|
Post by chalkedon on Sept 8, 2009 8:39:01 GMT -5
Rezhko - you have never been smart. Never. Actually you are not even little above the average intellectual level (this is my soft approach to you since I don't want again to worsen your mental/intellectual condition). The same above applies to Janny. And I would like very much to show my respect to Chalkedon. Now this guy is asking the right questions. With such persons one can talk. I ask - he answers. He asks - I answer. BUT - our conversation follows a logical pattern and the result is revealed. The TRUE result!! It should not invlove feelings. Don't you two dummies Rezhie and Janny understand? It's all about logic and facts! IF the Bulgarians coming from the steppes are PROOVED to be Turkics - I will gladly defend my Turkic ancestry. But this is not the case. I would like to ask Chalkedon for cooperation. If he agrees for the following dispute. And I ask him because he is not a directly involved side in these matters - thus he should more objective. Hey Atan ! Im a little late but thanks ! ;D I've been following and to be honest without trying to show I pick sides with you. I really believe that bulgars may have been a different stock than turkic. And this is not just to piss off my friend Jannisary or Rhezus. Just because some common words may have been used doesnt necessarly mean they were ethnic turks. IMO anyway...Still much to learn about the Bulgars. I am interested in bulgars as well...if you have cool english sites of them..post em. Take care
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Sept 8, 2009 9:01:43 GMT -5
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Sept 8, 2009 12:08:19 GMT -5
Pomaks are definately Slavs,judging from the faces of those I've seen...and their language is bulgarian, so they are for sure Macedonians... ;D
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Sept 8, 2009 12:10:33 GMT -5
Pomaks =Turkofils = turk speakers /turk lovers So Pomaks are Albanians? ;D
|
|
|
Post by raven on Sept 9, 2009 7:41:33 GMT -5
[quote author=expatriot board=balgarijabulgaria thread=26301 Hey Atan ! Im a little late but thanks ! ;D
I've been following and to be honest without trying to show I pick sides with you. I really believe that bulgars may have been a different stock than turkic. And this is not just to piss off my friend Jannisary or Rhezus. Just because some common words may have been used doesnt necessarly mean they were ethnic turks. IMO anyway...Still much to learn about the Bulgars. [/quote]
even if they were Turkic that doesnt mean they were ethnic Turks.
personally I think the were a Turkic-Iranic ppl similar to the modern day Karachay ppl of the Caucasus.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Sept 9, 2009 17:25:11 GMT -5
^^ Bulgars were certainly turkic. Pomaks have the local origin of Thracia. Ruse's link to Vasil Karlukovski's page is crap. On Karlukovski website, the info is a made up version of pro-bulgar theory. I don't find that as any scientific proof but only as copy-paste material of "somebody" who wrote "something" to make people believe bulgars had a very special origin, (non of this World). Further more, this guy is a geophysisist and he describes that in his own page below, so read for yourselves: "My research interests include application of palaeomagnetic techniques to problem solving in a) stratigraphic and tectonic problems, b) archaeomagnetic dating and c) magnetic fabric studies of Bulgarian rocks. I have a broad interest in cutting-edge studies of the fundamental principles of environmental magnetism, for purposes of retrievingpalaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental information from the magnetic records of soils and sediments". media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/31/5931-004-45AD4BF1.gif Read this from Karlukovski's web site and you will automatically get some associations. Pls, read bulgars though, as today Bulgarians and steppe Bulgars are not same stock of people: "Bulgarians are known as 'ba-go' or 'bao- guo', and B. Simeonov concludes that the ancient word 'bulgar' should occur as 'pu-ku' or 'bu-gu'. Exactly the same name of a tribe or a group of tribes is repeatedly mentioned in different Chinese sources from 103 BC up to the 8-th century AD. They speak about a people or tribe pu-ku/bu-gu inhabiting the western as well as the eastern parts of Central Asia, the lands to the north and north-west of Tien-Shan, the Semirech'e and west of the rivers Sur Darya and Amu Darya. Interestingly enough, one of the tribal lords of the people pu-ku - Sofu sulifa Kenan Bain, bears the title sulifa, attested later among the Dagestan Proto-Bulgarians." --> TURKIC! www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/world_heritage/reviews/I/MAP1_REGIONAL300.gif---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, this is could be completely different story.. One example, still not a theory. A tombstone