Balkans today. I don't blame you for not recognizing it as such - you haven't been raised with such crap flying around you as I have, so why would you bother yourself with them.

This is a history forum and we are all trying to maintain a certain historical credibility to it - not having gross lies and nationalistic propagand flying around is an aspect of credibility, wouldn't you agree?

P.S. Byzantine Prince, Cyril (Kyrillos) and Methodios come from a Greek family of Thessalonica. The revisionist/propaganda malady has "slavicized" them in the eyes of several modern Slavs, but the truth is that there is ample evidence - like their full genealogy, several generations back - to prove beyond any doubt that they were Greek. Still, the propagandists have managed to make everybody to doubt!

P.S. 2 Greg, Byzantium has left a host of offspring-nations, directly coming from its legacy: Greece, Russia, Turkey, Serbia, Romania and many others, all claim a part of the Byzantine ancestry.

Wow...
Talking about ancient Bulgaria , go figure...

Honestly, Rosacrux, I haven't found your posts in this thread to be objective or informative at all.

If you love Byzantium so much, why don't you marry it?? :dizzy2:

DA

Honesltly, del Arroyo, I haven't found much substance in your posts generally... so, what, should I tell you to go marry Great Bulgaria?

I am sure that kind of smartass comments is not really adding to this conversation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux

..."Bulgarian superpower" of an equal cultural status...

---

Rosacrux, I re-read the entire thread. Unless I missed it, The Wiz only talked about the Bulgarian superpower in the military sense until BP turned the debate from the military aspect to a cultural one (post #7). From my postion of ignorance on the issue, the case for Bulgaria as a cultural superpower seems rather weak but that was not the proposition as initially presented by The Wiz. I saw nothing from he regarding culture until the discussion was (slyly?) deflected in that direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux

...this is about delicate matters that require thought and consideration and handling with care...

---

You are right, but this applies to both sides. I know I did not grow up with this crap, but I am disheartened when I see these exchanges. You and many other Monastery patrons from your part of the world are intelligent, well learned and can be very respectful. You know the history of your region, you know the reasons for the hate and you know the results of that hate, yet even the most passive of you fly into a rage when the wrong thing is said by the "other side". What hope is there for the people of the region if folks like you can't maintain a level head when discussing history in a gaming forum? It is depressing to think it will never end.

Resorting to insults and being condesending undermines your arguments. It leaves the impression of being unreasonably biased and closed-minded. Let the facts dispel the unfounded premise.

BTW folks, constructive criticism is helpful, but, as I said above, including insults or condesending remarks kind of undermines the "constructive" and "helpful" parts of the criticism. :stare: Next disrespectful remark gets this thread closed.

Well, my laundry is calling for some attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Well, my laundry is calling for some attention.

---

:laugh4:

Good one Greg!!!! ~:cheers: ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Rosacrux, I re-read the entire thread. Unless I missed it, The Wiz only talked about the Bulgarian superpower in the military sense until BP turned the debate from the military aspect to a cultural one (post #7). From my postion of ignorance on the issue, the case for Bulgaria as a cultural superpower seems rather weak but that was not the proposition as initially presented by The Wiz. I saw nothing from he regarding culture until the discussion was (slyly?) deflected in that direction.

---

Apparently I didn’t get along what I was saying… the “champion of the slavs” part and the rather ambiguous (if not downright falsified) post-Samuil borders, the effort to present a short-lived strong kingdom (and for the greater part of it’s existence a backwater, insignificant little hegemony under the suzerainty of greater powers) as a medieval superpower of equal status to the actual superpowers of the time, and a number of details (der teufel liegt in die kleinigkeiten…) that are extremely suspicious, is what got me off – add to it the later effort of Wiz to present the semi-barbaric Bulgarians of the time as a hallmark of European culture and those are the parts that write Bulgarian Foreign Office propaganda all over, with bright, bolded letters. If you mention these things to any half-knowledgeable historian, he’ll either laugh his arse off, or he’ll go mad as hell (depending upon temper).

