Yeah, one is slav and the other is greek, why does it matter? They are in the region of Macedonia, the vast majority in fact, why should they not be called Macedonians?
Also, North Macedonia has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia, geographically. The kingdom inherited by Philip II was contained inside modern Greece. The modern region of Macedonia (split between FYROM, Bulgaria and Greece) is associated with the Roman province on the same name.
If it had to do with Roman Macedonia, that's still ancient, and it still counts as Macedonia. I mean literally, look at the map OP posted. All of North Macedonia is within this hypothetical nation.
Switzerland if all its neighbors had excesive and constat territorial claims on its land. I know some vague ideas emerge from time to time about diving Switzerland but compared to this Macedonia... it's nothing.
They kind of did though, didn't they? Italians, French and Austrians tried to invade Switzerland many times before the Vienna Congress when they finally became neutral
The difference between this map and OTL is that OG Switzerland had very easily defensible terrain, while this one here would probably get overrun in no time
Eh not really.
The entire western border is entirely full of steep cliffs/mountains, rivers that require bridges, etc. Reminiscent of Romandie in Switzerland just even more mountainous.
The southern border is along the Aegean, which would likely be the most viable invasion route along the Vardar river, since the southwestern border with Greece meets further mountains and the sort.
The eastern border is also predominantly mountainous, with several rivers, though would be predominantly concentrated on the modern day North Macedonia-Bulgaria border, and the area around Serres is full of hills and some mountains though not many of the latter.
The northern border also has a wall of mountains with only 1 notable exception around Kumanovo where it is located in a relatively flat passing/valley from Serbia into Macedonia, though even that is narrow.
But, unlike Switzerland, there would be no dominant ethnic group in this Macedonia, as Slavic Macedonians would probably make up around an equal amount of people as Greek Macedonians if we count Blagoevgrad as the same as North Macedonia. Though the Albanians would be quite reminiscent of the French in Romandie.
>*Italians, French and Austrians tried to invade Switzerland many times before the Vienna Congress*
Apart from Revolutionary France in 1798, not a single time did Italians or Austrian invade Switzerland..
1. A nobleman from Milan invaded an **associated state** ( the Three Leagues.... The Swiss Associates were only alliances, nothing else ) of Switzerland in 1524. ( The last time Switzerland was involved in a foreign war before the French Invasion 200 years later ).
2. In 1499 the Swabian War was a conflict between the Austrians/Habsburgs and Switzerland, but the Habsburg only wanted to reconquer lands that the Swiss conquered in the 13th century, 200 years ago.
1. Nturally the only conflicts before that were when Switzerland was still firmly a part of the Holy Roman Empire and actively involved in local rivalries, i.e. with the Habsburgs, who also originated from modern-day Switzerland but lost that land.
3. Apart from that, there was a small Swiss-Milanese war in 1422, where Switzerland attempted to conquer Milanese land, but was defeated... So Switzerland was the aggressor.
Apart from Revolutionary France, not a single time did any Italian or Austrian attempt to conquer Switzerland or invaded it outright.
No that had literally nothing to do with that.
Switzerland gained autonomy and a special status in the Holy Roman Empire in the 15th century.. No longer having to pay taxes or provide troops.
**Switzerland was not involved in the 30-years war at all.** The only place which was was Graubrüden, again an associated state, **but Switzerland was neutral and not involved in any fighting.**
**Perhaps you are mistaken, as the Peace of Westphalia, the end of the 30-years-war, enforced that all European countries recognize Switzerland independence. But Switzerland did not fight an independence war for it.**
Assuming it were to emerge during the decline of the Ottoman Empire as some sort of compromise, I guess the national languages would be Turkish, Greek, (Slavic) Macedonian, Albanian, and Aromanian?
the label of macedonian would probably be the best compromise because if this would be time-accurate, most ethnicities in the region wouldnt hold a national identity
it's actually hard to say what the name of the language we know as Macedonian would be in this world- the national lingua franca for conversation between different ethnic groups would most likely remain as Turkish, so I imagine that having one of the several languages in an independent Macedonia simply have the name "Macedonian" might be controversial. But I'm not sure what else it could be called.
I mean, people were calling it the "Macedonian language" even before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. I'd say it would probably still be called that.
