Why were they so evil?

So which one is it?

This

Ottoman evil? Then america, france, spain, england, which categories? If the ottoman act like these in the balkans then They mostly muslim and speak turkish. Now they cant cry like "remove kebab" " remove kebab"

We just wanted our clay man. Greeks and Serbs, we had to fight them and win.

So we had to join the meme powers to win. Same reason we fought literally every neighbor few years earlier.

We weren't evil though. We didn't use chemical weapons like the Germans did.

mehmet, my son

>we were too poor to be properly evil, so we were just budged evil

Still evil. You wouldn't join the Axis of Evil if you weren't, nor would you backstab Serbia.

except serbia already backstabbed us twice

>backstab Serbia.
Yeah someone stabs you in the back and you turn around and stab back.

The ass hole then says 'HEY YOU STABBED ME'.

2 people

Let's not talk about the backstabbing olympics

If you're talking about the Second Balkan War, it was Bulgaria who backstabbed Serbia not the other way around

It was agreed Serbs wouldn't touch Bulgarian lands.
But they made a deal with the Greeks to divy up our lands, when we did the bulk of the fighting with the Turks.

It's Jewry. They just saw the chance to grab lands that ethnically didn't belong to them. Which is OK, but they won't even admit it and instead propagate the lie we stabbed someone in the back.

Especially since the Serbs have us to thank for their existence, their language, their alphabet, their capital and the territory they live on.

Serbia was to get Albania, but wasn't allowed it. So it took Macedonia.
Bulgaria was to get Macedonia, so they got mad. However Romania was to get Silistra from Bulgaria (because Russia took Moldova from Romania), and when they didn't give it the Russians were mad at them.
So instead of waiting for Russia to distribute the land, because they had a grudge on Bulgaria for scumming Romania, Bulgaria decided to try invading Serbia.
There was a secret agreement between Serbia and Greece, so Greece joined the war. Turkey and Romania attacked despite the treaties because lol free land :D

So what started it is either Italy creating Albania, or Bulgaria not giving away Silistra to Romania.

>don't fight in the war
>expect land

Russia took Moldova because might is right, and in exchange promised Romania will get Silistra if they stay neutral and don't backstab the slavs.

>Serbia was to get Albania, but wasn't allowed it. So it took Macedonia.
Why is Serbia to get lands that don't have Serbs there?
Why are the Romanians getting a town that has no Romanians there?
>free land
Why is Bulgaria supposed to give away ethnically Bulgarian lands to everybody?

The little shits won't even admit they basically ganked up on us. From all sides. Because we were the biggest people on the Balkans.

It's okay past is the past, but at least admit it so we can move forward.

>It was agreed Serbs wouldn't touch Bulgarian lands.
Bullshit. It was agreed that Serbia would get parts of Macedonia, Bulgaria other parts, and then there was a large contested zone and would be decided in negotiations later. But Bulgaria chimped out and started demanding all of the contested zone and even some of the land that had been already agreed to go to Serbia. When the rest told them to fuck off, they attacked.

>But they made a deal with the Greeks to divy up our lands
No.
>saw the chance to grab lands that ethnically didn't belong to them.
No.
>Especially since the Serbs have us to thank for their existence, their language, their alphabet, their capital and the territory they live on.
WeW lad

Also, you started it off by backstabbing Romania, breaking half a dozen treaties and than declaring war on your two allies.
Serbia asked you politely to get some compensation because most of what Serbia was going to get was stripped diplomatically by Austria.
Serbia did not send any demand, merely asked that due to new circumstances the deal be revised.
Russia offered to arbitrate.

>parts of Macedonia
Not Vardar.

Besides the demands were completely justified if you factor in the ethnicity of the people living there and war contributions. Serbia and Greece were small peoples that had no business taking lands that pretty much didn't belong to them in any way.

>No
>No
>WeW lad
Who created the alphabet the Serbs use, who built their capital and who gifted it to them?

The issue here is that the "compensation" the Serbs asked "politely" for is not deserved in any way.

I know realpolitik bla bla bla, but at least admit it. Our neighbors took advantage of the situation to collectively fuck us.

How is it 'a backstab' to go fight for lands where your people live. Quite the opposite actually.

Because you made a deal.
You can't just suddenly shit on 4 contracts.

Imagine this:
You take out 3 loans.
You mortgage your house, your car and let's say your tv.
Then you default and the banks come to take what you owe.
And then you kill the people that came.
And then the police comes in and beats the shit out of you.

>Especially since the Serbs have us to thank for their existence, their language, their alphabet, their capital and the territory they live on.
Delusions of grandeur never stop in the Balkans, huh?

Your analogy makes no sense.
Making justified demands was part of the deal.

The Serbs should have gotten NOTHING as per the deal.

>Why is Serbia to get lands that don't have Serbs there?

Same reason Bulgaria wanted Constantinople.
Same reason Italy negotiated for the Ottomans to give it to them instead of the Serbs.

Its a nice port. Money.

>Delusions
A Bulgarian scholar made the alphabet, Belgrade was built by Bulgarians, but was gifted to Serbs shortly before Turks came due to marriage issues.
They would have never been able to fight away their lands from ERE. They were just too small.

