dont you slavic me!!!!

[Draco]

Originally Posted by tankistabg

you know what - protobulgarians are the exact and the only group that formed the modern bulgarians. Its like saying modern greeks arent descendant from ancient greeks and that modern albanians don't descend from albanians.

No. Your saying that proto-Bulgars are ethnically the same as modern Bulgarians is like saying that the modern-day English are ethnically the same as the ancient (Celtic) Britons, that the modern-day French are ethnically the same as the ancient (Celtic) Gauls, that the modern-day (Arab) Egyptians are ethnically the same as the ancient Egyptians or that the modern-day Romanians are ethnically the same as the ancient Dacians. These are totally different cases to modern-ancient Greeks, modern-Arpad's Hungarians, modern-Samuel's Bulgarians, modern-ancient Chinese and Japanese etc. Where is the difference? The language and the culture which accompanies it: the former group, while they may have some partial ancestry from the named ancient groups have no linguistic or cultural (or otherwise objective) link to the ancient ones, to claim so is Romanticism, not real.

[tankistabg]

Originally Posted by Draco

No. Your saying that proto-Bulgars are ethnically the same as modern Bulgarians is like saying that the modern-day English are ethnically the same as the ancient (Celtic) Britons, that the modern-day French are ethnically the same as the ancient (Celtic) Gauls, that the modern-day (Arab) Egyptians are ethnically the same as the ancient Egyptians or that the modern-day Romanians are ethnically the same as the ancient Dacians. These are totally different cases to modern-ancient Greeks, modern-Arpad's Hungarians, modern-Samuel's Bulgarians, modern-ancient Chinese and Japanese etc. Where is the difference? The language and the culture which accompanies it: the former group, while they may have some partial ancestry from the named ancient groups have no linguistic or cultural (or otherwise objective) link to the ancient ones, to claim so is Romanticism, not real.

you say culture!
None of those are present in Bulgaria:

[Draco]

Yes, culture. In my view genuine culture doesn't encompass artificial revivalism (here's a useful test: check if your grandparents practiced that custom). The only real culture passed down from proto-Bulgars which I can think of is the use of Bulgar names such as Asen, although the significance of this could be exaggerated and selective considering the fact that they are outnumbered by Slavic, Greek or Hebrew names. Any genuine expression of original proto-Bulgar culture in Bulgaria will likely be trivial when compared to its Slavic culture, so attempts to emphasise the former while excluding the latter are selective and artificial.

I would like to point out however that I'm not saying the modern Bulgarians cannot claim proto-Bulgar heritage, I'm just saying that modern Bulgarians are Slavs and attempts to "disprove" this by pointing to the negligible or artificially revived Bulgar elements in modern Bulgarian culture does not hold water.

[olvios]

Originally Posted by spa05akw

1.THRACIANS WERE NOT FULLY HELLENIZED! (Greek mytology and propaganda).
2.Greeks took over many Thracian goods and made them Greek as if they invented them before Thracians.
3.Thracians called themselves Bulgarians! (Known from old documents). Thracian/Trax is not Thracian invention, but a name given by Greeks.

[kostas68]

Originally Posted by spa05akw

3.Thracians called themselves Bulgarians! (Known from old documents). Thracian/Trax is not Thracian invention, but a name given by Greeks.

Yes,i know,these ancient documents are hiden by the bad Greek propagandists,together with those in which the ancient Macedonians called themselves ...<Makedontsite>.I'm living for the moment when all these testimonies will see the light of the day.Don't worry,my friend.The truth will finally shines!Untill then,keep on ridiculing yourself.

