Bulgarians are mainly slavic rigth?

[RomanSoldier9001]

Hello to all members.I hope I can make this topic here I dont see a place to such discusion like in threat of great mod of Bulgarian Total War.This is question that puzzles me bulgarians were mainly slavic rigth?The bulgars tribes were just a minoraty that rule tough after some years they were assimlited to the majory of slavic population so they never leave a great genetic heritage so Bulgarians are mainly slavic or have some genetic turkish(bulgar) heritage too?

[Kavhan Isbul]

Hello to all members.I hope I can make this topic here I dont see a place to such discusion like in threat of great mod of Bulgarian Total War.This is question that puzzles me bulgarians were mainly slavic rigth?The bulgars tribes were just a minoraty that rule tough after some years they were assimlited to the majory of slavic population so they never leave a great genetic heritage so Bulgarians are mainly slavic or have some genetic turkish(bulgar) heritage too?

No.

The theory that the Bulgars were few and were assimilated in a sea of Slavs is a politically motivated panslavic theory, with Russian origins, which was spread primarily during the times of the Soviet Union to justify the status of Bulgaria as a Soviet satelite state.

The panturkic theory is also wrong, based on examination of remains, language and culture.

When Danube Bulgaria was established in 681, the Bulgars were probably just as many, if not more than the Slavs in the lands they conquered from the Roman Empire. In fact, the Slavs were displaced along the borders.

The Bulgars were most likely of Iranian ethnic origin, with a Turkic aristocracy and ruling elite.

This is the short answer, and a long one requires bringing the links to all the latest discoveries and research on the matter, and this is something I am not willing to do -too much work.

[RomanSoldier9001]

Your asnwer is fine well then you are of opnion that in realty the Bulgars were more important that is stated any more else share this opnion?

[RomanSoldier9001]

If is true that Bulgarians have more Bulgar influence that is stated then (this will be a little silly xD) how Bulgarians dont look more asian or turkish?

[gogo t]

If is true that Bulgarians have more Bulgar influence that is stated then (this will be a little silly xD) how Bulgarians dont look more asian or turkish?

Modern Bulgarians are mix of 50 different nations... Bulgars, Slavs, Tracians, Pechenegs, Cumans, Byzantines.... and many more

And Yes, Bulgars were more then the Slavs... Kavhan Isbul is right !

[Kara Kolyo]

Roman soldier - just take a look at bulgarian photos or maybe clips from Youtube - we have very varying features - from slavic/nordic to iranian, turkic etc. I for one look nowhere near a slav
For the other question - we have no idea what percent of the old bulgars were of eastern iranian origin and what were the other groups - turkic, other iranian etc. The bulgars spent several centuries arround Caucassus so it made it's mark aswell

[AnthoniusII]

Byzantines called the steppe people "Turks" like Magyars for example...
But it was very rare to call that way Bulgars even they were steppe tribe before their eyes too...
For non turanic origin steppe warriors they use the term of Scythae just like ancient world called that team of tribes back then...
Afcourse the mixed origin steppe tribes were called as tauroskythae or turkoskythae....
The same time Bulgars and Slavs entered in vast numbers in the balkans(some slavic people came with the Avars)Romans(byzantines)NEVER mixed them...
Bulgars were an "ethnic" group and the majority of slavic people were in two main and deferent tribes (the one was Antes and now i can not recall the other)...From those two slavic tribes became subtribes later like Serbians,Croatians and later via mixed christian beleivs or by the expansion of Islam the Bosnians...The last concidered by the last romans and ootoman greeks later as islamic Serbians!!!:hmmm:

[RomanSoldier9001]

Byzantines called the steppe people "Turks" like Magyars for example...
But it was very rare to call that way Bulgars even they were steppe tribe before their eyes too...
For non turanic origin steppe warriors they use the term of Scythae just like ancient world called that team of tribes back then...
Afcourse the mixed origin steppe tribes were called as tauroskythae or turkoskythae....
The same time Bulgars and Slavs entered in vast numbers in the balkans(some slavic people came with the Avars)Romans(byzantines)NEVER mixed them...
Bulgars were an "ethnic" group and the majority of slavic people were in two main and deferent tribes (the one was Antes and now i can not recall the other)...From those two slavic tribes became subtribes later like Serbians,Croatians and later via mixed christian beleivs or by the expansion of Islam the Bosnians...The last concidered by the last romans and ootoman greeks later as islamic Serbians!!!:hmmm:

That confuses me more than answer me

[AnthoniusII]

That confuses me more than answer me

For medeival Romans(the one many call Byzantines)Slavs and Bulgars were completly diferent people....
I hope this answer is simple enough...