These are all facts.
Bulgarians didn't actually want Constantinopole.

>Why are the Romanians getting a town that has no Romanians there?

Same reason they got Dobrogea. Because they helped in the war against the Ottomans (the "liberation war" for Bulgaria), but instead of gaining land, they LOST land (Russia confiscated Moldova to use for its empire). So they were compensated with Dobrogea all the way to Silistra, and were promised Silistra itself if they stay neutral during the Balkan War.

>Who created the alphabet
It was commissioned by both the Bulgarian Tsar, and by the King of Moravia (Czech)
Created by some Greek priests.
>who built their capital
Celts. Then Romans, Hungarians, Byzantines (repeat the last 2 about 10 times), Turks, Austrians, and Turks again. It's been destroyed and rebuilt 44 times.
>who gifted it to them
At what point of history are you referring to?
Medieval: Hungary
Modern: took it themselves.

>Bulgarians didn't actually want Constantinopole.

King Ferdinand said he wants not only the european part of Constantinople, but also the asian part, and a buffer area around it.

But why won't they admit they got lands that shouldn't have belonged to them.

And how come everybody made claims and got lands, they shouldn't have gotten, but us.

>It was commissioned by both the Bulgarian Tsar, and by the King of Moravia (Czech)

Bulgaria and Frankia were busy conquering Moravia, and were in a race who gets to give these people the faith. Franks tried to make them catholic, Bulgarians tried to make them orthodox.

The Moravians themselves didn't want any of this shit, they were being invaded and occupied.

>King Ferdinand
>Bulgarian
The Greek priests created a different alphabet.

>Saint Clement of Ohrid was one of the most prolific and important writers in Old Church Slavonic. He is credited with the Panonic Hagiography of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius. Clement also translated the Flower Triode containing church songs sung from Easter to Pentecost and is believed to be the author of the Holy Service and the Life of St. Clement of Rome, as well as of the oldest service dedicated to St. Cyril and St. Methodius. The invention of the Cyrillic alphabet is also usually ascribed to him although the alphabet is most likely to have been developed at the Preslav Literary School at the beginning of the 10th century (see Cyrillic script).

>The first record of the name Belograd appeared on April, 16th, 878, in a Papal letter[36] to Bulgarian ruler Boris I. Later, this name appeared in several variants: Alba Graeca (Greek city), Griechisch Wiessenburg (Greek white castle), Nandor Alba (City of the Bulgarians), Nandor Fejervar (The white castle of the Bulgarians), Castelbianco (White Castle), Alba Bulgarica (Bulgarian City). For about four centuries, the city remained a battleground between the Byzantine Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary and the Bulgarian Empire.[37] Basil II (976–1025) installed a garrison in Belgrade.[38] The city hosted the armies of the First and the Second Crusade;[39] while passing through during the Third Crusade, Frederick Barbarossa and his 190,000 crusaders saw Belgrade in ruins.[40]

>King Stefan Dragutin (r. 1276–1282) received Belgrade from his father-in-law, Stephen V of Hungary in 1284; it served as the capital of the Kingdom of Syrmia, and Dragutin is regarded as the first Serbian king to rule over Belgrade as a vassal to the Kingdom of Hungary.[41]

It was gifted to him by his father in law, sorry, my bad. Still wasn't conquered. Anyway our ethnonym is literally in the name of the city.

Romania would be land locked without Dobrogea, so they took it.
Dobrogea is defenseless without the fortress of Silistra, so they wanted it.

Bulgaria doubled its territory when it illegally invaded the Ottoman vassal of Rumelia without declaring war, for which they had to banish their king and replace him.
Then they increased their territory by another third when they took southern Thrace in the war.

Bulgaria got a lot, more than others. It was just land without major cities in it, since the Ottomans retook Edirne when they joined the Second Balkan War (illegally, despite a truce), and they lost Thessaloniki when the garrison surrendered it to the Greeks despite it being about to be conquered by Bulgaria.
Those two were the only relevant cities in land Bulgaria actually had a chance to get and wanted. Constantinople would've never been allowed to fall to them.

>A Bulgarian scholar made the alphabet
The early Cyrillic alphabet was literally identical to uncial Greek, plus a few extra letters thrown in from Glagolitic. Bulgarian contributions: approximately nil. Not to even mention the reforms of Peter the Great and Vuk Karadzic, each of which frankly reformed the alphabet much more than any Bulgarian scholar ever did.
>Belgrade was built by Bulgarians
Belgrade was a city long before a single Bulgar set foot in Europe.

>it illegally invaded the Ottoman vassal of Rumelia
lmao

Bulgaria should have gotten even more based on the ethnic makeup of the Balkan Peninsula.

The only reason it 'seems' they got more is because of how little we 'got' in the beginning anyway.

Again you are mistaking me for someone who doesn't get realpolitik and the realities.

Still I would like an admission from people that their 'compensations' were taken from none other than us.

