Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

[Onur]

Originally Posted by DimitarP

That's spot on, turkic tribes does not mean turkish tribes. there is a big variety of turkic tribes. The bolgars were believed to be a turkic tribe that roamed across asia long before they reached the balkans or the volga river. Nowadays some believe that they also had borrowed a lot from the iranian tribes that they came in contact with at some stage.

In fact modern bulgarian linguist have found words with similar root in modern bulgarian and in the iranian languages Pushtu and Farsi-Dari.
http://lukferi2.webs.com/linguistic.htm..

Well, i made a mistake by writing Turkish for Bulgars. It would be Turkic but in 8th century, there was no Anatolian Turkish state, so there was no "Turkish" already. All was "Turkic" instead.

Only small part of Persians had steppe culture and there was only one Iranian major tribe called Alans. Big majority of Central Asian steppe people was Turks, like 70% of them was belonged to the Turkic tribes in early medieval era, 10% was Iranians, 10% was Mongolians and 10% Hungarians.

Recently invented Iranian theory has no base. I don't think you Bulgarians came from Afghan mountains. We have some Iranian words from that era too but it`s because of cultural interaction with other steppe people like Alans who spoke IE language. Not because of we or you Bulgars are Iranians.

Originally Posted by DimitarP

Well.. some bulgarian historians put the number of the bulgars who came with Asparukh (name of iranian origin) to the Danube river to up to 300 000. However they can only find some evidence for about 50 000 at best... .

Asparukh is an Iranian name??? I doubt it. We have people with Asparuh surname in Turkey too and the Bulgar Asparuh used title Khan as other Bulgar rulers. Only Turks uses the title Khan, not Alans, IE speakers. Also it`s a fact that old Bulgars used Turkic script and Turkic language. Also even if Asparuh is Iranian, other rulers of 1st and 2nd Bulgar kingdoms like Shismans are Turkic and all their name exist in today`s Turkish.

These Iranian theory invented cuz you Bulgarians have been called as Turkic for 1000+ years in every possible historical records and after you have been "liberated" by Russians, this became problematic since they had to cut any possible tie between Turks and Bulgarians. So, nearly every ottoman building has been destroyed in central and northern Bulgaria. Russians also did reform in your language and thats why you use immense number of Russian words today unlike Macedonians who were out of Russian sphere of influence. I heard Russians even re-wrote your history after 1878 by destroying whatever didn't suit to their needs.

Originally Posted by DimitarP

"...So, Bulgarians kinda hijacked the name Bulgars and using it atm."

I don't think that ist's a case of highjacking.

Well, "hijacked" maybe too harsh, cuz you use it for more than 1000 years but i wanted to indicate that current Bulgarians has no relation whatsoever with the founders of danube Bulgaria kingdoms. I mean today`s Turkic speaking Bulgars around Volga are much more closer to the Asparuh then you.

[Onur]

Originally Posted by DimitarP

In fact modern bulgarian linguist have found words with similar root in modern bulgarian and in the iranian languages Pushtu and Farsi-Dari.
http://lukferi2.webs.com/linguistic.htm..

This website is a joke. It`s obvious that this list has been prepared by a stupid amateur. Take a look at these words;

You have learned these words from Turks in ottoman era. You didnt learn these from Asparuh cuz there was no meihana, chai, badem in 8th century; Halka, Chai-Tea, Sinjir-Zanjir-Chain, Badem, Tambura- musical instrument, Roshvet, Kesmat / Shans-chance, mehana-bar


These words are Turkish for sure. These are not Iranian; Renk( proto- Bulg.) / Boia, cviat, Job-Jeb-Pocket, Chorba-Shorwa-soup, sapun-Sabun-soap, Torba-bag, Bashta-Padar-Father, Chainik-tea-pot, Shishe-glas, Kuche-Spai-Sag-dog, Perde-Curtain, Parche-Piece, Bazar / Pazar-market, Cheshma, Topka-Top-Ball, Portokal-Orange

Also it`s so funny for me to see words like "Renk, boia, cep-jeb, bash, kuchu, portakal" as proto-Bulgarian!!!! lol, these are Turkic/Turkish words and wtf is proto-Bulgarian? Current Bulgarian is a slavic language and portakal, boia, bash, kuchu IS NOT proto-Bulgarian(slavic).. It`s simply Turkic, nothing else.

