|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 29, 2009 5:36:01 GMT -5
"Considering that Bulgars are Slavenized Turks, I'm willing to bet on the former."
Well the Bulgars are slavs who were *ruled* by a ruling Turkic Bulgar caste. It wasn't a rosy union between the subguated slavs and the ruling Bulgar elite for the first couple of centuries. Many of the Slavs disliked the Bulgars and left the country, why would you when the Khans sold off young slavs to arabian countries to be slaves!.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Jun 29, 2009 6:07:28 GMT -5
So why did the Slavic subjects take the Bulgar moniker?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 29, 2009 7:54:46 GMT -5
^ It all occured during Tsar Boris' time when he and the ruling Bulgars accepted christianity and elevated slavic to be the language of the state.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jun 29, 2009 8:58:12 GMT -5
^ It all occured during Tsar Boris' time when he and the ruling Bulgars accepted christianity and elevated slavic to be the language of the state. thats right, before him there were "Khans", After him Tsars. Novi, how many do you calculate the original turkic bulgars as a percentage of the total population?
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Jun 29, 2009 12:50:30 GMT -5
Well, according to genetics, all South Slavic nations have very low occurrences of DNA that is "Turkic" so I guess that answers your question.
The Turkic Bulgars were a ruling caste, just like the Iranic Serboi. They extended their rule over Slavicized Natives and eventually, pretty much all they left was their name.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 29, 2009 13:12:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Jun 29, 2009 13:18:27 GMT -5
I meant your insinuation that Serbs are Avars. A lot of groups past through the Balkans around the time the Serbs did.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 29, 2009 13:33:57 GMT -5
I didnt say Serbs were Avars. I said that the Serbs also have Turkic blood through the Avars who are recorded to have settled in present day Serbia. It is undoubted that the Serbs are Slavs. But it is undoubted the Bulgarians are slavs too.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Jun 29, 2009 13:36:38 GMT -5
That’s ridiculous. You might as well claim that Serbs are long lost Ostrogoths. At least that would hold more weight.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 29, 2009 13:41:32 GMT -5
You have German blood too. We have Celtic one yes. So whats the problem. Lots of people mixed anywhere in the Bolkans.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Jun 29, 2009 14:02:00 GMT -5
Serbs aren't known for mixing. Hell, they only started to convert to Christianity 500 years after they settled in a Christian Empire. And that was only because someone translated the bible from Greek to Serbian. Even until this day elders warn of mixing with other groups.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 29, 2009 14:04:37 GMT -5
Ok. The Serbs are pure slavs, though the original Serbs were Iranians, though Germanic and Turkic tribes settled there. Happy now? Good.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Jun 29, 2009 14:43:44 GMT -5
No. Serbs are a subgroup of Slavs. Serbs are Serbs. Not Germans, not Turks, not Iranians. Just Serbs. Though some Serbs may have intermarried with those from other ethnic and racial groups, they are a rarity, almost mythological.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 29, 2009 14:45:32 GMT -5
ok, if that lets you to sleep good at night.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Jun 29, 2009 15:01:46 GMT -5
It does. Sleep well at night knowing that you're Iranian, German, Turkish, Celtic or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Jun 29, 2009 16:25:05 GMT -5
1. The only time we were actually settled in a Christian Empire is when the Serbs arrived in Macedonia. However, from the end of the 7th century onwards (ie. when we moved to our present day lands) we were never an actual part of the Byzantine Empire. We were independent of it, with our own states (Rascia etc.) and whatnot. We were nominally suzerain to the Byzantines but we were always independent (ie. Serbia was always a separate state on maps).
2. Serbs intermarried heavily with the natives of the Balkans. In many cased, there wasn't even an intermarriage but simply an Illyrian for example, who came under rule of a Serb prince, began to simply identify himself as a Serb. However, apart from a few instances (such as the massive absorption of Balkan natives in Serbs), we do tend to stick to our own as you said and this is undoubtedly for the better.
3. Slavs are not an ethnic or racial group. They are a linguistic one and that's it. The only real Slavs Serbia has are concentrated in the north of Vojvodina. Ethnically, Serbs really don't have anything in common with Russians (although I value our historical friendship) or Poles, or Czechs etc.
|
|
|
Post by Pejoni on Jun 29, 2009 18:15:42 GMT -5
While I was watching RTK's news, a bunch of nationalist showed their "tri prsta" and in the other hand with Kosova's finest beer "Birra Pejës" which in back side has a label "Republic of Kosovo" fcukin priceless
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 29, 2009 21:26:29 GMT -5
"thats right, before him there were "Khans", After him Tsars."
You know whats interesting Pyrro is that Serbs also referred to their kings as Kralj, Bulgars never had this, they only said Tsar. Yep, before the conversion in 862AD they were known as Khans.
"Novi, how many do you calculate the original turkic bulgars as a percentage of the total population?"
Mikov writes that approximately 50,000 Turkic Bulgars arrive in NE modern Bulgaria. I'm not sure, but figures from some racial anthropology sites *claim* that the Turkic racial type (Turanid) is around the 5% mark, most found in North-Eastern Bulgaria.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 29, 2009 22:35:29 GMT -5
In North East Bulgaria mostly settled Bulgarians from Macedonia and Thrace to replace the expelled Turks and Greeks so your teory is laughable. By the way the title was the following: 1.681-till Boris - "KANASUBIGI", found on many inscription and in Persian means "Ruler from heaven"; 2. Boris the Baptizer till Simeon - KNYAZ, Slavic title; 3. Simeon and onwards - TZAR, its the Slavized term for CAESAR. As for the Serbs being pure: it is undoubted the Slavs mixed with the Ilirians. There is a teory (very strong) that the original Serbs were Iranians, who absorbed the Slavs.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 29, 2009 22:36:49 GMT -5
It does. Sleep well at night knowing that you're Iranian, German, Turkish, Celtic or whatever. I do. By the way its Turkic not Turkish. I prefer to not close my eyes before the historic truths.
|
|