of Thracian soldier from the Roman era: Titus Flavius Bassus, son of Mucala of the Thracian Dentheletae (a.k.a. Dansala) tribe. He belonged to the Ala Noricorum (originally raised from the Taurisci tribe of Noricum). The names adopted would normally be those of the emperor ruling at the time of the citizenship award. In this case, they could refer to any of the 3 emperors of the Flavian dynasty (ruled 69-96), Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, all of whom carried the same names. The arrangement of the scene, a rider spearing a man (the motif of the Thracian Hero), indicates that Bassus was a Thracian. Date: Late 1st century. Römisch-Germanisches Museum, Cologne, Germany--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Sept 9, 2009 18:48:04 GMT -5
What you like or dislike, is irrelevant. This guy quotes ancient authors who, believe me or not, were more familiar with Bulgars rhan you.
This TURKIC is your conclusion, a conclusion of a miserable twat with Turkish origin and unidentified consciousness. And Rhezus, I warn you: this is your last post in which you disrespect Bulgars. I am serious. Don't waste any time or energy to post your usual crap about them anymore. I will totally delete it. Enough is enough. You are free to test whether I mean this or not.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Sept 10, 2009 0:54:28 GMT -5
This guy quotes ancient authors who, believe me or not, were more familiar with Bulgars rhan you. The guy quotes ancient authors? Iranian, Arab and Byzantine annals relate the Khazars, Ghuzz and Bulgars as the same people since those are noted speaking a very related dialects, bearing quite similar customs and clothing.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Sept 10, 2009 3:41:49 GMT -5
^^ Bulgars were certainly turkic. Pomaks have the local origin of Thracia. Ruse's link to Vasil Karlukovski's page is crap. On Karlukovski website, the info is a made up version of pro-bulgar theory. I don't find that as any scientific proof but only as copy-paste material of "somebody" who wrote "something" to make people believe bulgars had a very special origin, (non of this World). Further more, this guy is a geophysisist and he describes that in his own page below, so read for yourselves: "My research interests include application of palaeomagnetic techniques to problem solving in a) stratigraphic and tectonic problems, b) archaeomagnetic dating and c) magnetic fabric studies of Bulgarian rocks. I have a broad interest in cutting-edge studies of the fundamental principles of environmental magnetism, for purposes of retrievingpalaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental information from the magnetic records of soils and sediments". media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/31/5931-004-45AD4BF1.gif Read this from Karlukovski's web site and you will automatically get some associations. Pls, read bulgars though, as today Bulgarians and steppe Bulgars are not same stock of people: "Bulgarians are known as 'ba-go' or 'bao- guo', and B. Simeonov concludes that the ancient word 'bulgar' should occur as 'pu-ku' or 'bu-gu'. Exactly the same name of a tribe or a group of tribes is repeatedly mentioned in different Chinese sources from 103 BC up to the 8-th century AD. They speak about a people or tribe pu-ku/bu-gu inhabiting the western as well as the eastern parts of Central Asia, the lands to the north and north-west of Tien-Shan, the Semirech'e and west of the rivers Sur Darya and Amu Darya. Interestingly enough, one of the tribal lords of the people pu-ku - Sofu sulifa Kenan Bain, bears the title sulifa, attested later among the Dagestan Proto-Bulgarians." --> TURKIC! www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/world_heritage/reviews/I/MAP1_REGIONAL300.gif---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, this is could be completely different story.. One example, still not a theory. A tombstone of Thracian soldier from the Roman era: Titus Flavius Bassus, son of Mucala of the Thracian Dentheletae (a.k.a. Dansala) tribe. He belonged to the Ala Noricorum (originally raised from the Taurisci tribe of Noricum). The names adopted would normally be those of the emperor ruling at the time of the citizenship award. In this case, they could refer to any of the 3 emperors of the Flavian dynasty (ruled 69-96), Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, all of whom carried the same names. The arrangement of the scene, a rider spearing a man (the motif of the Thracian Hero), indicates that Bassus was a Thracian. Date: Late 1st century. Römisch-Germanisches Museum, Cologne, Germany-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rhezus... Why are you so deadset in thinking they are turkic. Its like your not even open to the possibilty of another theory. I dont think the evidence is as clear cut as you say it is. anyway, the site Ruse posted was a good read nonetheless..
