Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Dec 2, 2008 6:49:10 GMT -5
So that proves that bulgars were turkic ppl! Some like that theory, because for them is simply an explenation of the mysticity. I have a neighbour and friend from Varna - he is about 40 yrs old and he speaks turkish lang. So it isn't true when said the younger don't speak only the older ones. I've seen that when his mother visits him, they talk in turkish. Ivanov, don't try to mislead ppl.. you former colleague is not true example for all gagauz. I've heard him i.e. saying that their grand parents were originally coming from N/W parts of Turkey and for me they definatelly have not bulgar origin - they don't look turkic. I'd rather say they look very domestic ppl, from the parts of Aegean Thrace. These areas of modern TR and GR still have the name Western and Eastern Thrace. These ppl are part of (always neglected by some... BUT very present) thracian stock of ppl.
|
|
|
Post by Edlund on Dec 2, 2008 11:43:21 GMT -5
They can't be "Proto-Bulgarians", because such people didn't exist. That Gagauz are Turkified Bulgarians (not Bulgars) seems very unlikely. Many other Bulgarians converted to Islam and also took on Turkish language thus being assimilated. Why would they adopt Turkish language (meaning they wanted to become Turks and enjoy the privileges of the Muslims) but keep the Christian faith (meaning they would still not be able to enjoy those privileges)? I doesn't make much sense. Here are some similar examples - the Copts of Egypt adopted the Arabic language but kept their faith. The Jews of Spain adopted a form of the Spanish language and kept the Jewish faith. The Jews of Germany adopted a form of the German language and kept the Jewish faith.
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Dec 4, 2008 4:59:55 GMT -5
First I think generalizations like Bulgars were turkic tribe only taking as reference the Gagauz is not serious. They speak Turkish language you say....Turkish or Turkic? Be clear.
Also they can't be part of the Ottomans invading the Balkans - simply because none (I believe strong in that) of the invadors would change their faith - they were in upper position and they had no reason to volunteerly become infidels and low-lives as they reffered to christians. That means that these people were already here when the Ottomans came.
We should also ask what is the physical appearence of the Gagauz? I think Ivanov could tell us a little bit more about that - since he met one of them.
Also - race and language are different things. Maybe people in Gwiana who speak French are French by race or appearance? I guess no.
Our ancestors might have spoken Turkic or what I believe a mixture between Turkic and Sarmatian/Iranic. But that doesn't mean they are Turkic.
Again - if you look at ancient maps you would see that Sarmatians, Getae, Kimerians, Scythians (all one people) were all inhabiting the area of Old Great Bulgaria or the territory of the vast Sarmatian State + Romania. Our people from the steppes carried the SAME genes as the people they found here - the few Thracians.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 4, 2008 5:30:23 GMT -5
Hey, Sin, don't you find it a little disturbing we have the same genes with Rhezus? ;D
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Dec 4, 2008 6:10:35 GMT -5
;D Ruse I think the problem of the person you mentioned is not related to the genes ;D! I think its something else - connected to his perseption of the surrounding environment. Maybe in Sweden the people (at least that person thinks so) don't like the Turks - thats why his imagination and hurted self-dignity stated that "See!? I'm no god damn turk guys! I am descendant of the Great Thracians". Unfortunately this guy is missing the fact that our (non-turkic) steppe fathers have as developed culture as the Thracians and the Greeks. I am sorry for him.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 4, 2008 7:28:11 GMT -5
hey I also think the Thracians made a big contribution to the bg nation. Why? Because we really look like the Romanians and we are totally identical culturally.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 4, 2008 7:36:27 GMT -5
Ioan, the question with Romanians and who resembles who and why is a very complicated one. I personally don't think it is due to Thracians and Dacians. This first. Second, we are not totally identical culturally. This statement is based on personal experience.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Dec 4, 2008 8:40:40 GMT -5
RuseTM (Türkmen), when you pretend you origin is steppe one, no way to have same genes as mine. As you know very well I have domestic Thracian ones = non steppe Bulgar!.
