ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 18, 2007 4:46:35 GMT -5
Hi to all bulgarian brothers over here! Now on the matter: My take on this is that it is unbelieveble and unlogical that a whole people would disapear (the thracians were also called the most numerous people after the idnians). Of course in a way they seized to exist loosing their language with the times. I think its true that the population, that lived on the Bulgarian teritory, was romanized in the north and helenized in the south...BUT it was till the arrival of the slavs and the bulgars. The bulgars gave us their nomadic state organization, the slavs: their language and the thracians: their genes (mainly). But how did the language become slavic one would ask, if we didnt bath in the slavic sea (as its obvious by the Bulgarian look today). Due to Boris I. He welcomed the students of Cyril and Metodius (after they were forced out of Velikomoravia - a true slavic country). Here Boris had few people with an alphabeth of a language, spoked by some of the people in his country (and the whole of Velikomoravia): bam he makes it a state language (and a church one) to differ his state from the ERE. Then u have years when the correspondense and the church and the administrative language is slavic: so in the end, the lands near the capital become slavisized due to the state policy. We forget that the whole of Romania was part of the Bulgarian state for a long time. How did it have the fate to not become slavized (as were the other part of the empire)? I think its due to the long distance of the capital (and the river), thus the people saved their language. But then again one would ask how did the hellenized tracians become slavised? I think its due to intermarrages, also I could see why some of the hellenized people in the south would want to become part of the bulgarian empire (and in this way slavized, because that is the empires official language) (the taxes in bg state at the beginning werent that big, compared to East Roman Empire). I know that this theory is simplistic, but its the only logical we ve got. The proove is the genetic researches (we are mainly related to the Romanians and to the Greeks).
|
|
|
Post by superman on Oct 18, 2007 7:38:36 GMT -5
All are latinized thracians (Romanians) now some of them took a slavic language (eg bulgarians, serbs...etc) but we are all proto-romanians.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 18, 2007 9:19:25 GMT -5
All are latinized thracians (Romanians) now some of them took a slavic language (eg bulgarians, serbs...etc) but we are all proto-romanians. I dont think they were Romanians, because at the times there were not such people in the national sense. Also they werent Greek in the south, though I believe due to the Greek influence they spoke Greek. They were thracians in the end, but due to the state policy these people began to speak slavic (as it was the states language).
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Oct 18, 2007 9:56:39 GMT -5
First, be so kind to present yourself. Do we know you under any other nick or you are a brand new visitor?
Nomadic state organisation?! Even Rhezus would be ashamed of such claim. If you haven't noticed, they gave us quite a centralized state, not a nomadic one. They were good in creating states, towns, markets, etc, if you allow me to add.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Oct 18, 2007 10:46:17 GMT -5
Ioan and Ruse, all were proto-romanians. After slavic barbars invaded some of them took slavic language, but their blood is still proto-romanians. No greek here since Greece was much Souther.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Oct 18, 2007 10:51:49 GMT -5
Well you are right, that's unlogical.. I can tell you that.. first now (during last 15-20 years) the issue was taken more seriously. There are special institutions at several European universities today, researching (and teaching students) in Thraceology. The consciousness of our ppl will change, as well as other will see us more as domestic than "new settlers". The question: "Are we the Thracians?" is here to stay! At least, untill it's completely solved.
Unfortunatelly Thracian language was not a written one, due to the religious believes and traditions - it was a sacral religion. That's because the Roman empire latinized ppl of Thrace and later, after the slavic settlements, Thracians accepted even slavic speech. But all that happened not for a day, it was a long process with a new ethno/cultural reformation.
We are mainly related to Dacians (today Romanians), but not to the Greek!! Some Thracian tribes were influenced by the Greeks only (hellenistic).. As well as Greeks were influenced by the southern Thracians. That old culture was created by both, Greek and Thracians! And before Greeks, there were Monoian and Myceanian cultures in the southern parts the peninsula (in Greece). Greeks came and discovered already existing culture..
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 18, 2007 13:09:20 GMT -5
First, be so kind to present yourself. Do we know you under any other nick or you are a brand new visitor? I m 28, from sofia, bulgarian, new member, I ve read alot of the forum before joining and I really like it. I m interested in history. Well, isnt it like widely accepted that they were nomadic? I think we should be thankful to those people (partly our ansestors) for our state really. And how a nomadic state contradics centralized. It was centralized of course thus very strong. Of course, Pliska is or was impressive but lets not kid ourselves, they were hardly the Romans with their impressive buildsings. Isnt it ironic that we have much more roman remains that bulgars? I dont say they arent part of our hystory, they re the reason we have a state this early, but do u really think we are brothers with the people in Tatarstan (I know they ve been long under the tatars and that could ve changed the composition of the people there but still, its obvious we are related to the bolkan people)?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 18, 2007 13:13:43 GMT -5
Ioan and Ruse, all were proto-romanians. After slavic barbars invaded some of them took slavic language, but their blood is still proto-romanians. No greek here since Greece was much Souther. O please. Proto romanians. I dont feel Romanian at all or proto whatever. I feel Bulgarian, but I aknowledge we are all connected and it shows (physically). And the logical reason is we were here forever. We are Bulgarian, we are mixture of Bulgars and Slavs, but I think its obvious that the main component is Thracians.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Oct 18, 2007 13:57:21 GMT -5
Oh please...When you say Bulgarian you say a turkish tribe? so how Bulgarian you feel? Rhezus is right, and he has common sense, you were all related to Romanians, later on you became slavic by language, look at you, and serbs you look like Romanians.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Oct 18, 2007 14:00:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by superman on Oct 18, 2007 14:02:42 GMT -5
The father of history, Herodot, mentions the Dacians in his works as "the bravest and fairest of all the Thracians". He also says that "the Thracian people is the most numerous one in the world; the Thracians have several names, according to their specific regions, but their habits are more or less the same". At the peak of their power, the Thracians controlled over half the Europe and some territories in the Middle East. In some writings, the Dacians are also referred to as the Getae.