Hey, btw, if there's one thing i wish is for Serbs and Bulgarians to be on good terms (the other ex-yu crowd can suck a dick).
youtube.com/watch?v=8H7fR4b8gMo
Also, thank you for keeping Milutin's corpse safe.
Milutin>Dragutin

>Boris I

This guy sent a letter to the pope seeing if Catholicism is for him, and asked stuff like "is it okay to torture", "should i still execute thieves" and "can i have more lovers" and such.

We only have the answer preserved, but it implies the questions.

pravoslavieto.com/history/09/866_responce_pope_Nicholas_I.htm

>The early Greek alphabet was literally identical to phoenician with the letters reversed and a few vowels. Greek contributions: approximately nil.

You can do the same about the Latin alphabet.

It was some village at best, we made it a fortress and people identified our ethnonym with it. It's completely undeniable.

The 'reforms' are irrelevant. Obviously every alphabet has been reformed, but reforming is not the same as creating.

I agree, modern day Serbs are the same as us and should forever be our friends.

I just need a few admissions to be made about history so we can be honest with one another. For the sake of honesty,nothing else, I will never actually want any lands around Bulgaria to join Bulgaria in the 21st century.

Just admit what actually happened in the past. None of us were born, there's no reason to deny any of it.

About the pic.
You expect edgy teenagers to know shit about diplomacy?

>lmao

That is exactly what happened, though.
An invasion without declaring war, despite a treaty.
Ottomans complaining to England, France and Austria.
Russia forced to withdraw their puppet leader from Bulgaria on fear of having war declared on them.
Austria replacing him with their own puppet leader.
Bulgaria moved from Russian sphere of influence to Austrian sphere of influence, where it replaced Serbia (Serbia had just failed in the order to fight Bulgaria for Austria, and was relegated in prestige).

The trouble is that both Bulgarians and Serbs have ridiculous superiority complexes which they can't get over. And then we have the Croats and """Macedonians""" on the other hand with equally insurmountable raging inferiority complexes. The whole Balkans are a fucking mess, and nothing will get better for at least a few more centuries, because everyone's complexed to hell.

Just use natural barriers to draw borders - rivers, mountains, seas.
That way they aren't subject to change or debate just because some people move around.

>reforming is not the same as creating.
It actually is in this case though. Out of the western scripts, only the Glagolitic alphabet and Egyptian hieroglyphs were created from scratch. Everything else was just piecemeal reforms of earlier alphabets. Hell, the Cyrillic alphabet wasn't even called a separate alphabet from Greek back then (the word "Cyrillic" Ⰽⱛⱃⰺⰾⰾⱁⰲⰺⱌⰰ meant Glagolitic in the Middle Ages). The ""creation"" was only declared retroactively centuries later.

>deporting a hostile population into your own country
why?

You are not understanding my point here.

What I am saying is not that we were masters of realpolitik. Quite the opposite. Our neighbors were better at it (older states, more traditions etc.) and that's why we lost some of OUR soil to them. Plus the Great Powers didn't want a big ethnostate in the middle of the Balkans.

Just admit all of this for the sake of honesty. This doesn't mean any of those territories belong to us today in any way. People that live there have long changed.

Bro, Serbs were irrelevant on the Balkans compared to us in more than one ways . Just look at and see who mounted how many soldeirs. Even at such a late point in history they were so small. The only people more relevant were ERE earlier and then the Turks.

Comparing our historical relevance to the Serbs is not factual.

Are you enjoying using the phoenician alphabet then?
alif ba ta

It's quite obvious where the Cyrillic comes from and why the "creation" was "declared". The modern slav alphabets are a subset of the Cyrillic.
It's not just flat, you see, it's more like a progeny tree.

You just don't want to admit the evil bugars actually created something that made a little bit of a difference.

You'd desperately rather pin it on "the Greeks" that didn't even exist back then. Just not the bugars, no.

>Bro, Serbs were irrelevant on the Balkans compared to us in more than one ways .
Bro, you're both completely fucking irrelevant, and your constant Balkan mental complexes are what's making sure you'll all stay that way.

The greeks did exist in Anatolia, and during Nikephoros and after him they re-colonized what is today modern Greece (minus southern Thrace) from the slavs.

This was because greeks were good subjects to the romans, and slaves kept rebelling whenever the army left town, so the slavs were forced north and the greeks were forced to replace them.
Neither of the two groups liked that very much, and it was done at sword point.

Nah, you guys did do a lot of significant stuff, and after all Old Church Slavonic was standardized on a Bulgarian dialect (with lots of Moravian influence). Early Slavic literary culture flourished under the Bulgarian Empire.

But this whole "we created the alphabet!" thing is a pet peeve of mine, because it just doesn't make any fucking sense. The alphabet developed gradually through a process of constant reforms, as you say like a tree.

And the modern Slav alphabets are absolutely not a subset of the Cyrillic that existed in the 9th century AD. Where was Њ? It didn't exist. Where was Я? It didn't exist. Where was Й? It didn't exist. Where was Ґ? It didn't exist. And so on. The moment you choose to call "creation" is completely arbitrary. You could equally well say Peter the Great created Cyrillic, because the modern Slav alphabets are all written using his Civil Script. Either way, it's bullshit. There was no moment of creation, because the process that led to a differentiated script was just a process of successive reforms.