Deconstruction of the term Bulgar/B'lgar/Bugar/Voulgar!

[Nikolaj]

I have moved the previous three posts to this thread from the one about the archaeological find at Amphipolis.

What point did he have about the 'Bulgar-Mongols'?

He said the 'real' Bulgars disappeared a long time ago and that now they are just Mongols. This is the point I was talking about, but I don't agree with it completely.

I agree only to a point because I believe they did have Mongols there but the Mongols assimilated with the Bulgars. I know a Bulgarian girl who even agreed that she has Mongol features, especially her brother... Considering the Mongol Empire did in fact stop very close to upper Bulgaria it wouldn't seem too odd considering they have the features to support it. Now obviously, it doesn't mean all Bulgarians are ethnic Mongols for the same reason the people from Russia and the middle east aren't Mongol either

Edit:



Here's a map where they actually stop just before Bulgaria but I have seen maps where they go through however it's not that important..

[George S.]

Som have you seen the photos of bulgars that look like mongols and you know the tartars whenever they came on the scene .There are plenty of information on other threads.So you think that the real bulgars exist today??Please explain.
Lets agree to disagree.I base my theory from the different accounts that say the real race of people bulgarians ceased to exist if any survived.They were replaced by TARTARS who were kind of turkcic.Also SOM the incursion of mongoloids into the so called bulgars as well this well documented.I'm not making this up .You look at some references which say the bulgars simply vanished the real bulgars.I was a sceptic but its the obvious.Don't think i'm just making it up.There is no such thing as a pure bulgarian after whats happened to them in history. They are knocking us that we are bulgarian because they think we speak their idiom.WE don't the language and alphabet is the cyrillic which is MACEDONIAN.
I do stand by my claim that the real race of bulgarians died out dissappeared a long time ag0 look at what replaced them.Sounds all too logical.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I have moved the previous three posts to this thread from the one about the archaeological find at Amphipolis.

He did have a point about the Bulgar-Mongols, there's plenty of maps that support that claim.......

What point did he have about the 'Bulgar-Mongols'?

[Nikolaj]

George, much of your statement is not only misleading but also makes little sense. Take some more time to think through what you're trying to get across before you post.

He did have a point about the Bulgar-Mongols, there's plenty of maps that support that claim , but people are discussing the same thing but in different time periods which is where the misunderstanding is coming from.

Anyways, I want to see what's in there, deeper!

[Soldier of Macedon]

there wasn't any the real bulgarians dissapeared a long time ago.They were replaced by tartartars and mongols.Have a closer look at the people calling themselves bulgarian and you will see slanted eyes of mongols and mongolic features.Also features of the tartars .That is why the king decided to ask the kyril and methodius to write an alphabet similar to the macedonian one.

George, much of your statement is not only misleading but also makes little sense. Take some more time to think through what you're trying to get across before you post.

[George S.]

there wasn't any the real bulgarians dissapeared a long time ago.They were replaced by tartartars and mongols.Have a closer look at the people calling themselves bulgarian and you will see slanted eyes of mongols and mongolic features.Also features of the tartars .That is why the king decided to ask the kyril and methodius to write an alphabet similar to the macedonian one.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Interesting find TLWR. There are many similar examples to this.

[The LION will ROAR]

Here's another Bulgar with a few different names. The original name he was born with is what relates to SoM's post here - http://wapedia.mobi/en/Georgi_Rakovski

Contested & Confused Identities in the Balkans -

BULGARIA'S NATIONAL HERO GEORGI RAKOVSKI - thought he was a Greek at one stage adopting the name of Sava Stephanidis . His birth name was the Serbian sounding Sava Popovich but he eventually settled on his "Bulgarianess." There is also mention of him being possibly Vlach (Aromanian) as well.

Quote from VESSELIN TRAIKOV - "RAKOVSKI - A Short Biography,"
SOFIA PRESS, 1977

http://archive.org/stream/GeorgiRakovskiShortBiography/bulgaria_rakovski_djvu.txt

"Rakovski's youngest Uncle Minko took part in the battles in Wallachia (region in Romania pronounced Valakia) in 1821 on the side of the Romanian national hero Tudor Vladimirescu.

"Rakovski went first to school in his native town and then in Karlovo where Raino Popovich, the well-known Bulgarian Hellenist of that time, was his teacher. In 1837 Rakovski's father took him to Istanbul where he enrolled as student in the famous Greek highschool at Kuru chershme. The school was one of the best organized Greek educational institutions at that time. Eminent Greek scholars had graduated from that school and many young Bulgarians of good families were studying there.

"Rakovski's name then was Sava Stephanidis and that is how he signed the letters to his old teacher Raino Popovich, to whom he wrote about many of his schooltime experiences. He wrote in Greek. He could express himself well in that language, but it is obvious that he was still not satisfied with his achievements along this line. The course of studies was very serious; the curriculum included the following subjects: mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geography, philosophy, rhetoric, theology, poetics. The Greek classics Demosthenes, Xenophanes, Thucydides, Herodotus were also studied."

[TrueMacedonian]

[Carlin]

Nice finds...

1. Obolensky.

Good point. It is a virtual certainty that the original passage had "Romans by race", and not "Byzantines by race". "Byzantines" themselves used the terms Roman empire, Romans, Romanian lands, etc. This was probably changed by Obolensky himself, or some other author long after the work in question.

2. Mazower: "...every educated person coming from that country called himself Greek as a matter of course". Mazower's edition and interpretation (or previous author's edition), similar to how Obolensky edited "Romans" in 1.

Educated Orthodox Christians regarded themselves as 'Romioi' and spoke 'Romaika' (Greek). Western, Russian, and other foreign authors "translated" Romioi/Romans to Greeks.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Not sure if these have been posted yet:

THE BYZANTINE COMMONWEALTH, DIMITRI OBOLENSKY, PAGE 219. Cited by George Acropolites, Historia, 44, ed. A Heisenberg, i Leipzig, 1903, pages 76-7.

According to a Byzantine writer, the words of a Bulgarian nobleman from Phillipopolis; “The emperor, he said, has long had the authority over us, since our land belongs to the Byzantine** Empire……And all of us, natives of Phillipopolis, are pure Byzantines by race. The Byzantine Emperor, however, would still truly have the right to rule over us even if we were Bulgarians.

**In the original work it would have been written as 'Roman' instead of 'Byzantine'.


THE BALKANS, MARK MAZOWER. Odysseus – Sir Charles Eliot, Turkey in Europe, London, 1900, Pg 347.

It was scarcely clear what it meant to call oneself Bulgarian. “Even forty years ago”, wrote an observer in 1900, “the name Bulgarian was almost unknown and every educated person coming from that country called himself Greek as a matter of course”.

Petar Dragasevic, Makedonski Sloveni, 1890, Belgrade.

Even the term “Bulgarian” became a synonym for “Slav” in the Greek language. Serbian academic Petar Dragasevic visited Greece towards the end of the 19th century where he was referred to by the Greeks as “Bulgarian”, even though he had explained to them that he was a Serb from Serbia, thus he concluded that the Greeks call all the Slavonic peoples as “Bulgarians”.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 19/06/1881.

Twelve years ago the Bulgarians were the most unknown people in Western Europe…….In a word, the Bulgarians were then as little known as the Albanian Ghegs or the Kutzo-Wallachs at the present day…….Educated Bulgarians habitually spoke Greek, or at least inserted Greek phrases in their conversation, carried on their private and commercial correspondence in the Greek language, or at least in Greek characters, habitually called themselves Greeks, often put a Greek termination to their family names and considered it an insult to be called Bulgarian………

Brooklyn Daily Eagel, 08/07/87.

Bulgaria has an area of 24,360 English square miles, with a population, according to the census taken in January, 1881, of over 2,000,000, the males predominating. According to the language returns 67 per cent. are of the Bulgarian race, 26 per cent. are Turks and the remainder Wallachians, Gypsies, Greeks, Jews and Tartars, numerically strong in the order given. About 70 per cent. of the people adhere nominally to the Greek Church, the Mohammedan faith claiming the rest……………

[Soldier of Macedon]

I have "the chronicle of Theophanes Confessor" written in 780-818 AD by Theophanes himself.

I have seen his chronicle. He writes about events relating to the Bulgars 100 years before his time. If you come across any contemporary sources, let me know.

[Onur]

Onur, can you name any eastern Romans who referred to them as Bulgars during the 7th century AD and prior?

I have "the chronicle of Theophanes Confessor" written in 780-818 AD by Theophanes himself. It includes major events from 214-818 AD but he says that he used earlier Roman chronicles to write the events of the past. Most of these earlier chronicles are lost (says so on the preface) but i think i saw one chronicle from 7th century which mentions of Bulgars, dont remember atm.

Like i said, Bulgars are getting mentioned in eastern Roman chronicles since Khan Kubrat gained their independence from Gokturk empire in 632 AD (checked wiki for the date). Eastern Romans was quite interested with the events related with Turkic people, Gokturk empire, Khazars, Bulgars, Avars etc. because they were either good allies or major rivals to them.


Here is Theophanes about the Bulgars. He writes their history when he was talking about Asparuh`s migration to the Danube in 678 AD;

[Soldier of Macedon]

Onur, can you name any eastern Romans who referred to them as Bulgars during the 7th century AD and prior?

[Onur]

Eastern Romans knew Bulgars and mentioned about them much earlier than their migration to Danube.

Due to civil war inside Gokturk empire, few tribes broke up with Asena clan (rulers of Gokturk empire) and formed their own kingdoms inside the empire. Avar tribe formed theirs in the north of Blacksea, then expanded in to the Pannonia. Bulgars under the leadership of Kubrat formed his kingdom around Volga river. Khazar tribe formed theirs, right at the north of Bulgar one. Khan Kubrat`s Volga Bulgar kingdom short lived because Khazar tribe forced them to be subjugated inside Khazar kingdom. In the end, Kubrat`s heirs and their armies expelled out from Volga region and the youngest son of Kubrat, Asparuh migrated to the danube.

All these events has been recorded by eastern Romans and the existence of the Bulgar tribe recorded by them after the reign of Kubrat in early 7th century. Kubrat`s grave has been founded in today`s Ukraine and it was full of gifts given by the eastern Roman emperor, golden cups and other golden materials. Brief story of Bulgars and Kubrat are also recorded by the Gokturk rulers, on the Orkhon monuments after Kubrat`s death. He is recorded as Kurt Kubrat, meaning "wolf" in Turkish.

So, the very first Bulgars in danube, leaded by Asparuh knew that they were Bulgars and eastern Romans also knew how and why they came there and who they were. Later authors probably writes about them as Huns, Scythians just to indicate their origin because they were part of the Huns and formerly Scythians.