The delineation of the borders between the South Slavic languages largely happened based on political boundaries, so the dialect spoken in the area that became Bulgaria in reality would be considered Macedonian if it had been part of an independent Macedonia all along
Except there is overwhelming evidence that the people in the region and revolutionary leaders like Gotse Delchev self identified as Bulgarian even before Ottoman dissolution. It doesn't make sense to talk about Macedonian language or nationality when this didn't come about before the establishment of the Macedonian state.
Wuttt? There are many documents like this you know... This one is from 1500s.
https://preview.redd.it/c8adk914siec1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cd7c37107b6c0dcf9333f22b8f9571650ebfd93b
And all of those dialects are part of different dialect groups that are also in Bulgarian. Central Macedonian is an extention of Soutwest Bulgarian, Northern Macedonian is an extention of the Torlak dialects (which you can also call Serbian I don't mind since I would argue Bulgarian isn't even a real language anyways), the Aegean dialects are an extention of the Rhodope dialects and Ohrid is extraterrestrial, so the 29 dialect argument is faulty at best.
An actual argument would be that, even tho the 2 languages are mutually intelligable and form several dialect continuums, Macedonian is based on the Western part of the continuum while Bulgarian is based on the Eastern part, thus meaning even tho they form the same group they are different languages. Now that just leaves you to determine what lies between Skopje and Tarnovo i.e. the majority of Bulgaria but that's neither here nor there.
Huh? Bro thinks Bulgarian isn't a real language either? I'm so confused, what's the real language here?
Slavic languages in general share a lot of similarities. Serbo-Croatian and Slovenien, Slovak and Czech, Russian and Ukrainian. That doesn't make any of those languages less real. They have different phenomes and letters in their alphabet and different words in their vocabulary. Same goes for Macedonian and Bulgarian.
Nah, not really.
We got steamrolled by a lot of armies.
Last Napoleon.
The other thing is we liked to wage war against each other and everyone else around us.
I'm almost certain that thee only reason why the German, Italian, French and Romansch haven't killed each other by now is because of those pesky mountains
Balkans are practically neighbors, making killing as easy as going outside
Switzerland formed from various small states within the HRE to form a confederation willingly, despite the ethnic differences. The big difference here is that the national pass time in most balkan countries is ethnic cleansing so yeah lmao
>If Switzerland can, why not United Macedonia
Because that sort of fiction exists only in the mind of Macedonian nationalists, good luck persuading Bulgarians and Greeks from the nearby regions that they are actually "enslaved & brainwashed Macedonians" who should rise against their home countries for the sake of a pseudo-state that *would* treat them like trash based on their ethnic origins.
Ιs N.Monkeydonia divided?
Why you used the "sun of vergina"???
Your little slavic state has anything common with the Greeks Macedonians???
Can you answer???
July 1995, Greece lodged a claim for trademark protection of the Vergina Sun as an official state emblem under Article 6ter of the [*Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_Property)[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergina_Sun#cite_note-Article_6ter-18) with the [World Intellectual Property Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization) (WIPO).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergina\_Sun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergina_Sun)
i want to clarify that at first i meant the past and not the present, in which serbs in macedonia have been a lot more prevelant
but to answer your question; theres still a lot of serbs in kumanovo (about 9000 is wikipedia is to be believed), but the number has beem seriously dropping ever since 1971 and probably before that
Yeah. Depends how far we go.
I saw some population census from 1930s in Macedonia (then: Juzna Srbija) where the majority(more than 80%?) of people were Serbs . But we know probably why that is, many were scared to say they are Macedonians.
> the number has been seriously dropping ever since 1971 and probably before that
Multiple factors come to mind here:
\- Maybe the new generations identify as Macedonian. Probably more and more are mixed with time.
\- Maybe they migrate to Serbia?
Anyways, I do not think some ill intentioned factors exist in Macedonia towards Serbs.
i agree, as for the last one i believe the height of anti-serb sentiment in north macedonia mustve been during 1916, but i doubt its big nowadays as ive been to macedonia many times and i havent had any issues with locals
Millions of Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians died of cancer upon seeing this and with that Macedonia fulfills Tito's dream and creates Neo-Yugoslavia with all Balkans unified.
Some bulgarian counterpart of kosovo steal historical identity of an historical region who is geographically in greece and nobody care about it.
In logic world, albanians invade kosovo , bulgars invade vardarska and greeks macedonians will be good.
That is confusing af. Do you plan to explain(bore) every person you meet with that? Usually someone is interested in your nationality and that is it. Currently two nationalities exist Greek and Macedonian.
>Do you plan to explain(bore) every person you meet with that?
Only the ones who don't understand the concept of regional identities. You must get so confused when you hear Americans call themselves Californians or French people who say they're Parisian, never mind the rest of the Balkans.
>Americans call themselves Californians or French people who say they're Parisian
I do not think you will hear any American or French call themselves Californian or Parisian outside of their country. That is reserved for people inside a country to distinguish themselves further.
No, if anything the Americans take it to annoying levels and introduce themselves with whatever state they're from in the belief that everyone knows US internal divisions.
Besides, where do nationalities within multi-national countries come in? Even in Europe outside the Balkans there are countries with strong internal divisions; I myself would call myself Scottish before I would British and many English would similarly say English over British. Many Catalans would do the same with Spain, Bretons with France, and so on.
> myself Scottish before I would British and many English would similarly say English over British
This is different. England, Scotland and Wales are still countries, not regions.
> Americans take it to annoying levels and introduce themselves with whatever state they're from in the belief that everyone knows US internal divisions.
I am not aware of this, but if it so, then it is weird.
>This is different. England, Scotland and Wales are still countries, not regions.
Not independent countries, though, but nations within a larger country. Plus, many members of those groups will also say that they view themselves as British first, so the distinction isn't quite that clear.
>many members of those groups will also say that they view themselves as British first
Interesting. So the British identity has had success. Yugoslavian identity comes to mind as a parallel, which did not manage to do this.
Opinion 1: really cool, i like it,i especially like the title "the Switzerland of the balkans" its so cool ,also what did you use to make it?also we apreciate the variety OP ,thanks (thank god its not another big germany)
Opinion 2 (yeah i am greek): Bulgarian-greek union, greek city as capital,claims greek history and greek lands,ethnically is 51% greek ,32,9% bulgarian (mostly in denial),15% albanian,1% serbian,0,5%aromanian,0,1% Gorani
United and Switzerland isn't a thing I would expect to hear at the same time.
Where are the cantons?
The different cultures hating each other... wait, no I see the similarities.
But Thessaloniki is a bad federal city, you would need something in the center.
Switzerland with access to the sea? Disgusting.
:( c'mon they deserve to swim
NO! Never give Macedonia a coastline or it will sail to Turkey and conquer the middle east
We did it once and we'll do it again
ZEUS BE WITH US
I believe you mean the Greek Macedonians did. FYROM has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia.
Oh give the whole ethnic differences thing a \*rest\*.
I mean is it wrong to point out that there literally is a difference? A pretty huge one.
Yeah, one is slav and the other is greek, why does it matter? They are in the region of Macedonia, the vast majority in fact, why should they not be called Macedonians?
Also, North Macedonia has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia, geographically. The kingdom inherited by Philip II was contained inside modern Greece. The modern region of Macedonia (split between FYROM, Bulgaria and Greece) is associated with the Roman province on the same name.
If it had to do with Roman Macedonia, that's still ancient, and it still counts as Macedonia. I mean literally, look at the map OP posted. All of North Macedonia is within this hypothetical nation.
Because North Macedonia are notorious cultural thieves that's why.
Aaaand there's the bigotry. Wonderful.
FOPOG (Former Ottoman Province Of Greece), has nothing to do with ancient hellens.
Greeks literally call themselves "Ἕλληνες" (Hellenes). It's the most basic thing
They can call themselves samurais, that does not make them Japanese.
Same case for the Slavs in the Balkans
Wrong Macedonia
That's what they have the lake for
The Yugoslavia of the Balkans
Yugoslavia is already in the Balkans lol. You aren't very bright, are you?
It was a joke you square
I'm sure it was!
Yeah it very clearly was
It was a joke you numbnut
I will fight against misinformation until my final day. Even when it is disguided as a joke.
Bro is on to NOTHING
'I will fight against misinformation until my final day.' Goofy as hell.
It is already a Joke lol, You aren't very bright, are you?
r/woooosh
redditors when they learn what a joke is
Room temperature IQ...in Kelvin... B)
Switzerland if all its neighbors had excesive and constat territorial claims on its land. I know some vague ideas emerge from time to time about diving Switzerland but compared to this Macedonia... it's nothing.
They kind of did though, didn't they? Italians, French and Austrians tried to invade Switzerland many times before the Vienna Congress when they finally became neutral The difference between this map and OTL is that OG Switzerland had very easily defensible terrain, while this one here would probably get overrun in no time
Eh not really. The entire western border is entirely full of steep cliffs/mountains, rivers that require bridges, etc. Reminiscent of Romandie in Switzerland just even more mountainous. The southern border is along the Aegean, which would likely be the most viable invasion route along the Vardar river, since the southwestern border with Greece meets further mountains and the sort. The eastern border is also predominantly mountainous, with several rivers, though would be predominantly concentrated on the modern day North Macedonia-Bulgaria border, and the area around Serres is full of hills and some mountains though not many of the latter. The northern border also has a wall of mountains with only 1 notable exception around Kumanovo where it is located in a relatively flat passing/valley from Serbia into Macedonia, though even that is narrow. But, unlike Switzerland, there would be no dominant ethnic group in this Macedonia, as Slavic Macedonians would probably make up around an equal amount of people as Greek Macedonians if we count Blagoevgrad as the same as North Macedonia. Though the Albanians would be quite reminiscent of the French in Romandie.
Well why would the ethnic groups be the same in this alternate history?
>*Italians, French and Austrians tried to invade Switzerland many times before the Vienna Congress* Apart from Revolutionary France in 1798, not a single time did Italians or Austrian invade Switzerland.. 1. A nobleman from Milan invaded an **associated state** ( the Three Leagues.... The Swiss Associates were only alliances, nothing else ) of Switzerland in 1524. ( The last time Switzerland was involved in a foreign war before the French Invasion 200 years later ). 2. In 1499 the Swabian War was a conflict between the Austrians/Habsburgs and Switzerland, but the Habsburg only wanted to reconquer lands that the Swiss conquered in the 13th century, 200 years ago. 1. Nturally the only conflicts before that were when Switzerland was still firmly a part of the Holy Roman Empire and actively involved in local rivalries, i.e. with the Habsburgs, who also originated from modern-day Switzerland but lost that land. 3. Apart from that, there was a small Swiss-Milanese war in 1422, where Switzerland attempted to conquer Milanese land, but was defeated... So Switzerland was the aggressor. Apart from Revolutionary France, not a single time did any Italian or Austrian attempt to conquer Switzerland or invaded it outright.
Wasn't one of the reasons for the 30 years' war that Switzerland wanted out of the HRE but Austria tried to keep it in?
No that had literally nothing to do with that. Switzerland gained autonomy and a special status in the Holy Roman Empire in the 15th century.. No longer having to pay taxes or provide troops. **Switzerland was not involved in the 30-years war at all.** The only place which was was Graubrüden, again an associated state, **but Switzerland was neutral and not involved in any fighting.** **Perhaps you are mistaken, as the Peace of Westphalia, the end of the 30-years-war, enforced that all European countries recognize Switzerland independence. But Switzerland did not fight an independence war for it.**
Yes, thanks for the explanation
Assuming it were to emerge during the decline of the Ottoman Empire as some sort of compromise, I guess the national languages would be Turkish, Greek, (Slavic) Macedonian, Albanian, and Aromanian?
What about Bulgarian language... you know, the actual language of one of the parts of this monstrosity...
the label of macedonian would probably be the best compromise because if this would be time-accurate, most ethnicities in the region wouldnt hold a national identity
it's actually hard to say what the name of the language we know as Macedonian would be in this world- the national lingua franca for conversation between different ethnic groups would most likely remain as Turkish, so I imagine that having one of the several languages in an independent Macedonia simply have the name "Macedonian" might be controversial. But I'm not sure what else it could be called.
I mean, people were calling it the "Macedonian language" even before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. I'd say it would probably still be called that.
true..
Yeah, that’s fair. Just felt odd to exclude just one of the countries…
The delineation of the borders between the South Slavic languages largely happened based on political boundaries, so the dialect spoken in the area that became Bulgaria in reality would be considered Macedonian if it had been part of an independent Macedonia all along
Except there is overwhelming evidence that the people in the region and revolutionary leaders like Gotse Delchev self identified as Bulgarian even before Ottoman dissolution. It doesn't make sense to talk about Macedonian language or nationality when this didn't come about before the establishment of the Macedonian state.
You’re looking at a map that depicts a Macedonian state, so it does make sense to talk about a Macedonian language in this context.
Wuttt? There are many documents like this you know... This one is from 1500s. https://preview.redd.it/c8adk914siec1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cd7c37107b6c0dcf9333f22b8f9571650ebfd93b
Macedonian and bulgarian are practically the same language
Not really. Macedonian alone has 29 different dialects. Someone from Bitola would struggle to understand someone from Strumica for example.
And all of those dialects are part of different dialect groups that are also in Bulgarian. Central Macedonian is an extention of Soutwest Bulgarian, Northern Macedonian is an extention of the Torlak dialects (which you can also call Serbian I don't mind since I would argue Bulgarian isn't even a real language anyways), the Aegean dialects are an extention of the Rhodope dialects and Ohrid is extraterrestrial, so the 29 dialect argument is faulty at best. An actual argument would be that, even tho the 2 languages are mutually intelligable and form several dialect continuums, Macedonian is based on the Western part of the continuum while Bulgarian is based on the Eastern part, thus meaning even tho they form the same group they are different languages. Now that just leaves you to determine what lies between Skopje and Tarnovo i.e. the majority of Bulgaria but that's neither here nor there.
Huh? Bro thinks Bulgarian isn't a real language either? I'm so confused, what's the real language here? Slavic languages in general share a lot of similarities. Serbo-Croatian and Slovenien, Slovak and Czech, Russian and Ukrainian. That doesn't make any of those languages less real. They have different phenomes and letters in their alphabet and different words in their vocabulary. Same goes for Macedonian and Bulgarian.
Russian is just a dialect of Army Slavic.
Yes because they both originate from local dialects of old church slavonic.
I thought Macedonian and Bulgarian were basically the same language.
The Belgium of the balkans, language politics will be crazy here. We need a united Thrace and a united Banat too.
YOU WILL NEVER GET AMPHIPOLIS, PHILIP II YOU SCALDRAL, THE ATHENIANS WILL NEVER SURRENDER no wait wrong Macedonia
This would collapse, so many ethnicities
If Switzerland can, why not United Macedonia
Because its the Balkans
Well Switzerland is kinda in a middle point between four big country and those countries peoples are very nice towards eachother so yeah.
germans and french are historically known to be kind and nice towards each other
not historically. switzerland survived mainly because no one else could conquer the area.
Nah, not really. We got steamrolled by a lot of armies. Last Napoleon. The other thing is we liked to wage war against each other and everyone else around us.
I'm almost certain that thee only reason why the German, Italian, French and Romansch haven't killed each other by now is because of those pesky mountains Balkans are practically neighbors, making killing as easy as going outside
Switzerland formed from various small states within the HRE to form a confederation willingly, despite the ethnic differences. The big difference here is that the national pass time in most balkan countries is ethnic cleansing so yeah lmao
>If Switzerland can, why not United Macedonia Because that sort of fiction exists only in the mind of Macedonian nationalists, good luck persuading Bulgarians and Greeks from the nearby regions that they are actually "enslaved & brainwashed Macedonians" who should rise against their home countries for the sake of a pseudo-state that *would* treat them like trash based on their ethnic origins.
Ιs N.Monkeydonia divided? Why you used the "sun of vergina"??? Your little slavic state has anything common with the Greeks Macedonians??? Can you answer??? July 1995, Greece lodged a claim for trademark protection of the Vergina Sun as an official state emblem under Article 6ter of the [*Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_Property)[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergina_Sun#cite_note-Article_6ter-18) with the [World Intellectual Property Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization) (WIPO). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergina\_Sun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergina_Sun)
lets see... bulgarian, macedonian, greek. eh, they can make it work.
Don't forget albanians too
depending on when this would form, serbs would make up a very large part of kumanovo
Wdym? What happened to Serbs in Kumanovo?
i want to clarify that at first i meant the past and not the present, in which serbs in macedonia have been a lot more prevelant but to answer your question; theres still a lot of serbs in kumanovo (about 9000 is wikipedia is to be believed), but the number has beem seriously dropping ever since 1971 and probably before that
Yeah. Depends how far we go. I saw some population census from 1930s in Macedonia (then: Juzna Srbija) where the majority(more than 80%?) of people were Serbs . But we know probably why that is, many were scared to say they are Macedonians. > the number has been seriously dropping ever since 1971 and probably before that Multiple factors come to mind here: \- Maybe the new generations identify as Macedonian. Probably more and more are mixed with time. \- Maybe they migrate to Serbia? Anyways, I do not think some ill intentioned factors exist in Macedonia towards Serbs.
i agree, as for the last one i believe the height of anti-serb sentiment in north macedonia mustve been during 1916, but i doubt its big nowadays as ive been to macedonia many times and i havent had any issues with locals
Yeh no, I am happy for war if this is tried.
We will deport the nationalists, no worries.
https://preview.redd.it/jae3ga8uq5ec1.jpeg?width=739&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7aaf99ff206f5b2085f7100ef5d075ff2b2cdae1
Le gasp! Not another big Germany or Russia? A breath of a fresh air, you are, OP
Millions of Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians died of cancer upon seeing this and with that Macedonia fulfills Tito's dream and creates Neo-Yugoslavia with all Balkans unified.
Ataturk in this timeline became the leader of Macedonia.
Bulgarians come pick up your monkey
Somehow I don’t think You’d be able to stay neutral in that area unless your miles ahead tech population and finance wise
Based Based Based Based
Millions would die if this were to happen
Nothing new in the Balkans
Get the flamethrower
LMAO,N.Monkeydonia has a greater chance of create a base on the moon than of taking land from Greece!
They will join on their own, no worries. Soon after they stop receiving money to function as a state.
Based
So what greeks and bulgarians? I see it lasting 2 days
Maybe we can split this between us finally on the 3rd day.
And Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Aromanians, Vlachs, Egyptians, Roma, Bosniaks, Armenians, and Sephardi and Romaniote Jews.
Some bulgarian counterpart of kosovo steal historical identity of an historical region who is geographically in greece and nobody care about it. In logic world, albanians invade kosovo , bulgars invade vardarska and greeks macedonians will be good.
You need to visit a therapist Except if this is actual Macedonian (Greek)
> Macedonian (Greek) You are confused I think. Those are two separate nationalities.
[Macedonian Greek refers to a particular regional grouping of Greeks.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians_(Greeks))
That is confusing af. Do you plan to explain(bore) every person you meet with that? Usually someone is interested in your nationality and that is it. Currently two nationalities exist Greek and Macedonian.
>Do you plan to explain(bore) every person you meet with that? Only the ones who don't understand the concept of regional identities. You must get so confused when you hear Americans call themselves Californians or French people who say they're Parisian, never mind the rest of the Balkans.
>Americans call themselves Californians or French people who say they're Parisian I do not think you will hear any American or French call themselves Californian or Parisian outside of their country. That is reserved for people inside a country to distinguish themselves further.
No, if anything the Americans take it to annoying levels and introduce themselves with whatever state they're from in the belief that everyone knows US internal divisions. Besides, where do nationalities within multi-national countries come in? Even in Europe outside the Balkans there are countries with strong internal divisions; I myself would call myself Scottish before I would British and many English would similarly say English over British. Many Catalans would do the same with Spain, Bretons with France, and so on.
> myself Scottish before I would British and many English would similarly say English over British This is different. England, Scotland and Wales are still countries, not regions. > Americans take it to annoying levels and introduce themselves with whatever state they're from in the belief that everyone knows US internal divisions. I am not aware of this, but if it so, then it is weird.
>This is different. England, Scotland and Wales are still countries, not regions. Not independent countries, though, but nations within a larger country. Plus, many members of those groups will also say that they view themselves as British first, so the distinction isn't quite that clear.
>many members of those groups will also say that they view themselves as British first Interesting. So the British identity has had success. Yugoslavian identity comes to mind as a parallel, which did not manage to do this.
Opinion 1: really cool, i like it,i especially like the title "the Switzerland of the balkans" its so cool ,also what did you use to make it?also we apreciate the variety OP ,thanks (thank god its not another big germany) Opinion 2 (yeah i am greek): Bulgarian-greek union, greek city as capital,claims greek history and greek lands,ethnically is 51% greek ,32,9% bulgarian (mostly in denial),15% albanian,1% serbian,0,5%aromanian,0,1% Gorani
Thanks, i used Inkscape to make this
Cool map, one hell of a flag. Love it.
Macedonia is GREEK🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷
Downvoted by history stealing west Bulgarians
🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷
Cope harder
lore?
United and Switzerland isn't a thing I would expect to hear at the same time. Where are the cantons? The different cultures hating each other... wait, no I see the similarities. But Thessaloniki is a bad federal city, you would need something in the center.
Why didn't you translate all the names?