This is not just some weird accusation from my part, this is my reaction to an organized effort to falsify the history of the region and give the impression that there was an extremely strong Bulgarian kingdom in the middle ages, that encompassed the whole Balkans and that it was the real champion of the Slavs, long before the Rus became… well, the Russians and take that role for themselves.

Quote:

---

You are right, but this applies to both sides. I know I did not grow up with this crap, but I am disheartened when I see these exchanges. You and many other Monastery patrons from your part of the world are intelligent, well learned and can be very respectful. You know the history of your region, you know the reasons for the hate and you know the results of that hate, yet even the most passive of you fly into a rage when the wrong thing is said by the "other side". What hope is there for the people of the region if folks like you can't maintain a level head when discussing history in a gaming forum? It is depressing to think it will never end.

---

AFAIK my only comment that could be viewed “disrespectful” – I really can’t see any “rage” in what I wrote and I believe I upheld manners and etiquette all over – is the part I was asking Wiz if he was on the payroll of the Bulgarian foreign office.

I apologized for that, but I put forth a plain question: why reproducing Bulgarian propaganda anyway?


P.S. good luck with your laundry... luckily, I have a wife to attend to that duty, but I have to feed her to do so - literally, as I am the cook in the house ~D

Rosa, I fear you have misunderstood my point, and yes, this requires us to return to the icky cultural bit. I'll try to be as objective as possible.

My statement that Bulgaria was the "first champion of the Slavs" was, given, a bit sweeping in its premise. Which makes it logical that you have misinterpreted it. My apologies, but allow me to explain.

What I meant was that Bulgaria was not necessarily a great leading nation for an ethnic identity titled "Slav", which, as you say, did not exist in the day and time we discuss; rather, I meant that Bulgarians were the first amongst the Slavs to manifest themselves into a working state rather than a tribal confederation -- on a medieval level, mind you, like all the other powers at the time. The only other Slavs that had managed this before had done so under the reign of a single or a few rulers, in short-lived states (Great Moravia and the Slavic empire of a Frank in the 7th century) -- not comparable to Bulgaria which survived for almost four hundred years until their first state was crushed. The fact that the Slavs under the Khans, more foreign to them surely than the kniazes (sp?) and tsars, never revolted or resisted and were never open to the advanced and meticulous Byzantine diplomacy to make them kick their so-called "foreign masters" is a defining pointer to the fact that the Bulgars who lived amongst the Slavs had integrated, or at least were as effective a warrior aristocracy as, for instance, the Franks. Mind you: Manuel Comnenus was able to make the Italians and Greeks in southern Italy revolt against the Normans in the 12th century.

Then on to the status of this latter-day culture of the First Bulgarian Empire. True -- it was based off the Byzantine one. But really, tell me seriously, what was the Byzantine one? It may have been the most enlightened culture in Europe for centuries -- something that, if the Bulgarians had at least imitated it, puts them already quite a bit ahead of the Carolingians and Ottonians -- but what was it really? How much did it change, innovate, renew?

Let us be frank now: it didn't. Nothing wrong with that -- it was a part of Byzantine culture. When George Gemistos Plethon proposed to the Byzantine rulers of the Morea in the 15th century (end days of the Byzantine Empire) to change the army back to one made up of citizens, raised to fight like they had in Sparta (so near to Mistra), the Byzantines would not -- could not -- hear of it. It was too wild, too far out, and the change proposed too abrupt. They, being part of what was the most pious, God-fearing, ecclessiastically pure state in Christendom, preferred to put their fate in the hands of God and the Holy Virgin, patron saint of Constantinople.

