ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 27, 2011 11:19:48 GMT -5
BigBlackBeast, again, heavy words. He most definitely did. Kuber migrated into present day Macedonia from Pannonia. He came with a large group of Bulgars, however, he also brought with him many Avars and Slavs. Good stuff. The only note I have to make ('cuz I'm sure the semi-literates on here will be all over this) is that the bulk of the Mongolian traces in the Bulgarian ethnic group have most probably entered our gene pool during the time of the Second Bulgarian Empire and the Mongol invasions. At one point, Bulgaria was a vassal of the Mongols, and there was a Mongol ruler installed for a brief period. Yup.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 27, 2011 11:37:05 GMT -5
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 27, 2011 11:46:46 GMT -5
Pffff you can post as many modern interpretations and re-interpretations, most of which are from the communist regime, but the the bottom line remains.
Out of ALL, not most, ALL graves of Old Bulgars that have been excavated there hasn't been a single one that has shown Asiatic features.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 27, 2011 11:56:24 GMT -5
I find that amazing, especially since they came from Asia.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 27, 2011 12:04:34 GMT -5
The homeland of the Old Bulgars, much like their ethnic origin, is something that is disputed and there are multiple theories on that topic.
Whether you find it amazing or not is irrelevant. The facts lay as they are, and it's best to stick to them.
For you, a semi-literate layman, to come to a decisive conclusion on something that actual scholars are unable to concur on with such certainty is just a sign of how dumb you actually are.
Ignorant people often claim to know it all. Little do they know, no matter how much you learn or how much you think you know, there's always more.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 27, 2011 12:08:47 GMT -5
You're the semi-literate one. You've been living in Canada for so many years and still can't spell. So you throw insults and name calling--that doesn't make you more intelligent. If anything, it shows that you're not able to hold a discussion in a civil manner.
I'm not making any decisive conclusions. Irregardless of what theory is presented, they all have one thing in common: they all point out the locations of the Bulgarian homeland in Asia.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 27, 2011 12:28:49 GMT -5
I never claimed to be intelligent. I've merely observed that you're nothing more but a person of average intelligence (at best), who for some reason thinks he's more "intelligent" than everyone else.
The difference between you and I.. I'm actually informed about the things I talk about. Whereas you, much like your friend Pazar, are clearly driven by some sort of hate toward Bulgarians.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 27, 2011 12:50:01 GMT -5
You might be informed on Bulgarian history, but rarely so on the history of neighboring countries. When it comes to me, I never claimed to be an expert on Bulgarian history. That doesn't mean that I can't address the things that I know and the things that I have an opinion on. Now, as I said before: the Bulgars came from Asia, irregardless of what theory one takes into consideration. And what was your response?
When it comes to the modern Bulgarians, one doesn't need academical sources to see that you have more Asian features than any of your neighbors.
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Aug 27, 2011 13:21:36 GMT -5
What do Iranians have to do with Illyrians? Only one forth of Iran is apart of the Caucasus. and the Azerbaijanis are Turks not Iranic Albanians.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 27, 2011 14:22:22 GMT -5
A lot of the topics discussed are of a time period when many of the modern day Bulgarian neighbors were Bulgarian provinces, either fully or partly.
Much like the modern day Macedonians.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Aug 27, 2011 15:17:43 GMT -5
Pffff you can post as many modern interpretations and re-interpretations, most of which are from the communist regime, but the the bottom line remains. Out of ALL, not most, ALL graves of Old Bulgars that have been excavated there hasn't been a single one that has shown Asiatic features. every internationally recognized historian and anthropologist makes the conclusion that the Bulgars who arrived in the balkans were of turkic ethnos, language, and culture. just face the facts and embrace it, you just seem frustrated/complexed as hell.
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Aug 27, 2011 16:19:31 GMT -5
What's with the Bulgarians aren't Indo European too?
|
|
|
Post by uz on Aug 27, 2011 16:50:13 GMT -5
Ivo and Annitas need a time-out together, the playground has become overwhelming for them.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 27, 2011 16:54:24 GMT -5
False. Many have supported the Turkic theory, but not all. Their main supporting points, however, are mainly based on linguistics. And only on a handful of terms, a part of which were later discovered to have been of Irannic origin.
Most historians and anthropologist who do not specialize on the matter would reference the outdated Turkic theories simply because they were the most popular during communism. Many of these have been supported by Bulgarian or Russian historians who have been driven to emphasize these theories in favor of strengthening the natural anti-Ottoman views of the Bulgars; and in return, fostering Slavic kinship in support of the pan-Slavic ideals of that time period.
Oh I have, and I'm actually aware of them. Though, I don't think you are. The cold hard facts in support of the Turkic theory are just as credible as the facts in support of either one of the other 2-3 theories.
If you read historians who actually specialize on the matter, you'll notice that the Turkic theory does not hold as much weight as you think.
It's interesting how many hate on us Bulgars. But hate does not endure. Think of me what you will, your opinion is of no importance.
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Aug 27, 2011 18:36:29 GMT -5
And Hellenas isn't a retard he was very informative
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Aug 28, 2011 23:24:46 GMT -5
That's just great souvlaki, all you've done is posted some 20th century observances from racist British travellers. I guess, however the Encyclopaedia article has some merit;
In general, however, the Macedonian Slavs differ somewhat in appearance and character from their neighbours beyond the Bulgarian and Servian frontiers: the peculiar type which they present is probably due to a considerable admixture of Vlach, Hellenic, Albanian and Turkish blood, and to the influence of the surrounding races.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 29, 2011 8:11:30 GMT -5
Lol. Things is.. these views are shared by nearly all independent sources.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Aug 29, 2011 11:47:06 GMT -5
"things is" -- lolz
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Aug 29, 2011 12:11:51 GMT -5
In general, however, the Macedonian Slavs differ somewhat in appearance and character from their neighbours beyond the Bulgarian and Servian frontiers: the peculiar type which they present is probably due to a considerable admixture of Vlach, Hellenic, Albanian and Turkish blood, and to the influence of the surrounding races.
probably
|
|