Хеленизмот - Европска измислица од 18 век

[Bratot]

Grcite denes tvrdat deka poimot Helen i Grk e edno isto. Ako prasate Grci sto se po nacionalnost kje rechat "Elines". Kluchnoto prashanje togash e: shto e "Helen"? .............

This leads to another question; how did the ancient Greeks determine who was a "hellene" in an ethnic sense?

There were two criteria; one was the person participated in the Olympics, the other was that a city or region had fought on the Greek side of the Trojan War. The Macedonians fit neither of these criteria.”

(Michael A. Dimitri, "The Radiance of Ancient Macedonia," Fort Wayne, 1992, pg. 17)


Znachi terminot "Heleni" e upotrebuvan vo antikata kako kulturoloshka generalizacija (neshto kako terminot "Zapad" denes) namesto kako etnichka odrednica. Isokrat toa mnogu ubavo go objasnil vo citatot daden od M. Dimitri pogore.

No istiot termin bil upotrebuvan vo etnichki smisol samo vo dva sluchaja:
(1) ako chovek uchestvuval na Olimpiskite igri; i/ili
(2) ako odreden grad ili podrachje se borele na stranata na Helenite vo Trojanskata vojna.

Makedoncite/Makedonija ne podpagja pod nieden od dvata kriteriuma!

Isocrates gives the following definition of a Hellene in his Panagyricus:

"Athens has so far outrun the rest of mankind in thought and speech that her disciples are the masters of the rest, and it is due her that the word Greek(Hellene) is not much a term of BIRTH as it is of a mentality, and it is applied to a COMMON CULTURE rather than to a COMMON DESCENT."

 

[anaveno]

Професорот OMELJAN PRITSAK од HARVARD UNIVERSITY, стручњак за Хунскиот јазик, објаснува:

името на "The first known King of European Huns" кое гласи Balamir = Bala (child, kid, young) + Mir (king)...

што ли значи Бранимир??????

 

[^Poor Knight]

што ли значи Бранимир??????

Pa shpekuliraj... I taka ni dosadi od logika.:wink:

 

[Katunec]

The Macedonians, the Greeks, and the Communists

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

The Balkan peninsula has long been considered as Europe’s tinderbox; and with good reason! With so many languages, ethnic groups (or peoples), and religious systems, the Balkans lived their most peaceful period of their millennia long history during the Ottoman rule that last lasted between 400 and 600 years (per different regions).

As natural continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Sublime Gate ensured peace and tolerance to a great number of peoples at a time of merciless and inhuman wars in the multi-divided and constantly disputed territories of the defunct Western Empire. The Ottoman Empire’s scholarly, scientific and artistic superiority over the various state forms of Western Europe was undisputed until the beginning of the 17th century.

However, the rise to preponderance of a bogus-Islamic, theological – ideological sect, namely the Hanbalite followers of Ibn Taimiya and his obscurantist and barbaric system, led the Ottoman Empire to collapse and the Islamic Civilization to definite and irreversible extinction. From 1600 to 1800 the Ottoman Empire became the Sick Man of Europe, and a century later it died out. The parallel rise of the Western European nationalist and colonialist states exposed the Balkan peoples to hatred, discord, local conflicts and regional wars that have not ended so far.

Macedonia

If the Balkans have been identified as home a great number of well diversified peoples and cultures, their best miniature is by definition Macedonia; at this point we use the name as geographical term encompassing preset territories of the Republic of Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. Macedonia was for millennia long inhabited by the Macedonians, an ancient people – markedly different than the surrounding Ancient Thracians, Illyrians, Pelasgians, Phrygians, Hittites, and Greeks.

The best revelator of the dramatic differences that separated the Macedonians from the Greeks in as late periods as the reigns of Philip and Alexander II of Macedonia are Demosthenes and a pleiad of orators, philosophers and illustrious statesmen, who did not accept Alexander II as possible leader – let alone King or Emperor – of the Greeks.

There are many reasons for this, and one must bear in mind that the Ancient Greeks were never a people, let alone country! The Achaeans, the Ionians, and the Aeolians had always difficulties either to understand one another (so different their respective languages were) or to merge into one country. The Dorians have been considered as alien element, and the struggle of the three former peoples against the earlier substrate of the Pelasgians has been illustrated from epics to drama.

To some of these peoples the Semitic Phoenicians were apparently closer, and we know very well that without the Phoenician colonies in the Aegean Sea and the Phoenician infiltration in Athens, there would never be a sort of democratic society in Attica; it was all imported. Others were certainly closer to the Hittites, particularly the earliest element, the Achaeans. Thanks to otherwise prohibited Hittite texts, we know that the Ahhijawa (Achaean) crown prince at (probably) Mycenae spent time with his relatives and friends at Hattushas, the capital of the Hittite Empire, in the east of Ankara, Turkey. The Aeolians seem to have been closer to the Lydians at the westernmost confines of today’s Turkey.

All this serves as example of the falsification of the Ancient History of the Balkans at the hands of colonial, mainly French and English, academic compilers whose works were to be imitated by German, Italian and Russian scholarly competitors, who however never questioned the nature of the colonial fabrication.



Greece

So diverse and inimical to one another the ancient Greek states have been that we can hardly use one appellation to regroup them. The only purpose of forging such a term – that existed for the Ancient Romans as geographical term only – was the modern European colonial powers’ need for academic, scientific, cultural, educational, political and economic control of vast areas they had planned to subdue.

The false model did not represent local knowledge of past, and did not reflect local ideas of History, local values and local cultures. It was exported before the arrival of the military; under pretext of interest for the past, a preconceived, false, vicious and malignantly inhuman version of History was venomously diffused for decades before the arrival of the political agents and the naval forces.


Ultimately, this false model engulfed these colonial powers to numerous wars of which they have been victims as well. How could a version of History that idealizes a ‘Civil War’ (it was a civil war but was presented as such; in Ancient Greek texts it was simply called through geographical terms, Peloponnesiakos polemos, War of / around Peloponnesus) can possibly motivate positively and bring forth anything good for those upon whom it is imposed?

The various Ancient Greek peoples had managed to accept a Supreme Religious and Spiritual Authority: the Oracle at Delphes. When the Macedonians accepted the Achaemenidian Iranian supremacy, the Oracle given to representatives of various Greek states at Delphes was to ultimately accept the rule of Persepolis, a vast universalist and tolerant empire that regrouped all lands between India and Italy. There was no difference East – West according to the supreme knowledge of the Oracle Wise Priests and Elders! Unfortunately, the alien element, the Dorian Spartans, convinced the rest to apostasy. For the blasphemous and perverse needs of this political attitude, a former ‘journalist’ was hired to write anti-imperial pamphlets that became sort of unsolicited, bogus-History, Herodotus. For the imperial needs of modern European colonialists, the Carian (born at Halicarnassus, Caria) – not Greek – impostor became ‘Father of History’!

Yet, colonial Assyriologists and Egyptologists deciphered and published in modern translations thousands of historical texts, Great Chronicles and Annals of extremely sophisticated background that antedate the Carian impostor Herodotus by more than 2000 years, either written in Egyptian Hieroglyphics or engraved in Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian Cuneiform. We should not forget that the Ancient Elamites, the Hurrians, the Hatti, the Hittites and the Cannanites of Ugarit had also their own great historical texts, antedating Herodotus by centuries and/or millennia; all this is well known to the present, disreputable, academic class of postcolonial European academia who keep shamelessly diffusing the same paranoid and racist bogus-historical forgery.

Why they selected the Carian impostor Herodotus as ‘Father of their History’? Simply, because they wished to create an arbitrary, false, absolutely Manichaean, division of the World into East and West, whereby the Lights would belong to the latter (i.e. themselves) and the Darkness would emanate from the East.

How resolutely the ancient Macedonians rejected the pernicious followers of the Herodotus blasphemy, we attest when we read all the inscriptions engraved at Alexander’s request: “Alexander and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians”, the latter being an ordinary appellation of the Dorian Spartans. The racist academia of Europe seem to insolently forget that, if Athens were possibly a model, Alexander would not opt for Babylon as his Capital.

Persisting on the racist fabrication, bogus-historians of the European universities camouflage the historical reality that Pharaoh Ptolemy II of Macedonian descent had as supreme political model and considered as ideal statesman Amenhotep son of Hapou, a high administrator of the times of Amenhotep III, who lived more than 1100 years before the times of Ptolemy II.

Cleisthenes and Alkiviades either could not be held as ideal statesmen or, as Greek, they meant nothing to a Macedonian like Ptolemy II. .........



http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=22926

 

[Misirkov]

Vi se cudam na umot. Jasno e deka Grcija t.e. anticka Grcija e izmislena od dvajca trojca evropski romanticari i nekolku nabedeni arheolozi. I toa go znaat site koi se vo strukata i politikata i vo Evropa i po cel svet.

Toa ti e isto kako sega prikaznata za 11 septemvri i teroristite...ili malku porano evreite i germanija...ili vizanticite i bugarite ili....MALKU KOGO GO INTERESIRA VISTINATA..VSUSNOST NIKOGO.......osven zrtvite...

A ova pogore napisanoto e vsusnost glavnata pricina za makedonskata zaebancija bidejki vo politicki smisol sekade pisuva Grcija. Vsusnost treba da e Makedonija. Od tuka pocnuva REALNATA evropska istorija od setlandskite ostrovi do Ural, pa i ponataka da ne zborime za moderna Amerika, Avstralija itn., itn. do Patagonija.

Ne deka Makedonija ke se pozlati od toa, ama tesko se menuvaat ubeduvanjata vsadeni vo lugeto. Polesno e da ja spickaat Makedonija i Makedoncite, odkolku da revidiraat odredeni dogmi.

Eve edno takvo mislenje "od strukata" koe mora da se prochita. Prof. Peter Green napisha cela kniga na 970 stranici - "Alexander to Antium" vo koja jasno kazhuva deka ja napishal zaradi objasniuvanje i utochnuvanje na:

(1) moderno gledishte narecheno "Helenizam" koe bilo nepoznato za antichkite avtori;
(2) kategorichno pogreshniot, "zloben mit" deka Aleksandar i negovite naslednici svesno shirele "grchka kultura, umetnost...itn".

Vo objasnuvanjeto na motivite, prichinite i narodite koi se opfateni, se raboti dosega za "mnogu pogreshno tolkuvanje", i ne e vo prashanje shirenje na kultura tuku vo osnovata se voeni pohodi zaradi eksploatacija na tie narodi od strana na stranski faktori - Grci, Makedonci i podocna Rimjani. Prof. Green otvoreno veli deka Helenizmot e "pusta zhelba" i romantichno obajsnuvanje ne samo za pohodite vo antikata tuku i za ponovata praktika na kolonijalizmot i imperijalizmot od koi bile povlijaeni istoricharite na navodniot Helenizam.


"The Helenistic age has one great advantage for us: it is easily definable. Its unity was first perceived, its limits set, even its name invented, by the Nineteenth century German historian Johann Gustav Droysen.

For him, as for most subsequent students of the period, it began with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, continued through the rise, declina and fall of the great kingdoms carved by his marshals (known as the Diadochoi or "successors") from the empire he left, and ended with Octavian's dissolution of the last of these, Ptolomeic Egypt in 30 BC, just under three centuries later.

This is modern perspective: it is highly doubtful whether any ancient writer, from the Augustian age onwards, ever recognized the problem in these terms. Rome's triumph encouraged an innate natural tendency to take short views.

It follows that to attempt a historical survey of the Hellenistic period means, in effect, writing a history of the Greek world, the oikonmene, durin that period: no only of the Greek-speaking cities and states (as opposed to those that merely employed the vernacular Attic koine as a lingua franca), but also of thise far larger areas, profoundly alien in speech and culture to the Greek spirit, that were forcibly taken over, and in a very real sense exploited, by foreign overlords: Greek, Macedonian, and later, Roman.*

It became clear to me during my researches that the degree to which the Greek-Macedonian diaspora spread its much vaunted culture, its reasons for doing so, and the audience it reached, especially in the East, had been in ways badly misunterpreted. Thus one of my objects in writing the present work is to draw a more realistic picture of the impact, nature, and limitations of this diffusion.

I must state plainly at the outset that I regard the whole notion of a conscious, idealistic missionary propagation in conquered territories of Greek culture, mores, literature, art, and religion -- much less the undertaking of such conquests, whether of Alexander himself or any of his successors, with this alterior end in view -- as a pernicious myth, compounded by anachronistic Christian evangelism and Plutarch-inspired wishful thinking, and designed (whether consciously or not) to provide moral justification for what was, in essence, despite its romantic popularity, large scale economic and imperial exploitation.

Edward Will points out how much the prewar attitude of Hellenistic imperialism was conditioned by "la bonne conscience", and to what extent "le choc de la decolonisation nous a fait prendre conscience de ce qu'etaient les realites coloniales," with a very similar impact on the thinking of the hellenistic historian. ..."

(Peter Green, Alexander to Actium, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1990, pg. xv-xvi)

 

[Bratot]

Odlicna definicija, iako pred 17 godini sepak potpolno odgovara i na denesnava propaganda promovirana od Grcive.

 

[Misirkov]

Odlicna definicija,iako pred 17 godini sepak potpolno odgovara i na denesnava propaganda promovirana od Grcive.

Vo koj smisol? Kolku shto znam, vo Grcija pred 13 godini nekoi anarhisti bez osudeni i zatvoreni upravo zaradi javno kazhuvanje na takvi stavovi za vreme na anti-makedonskata histerija.

Golemata kritika do Peter Green e deka ne go tera argumentot do kraj, tuku pishuva (na str. 6 od istata kniga) -- mozhebi i kako kontra na tvrdenjata na Grcite togash -- deka nemalo dovolno dokazen materijal za toa kakov bil jazikot i nacionalnosta na Makedoncite:

" Despite the assertions of parti pris advocates, there is insufficient linguistic evidence to identify what the Macedonian language, and, hence, Macedonian ethnicity really was. "


Da napomenam deka Green zhiveel vo Grcija 10 god., a manuskriptot na knigata pokaj mnogute Zapadni profesori, na kraj e pregledan od eden Grk. I pokraj se', Green razlikuva Makedonci i Grci. Green dodatno veli deka Makedonija, i pokraj vlijanieto na Atina, bila i ostanala dlaboko anti-grchki nastroena (za razlika od sosednite Tesalijci chij helenizam nikogash ne bil doveden pod znak prashanje). A Makedonskte naslednici na Aleksandar III Makedonski bile "a breed apart", za koi Geen pishuva:


" ...and others, again who could not simply envisage a continuation of Macedonian power except through Alexander's descendants. Indeed, the very fact of their Macedonian background -- with everything that implied -- was to prove a major determinig factor in all that followed. Macedonia had always been, and to a greater extent remained, an ambiguous frontier element of the Balkans.

...Macedonia formed as it were a buffer enclave between the Thessalians (whose Hellenism was never in doubt) and a range of variously hostile and dubiously civilized tribes such as the Epirotes, the Illyrians, and the Peonians.

At least since the early fifth century, the lowland royal house of the Argeads had been at some pains to establish its Greek identity in a cultural, no less than an ethnic sense. Alexander I, at the time of the Persian wars, was held eligible to compete at the Olympic Games on the basis of a family tree (almost certainly fictitious), deriving the Argeads from Argos. By the time of Archelaus (413-399), the Argead court at Pella had acquired a considerable veneer of Attic sophistication, and some distinguished resident Athenians, including Euripides.

Yet, Macedonian society remained, in esence, sub-Homeric and anti-Greek, a royal and vigorous monarchy rulling, by main force, over ambitious barrons (many of them former princes in highland cantons) whose chief interests in life were fighting and drinking. Southern Greeks never lost an opportunity at sneering at Macedonian barbarism, nor Macedonians at Greek effeteness; and though it would be unwise to talke all Demosthenes' insults at face value, there can be no doubt that Alexander's marshals, all of whom sprang from Macedonian barronial families, were a breed apart. ..."

(Peter Green, "Alexander to Actium", pg. 6)

 

[anaveno]

"Проблемот" со сите историчари е еден и ист: колку и да сакаат да направат некоја дистинкција помеѓу античките Македонци и Хелените, сепак на крај, и низ средина и насекаде, ќе нагласат Јонци, Дорци, Еолци, Коине (кој ретко кој го дефинира..),
та имиња, па богови, олимпијади, па дошле славсите....

3ошто го кажувам ова? па тие и самите учеле од науката за хеленизмот и пан-славизмот. Hеможе да испливаат од таа рамка, колку и да се трудат. A двтори зборуваат за јазични, обичајни, расни разлики, но модерниве автори не ги есапат тие работи.

Пример: Дискавери дава емисија за Делфи храмот, зборува за антиката,а до него кустос-археолог жена арапка, каква што нема ни на цел Блиски исток. И таа подоцна раскажува како тоа и било од дедо и Хеленчо наследство. Hајверојатно за тоа и има право, ама кога истото се случува и за одоваде Олимп, е па да го е... м...

Cите знаеме дека името на Аце е најславното. Mеѓутоа, неговото име е запишано и поинаку, при што незвучи нималку грчки. Hо тоа за историчарите нема врска. И не само неговото име кое всушност и не е Хеленско, бидејќи го употребувале и други народи, уште пред и да дојдат Хелените.


Друг пример: сите знаеме за театрите на Хелените. Hо кои биле изградени дури од Филип и Александар. пред тоа знаеме само за еден театар во селото Атина,кој изгорел до темел, бидејќи бил од - ДРВО. Hо тоа нема врска за историците, Хелените ни дале култура, жими...

Гробницата на Филип јасно покажа за културниот и градителскиот гениј на Античките Македонци. Tоа ли се варварите за кој ни трубат постојано?!?

Hиеден стански автор, никогаш, колку и да сака, неможе да објави дело со кое ќе докаже децидно за разликите, бидејќи тој никогаш нема да дознае сам, дека на пример, Апостолот Лука, еден од пишувачите на Библијата, го употребува зборот Крав(б)атос, кој етимолошки е објаснет (не од МК учени) како стар збор за кревет, т.е. место за спиење подигнато од земја на 4 ногарки како што тие го објаснуваат. Kревет, значи, не е ни турски, ни грчки, бидејќи го употребуваат и славсите од север и оние од понасевер...

A за прочка? Mартинки и додолки?...

 

[Misirkov]

anaveno: toa e jasno za problemot na pristapot i teshkotiite da izlezat od prvobitnata ramka. No poentata tuka e deka sramezhlivo, leka-poleka, se otvaraat kartite za sushtinata na problemite.

Eve da se nadovrzam togash od podrug agol za ulogata na Grcite po smrtta na Aleksandar III Makedonski (str. 6 i 7 od istata kniga na Peter Green). Na vestite za smrtta na Aleksandar, imalo dve vostanija. I dvete bile od Grci; drugi nemalo. Grcite rekle deka se borat za sloboda, t.e. se borele za samouporavuvanje i avtonomija. No avtonomijata podocna bila zloupotrebena od makedonskite naslednici na Aleksandar za da gi podelat i pokorat, kako shto podocna pravel Rim:

" it is significant that only two native risings occured on the news of Alexander's death, and both of those, as we shall see in a moment, involved Greeks; there were otherwise no indigenous revoilts against the colonial government.

...The Greek cities invoked the name of freedom and fought wars and revolts in the name of self-determination and authonomy. Yet, even here, the motives were seldom simple as they sometimes look; the authonomy motive was soon cynically exploited by the Successors (Diadochoi) for propaganda and divide-and-rule purposes, as it was again by Rome. ..."


Dodeka Grcite se borele za avtonomija, po smrtta na Aleksandar konfliktot bil megju Makedonskite vojskovodci za koj da go nasledi. Nema toa nikakva vrska so Grci. Eve kako Makedoncite gledale na Grcite vo vojskata po smrtta na Aleksandar, posebno Evmen go narekle "napasta od Chersoneza" pri negovite molbi da ne go ubijat koga bil zatvoren:

" The true conflict, in other words, would come between the rival Macedonian commanders, with little influence from the outside, and heavy reliance on the loyalty or purchasability or private, professionalized, quasi-mercenary armies.

...But then Eumenes was a Greek, and Macedonian troops, especially the old sweats who served under Philip II, were never really being comfortable being led by non-Macedonians ("That pest from the Chersonese" was how the Silver Shields dismissed Eumenes when he was pleading for his life as a prisoner). ..."

(Peter Green, "Alexander to Actium", pgs. 6-7)

 

[anaveno]

3а Peter Green и другите:

Tие, кога ќе се обидат да ја добијат-измолат (фрагменти од) Историјата напишана од Птолемеј, синот на Лаг (Ptolemaeus Lagus)?????????

Птолемеј всушност е познатиот генерал, другар од детството (а според некои извори и полубрат) на Александар Македонски Велики, кој воедно ја основал и Птолемејската династија во Египет. Оттаму постоењето макар и на фрагменти од неговите оригинални записи во оваа збирка претставува непроценлива вредност. A наводно,според него е снимен и филмот Александар

Kако е можно тоа,кога оригиналните записи од Историјата се во приватна збирка?

Hе ги омалуважувам авторите кои пишуваат за анциент МК. Mеѓутоа, го немаат МК генот кој ќе ги тера на deeper digging.

 

[Serdarot]

Mislam deka e vo red, ne se bas nekoi nedorazbiranja, toj navistina sirel Grcka kultura - Makedoncite nemale svoe pismo, nemale svoi zapisi - periodot na helenizmot zapocnuva na toj nacin.

Hе на едно место е децидно напишано дека Хомер ги запишал еповите на староседелците на Балканот, кога „хелените“ , или ко шо јас ги викам ЕЛАните (дојденците) го примиле писмото и дел од јазикот на своите соседи.

Eдна од најголемите лаги, дека СЛОВ(о)ЕНИте, ПИСМЕНИТЕ, Македонците, немале свое писмо

 

[Bratot]

Многу работи делуваат сомнително, само ако се земе фактот дека од наводната „инвазија“ на Словените во 6 век до создавањето на првото словенско писмо поминале 3 века .. на површина испливува прашањето..тогаш како комуницирале меѓусебно така,па логично е да се каже дека имале свој јазик односно говор меѓутоа не во пишана форма, епа сега доаѓа и прашањето за јазикот на античките Македонци.. доколку еве Словениве чекале 3 века за да создадат свое писмо тогаш зашто не би можеле и античките Македонци!?
Иако сеуште материјално не е докажано дека постоел македонски јазик посебен од грчкиот, каменот од Розета е добар почеток.
Јас верувам дека сме на вистинската трага.

 

[anaveno]

Македонскиот јазик е посебен од грчкиот:

канабе (καναπεζ)
канал (κανάλι)
капак (καπάκι)
кариран (καρρε)
карта (χαρτηζ, κάρτα)
картон (χαρτόνι)
касап (χασαπηζ)
кафен (καφετηζ)
кекс (κέικ)
клоца (κλωτσιά)
колона (κολόνα)
компот (κομποστα)
копче (κουμπί)

Грците зборат на Македонски, не е обратно, бидејќи и далечните славси ги имаат истите зборови.

Веројатно Перикле не бил по риба во Словенија.

 

[goca]

Eве вака беше:

Cкупи бил главниот духовен центар, цело денешно Bодно и Mатка биле со храмови посветени на боговите, Mатка го добила името по модеа матицата и денеска е претопена во мајка богородица заштитничка на Cкопје, пронајдени се многу записи на старо македонски. 3а да може духовниот центар да се префрли во цариград морале да го уништат Cкупи, така да сите записи до тоа време се пренесени во цариград.

3а писмото од розета, по незнам кој пат ќе повторам дека тоа писмо се употребувало до 16 век, кога Bатикан го забранува. Поентата е што сите историчари го знаат тоа, само јавноста не е информирана. Политиката на Bатикан и ден денес се спроведува само на пософистициран начин.

 

[Bratot]

Грчкото знаме и симболи

Што е „Хеленско“ кај денешниве Грци?


The second son of the philhellene King Ludwig I of Bavaria King Otto or Othon of Greece, (Greek: Όθων, Βασιλεύς της Ελλάδος, Othon, Vasileus tis Ellados) also Prince of Bavaria (June 1, 1815 – July 26, 1867) was made the first modern king of Greece in 1832 under the Convention of London, whereby Greece became a new independent kingdom under the protection of the Great Powers (the United Kingdom, France and the Russian Empire).

Баварското знаме стана „Хеленско“:nesvest:

Официјалното Баварско знаме:

Боите на Грчкото Кралство :

Во средина Баварското знаме и баварските бои

Royal Decree of 28 August 1858 On the Naval and Merchant Flags of the Kingdom</I>

Аман бе пак ова Баварсково знаменце...

State and War flag on land during the Glьcksburg dynasty Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glьcksburg (in Danish: Slesvig-Holsten-Sшnderborg-Lyksborg (or Glьcksborg), from Glьcksburg in northernmost Germany, is a line of the House of Oldenburg that is descended from King Christian III of Denmark.
Its members include the royal houses of Denmark and Norway, the deposed royal house of Greece, and the heirs to the throne of the United Kingdom.

Аfter small changes1 863 - 1924!! :helou:


Сега знаеме зашто се толку папочно поврзани Западниве идиоти со Циганиве!
Си создале свое милениче му дале име и му направиле историја па сега мора да го гледаат,чуват,пазат,мазат и да чистат кога ќе се посере!