When even in such crisis it was impossible for the Byzantines to relent, to abandon their ancient ways, the true character of Byzantine culture becomes clear. Plethon brought his innovations, and was so controversial, because he had studied the classics amongst the Turks, who were Islamic -- and the Muslim interpretation of Plato and Aristotle was very different from that of the Byzantine Orthodox. I do not claim to be an absolute expert on the evolution and development of 'Byzantine', that is to say Eastern Roman culture from the founding of Constantinople -- Heavens, no. But logic leads me to believe, in the face of such evidence as that of what happened to Plethon, that the Byzantine culture, and in this case its intellectual property, had not changed for many, many hundreds of years, keeping its same old tradition of the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of Neoplatonic and Aristoteleian philosophy.

Let me elaborate. Like the Western Europeans in the Renaissance, they had only the ancients to chew on. But unlike the former, the Byzantines' conservative nature, wherever it came from -- and that is not important now -- as compared to the 'humanists' (generalizing now) who were eager to get out from under the yoke of the political side of the Church, stopped them from developing their own intellectual property from there. Something like that was unthinkable amongst the Byzantines. As such, Plethon was a great exception, and certainly not the rule, and the Byzantine reaction towards it was characteristic.

And so do I wish to conclude: Byzantine culture (and then we are discussing its intellectual property and development, mind you; not its other characteristics) itself, while being elevated quite a distance above the rest of Europe at the time due to its access and indeed preservation of the ancients, was still quite inert in character. That is not to say post-Christianized Bulgarian culture was not, but Byzantine culture should not be elevated to a position it did not occupy. In my opinion the two were equal in their relative inertion, producing works of art and literature which rivalled each other.

In any case, the worth of a culture is extremely hard, so as not to say impossible, to appreciate objectively. This is my opinion. That is all. I tried to be as objective about it as possible. I hope I succeeded ~:)

P.S. On the original premise of this thread: denying Bulgaria's position as a serious power, if even for a while (century isn't a while but okay) is a mistake. The Byzantines were quite unable to dislodge them from that uncomfortably close distance from Constantinople in any way straight up to the very last few years of the First Bulgarian Empire, and the way they were bitchslapped for over three and a half centuries, not to mention the respect if not fear the Carolingians showed towards the Bulgarians (as seen at Khan Krum's annexing of the Avar territory, which he did not defeat; Charlemagne did that for him) doesn't put them at the level of small-time upstart.

Alright, Wiz, I think we’ve both been a bit over the edge and your last response is quite more coherent and modest and accurate as the reality of the issue at hand… but let’s get into more detail, shall we?

Quote:

---

My statement that Bulgaria was the "first champion of the Slavs" was, given, a bit sweeping in its premise. Which makes it logical that you have misinterpreted it. My apologies, but allow me to explain.

---

Apologies accepted, of course.

Quote:

---

What I meant was that Bulgaria was not necessarily a great leading nation for an ethnic identity titled "Slav", which, as you say, did not exist in the day and time we discuss; rather, I meant that Bulgarians were the first amongst the Slavs to manifest themselves into a working state rather than a tribal confederation -- on a medieval level, mind you, like all the other powers at the time. The only other Slavs that had managed this before had done so under the reign of a single or a few rulers, in short-lived states (Great Moravia and the Slavic empire of a Frank in the 7th century) -- not comparable to Bulgaria which survived for almost four hundred years until their first state was crushed. The fact that the Slavs under the Khans, more foreign to them surely than the kniazes (sp?) and tsars, never revolted or resisted and were never open to the advanced and meticulous Byzantine diplomacy to make them kick their so-called "foreign masters" is a defining pointer to the fact that the Bulgars who lived amongst the Slavs had integrated, or at least were as effective a warrior aristocracy as, for instance, the Franks. Mind you: Manuel Comnenus was able to make the Italians and Greeks in southern Italy revolt against the Normans in the 12th century.