[Roboute Guilliman]

never knew bulgarians are of iranian decent, always thought they were some nomadic group ala kypchaks who settled in the balkans.

[RomanSoldier9001]

For medeival Romans(the one many call Byzantines)Slavs and Bulgars were completly diferent people....
I hope this answer is simple enough...

But that doenst asnwer my question bulgarians are what?A mix of Bulgars and Slavic Tribes?Mainly Bulgars?Were Bulgars a turkish tribe? That thing you said about byzantines record bulgars as schytians is very interesiting would they iranian?

[RomanSoldier9001]

I already knew that byzantines ,slavs and bulgars were different peoples but as you must know BUlgarians have puzzeled history as their origins are what?Slavic?Bulgar(Turkish or Iranian?)?.Is very confusing but the theory that is most accepted is that Bulgars kind dissapear in sea of slavic tribes so they didnt influence a lot the bulgarians except the name of course the problem is that nowsdays new discoveries have show that bulgars in many areas were more than slavs and after all bulgarians orgins their state,history etc came from Bulgars.So what are the bulgarians?Can they be considered european?I always consider them as such.

[alien_t]

Here you can find the official theory

[Kara Kolyo]

Ugh, wiki for this is quite messed up.

Roman soldier - as already has been said the theories about the origin of the bulgars were always heavily influenced by politics. First arround and after the liberation of ottoman rule the most common theory was that the bulgars were of slavic origin, or they were something else, but the slavs were a sea they melted into. This theory was disqualified quite early on.

Than was the turkic, turanic and sarmatian theories. For quite some time the turkic theory was leading and the scarce evidence was twisted to fit to the theory. during the 20-30 ies of the last century - the schytian - sarmatian theory gained some supporters.

This iranian theory was heavily critisised when the communists came to power and people were sent to labor camps for it. They acused the supporters of this theory in faschism,nazism rasism and so on.

In the 50-ies german scholars first introduced the theory that the bulgars are of eastern iranian origin - the Fergana valey or western Afghanistan. This theory is now the most popular and there are serious historians who work on it as well as plain crazy people.

Some even claim that Budha and Jesus were bulgars ...

The serious historians though say that during the long travels the "bulgars" incorporated many different groups.
Hope this helps a bit.

[NikeBG]

The serious historians though say that during the long travels the "bulgars" incorporated many different groups.
Hope this helps a bit.

This is the most important - the actual ethnic composition of the ancient Bulgars is still rather unclear (be it with a majority of Iranic (Eastern Iranian or Scytho-Sarmatian?) or Turkic), although the archaeological excavations of the Bulgar necropolises shows that they were Europeid with minimal Mongoloid admixtures, but in all cases they were a poly-ethnos, many tribes from different origins, possibly with different beliefs and religions. And through the course of time this "trend" was kept - even more tribes from different origins, possibly with different beliefs and religions. So, basically, the Bulgarian ethnos is genetically mixed, while the modern Bulgarian culture and language is South-Slavic.

P.S.

Roman soldier - just take a look at bulgarian photos or maybe clips from Youtube - we have very varying features - from slavic/nordic to iranian, turkic etc. I for one look nowhere near a slav

While I look Slavic/Nordic. We probably have most of the variations of the Europeid phenotypes among us.

[Arslan_878]

Not to sure with Dunabe Bulgars but Volga Bulgars are Turkic, which I believe adds to the confusion.

[Iskandar]

Umm, not exactly true. Volga Bulgars were Bulgars and as such have the same unclear ethnic origin. However, they differed form the Danubian Bulgars in that they adopted Islam and were later conquered by the mongols, after which they intermixed with turkic people and adopted turkic language.

The safest thing one could say without outright contradicting the current historical evidence is that the Bulgars that gave birth to the Danubian and Volga Bulgarian states were people of Iranian origin with Scytho-Sarmatian admixtures. Anything else makes the border between hypothesis and speculation blurry.

@Kavhan Isbul: I'm not entirely convinced that the ruling elite was turkic. The images of the Dulo clan rulers do not seem turkic to me. There was of course a lot of turkic influence, due to the bulgar "participation" in the Hun and Avar khaganates.

@NikeBG: It's true that we vary greatly in looks, but there is one type that you'd never fail to recognize as Bulgarian - dark-haired, dark-eyed and with very light skin tones. I'd guess that the Bulgars form the First Tzardom looked similarly.