It's you who are in a BIG confusion, living in your own land, but denying what the most obvious. Sin of Tangra definitely has that problem which he addresses to me?!.. But here I'd stress on: really wrong perception of his surrounding environment. His "steppe fathers" a fvcking türkic men (türkmen).. They did not resemble the ppl of our lands - the Getae, the Dacians or the Thracians! TO ME, YOU ARE VERY VERY CONFUSED PPL!
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Dec 4, 2008 9:51:25 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D
Ruse bro ;D! Success!! We at least made them move their brains a little bit ;D ;D!
Ioan - I will ask you some questions. Please answer straight. By the way I have asked these long time ago - the supporters of our Thracian origin were pretending they don't hear them.
So Ioan - are you ready?
1. Tell me Ioan - how many Bulgars do you you think came here in first place? I will tell you my opinion. If (according to some people eher and there - very...very intelligent guys ;D ;D) lets say a bunch of Bulgars - not more than 50 000 guys - women, children and old men + warriors moved here and settled at Ongal. They could (in best case) take out at the battlefield not more than 12 - 15 000 warriors (max). Now Ioan - let's think a little. They have fought Byzantine 60 000 elite army. Elite Ioan! 60 000. Do you follow? All we know how the war ended - Byzis loose (poor them). First tell me Ioan how the hell our guys beat them? I asked the same thing long ago to Admin and the thracian person who is (by some odd god's will) moderator here ;D. They didn't answer (strange!?). Yes I know - they could win even in these numbers but these warriors could not survive the battle! This would be Pyrric victory and the end of our people. Or maybe they had a bag of ammo + one Ak each and also some mortars? What do you think?
2. Let's continue - we know (you can check if you like) that there were NONE Slavs or Thracians in Bulgar army up till the reign of Boris. Let's do some math - 681 to ~810. Wow - its some more than 100 years man! Damn! These guys from the steppes were some cyborgs I think - we can't otherwise explain how they fu.cked up prettly badly the Byzantines, Avar Khanate and the successfully stopped the Hazars and Franks. And the poor Arabs also...they were also small force ~ 100 000 all together under Maslama - nothing for our great army of....5000 horsemen?! Strange uh?
Simple logic Ioan. Very simple - just open your eyes. Also - check the ancient maps and see where the Sarmatians, Scythians, Getae, Kimmerians inhabitted. Also check the physcial appearence of the Sarmatians - check their war gear (look at the helmet and the shield ;D). THESE my friend were people of the same stock as the Thracians here!!! The same genetic material!!! Sarmatians just came to the same people here in the Balkans! That's why we look identical to Romanians! They have also dacians and Getae as their ancestors!
But these steppe people were riders - feared and respected enemies who once stopped the Romans to the East and after that together with the Huns they returned and made crucial blow to the Romans - the beginning of the end for them.
Be proud of your ancestors buddy - although you bare greek name ;D! I love Greeks ;D ;D!
Waiting for your view of that important matter ;D!
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 4, 2008 11:01:38 GMT -5
I am waiting too. So far there has been no answer to these questions, let us see if one appears.
Sin, I gave you another exalt. I gave you one before but the son of the river god ;D (rhezi, as admin affectionately calls him lol) was quick to react ;D
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 4, 2008 13:20:57 GMT -5
How could Byzantines loose all these provinces in Balkans at the time when they were fighting wars of survival against mighty Persia and Arabs or being in a middle of one of the countless bloody civil wars (with one side siding with Bulgars)? Read bellow. The withdrawal of massive amounts of troops from the Balkans to combat the Persians and then the Arabs in the east opened the door for the gradual southward expansion of Slavic peoples into the peninsula, and, as in Anatolia, many cities shrank to small fortified settlements.[40] In the 670s the Bulgars were pushed south of the Danube by the arrival of the Khazars, and in 680 Byzantine forces which had been sent to disperse these new settlements were defeated. In the next year Constantine IV signed a treaty with the Bulgar khan Asparukh, and the new Bulgarian state assumed sovereignty over a number of Slavic tribes which had previously, at least in name, recognized Byzantine rule.[41] In 687–688, the emperor Justinian II led an expedition against the Slavs and Bulgars which made significant gains, although the fact that he had to fight his way from Thrace to Macedonia demonstrates the degree to which Byzantine power in the north Balkans had declined.[42]
The final Heraclian emperor, Justinian II, attempted to break the power of the urban aristocracy through severe taxation and the appointment of "outsiders" to administrative posts. He was driven from power in 695, and took shelter first with the Khazars and then with the Bulgars. In 705 he returned to Constantinople with the armies of the Bulgar khan Tervel, retook the throne, and instituted a reign of terror against his enemies. With his final overthrow in 711, supported once more by the urban aristocracy, the Heraclian dynasty came to an end.[43]
The Byzantine Empire at the accession of Leo III, c. 717. Striped land shows land raided by the Arabs.