---

The Slavs never revolted against anyone, wherever they had overlords. Since time begun they were living with overlords (Germanics first, Avars next, then under a host of others including the Bulgarians). On the contrary, in regions they did not have some non-Slav aristocracy ruling over them (Serbia, Croatia) they created their own hegemonies. BTW Serbia was a semi-independent hegemony in the 9th century and so was Croatia. And they were purely Slavic, not Bulgar-Slavic. Bulgaria before Samuil was also a semi-independent hegemony, suzerain to Byzantium. What makes them special? For waging war against Byzantium and having the ambition to take the imperial throne? Well, credit Samuil – and one could notice that some sources say he wasn’t even Bulgarian to begin with, but son of an Armenian officer and a Slav mother – with it. He was an able and ambitious guy nevertheless, but his kingdom didn’t really live after his death.

Quote:

---

Then on to the status of this latter-day culture of the First Bulgarian Empire. True -- it was based off the Byzantine one. But really, tell me seriously, what was the Byzantine one? It may have been the most enlightened culture in Europe for centuries -- something that, if the Bulgarians had at least imitated it, puts them already quite a bit ahead of the Carolingians and Ottonians -- but what was it really? How much did it change, innovate, renew?

Let us be frank now: it didn't. Nothing wrong with that -- it was a part of Byzantine culture. When George Gemistos Plethon proposed to the Byzantine rulers of the Morea in the 15th century (end days of the Byzantine Empire) to change the army back to one made up of citizens, raised to fight like they had in Sparta (so near to Mistra), the Byzantines would not -- could not -- hear of it. It was too wild, too far out, and the change proposed too abrupt. They, being part of what was the most pious, God-fearing, ecclessiastically pure state in Christendom, preferred to put their fate in the hands of God and the Holy Virgin, patron saint of Constantinople.

---

This is a rather naïve view of the Byzantines – and any other nation or state for that matter. There are a dozen of very pragmatic reason why Phlithon’s suggestions never found ground: Byzantium by Plithon’s was in full decline, that is a given. It was a smallish state with little or no power to withstand the stronger neighbors or control the weaker. Add to it that the Byzantine rulers and ruling class were ever-fearing of a popular revolt – as all medieval and post-medieval non-republic societies – and you’ll understand why there wasn’t a chance in a million they’d go back to arming the citizen – armed citizen are dangerous citizen, especially when they are just a tad bit above serfdom.

I won’t neglect the cultural dead weight and I won’t neglect the backwardness of the Byzantine society and state in the 15th century – but we are not talking about a 150 years of Byzantine history, we are talking about 1000 years. Byzantium was a monarchy and monarchies are not prone to adopt novelties and innovation if they do not directly benefit the monarch and his aristocracy. Byzantium for the greater part of it’s existence followed precisely that pattern, but was always ahead of western Europe (in every aspect until the 13th century) and even ahead the Arabs at the same timeframe for the greater part (although the Arabs had more inventions and scientific study, for they too inherited a large part of the Graeco-Roman knowledge)

Plethon’s existence proves that Byzantium was not all that barren or devote of innovation and solid thinking – don’t forget that this very person (one so little known too…) was the single most impressive force behind the renaissance. The man that brought the classics (and especially the not-christian-at-all Plato) to the Italians, should be credited with something. Plethon was a product of Byzantium or rather of the Graeco-Roman spirit that was still alive (half-living might be more appropriate) in certain aspects of Byzantine political and spiritual life, although the all-dominant Christian religion didn’t really help here…

Plethon was accused of being a heretic, yet he managed to continue without hindrance to teach and preach his own rather “different” version of truth… would that be possible in any other place in the world at this time? A heretic having a dozen Florentine students and teaching them, instead of being burn at the stake? Could that happen anywhere else besides Byzantium? Even in the decadent, weak Byzantium of the 15th century?

The Westeners were much, much more conservative before they met – again – with the classical Greeks, through the Byzantines and the Arabs. And even then, if the time wasn’t right for non-autocratic regimes to come forth (in Italy) there would no renaissance – it’s not a matter of people, it’s a matter of monarchy vs republic. Byzantium was autocratic=conservative.

