[HISTORICAL ISSUE] - The Bulgarian People

[AnthoniusII]

Bulgarian (българин) is the word for the modern Bulgarians since around the late 9th century or so (when Slavic became the official language etc), while Bulgar or Proto-Bulgarian (прабългарин) is the word that designates the ancient Bulgars who came from the steppes.

Romans (byzantines) when they described the "nations" and tribes that lived inside the empire's borders separated Bulgars from the slavic tribes.
But they did not also called them "turks" like Magyars for example.
From that point we can asume that Romans (byzantines) beleived that Bulgars were steppe people but NOT from turanic/turkish origin.
So the last theory NikeBG points was the corect for the Romans.
We must not forget that Romans(byzantines) may knew a bit more about that subject for the simple reason that they always had trade/diplomatic contacts it the wide spread steppe area north of Cherson and propably they had met Bulgars before their journey south.
Slavic infuences can not be denied for the simple reason that in the areas north of Cherson slavic tribes lived also.
Romans (byzantines) had a very reliable system of categorise the people according to their origin though.
That was very important because in case one nation/tribe would be hostile against them,Romans had to have all the necessary info to deal with them.

I mention here the Roman view,nothing more. A nation's origin is a very complicated issue espesially 15 centuries after the last great nations/trbal migrations in europe.

[NikeBG]

We must not forget that Romans(byzantines) may knew a bit more about that subject for the simple reason that they always had trade/diplomatic contacts it the wide spread steppe area north of Cherson and propably they had met Bulgars before their journey south.

If the journey south is Khan Asparukh's, then yes, they had met the Bulgars rather well before that. Let's not forget that Asparukh's father, Kubrat, was a personal friend of Heraclius and is believed to have sent some Bulgar forces in support against the Persians (from where some Persian vessels in his burial are explained).
But if the journey south is the first arrival of the Bulgars to the Balkans (i.e. during Attila's campaigns and the following raids and settlings until the arrival of the Avars), then I'm not sure what the Romans called them. It's generally accepted that during Attila's times the Bulgars in his ranks were included either among the Huns or among the Scythians (i.e. not with their own name) and they appeared only later on with their own name after the disintegration of Attila's state (IIRC, the first mention was about that battle in the Carpathians with the first Langobard king Agelmund, somewhere around Attila's time). At some time however they were divided to Kutrigurs and Utigurs (presumably thanks to Roman diplomacy, which wanted to stop their raids on the Balkans) and they were "reunited" under the Bulgar name only in Kubrat's time. Of course, pre-OGB history is rather mixed up in my mind and I might be confusing some things, so I'd better check the researches again.

[AnthoniusII]

I wont disagree with that.
Let's supose that Bulgars 1st journey south was indeed with Attila.
The fact is that they did not settle south of Dunab (in the eastern empire) sooner that early 6th century (according to Leo VI the Wise that mentions the history of the nations that live inside the borders of the empire.
Scythae would be the most apropriate name for them given from Romans but if Romans beleived that Bulgars were part of the slavic nations familly they would mention that.
One of the two main slavic tribes that permited to settle south of Dunab was Antes (name given in Roman texts). I do not remember the 2nd one though!
We must not forget that there were not Serbs,Croats etc slavic separations around 6th-7th centuries.

[Bagatyr]

gayse bulgars are sarmat,irenian or scyts the theory for there turkish or mongol origin is fantasy of the soviet saientists there is nowhere a proof that they use ''khan'' or ''han'' naither is sure that theyr god is Tangra the only evidence about that is foundet in Volga bulgaria and without mention the fackt that the region is overrun by tatars and mongols and ather etnyk groups there.And if you see the faces of bulgars from the old books and manuskrpts from medieval times you will see european faces just like today bulgarians not turanic or mongol,and another think i want to say if you look clearly in bulgars history they creat many states and have very develop state there are various аrchaeological evidens that they where very good at making citys and fortreses from stone Pliska,Fanagoria,Preslav and so on.They creat theyr state in the most dispute region in Europe and this state is still standing today and is still called with theyr name BULGARIA not TRACIA,SLAVONIA,TATARSTAN,MONGOLIA.Tell me witch is this mongol/turckish tribe at that time 600-700 AD that is capable of all this things without mentioning the fackt that they did't exist like well formed ethnic group and where far away in Asia in North China and Mongolia. As for thoday bulgarians i think is importent the erya witch they live . That's all from me for

