Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Jun 26, 2008 17:50:52 GMT -5
Hey little Pingu, what are you?! Iranian, afghan?! You cannot handle the origin of bulgars. Look at their titles, names and artifacts- pure turkic!!!.. Why don't you put your smart theories in the deep backyards of Hindokush valley! P.S. Don't come telling me what I may be. I know my real ancestors.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 26, 2008 18:33:43 GMT -5
You know s.hit, Rhezus. Stop expressing yourself as a Bulgarian because you are fvcking embarassing.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 27, 2008 2:57:10 GMT -5
["Anthropological data collected from early Bulgar necropolises from Dobrudja, Crimea and the Ukrainian steppe shows that Bulgars were a high-statured Caucasoid people with a small Mongoloid admixture"] __________________________________________________________________________ That would be a complete negative, skull/dna testing have shown/proven that Bulgarians have nothing in common with any Mongolians, the Bulgarians come from Northern Iran / Souther Afghanistan regions (Pamir & Hindukush Mountains) as they moved up north throught the Russian regions they may have come across turkic/tatars/mongols etc. but no they are not the same, this is Serbian and Macedonian propaganda about the Tatars, and of course the Turks call Bulgarians Turkic, perhaps they need to meet somewhere and decide on something in common that might stop the confusion. In the end I would like to say FU (Serbs, Macedonians, Turks) and most of all this Rhezus bozo who is probably of Macedonian decent and his bogus postings, someone needs to ban this user it's quite pathetic that people here put up with his ridiculous postings. In the period after the Turk conquest of Western Eurasia in the late 560’s, until the Cinggisid invasions, the Turkic polities of the area all derived, in one form or another, from the Turk Qaganate. Of these peoples, only the Khazars, the direct political successors of the Turks, produced a qaganate in the classical Turkic mold. The others remained essentially tribal confederations which, for a variety of reasons, did not feel the impetus to create a sturdier political entity, i.e. a state.
Those that were driven from the area into sedentary or semi- sedentary zones, such as the Hungarians ( a mixed Turkic and Ugrian grouping under strong Khazar influence ) and parts of the Oguz, under Seljuq leadership, did create states but along largely Christian (Hungary, Danubian Bulgaria) or Islamic (the Seljuqs) lines. These polities, whether full-blown nomadic states, such as Khazaria, or tribal unions, such as the Pecenegs, Western Oguz (Torks of the Rus’ sources) or Cuman- Qipcaqs, however great their military prowess and commercial interests, have passed on little in the way of literary monuments stemming directly from them in their own tongues.
Khazaria, for example, which as a genuine state had a need for literacy, has left us only documents in Hebrew, reflecting the Judaization of the ruling elements. Indeed, their language about which there are still many unanswered questions, is known, such as it is, almost exclusively from the titles and names of prominent Khazars recorded in the historical records of neighboring sedentary states. The Balkan Bulgars who, living in close physical propinquity to and cultural contact with Byzantium and ruling over a Slavic majority to which they eventually assimilated, have left somewhat more in the way of scattered inscriptions in mixed Bulgaro-Greek (in Greek letters) and in mixed Slavo-Bulgaric. www.unesco.kz/qypchaq/The%20Codex%20Cumanicus%20-%20By%20Peter%20B_%20Golden.htm
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 27, 2008 4:34:10 GMT -5
Spirit, the fact that some authors assume the Bulgars were Turkic doesnt make them Turkic for sure. But even if they were indeed Turkic, it doesnt mean nowadays Bulgarians are (and I believe the Turks arent too). The overwelming majority of people, that were subjects of the state Bulgaria (and later took part into the formation of the Bulgarian nation) were slavs and also I believe the Thracians outnumbered the bulgars (could be wrong). There were also germanic tribes that lived in present day Bulgaria - the goths (around Nikopol), celts (northeast Bulgaria), Roman soldiers (north Bulgaria), Greeks, people from other parts of the Roman empire. What came out of that mix was the common language - slavic, common religion - orthodoxy, culture, very influenced by Byzantine culture, common lifestyle : all that led to forming one nation: Bulgarian, that deffinately is not Turkic.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Jun 27, 2008 4:37:17 GMT -5
I know better than you can imagine. Stop dreaming of being afghans, iranians or what ever else freaky nonsence. Come to the reality! I won't stop.. and shall express myself as Bulgarian!