Quote:

---

On the original premise of this thread: denying Bulgaria's position as a serious power, if even for a while (century isn't a while but okay) is a mistake. The Byzantines were quite unable to dislodge them from that uncomfortably close distance from Constantinople in any way straight up to the very last few years of the First Bulgarian Empire, and the way they were bitchslapped for over three and a half centuries, not to mention the respect if not fear the Carolingians showed towards the Bulgarians (as seen at Khan Krum's annexing of the Avar territory, which he did not defeat; Charlemagne did that for him) doesn't put them at the level of small-time upstart.

---

The map you presented in your opening post presents the “state of Bulgaria” as it never was - it was relatively close (minus 20% of the lands it includes) for less than 10 years. before Samuil, Bulgaria occupied no lands in southern Thrace, no lands in Macedonia, no lands in Serbia and beyond – just a small chunck of land in the north-eastern Balkans. Even in the time we are talking about, they didn’t control anything south of Larissa and west of Kossovo. Yet, you are presenting a map that gives the impression that Bulgaria had a huge, thriving, more or less permanent empire in the Balkans when it was just a very temporary, short-lived conquest, that crumbled away when the dominant power of the region put its act together.

The Bulgarian state was more than anything else a personal “empire” of Samuil, not a “nation” in any conceivable way. A personal empire that encompassed at a brief moment of its existence a host of lands where no Bulgarians (or even Slavs) lived in.

I m watching these days this “struggle” between the Byzantines and the Bulgars in military and cultural battlefields…and I am a bit surprised.

First in military-The Bulgars were twice crushed and occupied for 170 years.
Even at their zenith (krum and simeon) the bulgars didn’t manage to be a real threat for the city of Constantinopolis or even Thessaloniki and their borders were outside the mainland Greece (the conquests in Greece were ephemeral).
The Byzantine army was the best organized in medieval Europe.
The Empire had to struggle with the Muslims, and other minor enemies from time to time-so had to fight constantly with multiple foes.(Basil II won several times the Fatimids,the Armenians ,Abhazian-Iberians and Normans while crushing the Bulgars).
I wont try to analyze every single battle here.

Then culture…If Bulgarian military loses in comparison with the Byzantine ,I think a comparison between the cultures (“they were equal in their relative inertion!” ) is a bit funny.
Yes ,the Byzantine culture of course was not the ancient greek ,or modern,but has to demonstrate interesting achievements such as:

Architecture:Aghia Sofia:a wonder of architecture.
Painting-Icons and Fresco:their art value is recognized (although centuries had to pass for this)
Miniature art,manuscripts and so on.
U just have to take a look on the last 2 great exhibitions of Byzantine Art of the Metropolitan Museum in New York.
Or even the auctions at Shothby’s.

The Bulgarian culture of this era was nothing more than the poor imitation of the Byzantine art. The architecture(churches) and frescos were either made by painters and builders from Constantinopolis or Thessalonica,or local art which was-as the local art of the provinces of Byzantium- of poor quality.

That’s all..and let all of us be more objective!

Where are your sorces from, Rosa?

For the unbiased readers, you have to take into consideration the numerous times the Greeks got their *** kicked by the Bulgarians, to understand why Rosa, and the rest of the Greeks react so painfully to this subject. They'd deny the hole Bulgarian existance if they could.

And Wizard, I wouldn't reason with a Greek, it's like hitting your head in the wall.

oh!
what an argument !
maybe we should keep a level my friend....
As for the *** :
2 times crushed and under occupation by the Byzantines ,
beaten during the "struggle for macedonia" 1904-1908
humiliated in second Balcan war 1913
beaten in World War II (battle of Skra 1918)

Maybe ,we should be more serious,and speak with arguments ~:cheers:

Then you shouldn't bring modern era wars as arguments...