The "Proto" of some Slavic language CANNOT be Turkic nor Persian!!!


Besides, i know that Iranians refuses your Bulgars being Persian claims. It`s really stupid to list Iranian words that you have learned from Turks during Ottoman era and naming Turkic words as "Proto-Bulgar" then claiming that you came from Afghan mountains and spoke IE language!!!

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by DimitarP

At this moment I disagree with you on the first question, because as I said there has been a recognized bulgarian ethnic group in the turkish empire, which spoke bulgarian (sort of a slavic language).

Not 'sort of' - Bulgarian is a Slavic language, like Macedonian, Croatian, Slovak and Russian, in the same way that Italian, French and Spanish are Latin languages.

Their name and language hasn't survived for such a long time because of a random precedence, it was a recognized ethnicity and language and has been around for a long, long time.

I have no doubt that the people of Moesia possessed some sort of common affiliation with each other, but I am talking about the 'Bulgar' name. It came to be found in the Balkans as a result of Turkic (with Iranic admixtures) peoples establishing a kingdom in Moesia during the 7th century AD. As these Turkic Bulgars were no more than 50,000, it didn't take long before they were assimilated by the local Thracians and 'Slavs' they had subjugated. Shortly after the time of Boris the old Bulgars were all but gone, but their name remained due to the precedent they set. When Bulgaria was toppled by East Rome in the 10th century, the empire established by Samuel was referred to as 'Bulgaria' because of precedent; when Basil II defeated Samuel he created a new theme in Macedonia called 'Bulgaria' - again, because of precedent (*significant to note is that actual Bulgaria in Moesia was not included in the 'Bulgaria' theme).

To be historically accurate, the only persons that can be referred to as true 'ethnic' Bulgars are the Turkic peoples that established Bulgaria. For the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the empire, theme or kingdom which carried such a name, it held no ethnic significance (except to those that claimed a heritage from the Turkic Bulgars). They instead made use of the term in the generic sense, which is how it came to be applied to Slavic languages and letters across the greater Balkan region.

We don't know about any thracian minorities in the ottoman empire who had tried to liberate them selves (or do we? let me know if there are materials that talk about uprising of ethnic thracians or thracian awakening at that time).

I never said there were 'ethnic' Thracians in the Ottoman Empire, I merely provided an alternative name due to the insignificant Bulgar element in today's Bulgarians (which you agree with). At least the Thracians were Indo-Europeans who spoke a language that shares affinities with Slavic languages, unlike the Turkic Bulgars.

The main thing for me is that the macedonians feel dfferent from everybody else, therefore they are a separate people, therefore I recognise them as such.

The Macedonians feel different from their neighbours because they are distinct, and there is a mass of evidence to support that 'feeling'. Genuine recognition is based on more than just a 'feeling' or 'you are what you are because you say you are', it is the acknowledgement of existence, the acceptance of reality.

[Risto the Great]

Originally Posted by Ottoman

You can compare the term Turkic with Slavic, the term Turkish is indeed not correct because that term is used to describe people from Turkey.

Yes that is a fair comparison to the extent it relates to historic peoples existing outside of modern nations. Whilst we do not know what Turkic or Slavic precisely means, it is convenient for classification purposes.

[Onur]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

I have no doubt that the people of Moesia possessed some sort of common affiliation with each other, but I am talking about the 'Bulgar' name. It came to be found in the Balkans as a result of Turkic (with Iranic admixtures) peoples establishing a kingdom in Moesia during the 7th century AD.

To be historically accurate, the only persons that can be referred to as true 'ethnic' Bulgars are the Turkic peoples that established Bulgaria.

I fully agree to that.

It`s also highly possible that Bulgar people who came to danube also had Iranian people(maybe Alans) with them cuz they were all steppe people in Eurasia. Steppe people like Turks, Alans(Iranians), Hungarians cooperated a lot of times `till 13th century since they had similar culture and they lived close to each other for a long time. That even includes slavic tribes during Hunnic expansion to Europe.

People had same concerns as us 1000+ years ago. Vlachs and Cuman Turks along with the monarchy of 1st Bulgar kingdom used same name "Bulgar" when they formed 2nd Bulgar kingdom simply to have a historical base. Bulgar name probably continued to be used by these people to have a historical right for their own state on that particular territory. So, thats also why they didn't use any other name like Thracians cuz Thracians never formed their own state but Bulgars did that simply because in medieval era, warfare skills of steppe people was superior comparing to Romans, so they were able to defeat them and create their own state.

What disturbs me is; Bulgarians trying to transform early Bulgars like they were supposedly some Iranian tribe, living in Afghan mountains, spoke IE language. This is stupid cuz Bulgars are Turkic tribe and we have countless proofs for that. Volga Bulgars has their historical documents of their own from 9-10th century and it`s Turkic language. I know that danube Bulgarians are ashamed to be related with Turks in any way because of Ottoman era but it`s pointless to create stupid Iranian theories and stole the name of a medieval Turkic tribe and turn it to a Iranian one.

For the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the empire, theme or kingdom which carried such a name, it held no ethnic significance (except to those that claimed a heritage from the Turkic Bulgars).

This is true. For slavic speaking people, the name Bulgar has no ethnic significance. It can only have ethnic significance for Turkic speaking people.

AFAIK, some Gagauz people claims to have early Bulgar heritage and as far as i read from some Bulgarian scholars, some Turkish speaking people in the region of "Deliorman" in Bulgaria are thought to be descendants of old Bulgars. They claim that because of archaic features in their Turkish language.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Onur

It`s also highly possible that Bulgar people who came to danube also had Iranian people(maybe Alans) with them cuz they were all steppe people in Eurasia.

That the Iranic or Indo-Aryan influence in the Turkic Bulgars came from the Alans is very probably given that they are located between the place in which the Bulgars came from and where they finally settled (in the Balkans).

What disturbs me is; Bulgarians trying to transform early Bulgars like they were supposedly some Iranian tribe, living in Afghan mountains, spoke IE language.

This is a recent innovation by some Bulgarian scholars that found it hard to come to terms with the fact that the people they claim to descend from were overwhelmingly Turkic.

[DimitarP]

hi, in terms of bulgaria is "different but not THAT different" response from Soldier of Macedon I'd like to clarify that I was talking about the human rights and the possibility of gypsies getting kicked out of the country.. like the way they did in the communist times: The economy is not that prosperous, probably same standart of living as during communist times, but human rights in communist times were THAT different from that in bulgaria as EU member state.

Here's a link to a newspaper article (in bulgarian) about a successful company run by Turkish businessman in Targovishte: http://www.dnevnik.bg/pazari/2011/01...velicheni_s_9/

Read the comments after the article as well if you are interested

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by DimitarP

hi, in terms of bulgaria is "different but not THAT different" response from Soldier of Macedon......

Which response was that?

[DimitarP]

Originally Posted by Onur

... wtf is proto-Bulgarian? Current Bulgarian is a slavic language and portakal, boia, bash, kuchu IS NOT proto-Bulgarian(slavic).. It`s simply Turkic, nothing else.

The "Proto" of some Slavic language CANNOT be Turkic nor Persian!!!

Yeah I am not a specialist linguist and many of the words you listed may well have been turkic, not iranian... However I can clarify what they mean by proto-bulgarian:

The proto bulgarians (pra-bulgari) were the turkic peolpe who came with Asparuh. We have been calling them the "bulgars" in this forum so far. The proto-bulgarian was their language. The term "proto-bulgarian" may be incorect but that's what they mean by proto-bulgarian. Modern bulgarian is slavic owing to the assimilations of the bulgars/proto-bulgarians in the lager slavic population and taking up their language at the time. Remember the bulgarian state adopted the cirilic alphabet (specificly designed for slavic people) in 9th century. In other words the so called "proto-bulgarian" was abandoned.

[DimitarP]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Which response was that?

Sorry Soldier of Macedon, this was a response to a quote by Onur not you. My bad.