Leo III the Isaurian turned back the Muslim assault in 718, and achieved a major victory at the expense of the Arabs in 740. He also addressed himself to the task of reorganizing and consolidating the themes in Asia Minor. His successor, Constantine V, won noteworthy victories in northern Syria, and thoroughly undermined Bulgar strength.
In the beginning of the 9th century the Arabs captured Crete, and successfully attacked Sicily, but on 3 September 863, general Petronas attained a huge victory against the emir of Melitene. Under the leadership of Krum the Bulgar threat also reemerged, but in 814 Krum's son, Omortag, arranged a peace with the Byzantine Empire.[44]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#The_shrinking_bordersI don't see nothing all mighty about these Turkic Bulgars (that have somewhat mixed with remainder of Scythians after arriving to today's Ukraine from further East) or Slavs but that they were arriving in an opportune moment at the time when Byzantines were fighting wars of survival on at least several fronts while often being in a middle of a civil war. In those hard times they only gave special attention to places of more strategic value in Balkans to them such as Constantinople, Thessaloniki or south Greece (llook at areas that were not taken in bellow maps). The Byzantine Empire at the accession of Leo III, c. 717. Striped land shows land raided by the Arabs. Click on the image for names of provinces Byzantine Empire, c. 867 AD The Bulgarian Empire c. 927 Byzantine Empire ( RECUPERATES) in purple, c.1180, at the end of the Komnenian period Map to show the partition of the empire following the Fourth Crusade, c. 1204. ( WEAKNESS) Dusans Serbia
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 4, 2008 13:37:57 GMT -5
Why is your source missing the small detail that these forces numbered at least 60 000 people? One may think the Byzantines sent about thousand shepherds to fight Bulgars. You make the difference, don't you, Admin?
This campaign was not against Asparuh Bulgaria, but against his uncle Kuber in todays fyrom. I am not sure he made any significant gains but this is not the question.
You haven't heard about Khan Tervel, I assume. There was a topic about him here, but obviously you have missed it. In short: he was named The Saviour of Europe by Western chronists because he totally destroyed the Arab army, killing between 22 - 30 thousand of them, at a moment when the Byzantines were starving to death and even ate small stones and the corpses of their dead people after 2-year siege.
Well, with the sources you use, it is of no surprise. Listen, Admin, stop posting about Bulgars. You can see that your posts are pure joke. Not only you didn't answer Atan's questions, you embarrassed yourself even further. I don't get your maps either. Are you sure you knew exactly what you were trying to prove with them?Why are the Byzantium's boundaries only presented and what is the short-lasting Dusan's Serbia doing here?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 4, 2008 13:55:15 GMT -5
I answered it very clearly and the fact that you do not understand the purpose of Serbian map above means you did not read or understand my response (it depicts what areas were again left under Byzantine control at that time meaning areas they gave highest priority). Just because Byzantines employed on a occasion or two Bulgars, Slavs, Avars doesn't make them permanent friends. In fact that could have more contributed to their and roman downfall then anything else as it gave opportunity to Barbarians to learn many military secrets (Goths used it against Romans). Are you saying that there was no wars of survival for Byzantines at that time against Persians and Arabs that gave Bulgars their opportunity? The wars and religious control that had fueled the Sassanid Empire's early successes eventually contributed to its decline. The eastern regions were conquered by the White Huns in the late 5th century. Adherents of a radical religious sect, the Mazdakites, revolted around the same time. Khosrau I was able to recover his empire and expand into the Christian countries of Antioch and Yemen. Between 605 and 629, Sassanids successfully annexed Levant and Roman Egypt and pushed into Anatolia.
