History - August 2006

On the other side the wording is : ONE PENNY PAYABLE AT BRISTOL-SWANSEA-LONDON. Theres a crest on this penny: A ship-A man-A castle.
Could someone enlighten me as to what this coin is and what it might be worth

2006-08-16 03:44:22 · 4 answers · asked by paul_jones125 1

Can the South take back what was rightfully theirs to begin with?

2006-08-16 03:34:23 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

yes we all know (Bigusdickus) that not original enough.

2006-08-16 03:28:04 · 21 answers · asked by Harry H 4

Quoted by W. Montgomery Watt from "MOHAMMAD AT MECCA, Oxford, 1953, p.52"

2006-08-16 03:25:27 · 5 answers · asked by afaqinfo 1

good places to live and to eat, bookstores and the history on the state??

2006-08-16 03:05:45 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

I think that he has predicted about a major earthquake in the U.S. around 26th December 2021 and his predictions about the World War have proved to be correct.!?

2006-08-16 02:47:53 · 20 answers · asked by tejas_fundo 3

Or would they have fought somewhere else instead?

2006-08-16 02:25:38 · 14 answers · asked by Happy Kitty 2

I read a report from Canada.

If they are. I find them very disturbing.

2006-08-16 02:25:02 · 5 answers · asked by meta-morph-in-oz 3

2006-08-16 01:33:39 · 9 answers · asked by haddockfish 1

2006-08-16 01:16:49 · 4 answers · asked by Lov 1

The Treaty of Bucharest was concluded on August 10, 1913, by the delegates of Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. As Bulgaria had been completely isolated in the Second Balkan War, and as she was closely invested on her northern boundary by the Kingdom of Romania and on her western frontier by the allied armies of Greece and Serbia, and in the East by the Turkish Army, she was obliged, in her helplessness, to submit to such terms as her victorious enemies chose to impose upon her. All important arrangements and concessions involving the rectification of the controverted international boundary lines were perfected in a series of committee meetings, incorporated in separate protocols, and formally ratified by subsequent action of the general assembly of delegates.



1. NEGOTIATION.


The Treaty of Bucharest was concluded on August 10, 1913, by the delegates of Bulgaria, Roumania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. As Bulgaria had been completely isolated in the Second Balkan War, and as she was closely invested on her northern boundary by the of Roumania on her western frontier by the allied armies of Greece and Serbia, and in the East by the Turkish Army, she was obliged, in her helplessness, to submit to such terms as her victorious enemies chose to impose upon her. All important arrangements and concessions involving the rectification of the controverted international boundary lines were perfected in a series of committee meetings, incorporated in separate protocols, and formally ratified by subsequent action of the general assembly of delegates.


2. TERMS.


By the terms of the treaty, Bulgaria ceded to Roumania all that portion of the Dobrudja lying north of a line extending from the Danube just above Turtukaia to the western shore of the Black Sea, south of Ekrene. This important territorial Concession has an approximate area of 2,687 square miles, a population of 286,000, and includes the fortress of Silistria and the cities of Turtukaia on the Danube and Baltchik on the Black Sea. In addition, Bulgaria agreed to dismantle all existing fortresses and bound herself not to construct forts at Rustchuk or at Schumla or in any of the territory between these two cities, or within a radius of 20 kilometers around Baltchick.


8. SERBIA'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.


The eastern frontier of Serbia was drawn from the summit of Patarika, on the old frontier, and followed the watershed between the Vardar and the Struma Rivers to the Greek-Bulgarian boundary, except that the upper valley of the Strumnitza remained in the possession of Bulgaria. The territory thus obtained embraced central Macedonia, including Ochrida, Monastir, Kossovo, Istib, and Kotchana, and the eastern half of the sanjak of Novi-Bazar. By this arrangement Serbia increased her territory from 18,650 to 33,891 square miles and her population by more than 1,500,000.


4. GREECE'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.


The boundary line separating Greece from Bulgaria was drawn from the crest of Mount Belashitcha to the mouth of the Mesta River, on the Aegean Sea. This important territorial concession, which Bulgaria resolutely contested, in compliance with the instructions embraced in the notes which Russia and Austria-Hungary presented to the conference, increased the area of Greece from 25,014 to 41,933 square miles and her population from 2,660,000 to 4,363,000. The territory thus annexed included Epirus, southern Macedonia, Salonika, Kavala, and the Aegean littoral as far east as the Mesta River, and restricted the Aegean seaboard of Bulgaria to an inconsiderable extent of 70 miles, extending from the Mesta to the Maritza, and giving access to the Aegean at the inferior port of Dedeagatch. Greece also extended her northwestern frontier to include the great fortress of Janina. In addition, Crete was definitely assigned to Greece and was formally taken over on December 14, 1913.


5. BULGARIA'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.


Bulgaria's share of the spoils, although greatly reduced, was not entirely negligible. Her net gains in territory, which embraced a. portion of Macedonia, including the town of Strumnitza, western Thrace, and 70 miles of the Aegean littoral, were about 9,663 square miles, and her population was increased by 129,490.


6. APPRAISEMENT OF THE TREATY.


By the terms of the Treaty of Bucharest, Roumania profited most in proportion to her sacrifices. The unredeemed Roumanians live mostly in Transylvania, the Bukovina, and Bessarabia, and therefore the Balkan wars afforded her no adequate opportunity to perfect the rectification of her boundaries on ethnographic lines.

The humiliating terms imposed on Bulgaria were due to her own impatience and intemperate folly. The territory she secured was relatively circumscribed; she had failed to emancipate Macedonia, which was her avowed purpose in entering the war; she lost the districts of Ochrida and Monastir, which she especially coveted; she was assigned only a small line on the Aegean, with the wretched port of Dedeagatch; and she was obliged to forfeit her ambition as the leader of the Balkan hegemony.

Greece, though gaining much, was greatly dissatisfied. The acquisition of Saloniki was a triumph; she was assigned the port of Kavala and the territory eastward at the insistence of the King and the army and contrary to the advice of Venizelos; in the northwest Greece encountered the opposition of Italy by urging her claims to southern Albania; in the assignment of the Aegean Islands she was profoundly dissatisfied; and she still claims 3,000,000 unredeemed conationals.

The fundamental defects of the Treaty of Bucharest were that (1) the boundaries which it drew bore little relation to the nationality of the inhabitants of the districts affected, and that (2) the punishment meted out to Bulgaria, while perhaps deserved in the light of her great offense in bringing on the, Second Balkan War, was so severe that she could not accept the treaty as a permanent settlement. While Serbia, Greece, and Roumania can not escape a large share of the blame for the character of the treaty, it should not be forgotten that their action at Bucharest was in large measure due to the settlement forced upon the Balkan States by the great powers at the London conferences.

2006-08-16 00:45:48 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

for the release of all people imprisoned because of the peaceful expression of their beliefs. This was the brainchild of what Catholic lawyer who had advocated publicizing the plight of prisoners of conscience after learning of a group of students in Portugal who were jailed for raising a toast to "freedom" in a public restaurant?

2006-08-15 23:58:04 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

has something to do with the trojan war.

2006-08-15 23:50:16 · 2 answers · asked by nadine 1

2006-08-15 23:44:45 · 5 answers · asked by connavar_bane 2

Where is it, some history, etc...

2006-08-15 23:44:26 · 11 answers · asked by Uros I 4

2006-08-15 23:02:26 · 18 answers · asked by frank s 2

I just happened to read some versions of shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and in some, Marc Antony is spelled as Mark Antony. So which is the correct spelling?

Oh, and by the way, can any one tell me where to find the real story on Julius Caesar? Heard Shakespeare did some modifications to the true account to make it into his play.

2006-08-15 22:50:53 · 9 answers · asked by Bunnyz C 2

ofcourse, the oldest region is considered for oldest religion, culture, language,etc

2006-08-15 22:47:26 · 19 answers · asked by gokul 1

2006-08-15 21:17:20 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-08-15 20:05:21 · 8 answers · asked by lovely_remo_2006 1

read more:
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/GreeceStealingMacedonianHistory.html
Historian and Professor Eugene Borza who is credited as "Macedonian specialist" by the American Philological Association, and who have done extensive studies regarding the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, had also presented in-depth analysis on the modern Greek position which claims that the ancient Macedonians "were Greek". In his In the Shadow of Olympus (p.91-92) Borza writes:

"Thus, long before there was a sufficient ancient evidence to argue about the ethnic identity--as revealed by language--of the ancient Macedonians, there emerged a "Greek" position claiming that the Macedonian language was Greek, and that thus the inhabitants were Greek."

The modern Greeks have therefore, developed a position that the Macedonians were Greek, long before there was sufficient ancient evidence to argue about their ethnicity. Yet although modern historiography had long abandoned this prematurely established "Greek" position, modern Greeks are still its most zealous defenders despite the overwhelming evidence available today, which overwhelmingly shows that the Macedonians were not Greeks but a distinct nation. Borza continues:

"For example, recent work describes the funerary stelae found in the tumulus covering the royal tombs at Vergina. These stelae date from the fourth and early third centuries, and the preponderance of names are Greek… The excavator of Vergina, Manolis Andronikos, in a useful summary of the epigraphic evidence, writes: "In the most unambivalent way this evidence confirms the opinion of those historians who maintain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe, like all the others who lived on Greek territory, and shows that the theory that they were of Illyrian or Thracian descent and were hellenized by Philip and Alexander rests on no objective criteria." Manolis Andronikos Vergina:The Royal Tombs, 83-85."

Here is Borza’s answer to the Greek archeologist Manolis Andronikos:

"This argument is true enough only as far as it goes. It neglects that the hellenization of the Macedonians might have occurred earlier then the age of Philip and Alexander, and can not therefore serve as a means of proving the Macedonians were a Greek tribe."

Indeed, not only Andronakis was obviously wrong to conclude that the Macedonians were Greek, but also notice how the Greek archeologist does not point that the Macedonians might have been a separate nation. Instead he prefers to call it if not Greek, either Illyrian or Thracian, two ancient nations that can not be associated with the Balkans politics surrounding Greece, resulted from the 1913 partition of Macedonia (see below). Also notice how Andronikos used the term "like all the others who lived on Greek territory". It’s like he wants to convince the reader that Macedonia has always been a "Greek territory", which is exactly what he uses as a base for his inaccurate conclusion.

Another Greek writer, Michael Sakellariou, in his Macedonia 4000 years of Greek History, 44-63 (quite questionable of accuracy title to begin with), "proves" that the "Macedonians were Greek" although he purposely avoided all evidence that does not suit such conclusion. Borza has a line for him as well:

"It is indicative of the strength of Badian’s case that his critics have succeeded only in nit-picking: e.g., Sakellariou, Macedonia, 534-35 nn. 52.53" (Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p.96.)

Borza is talking about Ernst Badian from Harvard University who in his extensive research Greeks and Macedonians presented all evidence and soundly concluded that the Macedonians were distinct nation from the Greeks, which neither considered themselves to be Greeks nor were considered by the Greeks to be Greek. That is precisely what the Greek writer Sakellariou had completely and purposely avoided, and lacking any base for a well-balanced criticism, choused instead to nit-pick Badian's argument.