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 27, 2008 4:43:56 GMT -5
Spirit, the fact that some authors assume the Bulgars were Turkic doesnt make them Turkic for sure. But even if they were indeed Turkic, it doesnt mean nowadays Bulgarians are (and I believe the Turks arent too). The overwelming majority of people, that were subjects of the state Bulgaria (and later took part into the formation of the Bulgarian nation) were slavs and also I believe the Thracians outnumbered the bulgars (could be wrong). There were also germanic tribes that lived in present day Bulgaria - the goths (around Nikopol), celts (northeast Bulgaria), Roman soldiers (north Bulgaria), Greeks, people from other parts of the Roman empire. What came out of that mix was the common language - slavic, common religion - orthodoxy, culture, very influenced by Byzantine culture, common lifestyle : all that led to forming one nation: Bulgarian, that deffinately is not Turkic. I think you refer to Danube Bulgarian when you say Bulgarian. I do differ the Danube Bulgarians from the rest, such the Karachay-Balkars, Kumyks, Chuvash and Kazan Tatars who developed their modern identity directly from the Volga Bolgars.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Jun 27, 2008 4:49:03 GMT -5
^^^ Id like to add that I can see a similarity of your post above to Turkey. Turkish is very different than turkic. Turks of modern day turkey are hardly even close to turks of kyrgizstan or turkmenistan. Turks of modern day turkey are greeks, armenians, bosnians, albos, romainians, very mixed due to ottoman empire.
So the same can apply to bulgaria, maybe even more due to their location and the fact that the thracians were a huge population at the time.
In your case Jan, you are more turkic than your compatriots in turkey, not that it matters of course. I dont want to start a race war...
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 27, 2008 6:48:11 GMT -5
^^^ Id like to add that I can see a similarity of your post above to Turkey. Turkish is very different than turkic. Turks of modern day turkey are hardly even close to turks of kyrgizstan or turkmenistan. Turks of modern day turkey are greeks, armenians, bosnians, albos, romainians, very mixed due to ottoman empire. So the same can apply to bulgaria, maybe even more due to their location and the fact that the thracians were a huge population at the time. In your case Jan, you are more turkic than your compatriots in turkey, not that it matters of course. I dont want to start a race war... In a way, Turks can be classified as Turkic because of THE LANGUAGE. On the other hand, the Bulgarians are classified as slavic again because of the language. I d say our language lexic is slavic but the grammer is similar to Romanian, Greek and Albanian (and that is what differs us from Serbs, Croats and other Slavs). That could give us a clue that there was lot of influence on the language of the preslavic populace on our modern language. We deffinately couldnt be classified as Turkic even IF the Bulgars were Turkic. Why? Because neighter our culture, nor our language shares features with the culture and the language of the Turkic people.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 27, 2008 6:55:31 GMT -5
I think you refer to Danube Bulgarian when you say Bulgarian. I do differ the Danube Bulgarians from the rest, such the Karachay-Balkars, Kumyks, Chuvash and Kazan Tatars who developed their modern identity directly from the Volga Bolgars. Directly? Can we say wishful thinking? So you accept modern nations and Danube Bulgarians were influenced by other cultures, changed etc... But u cannot accept that those people living on the crossroad of the world were not influenced by outsiders? Having in mind that Tatars took them, and unlike Ottomans, the Tatars didnt have interest in having the pretatar populace differenitiated because of different taxes. I think if those people are desedants of Volga Bulgars, they are not direct desedants, but actually partially their desedants. In such a melting pot, its highly unbelievable they were formed directly by Volga Bulgars. In theory, the Volga Bulgars could have been turkified after Volga Bulgaria didnt existed anymore.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 27, 2008 9:08:40 GMT -5