This conversation is heading to a 'CLOSED', as simple as that, and since I enjoy reading it, I'd like people not to make pointless replies like 'the byzantines kicked some serious a**, while the bulgars really sucked' in the typical 'my dad is stronger than your' fashion (as far as its possible, of course).

Back on topic, Seleukos, from what I read, the Byzantines in the High Middle Age were far from the 'best organized' army. Although the Romans won some important battles, they also got hammered by basically all their neighbours, no ? The simple fact they had to bribe all their opponents or to rely on their long term allies (such as the Khazars) or on mercenaries would make me think they weren't that good on the battlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Back on topic, Seleukos, from what I read, the Byzantines in the High Middle Age were far from the 'best organized' army. Although the Romans won some important battles, they also got hammered by basically all their neighbours, no ? The simple fact they had to bribe all their opponents or to rely on their long term allies (such as the Khazars) or on mercenaries would make me think they weren't that good on the battlefield.

---

The Byz.during their zenith (until 1050)were organised in different units for different arms,different colours and flag every unit,-the units were very well equipped-their campaigns and camps were very well organised in detail.
There was a system of signs on castles,and castles and tower across the borders.
These things were unknown to the westerns of this time.
The Byzantines had to bribe and use mercenaries,cause they have a constant struggle on East,West,North many times in the same time...and the achieved to survive for 1000 years.
So...in fact they had the greatest military system until 1050,and a very good one till 1204.

I agree with you, Meneldil. It is pointless. I also enjoyed this thread, and thank you all for your interest on Bulgaria. There are so many misinterpetations and just plain lies about Bulgaria spread primeraly by Greeks. Any intelligent person can see what's happening here. Fueled by their zeal to protect the greatness of Byzantium, Greeks invade this topic and just hijack it, because there can never be anyone greater than them. They can't see how pitty they are. Have you seen the word Byzantium in the topic of this threat, my Greek beloved neighbors? No one expected you to show up here and dis Bulgaria. Why don't you open up a thread "The Greatness of the Byzantine Empire". We can all contribute possitive thought on the greatest moments of the Eastern Roman Empire, and not discuss how great Bulgaria was, because that would simply be out of the question.
On how small and minor Bulgaria was, here is what I have to say. The Bulgars were the only tribe to be able to create a state right in the backyard of the greatest empire of the world at the time. Not the Huns, nor the Celts, Goths, Avars, Pechenegs or Cumans managed to do that. The Bulgars (some say were from Turkic others from Alano-Sarmatian origin) managed to unite the Seven Slavic Tribes and create a strong Slavic state with a Bulgar leadership for the first 200 years (the total number of Bulgars migrating from Phanagoria is estimated to be around 20,000 among a sea of 2,000,000 slavs). That state was the first Slavic state - that is what we are - Slavs - we speak a language that is close to Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Slovakian, Russian, Ukrainian. The people who created our alphabet on the basis of the Greek were slavs - Kiril and Metodiy. That state, not only survived the vigorous attempts from the Byzantines to annihilate it, but managed to dominate the whole Balkans on several occasions, despite the attempted briberies and backstabbing of the Byzantines (to this day whenever someone backstabs you, betrays you or is not keeping his word, he is called a Byzantine in Bulgarian), despite traditions, experience, valour and wealth of the Empire.

Anyone genuinely interested in the history of Bulgaria will search for unbiased sources and make his own conclusions, I am not here to advocate how great Bulgaria was/is.
One last thing - have you heard of a modern country named Byzantium? Byzantium is not Greece. Byzantium was an Empire, there were Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Arabs, Turks, Albanians, Thracians and many other nationalities. So I think it is pathetic for you Greeks to boast about something that is no more, and never will be and to take credit for everything Byzantium achieved.

.
May I kindly ask our beloved Bulgarian and Hellen nationalists to carry their case out of this thread, maybe to the backroom?

:gah:
.

