An Islamic Romania

In fact, I think ottomans intended to islamise Bulgaria, and many even becomed(pomaks). They gave up when Vlad Țepeș impaled tens of thousands muslims, men, women, elders and childrens

So... the memory of Vlad Tepes kept Bulgarians from converting to Islam for the next 4 centuries?
 
Yes, I am, as revealed by the "Location: Romania" to the right of my username. But that wasn't a compliment.
If I tell you I confonded you with sa'id you change your mind? jokin'!
ok, I'll explain why I think Vlad Țepeș and Ștefan resistance influenced ottoman decissions latter, if you explain me how comes you're romanian and you think romanians lack logic. You dislike romanians, or what?
 
If I tell you I confonded you with sa'id you change your mind? jokin'!
ok, I'll explain why I think Vlad Țepeș and Ștefan resistance influenced ottoman decissions latter, if you explain me how comes you're romanian and you think romanians lack logic. You dislike romanians, or what?

No, I happen to personally know one Romanian who's quite logical: myself. That's more than I can say for any other nationality. But yours is a stand that only a Romanian could take.
 
No, I happen to personally know one Romanian who's quite logical: myself. That's more than I can say for any other nationality. But yours is a stand that only a Romanian could take.
sorry, my what? could you explain? you're very eager to offend myself, without explaing what of my assertion seems to you has no sense! and I think you miss sense too!
 
sorry, my what? could you explain? you're very eager to offend myself, without explaing what of my assertion seems to you has no sense! and I think you miss sense too!

Your stand, your position, the stuff you're saying, what you were supposed to explain to me after I was going to respond to your unfounded accusation of self-hatred.
 
Your stand, your position, the stuff you're saying, what you were supposed to explain to me after I was going to respond to your unfounded accusation of self-hatred.
ok, I think you miss sense, saying you know one romanian with logic, but you don't dislike romanians: whatever!
but, sorry, I can't explain to you something I don't understand: what is my supposed statement make no sense to you?(I'll miss about an hour)
 
ok, I think you miss sense, saying you know one romanian with logic, but you don't dislike romanians: whatever!
but, sorry, I can't explain to you something I don't understand: what is my supposed statement make no sense to you?(I'll miss about an hour)

All of it. You said you'll explain it, now explain it.
 
All of it. You said you'll explain it, now explain it.
all I wished to say is romanians were hard to be islamised, because they opposed resistance. even after otomans succeded to weaken wallachian states, they found that vetual revolts of vlachs could be very costly, especially because of the proximity with other powerfull christian states, which would been eager to help valachian revolt. why not to exploit the antagonism between ortodoxism and catholicism, instead to try to impose islam? it make sense?
 
all I wished to say is romanians were hard to be islamised, because they opposed resistance. even after otomans succeded to weaken wallachian states, they found that vetual revolts of vlachs could be very costly, especially because of the proximity with other powerfull christian states, which would been eager to help valachian revolt. why not to exploit the antagonism between ortodoxism and catholicism, instead to try to impose islam? it make sense?

Romanians were hard to Islamize because they kept their self-government and didn't allow Islam to spread in their territory. You try Islamizing a people under those conditions.
 
ooo-k! and that, too, young man!

What's with the David vs Goliath complex? You think the Albanians were easy to keep a lid on? You think the Bulgarians were pushovers? You think the Serbs and Croats didn't put up a fight? You think the Hungarians just bend over? The Turks had plenty of experience subduing people who didn't like their authority.

Fact is, by the early 16th century the Ottomans had all they really needed from us. We paid an immense tribute, we gave them military support when they asked for it, we let them use our territory to invade Transylvania or Poland, they strangled us strategically and economically through the territory they took from us, and our most powerful boyars were bidding for the thrones in Constantinople (and this was before the Phanariotes). In the nearly 2 centuries between Petru Rares' overthrow and the Phanariotes there were only a handful of serious attempts to shake off Turkish vassalage, Michael the Brave's being the most notable. We didn't survive because we were natural born killers and the Turks shook in their boots upon hearing of us, we survived because whatever local boyar or occasional foreigner gained the Wallachian or Moldavian crown could exploit the land more thoroughly for the Porte (and still keep something on the side) than the Turks themselves could. (Michael's raising of taxes to fight the Ottomans rather than placate them might be unique for this time period.) If we didn't inhabit some of the most fertile soil in Europe that arrangement would've never worked and we would've been annexed after the first time we failed to overthrow Ottoman control. It's not out of patriotism and warrior ethos that the population of that rich land was dropping even before the Phanariotes.

As for the Phanariotes, I don't think even you would argue that we were the scourge of the Empire then. The Phanariote period is when the Romanian people made the decisive move from a nation of warriors who fled to the woods to organize resistance against invaders to a nation of miserable peasants living half-underground who fled to the woods to escape the tax-man.
 
Last edited:
What's with the David vs Goliath complex? You think the Albanians were easy to keep a lid on? You think the Bulgarians were pushovers? You think the Serbs and Croats didn't put up a fight? You think the Hungarians just bend over? The Turks had plenty of experience subduing people who didn't like their authority.

Fact is, by the early 16th century the Ottomans had all they really needed from us. We paid an immense tribute, we gave them military support when they asked for it, we let them use our territory to invade Transylvania or Poland, they strangled us strategically and economically through the territory they took from us, and our most powerful boyars were bidding for the thrones in Constantinople (and this was before the Phanariotes). In the nearly 2 centuries between Petru Rares' overthrow and the Phanariotes there were only a handful of serious attempts to shake off Turkish vassalage, Michael the Brave's being the most notable. We didn't survive because we were natural born killers and the Turks shook in their boots upon hearing of us, we survived because whatever local boyar or occasional foreigner gained the Wallachian or Moldavian crown could exploit the land more thoroughly for the Porte (and still keep something on the side) than the Turks themselves could. (Michael's raising of taxes to fight the Ottomans rather than placate them might be unique for this time period.) If we didn't inhabit some of the most fertile soil in Europe that arrangement would've never worked and we would've been annexed after the first time we failed to overthrow Ottoman control. It's not out of patriotism and warrior ethos that the population of that rich land was dropping even before the Phanariotes.

As for the Phanariotes, I don't think even you would argue that we were the scourge of the Empire then. The Phanariote period is when the Romanian people made the decisive move from a nation of warriors who fled to the woods to organize resistance against invaders to a nation of miserable peasants living half-underground who fled to the woods to escape the tax-man.

I think you scared him off.
 
Top