However, a subsequent war with the Romans utterly destroyed the empire. In the course of the protracted conflict, Sassinid armies reached Constantinople, but could not defeat the Byzantines there. Meanwhile, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius had successfully outflanked the Persian armies in Asia Minor and attacked the empire from the rear while the main Iranian army along with its top Eran Spahbods were far from battlefields. This resulted in a crushing defeat for the Sassanids in Northern Mesopotamia. The Sassanids had to give up all their conquered lands and retreat.
Conquest of Persia by Muslims
The explosive growth of the Arab Caliphate coincided with the chaos caused by the defeat of Sassanids in wars with the Byzantine Empire. Most of the country was conquered between 643 and 650 with the Battle of Nihawand marking the total collapse of the Sassanids.[12] Arabs defeated Persians and other Iranians and introduced their Great Religion to the Pagans.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire(looks like a war of survival between Persians and Byzantines at the time of Bulgars and a nice example of how an opportune army benefits in this case Arabs with Persia)The Sassanid Persian and Byzantine empires were militarily exhausted from decades of fighting one another. This prevented them from dealing effectively with the mobile Arab raiders operating from the desert. Moreover, many of the peoples living under the rule of these empires, for example Jews and Christians in Persia and Monophysites in Syria, were disloyal and sometimes even welcomed the Arab invaders, largely because of religious conflict in both empires.[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests---- The Byzantine–Arab Wars were a series of wars between Arab Caliphates and the Byzantine Empire between the 7th and 12th centuries AD. These started during the initial Muslim conquests under the Rashidun and Umayyad caliphs and continued in the form of an enduring border tussle until the beginning of the Crusades. As a result, the Byzantines, also called the Romans ("Rûm" in Muslim historical chronicles; the Byzantine Empire was formerly the Eastern half of the Roman Empire), saw an extensive loss of territory.
The initial conflict lasted from 634 to 717, ending with the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople that halted the rapid expansion of the Arab Empire into Asia Minor. Conflicts however continued between the 800s and 1169. The occupation of southern Italian territories by the Abbassid forces in the 9th and 10th centuries were not as successful as in Sicily. However, under the Macedonian dynasty, the Byzantines recaptured territory in the Levant with the Byzantines armies' advance even threatening Jerusalem to the south. The Emirate of Aleppo and its neighbours became vassals of the Byzantines in the east, where the greatest threat was the Egyptian Fatimid kingdom, until the rise of the Seljuk dynasty reversed all gains and pushed Abbassid territorial gains deep into Anatolia. This resulted in the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus' request for military aid from Pope Urban II at the Council of Piacenza; one of the events often attributed as precursors to the First Crusade. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine-Arab_WarsAnd finally precursor to fatal Crusades (" Alexius I Comnenus' request for military aid from Pope Urban II") where assistance is asked from MORTAL ENEMY as LAST OPTION in a SURVIVAL WAR (certainly at that point they could care less who is in distant Thrace).
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 4, 2008 14:27:59 GMT -5
Admin, why are you trying to cheat like some teenager? You have posted all the maps after my response, it can be clearly seen by the time you have edited your post. In the beginning there were only the first two insignificant maps, together with Dusan's Serbia. Do you think they made any sense?
Huh?! Where has anyone said such thing?
Are you saying that when at the same time Bulgars fought Avars and Khazars as well, those two were some miserable peoples with no military skills?