Hair, komshu~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalkanTourist

Hair, komshu~:cheers:

---

.
:medievalcheers:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalkanTourist

One last thing - have you heard of a modern country named Byzantium? Byzantium is not Greece. Byzantium was an Empire, there were Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Arabs, Turks, Albanians, Thracians and many other nationalities. So I think it is pathetic for you Greeks to boast about something that is no more, and never will be and to take credit for everything Byzantium achieved.

---

I would like to kindly remind our fellow patron that the greeks called themselves romaioi up until the waves of nationalism that named us back to hellenes for some reason. This hapened very late(perhaps the 19th century) We the people of the southern balkans who speak the ancient tongue of Athens are considered the heirs of Byzantium for we were the only ones to fully accept it.

The byzantines are and will be peoples who spoke greek, and that is how the greek nation was created, everyone who spoke greek and was orthodox was a greek. Period.

BP, I am pleasantly surprised by the change in the way you state your opinion. Good for you!
And I am not going to argue your opinion, but I still insist on the fact that the Empire was not entirely Greek, yet Bulgaria is the straight continuation of the one founded in 681 AD.
And again, this thread is not about comparing the two neighbor states, but about Bulgaria. Bulgaria didn't only fight the Byzantines, it fought and destroed the Avar Khaganate, subdued Serbia and Croatia, and bordered the Frankish Kingdom. Only about 30 years old, it came to the aid of its enemy, Byzantium to help them lift the siege of Constantinople from the Arabs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalkanTourist

BP, I am pleasantly surprised by the change in the way you state your opinion. Good for you!
And I am not going to argue your opinion, but I still insist on the fact that the Empire was not entirely Greek, yet Bulgaria is the straight continuation of the one founded in 681 AD.

---

Thanks. The Empire was not entirely greek, but the people's who did not speak greek were rebelious and wanted their independence, and refused assimilation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalkanTourist

And again, this thread is not about comparing the two neighbor states, but about Bulgaria. Bulgaria didn't only fight the Byzantines, it fought and destroed the Avar Khaganate, subdued Serbia and Croatia, and bordered the Frankish Kingdom. Only about 30 years old, it came to the aid of its enemy, Byzantium to help them lift the siege of Constantinople from the Arabs.

---

Conquorers are not victorious because they are better in some way. War has always been about opportunity more then anything else. Saying that Bulgaria achieved glory because it conquered parts of the Balkans is purely subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BP

Saying that Bulgaria achieved glory because it conquered parts of the Balkans is purely subjective.

---

Yep, glory is in the eye of the beholder. It can also be relative.

For the sake of keeping this topic going, let's please stay away from terms such as "lies", "propaganda" and other antagonistic words. Let the interested parties make their own value judgements on the merits of any particular source or viewpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalkanTourist

Not the Huns, nor the Celts, Goths, Avars, Pechenegs or Cumans managed to do that. The Bulgars (some say were from Turkic others from Alano-Sarmatian origin) managed to unite the Seven Slavic Tribes and create a strong Slavic state with a Bulgar leadership for the first 200 years (the total number of Bulgars migrating from Phanagoria is estimated to be around 20,000 among a sea of 2,000,000 slavs). That state was the first Slavic state - that is what we are - Slavs - we speak a language that is close to Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Slovakian, Russian, Ukrainian. The people who created our alphabet on the basis of the Greek were slavs - Kiril and Metodiy.

---

Surely it could be said that the cultural cross pollination of having an Empire nearby was an influence in the stability of the Slavs. Inventions and political strutures are quickly taken up where they are shown to be useful.

Its also interesting to note what the likes of the Normans where upto in the 800 to 1200's. Particularly in Sicily and England as for cross cultural influences. The Muslim and Greek ideas combining with Norman ones in Sicily and the Saxon political structure combining with that of the Normans in England.