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Sept 10, 2009 5:13:33 GMT -5
Ruse, you degenerate bugger. You are the last one to determine either me or my etnicity! All ancient authors were describing bulgars as asiatic. Revealing facts is not disrespect! If you are ashamed and still can't say a word about their origin is your problem. Stop the acusing game, anyone knows where they came from (except those like you who are desperatly hiding it). And please don't warn me.. I am free to write here and anywhere else. You are going to cause yourself a problem by deleting posts, as well as that will be another proof that you have nothing to come with! So go ahead.
P.S Chalkedon, would you please stop giving me your false advices, ok!.. I know well what greek people are, what they think about themselves and about bulgars, makedons, pomaks, turks, etc? Read some facts before teaching me, please.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Sept 10, 2009 7:01:02 GMT -5
I'll take my chances. You just write one more disrespectful post.
Arab authors, Tartary, have always distinguished between Bulgars and neighbouring Turkic tribes. As for Byzantines - they called them Scythians or Huns. Thank you anyway for your contribution.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Sept 10, 2009 8:15:52 GMT -5
There's nothing disrespectful. Just because I don't agree with your point of view doesn't give you rights to delete posts?! I say what is already known - names, titles, habits, places, religion etc. are showing the whole picture. That's why the Pomaks' origin is not from anywhere else than the local areas they've always lived in - Thracia.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Sept 10, 2009 9:07:38 GMT -5
Arab authors, Tartary, have always distinguished between Bulgars and neighbouring Turkic tribes. As for Byzantines - they called them Scythians or Huns. Thank you anyway for your contribution. How do you know, you read Arabic? I thought you used to claim Iranian ancestry. ;D Located south of the Aral Sea and close to some of the major emporia of eastern Europe, Khwarizm's role in international commerce was pivotal. Its caravans skirted the northern shore of the Caspian Sea to reach Atil, at the mouth of the Volga and controlled by the Khazars - Turks who ruled the entire lower Don-Volga area, just north of the Black Sea, the Caucasus Mountains and the Caspian. Although it was an exceptionally barren and resource-poor country, the Khazars nonetheless succeeded in amassing substantial wealth on the basis of the trade which passed through the markets of Atil, where foreign merchants filled Khazar coffers with transit tolls and customs dues until the second half of the 10th century, when the Russians apparently won control of the local trade. Khwarizmian merchants also journeyed to the country of the Volga Bulgars, Muslim Turks who originally formed part of the same people for whom Bulgaria is named. The Bulgar country lay far to the north of Khazaria, around the intersection of the Volga and Kama Rivers - near the present-day Russian city of Kazan. It could be reached via a direct caravan route from Khwarizm, or by sailing up the Volga from Atil.www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197905/treasures.of.the.north.htm
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Sept 11, 2009 1:26:29 GMT -5
Stupid, stupid, stupid dumb monkey-Rezhus. Very dumb and stupid.
Monkey - our ancestors..ops I mean mine not yours, found their state in the North-East of the current geographical placement of today's modern Bulgaria.
THERE, you dumb as.shole, there they fought the very POWERFUL state of Khazars - which Khan Asparuh defeated and stopped AFTER MANY BLOODY BATTLES!!!! STUPID STUPID STUPID DUMB STUPID MONKEY!!!
WRONG MONKEY!! VERY WRONG!! READ A BOOK ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!!
THEY DEFEATED BYZANTINES WHICH WERE RISING AS STATE IN MILITARY AND POLITICAL DIRECTIONS AFTER THEY DEFEATED THE ARABS. BULGARS DEFEATED AN BYZANTINE ARMY - ONE OF THE BEST AND MOST DISCIPLINED ARMY IN THE KNOWING WORLD. 60,000 SOLDIERS!!
AND THIS WENT ON WITH HIS SON TERVEL DEFEATING THE ENORMOUS ARAB ARMY. WITH HIS BULGARS NOT SLAVS AND THRACIANS! STUPID DUMB IDIOT!!!! AND THIS WENT UP TO THE TIME OF KHAN KRUM AND UP FURTHER TO THE TIME OF BORIS!!!! MAKE YOUR CALCULATION DUMB IDIOT!!!
FOR THE OTHER "SPIRITUAL" MORON I WON'T EVEN COMMENT!
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Sept 11, 2009 1:30:42 GMT -5
Thanks mate ! What I would ask you is assistance for a little experiment. In no case it is directed towards you or meant to insult you or your people. I just need someone clever enough and objective for a short discussion (I am deliberately not pointing at Ruse since I already know him as such). I would like to show to the two stupid turks here what means thinking. Will you help?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 11, 2009 3:31:27 GMT -5
^^ Bulgars were certainly turkic. Its far from certain. So you think Pomaks are different to the other Bulgarians? How do you distinguish between a Pomak and any other Bulgarian except the faith? Is there any other difference that makes the Pomaks different than the other Bulgarians or more "Thracian"?
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Sept 11, 2009 6:39:41 GMT -5
There are not any noticeable differences, which means even the rest of "the other Bulgarians" are non-steppe. Yea, most of Bulgaria's citizen have local roots. Quite logic, isn't it.. sounds much better, when we consider the whole our nation...
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Sept 11, 2009 14:16:42 GMT -5
Rhezus is one of the most weird guys over here...much confusion inside... I have asked you to speak some thracian here...but you keep your knowledge hidden...why? These guys, who are Pomaks are like coming from Hungary or even northern... .. they may be the most slavic of all Bulgarians due to their isolation... I've seen Bulgarians who look very meditteranean... and if someone doesn't accept that its due to greek influence(which could not be so strong) the thracian option is very possible...
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Sept 11, 2009 16:32:43 GMT -5
Patrinos, they are the ones north of Greece, a quite average look for me, (which is much different from the greek one). And please, don't talk about confusion, bacause you ask those stupid questions. Thracians were and are not any greek. You see, they don't look like you do, malakas. Besides that, all speaking slavonic or romanian today (from which you you can not understand a single word). You got the picture, arabolakis.. All thraco-dacian settlemets, with names which you don't understand. Endings: -bria, -para, -dava/deva, -diza/dizo which (in thraco/dacian) mean town, settlement, fortress, etc. And I can provide you with many other thrax/dacian words, toponimes and hydronimes in which you won't catch anything!
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Sept 11, 2009 20:31:21 GMT -5
"I won't even bother to answer the rest. Your 'replies' exceed even the ignorance of that person Novi, which is quite remarkable."
Whats remarkable and even Rhezus will agree, is that you NEVER provide sources to back your point of view. I think your in contact with some backyard historians or students who are constantly inventing new thoeries that contradict everything.
I agree with Rhezus that all us Balkanian peoples origin is local. A Greek looks like a Greek from ancient times, a modern Bulgarian or Serbian doesn't look like a Pole, a modern Turk doesn't look like a central asian etc....
|
|