[sutapanaki]

( I tried to post this yesterday but for some reason it didn't appear in the tread. I apologize if you see it twice)


Wow, it took me 2 days to read through all the posts here in this tread. Meanwhile I see, tankistabg has been banned. Too bad, otherwise I would have asked him how old was he. I wouldn't care about exact age, but just age range.
However, on a serious note, the whole talk about now-a-days Bulgarians being not Slavs but some proto-Bulgarians, or Sarmatians I think is a complete nonsense. Yes there were times in the 20th century when depending on the political environment it was better for the Bulgarians not to be Slavs (during Hitler times) or it was better for them to be very much Slavs (during Soviet times). But then the Thracian treasures were discovered, so we had to have also a some Thracian element. Now it is probably wishful again not to be Slavs because a lot of people try to break aways from Russian dominance - (although if it were not for them we could still be living in Turkey together with the Fyroms). And Stalin made Tatarstan where Volga Bulgaria once was, so it was convenient to proclaim Bulgars as Tatars or Turks as I believe it is most strongly supported by Soviet and Russian historians.
I have always believed that history is not only facts, genes, but should obey a certain logic too, even more logic than facts really. It is completely unrealistic to claim we are this or that, pure Slavs, or pure proto-Bulgarians, or pure Aryans - this reminds some other times. After all Bulgarians are not in the situation of some Amazonian tribe that lived forever isolated from other human contacts and thus preserved its purity as a tribe or ethnicity. Especially in the Balkans people are so intermixed that talking about 100% ethnic purity is BS. Much more important is the cultural exchange that we have in the Balkans - ancient culture from Greece, Rome and Thrace with the fresh blood of the "new-comers" - Slavs, Bulgarians...This makes the Balkans folks no lesser people, in fact probably better than others. And there is nothing to be ashamed of being Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek with their particular culture, but also the common Balkan features. Yes, there are nationalistic tendencies in Bulgaria (and not only there), but these are mainly promoted by renegade politicians who otherwise would be out of politics because they are incapable of contributing in a more constructive way and the easiest is to take advantage of situations.
For example in USA no one cares so much of the origin of different people living there. It is true it is an immigrant country and such tendencies would be just quite inappropriate, but so what. They don't care and being so culturally diversified doesn't stop them from being the most developed country offering a lot of opportunities. On the other hand the Balkans with its ancient culture is one of the poorest places in Europe - what is then the benefit of having an ancient culture, and promoting ourselves as decedents of Alexander the Great or of some Aryan Bulgars or of Slavs etc. if we can not make use of it for a better life in the present day but bother how great we were some 20 centuries ago.
However, speaking of origin of proto-Bulgarians and the uncertainty surrounding it. As you can see I have joined this forum recently and I read a post in another tread with another topic.

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/for...uote=1&p=66653

There a reference to a 1922 book was given:

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14030162

where among other things it was said that those bad, savage, "yellow" race Bulgarians came and although not numerous in number conquered and enslaved the Slavs they found here and caused many problems to the East Roman Empire for centuries. And again history and logic. If so less in numbers and if they enslaved the Slavs (which immediately makes them enemies or at least not highly willing to cooperate) how did they managed to come against the army of Byzantium and defeat it. More to it, it was not a practice of the Roman empire to throw all its army and fleet against an insignificant tribe that just happened to appear at its northern border. This costs money, a lot, and usually in those cases they would send the local garrisons, not the army and the Emperor leading it. I think that early Bulgarians were not so less in numbers and were not so stupid to enslave the Slavs and turn them into enemies. It is far more logical to use them to increase the population which also means army and be able to conquer more land. Because let's admit it, at the time the name of the game was conquest of territory and everyone did it mainly by the sword and died by it, too. And this was the politics of the time as well.
I read an interesting article here (probably many of you already know it):

http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html

It gives some interesting hypothesis of the origin of the proto-Bulgars.
Another thing that's worth noticing is if one assumes that they really came from Bactria (Bukhara) it is striking the similarities of the settlements names - Shuman, Madar, Varnu in Balhara, Shumanai in the Balhani plateau at the Caspian see and of course Shumen, Madara and Varna in present day Bulgaria - could be a coincidence but it seems much more probable that it is not.
The above mentioned book also describes how the Bulgars lagged behind the Slavs in social and economic development. This also doesn't sound quite right to me. It is not logical to assume that for people who possessed the most accurate calendar, who built stone settlements and had strong military organization and army which naturally requires some kind of economy to sustain it.
But I'm not a historian, so I can be wrong. As you see I'm not also a nationalist, but this doesn't mean I can accept all the crazy affirmations that the Fyroms try to impose.
Just thought I could share some of my views.

