What if we were not plundged into ottoman rule for 500 years, and we had a chance to take part in the European Rennaisance?

i'm just comparing our folk music, and of all the folk music it is one of the most, if not the most complex in terms of beats, harmonies and especially time signatures (even in modern and classical standards, Macedonian and Bulgarian time signatures are still the most complex). Had we maintained control of our lands and people, perhaps we would have contributed some genius composers on the classical scene among the likes of Tchaikovsky, Mozart, given the complexity of our folk songs which are snap frozen from medieval times.

In fact, i wonder how our entire country and region would have developed. Would we suffer the same level of nationalism, or would all the nations in the region have been feudal for a short period of time but then matured to perhaps how italy, germany, england, france, spain and portugal developed to become?

all balkan states had closer ties to the byzantines and russians (duchy of moscow/novgorod) instead of the italian city states and german principalities, and i m afraid both were backwater states at the time.

regardless without the sack of constantinople and the refugees fleeing to the italian states bringing the ancient texts with them, rennaisance might have worked completely different.

in fact i think that the major damage was done in the years from 1700 onwards when the empire was in decline. till that time the ottomans were fairly advanced, their administration system was efficient, and the average peasant had a life much better when compared to one in western europe.

forget the renaissance the west started to improve with the plunder of the many colonies beginning with cuba and ending with africa. galvert is right peasants in the ottoman empire where better of till the 1700.

in the 1700 we have the chinese agricultural knowledge as taught by jethro tull which resulted in greater production with less labour thus freeing up people who drifted to the cities and become the factory fodder for the industrial revolution.

america changed the equation not the rediscovery of aristotle and pythagoras. sure the art improved but some say the artistic renaissance started in the Balkans look ate the church near skopje the name alludes me now but the pieta painted there is in many historian view the first renaissance style painting.

The work of Icon-Painters Michael and Eutychios And the Painters of Their Circle are typical Works predating the renaissance, which show that this kind of art has its roots in the Balkans.

This is known as Palaeologus Renaissance.

thank you mk if you have a picture of their work i was amazed at the humanist aspect of their work.

no problem osiris, here are few works from Michael Astrapa and the Monk Eutychius.

They worked through out whole of Macedonia and wider. On the link you can know that it is from them when it stands Church in KURBINOVO, or NAGORICHANE....

pozdrav

Who knows...i think that term Renaissance is over used in Western Europe to create some sort of awing feeling to show the rest of the world how superior they were or something. Then again i don't know much about the history of that time period, did people actually call it that then? Or was it coined much later...

I think there's no doubt the region would have been some what better off, although i think our folk songs and such would have been different. The Turks came and time froze, that was it.

Are you insane, people in the west ate with their hands before Tsar Stefan Dusan gave them the fork to eat with.
They were backwards and jealous of Byzantine being the only stable empire during the middle ages, and western countries wouldnt of had anything if they didnt plundered colonies for 400 years.

by the 1400s, the administration of the empire was falling apart, the emperor's word had no power, the military technology and tactics were obsolete, the economy was a mess, the currency was devaluated, the foreign relations were disastrous, art had been westernised due to the influx of "latinoi" as they called them from the west (mainly italian city states). byzantine empire was essentially dissolved after the fourth crusade. the west had nothing to be jealous of thereafter.

if you think they got were they did by exploiting the colonies i m afraid you are mistaken. spain went bunkrupt during the 1600s due to hyperinflation caused by gold and silver pouring in from the new world, france lost all the colonies to the brits only to reinvent itself, germany (prussia) only had a handful unimportant ones, same with italy, scandinavians never had any and so on. only nations to have profited from the colonie were the netherlands who were a merchant republic to begin with, and the brits whose colonialism caused them endless strife at home due to a number of policies of protectionism and intergration, which eventually were the reason behind the social unrest of the 70s in the uk and the contestation of all social and ethical values.

The catholic crusade on it ruined it, before that it was an empire.

sorry galvert ahet to disagree with you but it was the colonies and the salve trade that made those countries. yes spain did experience a period of inflation moderate in modern terms but hyper for then, however many fortunes were made in those heady days in all those countries. the idea that colonialism was some how a negative economic force is very wrong. it provided those nations with money resources cheap labour and markets.

did you know that a full 1/3 Elizabethan englands stat budget was the result of piracy.

have a look at the fortunes made in the west indies in the americas in africa that money went back to england holland spain etc etc. and then there was india a treasure trove of gods and services to build the british empire.

why do we look at the renaissance as such an amazing period because of one historians perspective the swill burkhardt, he craeted this myth of a wonderful razbudah and awakening rebirth. while at the same time in his country in some cantons over half the women were burnt at the stake.

western europe is wealthy but if we dont look at history as one of the main reasons we are not looking at reality but indulging in anglo centric hero worship.

tell that to the welsh scots irish africans americanindians indians, in china they actually had the opium wars so they could sell china opium.

but you are right galvert the chickens are slowly coming home to roost , and i can for see england having similar problems with its muslims as Serbia and macdonia has has with their muslims.

that s what i m saying mate

what i m saying is that in the long term, colonialism provided these counties with nothing other than grief. not that it was negative for the economies at the time.

one by one however:

spain: controled western states territory, central america and all of south america save for brasil, the philipines. it went bunkrupt in the 1600s, and since the end of its so called golden age in 1700 was in steady decline, losing grounds to the british, french and dutch. after the american revolution a number of countries under spanish rule followed over the years like haiti (1804) argentina (1816) chile (1818) peru (1818) equador (1819) colombia (1819) mexico (1821), philippines (1898) cuba (1901) etc etc. eventually the continual decline of the empire for almost two centuries lead to internal struggle and ignited the spanish civil war of 1936-39. spain was isolated for the most part of the 20th century. although a strong economy today, it still can t compete with other western european economies like germany france or the uk. gains from colonialism are next to nothing save for a disdain from former colonies over the years of the spanish rule and the destruction of the indigenous cultures.

france: entered the colonial race late. managed to establish colonies in what became the usa and the quebec region of canada, the vitnam/indonesian peninsula region, india and much of western africa. they lost their colonies in india and canada to the british after suffering humiliating defeats, the sold territory (louisiana purchase) to the us for a penny and a half (so to speak) in order to fund a war they eventually lost, they got kicked out of vietnam, and their western africa colonies still remember them fondly for their random acts of kindness such as the population control measures like the final 1954 algerian war and so on. gains from colonialism: next to nothing apart from making marseille the northernmost town of africa due to immigrants and paris possibly the most filthy of european capitals.

netherlands: the dutch are one of the nations that actually did good. they had a few colonies in the carribean, they were the orginal settlers of new york and south africa regions and they had a number of colonies in indonesia. big difference to other colonial powers is that they viewed their colonies as stations for their merchants and their merchant fleets rather than extensions of their rule. they lost their south africa and continental america colonies to the british. profited from trade enormously and had good relations with the people they came into contact with. despite not having the huge colonial empires other nations did, they were successful in profiting from it.

united kingdom: the largest empire possibly, including canada, the eastern united states, much of the carribean, much of the arab lands, india, australia. they were considered as being the colonial superpower. eventually the empire was dissolved and today they are remembered for their harsh rule over their colonies. their policies of protectionism and forceful intergration of the people lead to a huge number of immigrants inside their homeland. after the colonies were released from their rule (peacefully or otherwise), these obsolete now policies backfired and eventually lead to civil unrest over the 70s, during which the economy was at a mess, and all social values were contested. essentially thatcher saved the uk. colonialism gains: respect from other european countries, strong ties to the us, disdain from the rest of the world.

portugal: despite being the first colonial power, they were the epitome of underachievement. their colonies in the americas were only what would become brazil. other than that they had a few colonies on both sides of africa, and a few more in indonesia. they were always overshadowed by spain and even formed a union with them at the same time spain went bunkrupt, essentially bunkrupting them too. they lost their colonies early in 1800s and today are the poorest nation in western europe. colonial gains: not many.

other countries never had any significant (or any at all) colonies, like austria/hungary, germany, the scandinavian countries, poland/lithuania, etc and yet today they are on an equal or better state when compared with the above, and even at times were considered as being great powers even when colonialism was at its peak.

to say that western countries are where they are because of colonialisma and exploitation is simply making excuses for our (balkan countries) inability to fare any better than we did. colonialism in the long term offered absolutely nothing save for ink filled history book pages filled with greed and attrocities.

i didnt read whole topic so maybe somebody mentioned what i m gonna say now...the renaissance started from balcans!!!..paintiangs which are recognised as first renaisance paintings (300 yrs before officiall renaisance of europe) comes from bojanskata crkva in bulgaria and some church in macedonia...in that time balcans were much more improved comparing to western europe, tnx to the byzantin cultural influence....lets just mention that fork was invented in the court of stefan dusan, serbian tsar...while rest of the europe have eaten with hands

The church you mentioned is called "St.Pantelejmon" near Nerezi in Skopje. Its from 12th Century, a masterpiece of Byzantine art.

A bit off topic, but has someone heard that the Macedonians were first to eat on a table? All others before the Macedonians were eating while sitting on the floor :I

Btw, i understand Galvert's view. He is pure Greek with Spanish ancestry (no offence )

none taken. you have to try harder than that to offend me anyway mate

that apart i ve noticed that a number of members here try to put the macedonians into the spotlight as being superior to others which is a wee bit chauvinistic.

just for the record, and since many seem to hold a fashination for all things that do belong to a kitchen, cutlery and forks in partiqular are first mentioned in the hebrew bible, way before the serbian czar, and tables for eating were used by the greeks albeit in a fashion similar to the japanese style today, were the table is really low while the people are sitting on the floor. that by the way holds truth for the ancient macedonians. the romans introduced the notion of eating while sitting on a chair.

Off course even God is greek and everybody in this world are greek.

that s hardly the case but by saying things like we had forks before they did and we were eating at tables before they did you do sound like many greeks i know. essentially what you accuse the greeks of, you folks are doing it yourselves.

i ve said it before... both sides are just mirror images of one another when it comes to propaganda and rhetoric....

and regarding god, his ethnicity and his taste in beers, i think there is another thread were a heated dialogue occurs these days.

Of course we are just as bad as you because greeks cant be wrong.
Go and fuck yourselves you christian turks.