^^^ Id like to add that I can see a similarity of your post above to Turkey. Turkish is very different than turkic. Turks of modern day turkey are hardly even close to turks of kyrgizstan or turkmenistan. Turks of modern day turkey are greeks, armenians, bosnians, albos, romainians, very mixed due to ottoman empire. So the same can apply to bulgaria, maybe even more due to their location and the fact that the thracians were a huge population at the time. Some months ago, I met some Turkmen from Turkmenistan, and had a chat with them about the Turkics. They said that the Kirgiz and Kazakh are more close to the Mongols rather than the Turks. Apparently, I did not understand that they were Turmen until they told me so. Similarly, when Karachay-Balkar, Kumyk, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Azeri, or Uzbek speak, I understand, when Kirgiz or Kazakh speak, I do not really much. As for the Turks of Turkey, there are probably some Turks who have Kurdish, Greek, Armenian, Pomak, Bosnian or Albanian descendany in their family line, but I think bulk of Turks of Turkey have Turkish forefathers one or the other way When I am abroad, people usually think that I am from Hungary, Ukraine or Russia. Ironically, I am an ethnic Turk, or in other words, a Karachay-Balkar. Here is some photos of the Karachay-Balkars for you: ;D
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 27, 2008 9:10:34 GMT -5
I think you refer to Danube Bulgarian when you say Bulgarian. I do differ the Danube Bulgarians from the rest, such the Karachay-Balkars, Kumyks, Chuvash and Kazan Tatars who developed their modern identity directly from the Volga Bolgars. Directly? Can we say wishful thinking? So you accept modern nations and Danube Bulgarians were influenced by other cultures, changed etc... But u cannot accept that those people living on the crossroad of the world were not influenced by outsiders? Having in mind that Tatars took them, and unlike Ottomans, the Tatars didnt have interest in having the pretatar populace differenitiated because of different taxes. I think if those people are desedants of Volga Bulgars, they are not direct desedants, but actually partially their desedants. In such a melting pot, its highly unbelievable they were formed directly by Volga Bulgars. In theory, the Volga Bulgars could have been turkified after Volga Bulgaria didnt existed anymore. Yes, they are direct descendants of the peoples of the Turkut Khanate including the Bolgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Ghuzz, and Cumans.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 27, 2008 9:30:21 GMT -5
The country the Bulgars founded here was known as Volga Bulgaria {or Volgo-Kama Bulgaria}. The city of Bulgar was the capital city of Volga Bulgaria. The capital Bulgar profited as a transshipment point in the trade between the fur-selling Ugrians and Russians of the far north and the southern civilizations - Byzantium, the Muslim Caliphate of Baghdad, and Turkistan. Trade from East to West, from Europe to China, further enriched Volga Bulgaria. The largest towns Bulgar and Buljar, in area and population, largely surpassed London, Paris, Kiev, Novgorod and Vladimir at that time. In 922 AD, approximately 8 decades after Khan Boris converted Bulgaria to the Christianity, the Volga Bulgaria, guided by Khan Almush, son of Shilki, accepted Islam as the official state religion. Like with Christianity in Danube Bulgaria, there was more behind it then just a spiritual rapture. Islam was adopted as an official religion in order to receive the political and military support of Baghdad against the enemies of the Bulgarian state. With the conversion to Islam the Arabic alphabet and the Arabic written language slowly replaced the Bulgaria runic written language. The prosperity of Volga Bulgaria was maintained for 600 years. And then the Mongols came. At that point in history Genghis Khan's troops were seen as invincible by the Europeans. No wonder after what they had done to Russia, and the Europeans were almost right. Almost, because in 1223, the Bulgarian army defeated the Mongols. The Bulgarian king Gabdula Chelbir defeated Ghengis Khan in 1223 nearby Samarskaya Luka, the first defeat of the Mongols ever. In the long run, the fairly small Bulgaria state on the Volga could not stop the advance of the countless Mongol armies. In 1236 Batu Khan heading 600 000 soldiers sacked the city of Bulgar. The Bulgarians conquered by the Mongols were drafted