[kostas68]

Originally Posted by sutapanaki

On the other hand the Balkans with its ancient culture is one of the poorest places in Europe - what is then the benefit of having an ancient culture, and promoting ourselves as decedents of Alexander the Great or of some Aryan Bulgars or of Slavs etc. if we can not make use of it for a better life in the present day but bother how great we were some 20 centuries ago.

Exactly this here,my friend,is one of the causes that gives birth to nationalism not only in the Balkans but everywhere.The poverty,the low economical developement,the unability of a state to offer to his citizens all the privileges that the citizens of all the developed countries enjoy.If you can't offer to your people a decent life,you try to satisfy them offering glorious ancestors and history like Alexander the Great.It's a very old trick:Since you can't feed your citizens with real food,you start feeding them with nationalistic delusions,in order to abstract their attention from the real and big problems they have to confront.We have seen that many times in 20th century,just remember the 2 World Wars.The Balkan peoples have suffered in the past a lot due to this mentality and let's hope that the war in Yougoslavia was the last in our peninsula.

[kostas68]

Originally Posted by spa05akw

Why was Tankistbag banned?

He called the Slavs <subhumans> .See his post nr.33:
http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/for...html#post44328

Originally Posted by spa05akw

I know that Bulgarians are mixed with Slavs, Thracians and some others (Bulgars were always mixed - already in Asia. Bulga = to mix), but I do not believe that Bulgars were absorbed totally by Slavs, since it is not logical. If they did that, then the Slavs would change the country´s name Bulgaria to something else very quickly - to a Slavic name. After all Slavs were their subjects and enemies to some point. And according to Khazarian sources Bulgars were many, many.

We can't so easily conclude by the prevelence of the ethnic name <Bulgarian> that they were so numerous.Sure you have heard about the first Russians,the Ros,as the Byzantine authors of 9th century called them.They were of Scandinavian origin(something like Vikings),as even the names of their first rulers indicate.They settled in a Slavic land,they subjugated the Slavs and organized them for first time in a state entity,but they were soon absorbed by the more numerous Slavs.We know from the Byzantines that they already had Slavic names from 10th century.Their first king in 880 was called Oleg(typical Scandinavian name) but his succesor's name was Igor.The first Russian king who was baptized in 988 was called Vladimir,if i'm not wrong.So,although the Scandinavian Ros weren't so many since they were easily assimilated by the Slavs in 100 years,their ethnic name prevailed.

[sutapanaki]

Well, but you haven't read the article from the link I posted last. If we assume only a bit of truth in it you'll see that they were really mixed and also numerous.
When I find some time I'd like to post a translation from a book by prof. B.Dimitrov talking about this and many other things. But since it needs translation from Bulgarian I can't do it right now.

[kostas68]

Originally Posted by spa05akw

We can't so easily conclude by the prevelence of the ethnic name <Bulgarian> that they were so numerous.Sure you have heard about the first Russians,the Ros,as the Byzantine authors of 9th century called them.

CORRECTION: Complete text

Well i saw it. He made a mistake, hopefully. He is right about many things but he shouldn´t call them that. Slavs are considered to be Aryans. And Germans themselves have Slavic blood, even more than Bulgarians.
- I study Bulgarian history, not Russian. What happened in Russia doesn´t necessary apply to Bulgarians. Bulgarians formed their European history long before Russia became Russia. There could be a coincidence, but no prove. Besides, I was just telling that I don´t believe that Bulgars were totally absorbed by Slavs. For exception from my previous comments, I know that Slavs were light/blond with light eyes. Bulgarian feature is not typical Slavic. They resemble more Mediterranean or Iranic/Persian. Dark blond/Black hair and dark/green eyes. At least they are closer to Sarmatians/Alans.
There are also blonds in Bulgaria but not so many. And you can say also the opposite. Slavs have Proto-bulgarian blood.

These Mediterranean features may also derive from the mix with the Mediterranean people who were living in the area before the arrival of the Bulgarians,but i don't insist.Besides,it's your peoples history and,no offence,but it doesn't bother me if your descend is Slavic at 10%, 30%,50% or 80%.I would be annoyed if your claims about your origin were a clear attempt to usurp someone else's history,as some other of our neighbors do.