It probably should be noted that battles were not the only thing the Slaves and the Byzantians shared between nations. Ideas, trade and other items of interest did go between them. Unfortunately history is more interesting when read only the heartbeat of battles and not those of trade goods. Also merchant princes have a habit of not braying about their gains like those of Emperors, Kings and Generals.

Byzantine Prince might have vastly improved upon his manners, BT, but you haven't. Once again the same, old, tired fairy tales about Greek propaganda and the same old tired nationalistic panslavic, GreatBulgarian "arguments"... I think it is time you get over it and I really am not going into a debate about the whole thing.

Only one point: Kyrilos and Methodios were not Slavs, as pan-slavisists and Bulgarian revisionists try to make them. They were Romans of Greek ethnical background and there is ample evidence proving it.

I rest my case, there is really nothing to add to what I have previously written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seleukos

The Byzantines had to bribe and use mercenaries,cause they have a constant struggle on East,West,North many times in the same time...and the achieved to survive for 1000 years.
So...in fact they had the greatest military system until 1050,and a very good one till 1204.

---

Yeah, it's not as if Spanish Kingdoms, Frankish Kingdoms, Rus principalties and Anglo-Saxons Kingdoms had to struggle against all their neighbours too ~:rolleyes: They might have had the most organised army, but they were probably not the most effective one.

I'm seriously stunned by the opinion of many greek patrons here. As soon as a topic about the Balkans is opened in the monastery, someone will join and hijack the thread by claiming the the Romans were the best, that all other surrounding nations were backward barbarians, etc.
Way to go guys ~:handball:

I am seriously puzzled by the inability of certain patrons to READ all posts before posting sweeping assertions that damn a group of people just like that. I would only suggest one to read and try to comprehend with the arguments, before posting any silly remarks, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I'm seriously stunned by the opinion of many greek patrons here. As soon as a topic about the Balkans is opened in the monastery, someone will join and hijack the thread by claiming the the Romans were the best, that all other surrounding nations were backward barbarians, etc.
Way to go guys ~:handball:

---

The Romans are the best?
the others were barbarians ?

Who told that? So,ok...everyone should open a thread like :
"Our" super awsome empire and its glory,Shaka zulu and his invasion in mars,how Bulgars kick asses -and anybody shouldnt disagree with that. So,the Byzantinophiles,the Bulgarophiles,tha Mongolophiles should have their own propaganda thread-and nobody should mix in it to "hijack" it by spoiling the "glory of this nation".
I think that i and most of the guys that disagree here ,speak with arguments and try to keep a level .
Take a look upper and see arguments like "the Greeks got their *** kicked by the Bulgars" (!!!) (thread #34 by mr.BalkanTourist)

i think we must decide :we want an open and civilized dialogue with arguments or a propaganda thread about how aesome "we" are-and swering everyone who disagrees.

Ah and something else my friend Melendil,
i dont know whether u are French or immigrant from Balcans to France,but i think u dont know the situation in balcans(u dont have to know it of course!)

I mean this thing with the threads about Balcans is easy to explain:
After the collapse of the communist states here,all the nations of the Balcans try to revive their "national identity" -i dont accuse this,its natural in history nations to create their "national myth/or fairy tail". This happened in Greece too(earlier),and everywhere where this kind of national-state exists.

But,during this try,its very common eceryone to "try to get a bigger part of the cake" ,and so the nationalism rises.I hate nationalism-i am on left party politicaly-but this dont means that we mustnt be objective-or at least try to!

I dont think that everyone must just "shut his mouth up" when observing the rise of nationalism in these states.

:wall:

My biggest gripe about these topics is the tactics used. The first half of the posts has to be a rant against the bias, nationalistic lies/propaganda put out by the "other" side. Rosa pleaded that we read all the posts before commenting. However, the rant half of these posts undermines the ranter's own credibility as an unbiased and open minded "truth" sayer. These threads rarely stay focused on the original topic but degenerate into a discussion of motives for spreading lies.

I don't see any purpose for continuing this thread.

:closed: