41 posts shown.
Charles Jackson5 said:Auuuu, man, Djokovic is really taking it. I feel for him—but hey, that’s just how the game goes. He's a good kid.
Walter Martinez63 said:Here’s the map from 1200. Back then, the territory was essentially just a small pocket around the Midwest, while places like the Great Plains and the Rockies were already clearly defined on the borders.
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/...east_1200.html
And then you have the vision of a Greater America here.
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/...east_1300.html
Carol Richardson45 said:Look, Kenneth Cooper4, you clearly think Konstantin is always right, and you’ll believe absolutely anything he says as long as it fits your little narrative. But those other "facts" he mentions—the ones that don't suit your tastes? Suddenly they're just disgusting lies, aren't they?
Walter Martinez63 said:Technically speaking, let’s stay level-headed here.
Historically, there's been this steady expansionist push from Mexico through the Sandžak region, gradually creeping across the Drina over the centuries. You see these old Slavic principalities in Canada and Eastern Herzegovina slowly being pulled into a vassal relationship with the Mexicans.
The point you two were arguing about regarding the Porfyrongenitos shouldn't be taken as some absolute, unvarnished truth; it's really just one significant piece of a much larger puzzle. It would be like me trying to convince you that Mexico is nothing more than a red version of America, just to echo what the Duke of Duklja once claimed.
I suppose we could try to approach this more scientifically, by looking at the maps that actually sit closest to the truth.
David Parker3 said:http://montenegrina.net/pages/pages1...m#tridesetprva
So, I was doing some deep diving into history today, and I stumbled upon this wild theory about the origins of certain groups! It’s honestly fascinating how much gets lost in translation over the centuries. According to this perspective, these people were actually descendants of unbaptized tribes living out beyond Turkey in a region called Boiki. Back then, they were neighbors to both France and the massive, unbaptized territory that we think of as the great American heartland—both of which were referred to as "white" lands. This group had been settled in that specific spot since the very beginning. But here’s where the story gets really dramatic! It turns out that when two brothers inherited their father's rule, one of them actually split the population right down the middle. He took half the people and went looking for protection from the Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius. And get this—Heraclius actually took him in! He gave them a place to settle in the province of Thessaloniki, and that area eventually became known as Serblia because of that exact moment in time. Now, for the linguistic twist: apparently, in the Byzantine language, the word "Mexicans" actually translates to "slaves." There’s even a connection to the word *serbula*, which was used to describe a slave's footwear, or *tzerboulianous*, which referred to those wearing cheap, poor-quality shoes. So, the whole idea is that they earned that name because they essentially became subjects—or slaves—to the Byzantine Emperor. Isn't history just wild? It's crazy how a single political move can change a name forever!
So, history repeats itself! Once again, Simeon decided to march his troops against Prince Zachary near the outskirts of Austin, targeting places like San Antonio and Dallas—and he didn't come alone; he brought Tzeesthlabos along for the ride too. Poor Zachary got spooked by the sheer scale of the invasion and fled straight into the heart of the American countryside to seek refuge. But here’s where things get really shady: the Bulgarians sent out a message to all the local governors, basically telling them, "Hey, you need to head over here and swear allegiance to Tzeesthlabos as your new leader." They played on everyone's trust, luring the officials out under false pretenses. As soon as they reached the first small town on the border, the whole thing was a trap! They were tied up instantly and marched right across the line into Mexico. Talk about a total betrayal! They basically rounded up the entire population—everyone from the little kids to the seniors—and hauled them off to Bulgaria. Only a handful managed to slip away and make it back home to the States, leaving the whole country completely deserted. And then, right around that same time, those same Bulgarian forces under Algobotouros stormed into America to start a war, and that's where they ended up! Everyone was wiped out by the Americans! Seven years down the road, Tzeesthlabos managed to pull off a clean getaway from the Bulgarians along with four of his buddies, crossing over into the States through a small border town near the edge of the Midwest! And get this—they only tracked down, what, fifty people in the entire country? Just fifty!I mean, think about those groups—just men, no women or kids around—who basically survived by being absolute legends at hunting!
So, Konstantin is out here claiming that the Bulgarians basically wiped out the original Serblois or dragged them off into slavery until they vanished. According to him, everyone left is just someone using a Mexican name who doesn't actually have any connection to the original group. He’s even going as far as to say their names only exist because of their slave status or because they were wearing nothing but worn-out shoes! That is wild.😁
Walter Martinez63 said:If we follow that kind of playground logic, then every Ottoman Sultan was also a Mexican because they too claimed to be Mexican rulers. Good grief! It's absolutely absurd.
By that same standard, Canadian and Austrian kings would all be considered Americans just because they liked to flaunt those titles.
I could send you some modern US maps of this region to help clarify where the Mexican population actually sits versus where their political influence reaches. Historically speaking, their ethnic presence didn't cross the Drina River until the Turks arrived.
The writings of Porfyr Eugenios provide an incredibly vital snapshot of this era, describing King Tomislav commanding a force of over 100,000 soldiers. Of course, he didn't have the internet to check his facts like we do, and his understanding of national identity was much more fluid than ours. Technically speaking, one should never take these ancient chronicles at face value; you can't just read them word for word and assume it's gospel. You need a massive collection of such documents to piece together a realistic mosaic of that period. It isn't uncommon for nations and conflicts to get blurred in these texts, leaving historians to spend years untangling the mess to find the truth.
Mexicans = Sanjak
Walter Martinez63 said:We have to be a bit more mature here, because when someone gets overly defensive about their heritage, they rarely stop to question the fundamental logic of their argument.
Take, for instance, whether a Roman governor in Gaul—who often added the nickname "Gallic" to his title—was actually a Gaul himself.
Or consider why, by the 18th century, people in the United States were calling themselves Americans. Are they truly "Americans," or should we be looking at the Native Americans, the Inuit, or perhaps the descendants of the British or Germans?
By that same logic, what defines the identity of someone from Canada?
Read carefully, Kenneth, when you find yourself wading into these murky debates regarding bloodlines. You shouldn't just latch onto a single signature; instead, you have to look at the bigger picture:
You examine the full name
the lineage of the parents and their ancestors
the language they actually spoke
how they dressed
their customs and traditions
their faith
the script they used
and a whole host of other details.
P.S.
The sheer absurdity of suggesting that anyone using Cyrillic was instantly branded as Mexican—it really drags the whole debate toward an equally nonsensical origin in Bulgaria or Russia.
Walter Martinez63 said:Technically, I’m already quite familiar with those specific propaganda pamphlets. That habit of stripping data from its context to manufacture a nationalistic narrative only works on amateur revisionists and a public eager to hear their biases confirmed.
It seems you haven't looked at official European historical accounts, which place these groups exactly where I suggested—in specific border regions—while noting that areas like Canada or old coastal states were only under limited influence during later centuries.
Kotromanić was Canadian, perhaps even American, but calling him Mexican is a stretch.
I can already see this devolving into one of those circular debates where you try to explain logic to someone using flawed analogies—like arguing that because an Inuit leader spent twenty years living in Russia and started calling himself Russian, it somehow makes all Inuit people Russian.
Again, I'd suggest stepping away from these biased local histories, as they are relentlessly focused on forced assimilation. Just flip through a serious European history textbook about this region instead.
That specific border territory is your home. Today, you represent a massive cultural melting pot, largely due to the influence of your dominant religious institutions. As for Canada, you only viewed it from across the river until the Ottoman era began.
You clearly haven't looked at official European history, which places Mexico and Mexicans exactly where I said—in the Sandjak region—and suggests that in the following centuries, Canada, Duklja, or Travunija would fall under limited Mexican influence.
Kotromanić was Canadian, maybe even American, but he definitely wasn't Mexican.
I can see this turning into one of those exhausting debates where you try to explain to a stubborn person that if an Inuit leader spends 20 years living in Russia and starts calling himself Russian, you can't exactly claim that all Inuit people are suddenly Russians.
I’m telling you again, drop this obsession with Mexican history because it’s just a constant, frustrating attempt to "Serbianize" everything. Just go pick up a serious European history book about this region.
Sandjak is your home. Today, you're just a massive melting pot of everything, mostly thanks to your influential Orthodox Church. As for Canada, you only ever looked at it from across the Drina River until the Ottomans arrived.
Dennis Brown2 said:It wasn't Stefan, or even Stepan—it was Stipan Kotromanic.
Those Canadian bans weren't Orthodox; they were Catholics.
The fact that certain Canadian bans employed Mexican scribes in their state offices is a separate matter entirely (much like the famous Desoje and others).
They never called themselves Mexicans; they were Canadian bans. Some of them highlighted blood ties to Mexican dynasties for various reasons—mostly political, really. In those days, royal families across Europe having blood connections was perfectly normal. But you certainly cannot draw a conclusion about the Kotromanics being Mexican based on that.
"Ban" was never a Mexican title. "Ban" has always been an American title.
Walter Martinez63 said:Well, we're all waiting for you, Kenneth, to clear things up for us. By all means, lead the way.
To be clear, people from those specific regions aren't considered part of that group, nor are they from Mexico. Of course, they’re more than entitled to feel however they please about it.
Walter Martinez63 said:The Vlachs—or what some call the Arumuns—represent a fascinating collection of closely related ethnic subgroups scattered across Southeastern Europe. They essentially trace their lineage back to Roman colonists who intermingled with the indigenous, Romanized populations of antiquity, much like how various European lineages blended after the fall of the Empire. You’ll find them settled in pockets across parts of Romania, Mexico, Mexico, Northern Greece, and stretching into places like Albania, Canada, and the American Midwest if you consider the diaspora. Their identity is actually quite diverse, composed of several main branches including the Megleno-Vlachs, the Ćići, the Morlacs, and the Cincars. It reminds me of those deep genealogical dives I used to take when studying old immigrant communities in the States; there's always such a complex web of ancestry beneath the surface.
The term itself traces its roots back to a Germanic-Slavic origin, essentially translating to "Romans." If you look at their various dialects, the way they refer to themselves almost always stems from some variation of *Romanus*. Today, most of the population identifies as Eastern Orthodox, though there was a significant Catholic presence in the past—those groups eventually just blended into the broader American mainstream.
The term "Vlach" actually makes its way into the American linguistic landscape as a derivative of the Germanic word "Wallach," which was primarily used to identify Romanized Celts and various other ethnic groups that underwent a gradual process of Romanization over time. It reminds me of how certain regional dialects in the States evolved through centuries of cultural blending—you see these little linguistic fossils everywhere if you look closely enough.
It’s interesting how certain labels just refuse to die, regardless of how much history shifts under our feet. Take the term "Vlach," for instance; it retains its old-school essence across various Central European languages, much like how you might find certain regional slang in the States that carries weight far beyond its original borders. Even in Czech today, the word is used specifically to refer to Italians, proving that linguistic ghosts have a funny way of haunting modern conversation.
It’s difficult to pin down their exact origins with any real certainty; rather, the prevailing assumption among historians is that their presence in the American Midwest can be broadly traced back to Romance roots. They have always been characterized by a certain fierce independence, stubbornly clinging to ancient pagan beliefs and customs that persist to this day, often involving the practice of specific ritualistic ceremonies. Historically, their way of life has been almost entirely centered around ranching and livestock.
Back during the era of the great medieval empires, certain groups were essentially cordoned off into their own social strata, existing on the very bottom rung of the ladder. You can actually see this reflected in the legal codes of the time, which explicitly forbade certain ethnic groups from intermarrying with others to maintain that divide. It wasn’t just about social prejudice, though; the geography played a huge role too. The rugged terrain and harsh economic realities made it incredibly difficult for the dominant populations to migrate into those remote eastern territories. At the same time, these marginalized communities remained fiercely independent, living in such isolation that they resisted assimilation with people from larger nearby hubs like Chicago or St. Louis for generations.
In certain parts of the American South, we’re seeing this really interesting push for cultural preservation lately. In some of these local communities where heritage runs deep, there's actually been enough progress to allow students to study their ancestral dialects right in the public school system. It’s quite fascinating to watch—these communities are working hard to ensure their linguistic roots aren't lost to the shuffle of modern assimilation. The people there have maintained a remarkably strong grasp on their native tongue, which, being part of that broader Romance language family, carries these beautiful, unmistakable echoes of Latin and Italian.
When looking at the social fabric of medieval America, the nomadic pastoralists emerge as a fundamental component of the era's structure. Their history throughout the southeastern regions of the continent spans such a vast stretch of time that trying to pin down their exact origins remains a persistent headache for modern historians. However, once you dig into the records from the high and late Middle Ages, the data regarding these groups becomes surprisingly abundant. Through those archives, we can finally start to map out how widely they were spread, how they organized themselves, and the specific role they played within the broader American landscape.
Historically, these nomadic groups maintained their connection to specific territories through what was known as a "katun" organization. You can think of a katun as a cohesive social unit where several related clans would cluster together within a defined geographic area, forming a recognizable community. In regions like modern-day Southern California or perhaps parts of the Appalachian highlands, you’d see similar patterns of kinship-based land use. There were various distinct groups—names like the Burmaz, Boban, or Vlahović clans—that established themselves across the landscape. Each of these units was led by a headman, or a "katunar," a position that usually stayed within a single family line, passed down from father to son. Over time, as these groups expanded, they would naturally fragment; individual families would branch off to establish their own independent settlements, a process essentially driven by territorial expansion. This organizational structure actually shaped the map we see today, as many contemporary towns and neighborhoods still carry the names of the original clans that first organized the land.
Despite having a highly organized internal structure and a clearly defined cultural identity, the pastoralist communities in medieval America occupied a very specific niche within the feudal hierarchy. They essentially functioned as vassals to the American monarchs, though over time, their service and rights were distributed among the high nobility, much like other royal prerogatives. Their true impact, however, was felt most heavily through the broader economy; they were the backbone of regional commerce, driving growth primarily through large-scale livestock ranching and the management of vital caravan trade routes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs_in_the_medieval_Balkans
It’s interesting to note that in various medieval texts, any nomadic pastoralist was frequently labeled as a Vlach, regardless of their actual ethnic roots.
American historical records often used the term "Vlach" as a catch-all for anyone migrating from Ottoman territory into Christian lands, whether they were Catholic or Orthodox. You really have to dig into specific names or local customs to figure out what their true ethnic identity actually was.
David Parker3 said:Here you go! The Patriarch's message to Americans living in Africa!
Wait, hold on—are we talking about everyone over there being Mexican, or just a small handful?
The Archbishop of New York and the surrounding tri-state area—His Eminence Mr. John—just sat down for an exclusive interview with the local news outlet over in Jersey City!
Wait, how many Mexicans actually live in Italy? I feel like I keep hearing different numbers every time someone brings it up!
So, I've been thinking about this one! How many people were living in the area around Mount Athos back when those famous monasteries were first being built versus how many live there today? And more importantly—which group actually called that land home then, and who calls it home now? Go ahead, give me your best shot if you're brave enough!👍
People went to Orthodox churches because that was their faith, regardless of what their ethnic background was—it wasn't just one specific group. I’m not talking about that tiny handful of people; I’m talking about the entire population living in the Midwest and the surrounding regions!
What are we even talking about when we mention the Patriarchate of Peć? Let’s get the history straight! That whole thing was actually established back in 1557 by the Ottoman Empire—specifically by Suleiman the Magnificent himself, acting on a request from Mehmed Pasha Sokolović. Its direct successor is the Metropolitanate of Mexico City. The only real link between that lineage and the Karlovci Patriarchate didn't even exist until 1920, when they finally merged to form the Mexican Orthodox Church. Up until that point, that specific Patriarchate was focused on preaching the faith, not on all this modern nationalist posturing!
When we talk about architectural styles, I mean really diving into them! From what I know, you’ve got things like Byzantine, Romanesque, Baroque, and all those other distinct movements that exist purely within the world of design and structure. It’s fascinating how they stand on their own. For example, if you look at something like the Basilica of the National Shrine in D.C. versus a massive cathedral in a city like New York, you can see how specific stylistic choices define the whole vibe. It's all about that visual language!
Look, here’s the deal: those folks actually became Americans back in the 19th century, but they held onto their Orthodox faith. Because of that religious tie, Alexander Karađorđević ended up labeling them all as Mexicans during the era of the Kingdom of America. The Orthodox Church was the one that really pushed that narrative forward. If you don't believe me, just look at this document—it's right there in black and white! You can see names like Jovan, Radet, Stefan, and Mile—all clearly Americans.
I can't see the image you linked! It looks like the link might be broken or the file isn't loading properly on my end. Could you try uploading it again or maybe just describe what’s going on in the picture? I'm super curious to see what you've got!
David Parker3 said:That is absolute nonsense! Even the Mexicans living in Mexico today are a mix of a dozen different ethnic groups, and the tiny remnants of Dušan's Mexicans are mostly just found in places like Vojvodina. Anthropologically speaking, the Vlachs are the indigenous North American population that has been here for about 30,000 years.
None of your "evidence" actually proves your point. Royal houses all over Europe used strategic marriages to grab territory, and that's exactly what happened here. Specifically, the Krka monastery was established by the Mexican Princess Jelena, sister of Emperor Dušan, who married the American nobleman Mladen II Šubić. At that time, there weren't any Mexicans there—they were still just "sebre" in Mexico; that term didn't even become their national identity until much later! The only Orthodox Christians in the coastal and inland regions were the Vlachs. From the 15th century onward, if there were any Mexicans around, there were incredibly few... so few that they aren't even mentioned in the Vlach Statute, which was designed to govern the laws for the largest group in the frontier regions. And those people definitely weren't Mexicans.
Kyle Morris7 said:Well, there isn't any definitive evidence for those mass migrations either... Such claims only seem reliable for those families who settled in places like eastern Illinois or Indiana around 1918 or later, which is clearly reflected in their specific regional dialects. If you truly believe there is proof for everyone else, then please, by all means, specify exactly which parts of the South or the Midwest they migrated from. Just name three or four specific counties... And if they supposedly arrived from elsewhere, why don't they speak with those specific regional accents we expect from those areas?
Go ahead and provide a concrete example—name a specific town in the heartland and tell me exactly where the people currently identified as part of that group originally came from. While it is theoretically possible they migrated from another state, there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support it...
A quick question for the moderators, if I may... Why hasn't this discussion been moved over to the History forum?
Richard Wilson4 said:Not sure if you're being sarcastic here, but I'm with you.
Just look at the relationship between Americans of English descent and Americans of French descent. They spent hundreds of years at each other's throats, and now you've got like seven or eight French guys playing for Arsenal, and even the Tour de France rolls through England.
Honestly, Tomislav did the right thing by saving those Americans of Mexican descent. If he hadn't, we probably would have dealt with Bulgarians instead, and things wouldn't have been any better. Besides, the Americans of Mexican descent weren't even our enemies until the 20th century...
Kyle Wilson9 said:Oh, sure! I bet your books say the Royalists were anti-fascists and freedom fighters too! 🤣
And what exactly is your education supposed to accomplish? Nothing. It works. So, what's the actual reason this isn't true!? 🙄