We can see a trend among the Greek scholars (Andronicos, Martis, Daskalakis, Kallaris, and Sakellariou) who desperately want to show the world that the Macedonians "were Greeks", though unsuccessfully. Martis' Falsification of Macedonian History was handed out to the foreign journalists in Greece and translated into many languages. Sakellariou’s Macedonia 4000 years of Greek History was even donated for free to the libraries throughout the United States. This exposes a well-developed propaganda strategy, to influence all those unaware that the "Macedonians were Greek." Yet the Greeks are showing the world that the "Macedonians were Greek" by avoiding all ancient and modern evidence that does not suit their purpose, and in that process they try to pass books so full of historical errors and distortions:

"The fullest statement of the "Greek" position, and also the most detailed study of the Macedonian language, is by Kallaris, Les anciens Macidoniens, esp. 2: 488-531, in which alleged Greek elements in the Macedonian language are examined exhaustively. A more chauvinistic (and less persuasive) point of view can be found in Daskalakis, Hellenism, esp. pts. 2. and 3. The most blatant account is that of Martis (The Falsification of Macedonian History). This book, written by a former Minister for Northern Greece, is an polemical anti-Yugoslav tract so full of historical errors and distortions that the prize awarded it by the Academy of Athens serves only to reduce confidence in the scientific judgment of that venerable society of scholars. The most sensible and scholarly Greek position is that laid out by Sakellariou, in Macedonia, 44-63. Lest it seem, however, that the "Greek" position is held only by modem Greeks" - (Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p.91)

It is ironical that the book of the former Greek politician Nicolas Martis is named The Falsification of Macedonian History, when in fact he is the one who is falsifying the history of Macedonia with his historical errors and distortions. It is worrisome that the students of the countries who have nothing to do with the modern Greek politics, must be exposed to the Greek historical fabrications against one of the most dynamic powers of the ancient times - the Macedonians. But why is Greece doing this, what is behind it, why do they steal the history of the ancient Macedonians, and attempt to appropriate it as theirs?

The answer lays in the year of 1913 when Macedonia was partitioned after the Balkan wars and Greece swallowed the biggest part - 51%. There was nothing in Macedonia then that connected that land with Greece, apart from the small 10% Greek minority scattered in southern Macedonia among the overwhelming majority of Macedonians who lived throughout the country (for complete statistical evidence see the "Macedonian-Greek Conflict"). Since in 1913 it acquired foreign territory populated by non-Greeks, Greece had to provide a link that would justify its claim on that half of Macedonia. That is exactly why the Greeks claim that the ancient Macedonians "were Greek", so that if in ancient times there was a Greek tribe (Macedonians) living in Macedonia, then that land therefore is Greek (just like Andronikos points above). What is not disputable however, is that since 1913 till today, the modern Greek state continues to oppress the ethnic Macedonians who now find themselves living in Greece (see Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International evidenced in the "Macedonians in Greece"). The other northern part of Macedonia, today’s Republic of Macedonia, broke out of Yugoslavia and became independent in 1991. That brought addition fuel to the Greek nationalists who are afraid now that one part of the ethnic Macedonian nation is independent, the partition of 1913 can be seen as illegal, which could lead to eventual loss of their Greek Macedonian part and subsequent reunification of one Macedonia. That is exactly why they claim that there is no modern Macedonian nation, not in Greece not anywhere, and continue to deny the basic human rights of their Macedonian minority through politics filled with paranoia, politics which without the revision of the ancient history could not breathe.

2006-08-15 19:25:37 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

if it is true then we are studying wrong that early man did not know how to speak and who gave them names

2006-08-15 19:10:08 · 8 answers · asked by TIMEPASS 3

2006-08-15 18:18:20 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

i'm trying to learn the history of those balangiga bells.. thanks.

2006-08-15 18:17:32 · 2 answers · asked by invader_zim0070 1

was it you , you f****** scum

2006-08-15 18:10:44 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-08-15 18:10:14 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-08-15 18:02:08 · 6 answers · asked by ? 1

You are never strong enough that you don't need help

2006-08-15 17:59:48 · 3 answers · asked by shifty 2

2006-08-15 17:09:53 · 7 answers · asked by mithun a 1

2006-08-15 16:54:59 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous