Salonika Front anniversary marked

Tomahawk
I do agree completely with what you just wrote. A good example of your analogy is Puto dynasty, the gatekeepers of the Albanian historiography if you like.
I have to disagree with you on the Serb perspective. Essad Pasha is classed by any Serb criterion, a valuable ally. Unique as that is for an Albanian, it becomes self serving to mention Pasha anytime that suits a specific nationalistic purpose. Leaving to one side Essad’s persona, it is a historical fact that Pasha and his men were part of an Allied effort in the Great War. A little consistency would go a miss.

The article fails to mention Essad Pasha and his gendarmes.

Village-bey I like your posts, and agree with this one too. But before blaming the others we should see in what state is our study of history today. Heavily politicized, and performed by the same old people that wrote our history during communism. Essad pasha is simply labeled as a traitor, and there is no good contextual analysis of why he did what he did. The latest history books(the revised ones), are still full of communist/nationalist judgments on people and events, good People vs evil oppressors, class-struggle, traitors vs patriots and so on. Bottom line is that our written history is still weak, both in argumentation and interpretation, and as long as it is weak nobody will mention Essad Pasha's contribution. We shouldn't expect it from Greek or Serb historians.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, I didn't know that Essad Pasha was mentioned by Serb historians. You are right about consistency (if I understood correctly), I guess this sort of things will still be in the Balkans for some more time.

The article fails to mention Essad Pasha and his gendarmes.

Village-bey I like your posts, and agree with this one too. But before blaming the others we should see in what state is our study of history today. Heavily politicized, and performed by the same old people that wrote our history during communism. Essad pasha is simply labeled as a traitor, and there is no good contextual analysis of why he did what he did. The latest history books(the revised ones), are still full of communist/nationalist judgments on people and events, good People vs evil oppressors, class-struggle, traitors vs patriots and so on. Bottom line is that our written history is still weak, both in argumentation and interpretation, and as long as it is weak nobody will mention Essad Pasha's contribution. We shouldn't expect it from Greek or Serb historians.

Tomahawk
I do agree completely with what you just wrote. A good example of your analogy is Puto dynasty, the gatekeepers of the Albanian historiography if you like.
I have to disagree with you on the Serb perspective. Essad Pasha is classed by any Serb criterion, a valuable ally. Unique as that is for an Albanian, it becomes self serving to mention Pasha anytime that suits a specific nationalistic purpose. Leaving to one side Essad’s persona, it is a historical fact that Pasha and his men were part of an Allied effort in the Great War. A little consistency would go a miss.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, I didn't know that Essad Pasha was mentioned by Serb historians. You are right about consistency (if I understood correctly), I guess this sort of things will still be in the Balkans for some more time.