The territory of Dacia, the Getae's country, was roughly that of today's Romania, Hungary and parts of Bulgaria, Slovakia and Ukraine. During the reign of king Burebista (1st century BC), the western border advanced to the Constanta lake, situated in today's Switzerland.
The Dacians were a warrior people, and their polytheist religion saw death as a liberation. Their belief in the supreme god Gebeleizis made them fearless on the battlefield, and this virtue was passed on even after the old religion was replaced by the cult of Zalmoxe. As with other hiperboreean peoples, true life only began after death, where they would meet with their god. The Dacians cheered at the funerals, but cried when a child was born, weeping for the life he was going to have. This education and their beliefs meant that the Dacians were not afraid of death, and thus they were fearsome warriors in the eyes of any ancient civilization.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Oct 18, 2007 14:03:59 GMT -5
and I ask you, are Albanians illyrians? or thracians??
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 18, 2007 14:23:20 GMT -5
The father of history, Herodot, mentions the Dacians in his works as "the bravest and fairest of all the Thracians". He also says that "the Thracian people is the most numerous one in the world; the Thracians have several names, according to their specific regions, but their habits are more or less the same". At the peak of their power, the Thracians controlled over half the Europe and some territories in the Middle East. In some writings, the Dacians are also referred to as the Getae. The territory of Dacia, the Getae's country, was roughly that of today's Romania, Hungary and parts of Bulgaria, Slovakia and Ukraine. During the reign of king Burebista (1st century BC), the western border advanced to the Constanta lake, situated in today's Switzerland. The Dacians were a warrior people, and their polytheist religion saw death as a liberation. Their belief in the supreme god Gebeleizis made them fearless on the battlefield, and this virtue was passed on even after the old religion was replaced by the cult of Zalmoxe. As with other hiperboreean peoples, true life only began after death, where they would meet with their god. The Dacians cheered at the funerals, but cried when a child was born, weeping for the life he was going to have. This education and their beliefs meant that the Dacians were not afraid of death, and thus they were fearsome warriors in the eyes of any ancient civilization. I dont get the point of that post about the Dacians. Even IF the Thracians were related to the Dacians, we the Bulgarians are not heirs of the Dacians, because geographycally the Dacians didnt have anything to do with the Bulgarian theritory (only neigbours). Our forefathers are the Thracians south of Danube. What does a Bulgarian mean? Its the people that live in Bulgaria, that have slavic language, have had a glorious state when the surrounding people were tribes (excluding Eastern European Empire) and are mainly ancestors of the Thracians, mixed with Slavs and less with Bulgars.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 18, 2007 14:51:15 GMT -5
and I ask you, are Albanians illyrians? or thracians?? they are the illyrians obviously, cause the illyrians lived on their teritory, not the thracians. but how is this connected to the bulgarians and the thracians?
|
|
|
Post by superman on Oct 18, 2007 15:11:11 GMT -5
There were Dacians South to Danube also Dacians were till Haemus Mountains that is Balkans.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Oct 18, 2007 15:11:45 GMT -5
why you choose a Romanian name? Are you a clone of someone who I know?
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Oct 18, 2007 17:05:03 GMT -5
bonnie, you're an idiot, i'm smiting u for ur stupidity
|
|
|
Post by Edlund on Oct 18, 2007 17:37:19 GMT -5
The modern Bulgarians are mostly descendants of people, who lived on the Balkans for thousands of years. The terms "Thracians", "Slavs", "Proto-bulgars", "Proto-romans", "Greeks" are relative. You see how hilarious is when superman/Boni/Anittas says - "You are protoromanians". Such people never existed. It's just as hilarious when someone speaks about "protobulgarians". Those are categorizations, which didn't exist 1500 years ago, they were created in the last 200 years. Our ancestors might have had different identities throughout the years. For example I have traced my family roots and I found out that I have relatives in Macedonia and Greece. Those in Greece have Greek identity, I suppose the guys in Macedonia have Macedonian identity. The sources from 6-8 century often don't make difference between Bulgarians, Slavs, Goths, Huns etc. So it's pointless to make such clear distinction now, like Bulgars - nomads from Asia, Slavs - blond guys whose language we took, Thracians - the people who we resemble physically. Priscus - the guy who gave us first hand description of Attila, visited Attila in his country in Pannonia. There he met one guy, who he took for barbarian, but he turned out to be a Greek. So physically there was no significant difference between a Hun and a Greek. This is how Omurtag looked according to Ioannes Skylitzes: And this is how the Bulgarians looked, according to a picture from 11th century: This is the whole picture: (Those are Bulgarian pagans, killing Byzantine saints)
|
|
|
Post by Edlund on Oct 18, 2007 19:21:24 GMT -5
Ioane, kato se zamislih, i az se symnqvam dali si novo lice ili si edin rumynec s mnogo lica Q napishi neshto po-dylgi4ko na bylgarski da vidim dali si bylgarin.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 18, 2007 20:51:26 GMT -5
Ioane, kato se zamislih, i az se symnqvam dali si novo lice ili si edin rumynec s mnogo lica Q napishi neshto po-dylgi4ko na bylgarski da vidim dali si bylgarin. Bulgarin sum estestveno. Tova 4e izlagam hipoteza koyato se vurzva s genetichnite izsledvania i e nai logichnata me pravi rumunez? ??
|
|