into Batu's army as Tatars, meaning - The conquered people. Consequently, in the Russian perception, the Mongolian invasion came to be known as the Tatar conquest. But Batu Khan also knew a good thing when he saw one, and made Bulgar the capitol of his Golden Horde, throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, the Golden Horde minted coins in Bulgar. Bulgar became the most important trade and craft center of the Golden Horde. The Mongols had different ways of ruling the lands they conquered, some they ruled directly, some not, the Bulgarians enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy, which at times even enabled them to exhibit a certain independence in foreign policy. The Chuvash and Tatars are of Bulgarian descent. Chuvash is the only living ancient Bulgar language. Tatarstan was called Bulgaristan up until 1922. The main difference between the Chuvash and the Tatars is that the Chuvash are supposedly descendants of those Bulgars who did not accept Islam in 922. While the Tatars called themselves Bulgars, Muslims and Tatars interchangeably the moniker Tatar prevailed at long last. The Chuvash are also mixed with Souvar and Finno-Uguric {Magyars} tribes and other peoples of the region. Now Tatar is a bit more complicated as it is both a name for Tribes subjugated by the Mongols (like the Volga Bulgars) as well as the name of an actual Turkic tribe from western China, who were also subjugated by Gengis Khan, suffice it to say today's Tatars are a mix of the two. www.megaone.com/nbulgaria/bulgaria/volgabul.htm
|
|
|
Post by Allah on Jun 27, 2008 9:43:17 GMT -5
If the Volga Bulgars were not related to Tatars, why is it then that Tatarstan and Chuvasia are consider to be their descendents?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 27, 2008 11:49:22 GMT -5
Maybe cause the Bulgars played part in their formation? Like us, we are partially their desedants but we are also slav and thracian desedants.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Jun 27, 2008 13:30:56 GMT -5
those pics you posted..they look completely caucasian w/ out many mongoloid features. I mean they dont look turkic...I always thought turkic like the ppl in Uigharstan. Thats probably why the bulgarians dont look at all turkic. They might not be that much if anything... those girls arent bad either
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 27, 2008 16:52:56 GMT -5
those pics you posted..they look completely caucasian w/ out many mongoloid features. I mean they dont look turkic...I always thought turkic like the ppl in Uigharstan. Thats probably why the bulgarians dont look at all turkic. They might not be that much if anything... those girls arent bad either Read about Cumans.
|
|
arize
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by arize on Jul 2, 2008 18:22:02 GMT -5
I know better than you can imagine. Stop dreaming of being afghans, iranians or what ever else freaky nonsence. Come to the reality! I won't stop.. and shall express myself as Bulgarian!
^^^I am not dreaming of anything, this is simply based on research and dna testing, you might be a Turkic-Macedonian that has different roots then some of us, and you shouldn't speak for all Bulgarians cause as far as I can remember no Bulgarians on this forum agree with you what so ever.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Jul 3, 2008 6:44:43 GMT -5
Hey tzarvul, you are so confused about yourself.. Go find your roots in Afghanistan or Hindokush. We don't have any in Bulgaria. That's why I am here, to defend the real origin of mine. Most guys on proboards agree with me. Except the brainwashed like you.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jul 3, 2008 7:16:34 GMT -5
Hey tzarvul, you are so confused about yourself.. Go find your roots in Afghanistan or Hindokush. We don't have any in Bulgaria. That's why I am here to defent the real origin of mine. Most guys on proboards agree with me. Except the brainwashed like you. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Jul 3, 2008 16:08:01 GMT -5
You are here to show how stupid you are. Thhe origin of yours is of no interest to anyone, just as your boring personality. You can look for your origins in the balls of any Rhezus horse. For a better result, scratch the bollocks of the animal. If it doesn't respond, scratch the nuts of Tartar. He is just as big an idiot as you are.
|
|