The rest of your post is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 4, 2008 14:59:38 GMT -5
Are you saying that when at the same time Bulgars fought Avars and Khazars as well, those two were some miserable peoples with no military skills? I never said such a thing. Again I am saying that Persians, Arabs and Byzantine civil wars was what constituted mortal danger to Byzantines and that anything else was a mere nuisance in comparison. This includes aggressive non-Balkan intruders such as Slavs or Bulgars who were left to their own devices in the lands they were 'given' (after virtual byzantine abandonment of them). Lands in Thrace or Illyria where they assimilated more numerous but defenseless (certainly far more civilized which made them such) leftover Roman populations. Many such populations would go to mountains seeking refuge later to become Vlachs that gradually become slavized by people (and their linqua franca) who controlled the 'valleys' and administration. Racial type and descendants Victorious Bulgar warrior with captive, featured on the ewer from the Treasure of Nagy Szent Miklos.[3]
Anthropological data collected from medieval Bulgar necropolises from Dobrudja, Crimea and the Ukrainian steppe shows that Bulgars were a high-statured Caucasoid people with a small Mongoloid admixture, and practiced artificial cranial deformation of the round type.[4][5][6][7][8][9]. From historical point of view the present-day Chuvash and Bulgarians are believed to originate partly from the Bulgars. According to their DNA data, the genetic backgrounds of both populations are clearly different. The Chuvash have a Central European and some Mediterranean genetic background (probably coming from the Caucasus), while the Bulgarians have a classical eastern Mediterranean (probably coming from the Balkans) composition. It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the two regions, without modifying the genetic background of the local populations.[10] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars#Racial_type_and_descendants
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Dec 4, 2008 15:12:18 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D
Ruse bro ;D Thanks!!! I have good time now ;D ;D! Uhhaaaa ;D ;D.
Your Highest Most Shiny Majesty. King of All Kings. Emperor of the Earth and beyond. Sir Admin.
What you state is something we (the plebei) already know (forgive me for that Majesty). So from the whole of your story.......what is the point of your story by the way? And at what exactly do you answer? How come the Bulgars beat the Byzis 1:10? Plus I told you once - but you played 7 grade school girl who was proposed a date - that time the Byzantine WAS RISING! It has already defeated the Arabs buddy!! The Empire was driving at the highway of history at 6th gear already when our guys came!! What are your prooves? None.
Ruse - I think we are playing here the game "Learn the legless to jump" or sort of.....I am tired of these guys and their obvious superiority in every aspect of life - how could someone like me or you ever prove something which is stated at another cosmic level? It makes me think - do we live in the same Universe? Or maybe I have mistaken the planet......
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Dec 4, 2008 15:16:52 GMT -5
And what the hell the damn Serbia is doing on the map up there??? Do we talk about Serbia? What is that map 1000 years from the period we are discussing?
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Dec 4, 2008 15:44:30 GMT -5
Exactly what I was saying before.. steppe Bulgars saw that oppurunity, to cross river Danube in invade Moesia and Thrace. Just because they knew there were no Thracian (or Byzantine) troops at that very moment. I don't think they would ever dare doing it if the army was present in Thrace. That is well known, but in BG history books they changed the whole thing, saying khans were SO brave, khans were So great! sh.it...
Local ppl do not wanted any new state in Thrace, steppe ppl came and took the given oppurtunity, doing raids in Moesia and Thrace and later declairing a new Bulgar state.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Dec 4, 2008 16:05:44 GMT -5
Sin of Tangra, it's just your imagination which is too vivid.. and confused. Everybody knows how steppe Bulgars arrived in Moesia and Thrace. You are not learning anybody, anything.. Look at yourself, you are blinded by non true facts. I don't care much if steppe bulgurs were 50.000 or 150.000. I don't really give any attention how many or how few they were.
Anyway it took a couple of hundred of years with ethnical regrouping in that new (Slavo-) Bulgar state, untill all considered themselves BULGARIANS.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 4, 2008 16:08:00 GMT -5
You probably mean you imaginative 1 millionThracian army lol, lol Are you posting somewhere outdoor in the swedish cold weather and your mind is frozen again?
To who is it well-known, except you and Admin? Khans were great and you don't have the right to even smell their fart.
do not wanted? is this some sort of swedish english? Or it is getting colder and colder? I have a great idea, rhezi. Since it is so easy to declare a new state, why don't you declare the State of Thracian Turkey in the very moment you land on the Sofia Airport?
|
|