[NikeBG]

@NikeBG: It's true that we vary greatly in looks, but there is one type that you'd never fail to recognize as Bulgarian - dark-haired, dark-eyed and with very light skin tones. I'd guess that the Bulgars form the First Tzardom looked similarly.

"Dark-haired, dark-eyed and with very light skin tones" fits also to many Greeks, Romanians and, naturally, other Southern Slavs. On the other hand, it doesn't fit all of the Bulgarians (f.e. I'm ash-blond, grey-blue eyed, with very pale skin and basically have Nordic features) or the other Balkaners.

The images of the Dulo clan rulers do not seem turkic to me.

Which images, btw? I don't think we've found the skeletons of any of our early rulers and the only miniatures (images) from the medieval books I can remember are of Krum and Omurtag (which, indeed, are very close to those of many modern Bulgarians).

The safest thing one could say without outright contradicting the current historical evidence is that the Bulgars that gave birth to the Danubian and Volga Bulgarian states were people of Iranian origin with Scytho-Sarmatian admixtures. Anything else makes the border between hypothesis and speculation blurry.

The Scytho-Sarmatians are of Iranian origin as well. I guess you meant "Eastern-Iranian origin with Scytho-Sarmatian admixtures" (which I'd say is also far from proven, at least for now being just a theory like the Turkic one, although seeming to be a bit better supported by the primary sources)?

[NikeBG]

JimboJones, your trolling is becoming annoying and I've reported you for your offensive behaviour. I'll leave this post of yours for around a day and will delete all your past and future posts in this sub-board after that without any further warnings. Have a good day!

[Iskandar]

"Dark-haired, dark-eyed and with very light skin tones" fits also to many Greeks, Romanians and, naturally, other Southern Slavs. On the other hand, it doesn't fit all of the Bulgarians (f.e. I'm ash-blond, grey-blue eyed, with very pale skin and basically have Nordic features) or the other Balkaners.

I'll try later to find pictures, you'll get at once which type I mean - black hair, black or brown eyes and white, but not Nordic pale skin. It's normal that such features are encountered amongst Greeks, Romanians and Serbians today, we have exchanged plenty of genetic material at one point or another. However, the facial structure differs.

I said that this is only one group, maybe not even the largest; there are many more. I myself am dark blond, brown-with-green eyed and with medium skin tone.

Which images, btw? I don't think we've found the skeletons of any of our early rulers and the only miniatures (images) from the medieval books I can remember are of Krum and Omurtag (which, indeed, are very close to those of many modern Bulgarians).

Yes, I meant images of Tervel, Omurtag, Krum, etc., from coins and miniatures.

The Scytho-Sarmatians are of Iranian origin as well. I guess you meant "Eastern-Iranian origin with Scytho-Sarmatian admixtures" (which I'd say is also far from proven, at least for now being just a theory like the Turkic one, although seeming to be a bit better supported by the primary sources)?

Yes, I meant Eastern-Iranian, and added the Scytho-Sarmatians explicitly to place weight on the fact that the forming of the Bulgar ethnos was done in steps and the mixing with the Sarmatians was probably the last major one before the establishing of Danubian Bulgaria.

To me, this is the most consistent theory at present.

I also remember something about a letter of Ivan Alexander, explaining that most of the bulgarian letters were greek and some were persian, indicating the origins of his nation.

IIRC, armenian sources mention the Bulgars in 2nd century B.C. in the northern Caucasus, already possessing serious knowledge in building cities. However, from where did they come before that, and from whom did they learned construction....Anyway, I digress.


p.s. Haha, I was trying to find some images and stumbled upon a video you posted from "Khan Asparukh". Anyway, here's a link.
I wanted to find some younger faces as well, but these will have to do.

Stoyko Peev, Georgi Bahchevanov and Georgi Cherkelov could be easily identified as bulgarians, even though there are many bulgarians with completely different features. Notice that the first two can also be recognized as persian, to an extent.

Then we have Antony Genov, who has a typical Slav face, perhaps more Eastern Slav, than Southern Slav. You can see such faces on bulgarian and russian icons.

Velko Kynev and Iossif Syrchadzhiev can also be recognized at once as bulgarian, although if you say serbian you would not be wrong too; after so many centuries of intermixing it's hard to tell who originally brought this face type to the Balkans. Although, if I'm not gravely mistaken, there are not so many Croatians like that, so...

Anyway, perhaps the most clear example of the group I meant is Stoyko Peev (khan Asparukh indeed).