ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 29, 2009 1:05:37 GMT -5
This is what Novi’s been posting for quite a while. Even though this was not the case, he still blindly posts this without attempting to learn the accurate history of the region. Kuber’s Bulgars actually settled in Macedonia.
Either way, he then goes on to post a quote from a scholar whom I don’ t think is much of a scholar, but never the less, it’s interesting as it shows exactly how ignorant Novi actually is.
He has taken the effort to bold and underline the part which he thinks is of greatest importance in proving the Serbian claim on Macedonia. However, this shows exactly the opposite.
First of all, ‘sojourn’ means ‘temporary stay’ and it looks like Novi is unaware of this. This is yet another example of Novi contradicting himself with his own sources. He claims the Serbs were an ever integral part of Macedonia and had a continuous presence in the whole region. However, the source which Novi quotes and has so diligently underlined, tells us that the Serb presence was only in Northern Macedonia and it was temporary.
Now, Coon is concluding that the Serbs have accumulated their darker pigmentation and brunet appearance due to their temporary stay in Northern Macedonia, which coincidentally is where the Kuber Bulgars settled. The Bulgars, as we all know, are darker in complexion and brunet hair is the dominant type. So, Kuber’s Bulgars appear to have left a significant mark on the Serbian ethnic group since the other ethnic group in Macedonia, aside from the Bulgars, was the Slavs. And, once more, as we all know, Slavs are known to be lighter in complexion. So then if the Macedonian Slavs didn’t contribute to the dark pigmentation of the Serbs, then it can be concluded that it was indeed the Macedonian Bulgars who contributed to the ‘strong brunet tendency’ of the Serbs.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 29, 2009 6:00:19 GMT -5
^ I can add much more if you like, but for now these are enough to get through some stubborn minds.
I want to ask you something Asen, you say above Kuber and his Bulgars, but in Kubers group, the majority of his subjects weren't bulgars, they were:
Germanics Pannonian slavs (possibly croats or serbs?) Romans etc...
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 29, 2009 12:00:47 GMT -5
Hahahhaha, so the Serbs accumulated their brunet tendency and darker complexion through the Germanic and Slav subjects of Kuber!? This really makes a lot of sense, because Germanic and Slavic people are in fact mostly brunet with dark complexion. Novi you are an idiot.
Look, I know the ancient Bulgars were great soldiers and military tacticians.. but they were not supermen. A lot of the biased sources that people like you quote, state that the Bulgars, whether it was the Kuber Bulgars or the Asparuh Bulgars, were “just a few thousand marauders that somehow managed to subdue populations in the hundreds of thousands”. Then these sources claim that these tiny Bulgar groups somehow managed to lead successful military campaigns against one of the greatest empires of all time (The East Roman Empire) for centuries, and somehow managed to hold their own and even managed to permanently conquer East Roman lands where they settled. What the Bulgars have achieved was both due to their superior military abilities, and the fact that they had greater numbers or at least equal to the numbers of the local populations. The Aspruh Bulgars are estimated to have numbered around 300,000-400,000 thousand, while the Kuber Bulgars were about 100,000. The Kuber Bulgars indeed settled all over Macedonia, and the fact that Kuber had Germanic, Slav, and Roman subjects doesn’t mean that his non-Bulgar subjects were more than his Bulgar subjects. Kuber’s settlements throughout Macedonia were noted by East Roman sources, and at a later time, Asparuh’s son is noted to have cooperated with the Kuber Bulgars of Macedonia.
Now, help me understand how the Serbs are darker in a appearance due to the ethnic contributions of Germanic tribes.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Dec 29, 2009 12:44:44 GMT -5
an interesting relative book, downloadable full here: ifile.it/49ul7fx/9004163891.rarThe Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450) By Florin Curta, Roman Kovalev
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 29, 2009 20:24:44 GMT -5
Kubers clan didn't settle in vardar, again, anything prior to the 9th century is just raids. Asparuch managed to subdue the slavs of modern day Bulgaria, thats all.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 30, 2009 2:29:04 GMT -5
This is exactly what the anti-Bulgarian propaganda that you read claims, no surprise there. However, the fact of it all is, that Kuber settled in the region of Macedonia with about 100,000 people in the 7th c.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Dec 30, 2009 3:16:09 GMT -5
What source says this? Historical sources are not very reliable when it comes to numbers and 100,000 people at that time seems unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 30, 2009 4:47:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 30, 2009 5:39:38 GMT -5
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 30, 2009 11:42:51 GMT -5
The extent to which Kuber's Bulgars mixed with the Slavs is not relevent with respect to his settlement in the region. The important thing is that Kuber's Bulgars numbered nearly 100,000 and settled in the region. Whether they assimilated the Slavs quicker than Asparuh's Bulgars doesn't really make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 30, 2009 16:51:59 GMT -5
It makes adifference to Novi. especially to the left side of his head, when he was kicked by this nasty cangaroo.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 30, 2009 20:28:20 GMT -5
"The extent to which Kuber's Bulgars mixed with the Slavs is not relevent with respect to his settlement in the region. The important thing is that Kuber's Bulgars numbered nearly 100,000 and settled in the region. Whether they assimilated the Slavs quicker than Asparuh's Bulgars doesn't really make a difference."
Because it never happened. Asparuch's Bulgars and their slavic subjects weren't even one by the 10th century. This 100,000 is BS and him settling and mixing with the Dragovichi so swiftly is BS because it never occurred.
The slavs saw the Bulgars as a foreign element and hence why 208,000 of them left Bulgaria and gave themselves up to Byzantine Emperor.
From the arrival of the Bulgars to the conversion of Boris there had passed an interval of 186 years.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 30, 2009 20:39:17 GMT -5
My megalocephalic friend, a sufferer from koalas bites and wambats kicks has produced a brainfart that means absolutely nothing. Again. Will happen again. Actually, it will never stop.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 30, 2009 20:44:42 GMT -5
^ when people start resorting to these types of name calling then l have really hit the spot.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 30, 2009 20:49:05 GMT -5
No, you haven't. I simply don't know what to explain to a coffee machine like you.
|
|