[Bagatyr]

gayse bulgars are sarmat,irenian or scyts the theory for there turkish or mongol origin is fantasy of the soviet saientists there is nowhere a proof that they use ''khan'' or ''han'' naither is sure that theyr god is Tangra the only evidence about that is foundet in Volga bulgaria and without mention the fackt that the region is overrun by tatars and mongols and ather etnyk groups there.And if you see the faces of bulgars from the old books and manuskrpts from medieval times you will see european faces just like today bulgarians not turanic or mongol,and another think i want to say if you look clearly in bulgars history they creat many states and have very develop state there are various аrchaeological evidens that they where very good at making citys and fortreses from stone Pliska,Fanagoria,Preslav and so on.They creat theyr state in the most dispute region in Europe and this state is still standing today and is still called with theyr name BULGARIA not TRACIA,SLAVONIA,TATARSTAN,MONGOLIA.Tell me witch is this mongol/turckish tribe at that time 600-700 AD that is capable of all this things without mentioning the fackt that they did't exist like well formed ethnic group and where far away in Asia in North China and Mongolia. As for thoday bulgarians i think is importent the erya witch they live . That's all from me for now

[gogo t]

I am Bulgarian. I'm not Bulgar for sure (100%), and I'm not slav either (101%).
For me:
Bulgars=Turkic-Iranic people
Slavs were not more then the Bulgars VII centry

I'm Bulgarian and I don't think that I'm slav or bulgar, but Bulgarian. In my point of view the (modern)Bulgarian nation (Gene pool and ideology) was created around XVII-XVIII century. It's result of mixing more then 50 nations in period of ~1000 years and it's born under the ottoman's brutality. So I see the bulgarian revolutionarys as the fathers of the modern Bulgarian nation, spirit and ideal

edit- Well I like the romantic "I'm Bulgar" feeling but it's far far away from the reality

[NikeBG]

When speaking about those things, however, we should consider whether we're talking about blood (in which case, although I'm 100% Bulgarian (3/4 Shop and 1/4 Macedonian), we are a real mess (as one of the main theories about the meaning of "Bulgar" is from Turkic for "mixed (or rebellious) people"; me f.e. having more of an Alpine or Nordic phenotype instead of Mediterranean) or about culture. If we're talking about culture, I doubt any of us would disagree that we're Slavs, specifically South-Slavs. And by religion we're Orthodox (generally speaking).

[Bagatyr]

i desagree that Bulgars are some sort of mess between ather people but today's bulgarians are indeet.Today bulgarians are Bulgar +slavs+tracians or those who still existed at the time

[Visarion]

...Bulgarians are Thracians + Slavs + Volga Bulgars. The later gave their name to the already Slavicized Thracians. Even if the language is called Bulgarian, after the ruling class of Turkic Bulgars that migrated in the area, it is a Slavic language.

Regarding the genealogy of the Bulgarians it seems that they are more Thracians than Slavs and they must be proud of their strong Thracian heritage, as the Odrysian Kingdom was a very strong faction with a civilisation similar to the Greek and the Roman one!

Emperors of Thracian origin ruled the Eastern Roman Empire and later the Byzantine Empire for more than 500 years!

[Bagatyr]

Bulgar are not turks, second they are not Volga bulgars !The volga bulgars are brothers of our bulgars .The mighty Kubrat ruler of Old Great Bulgaria foundet the Bulgarian state in 632[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/a/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG] http://galeria.bgrod.org/albums/Karti/StaraVelikaBG.jpg after the invasion of the hazars bulgarian people had to finde a new home land and they where saperated between the sons of Kubrat -Asparuh or Ispor who lead one of the bulgarian groubs in present Bulgaria the other brother Kotrag lead his bulgarians to volga region and the older brother Batbayan with his part of the people remain in the oldest lands to stop tha hazar's invasion.As about the tracian origin yes there are maybe 5-8 % tracian blood but thats all most of us are bulgaroslavs origin

[Visarion]

The Volga Bulgars are brothers of our Bulgars

my mistake then!

As about the Thracian origin yes there are maybe 5-8 % Thracian blood but that's all most of us are Bulgaroslav origin

what about I2 haplogroup? It seems you are Danubians as well if you don't preffer Thracian! In any case it seems that Romanians and Bulgarians have very similar haplogroups! Don't forget that the first states of Bulgaria were made by Bulgarians and Aromanians! it is true that they moved further south so you probably are right... you are Bulgaroslavs and Danubians or Balkans!

[Bagatyr]

Aromanians ??? what is this as i know the romanians or so called walachians had theyr history from 14 century ? In evry document from 3-13 centry there evidens only for bulgars,slavs,hungarians,pechenegs,avars and cumans but aromanians ? Maybe we shoud start a new discusions about romanian origins

[gogo t]

calm down

[Bagatyr]

gays i am going to study because my sister cames and want to play proceed the discusions i will return tomorrow and read it

[phoenix[illusion]]

gays i am going to study because my sister cames and want to play proceed the discusions i will return tomorrow and read it

and please write guys, not gays.
gay is homosexual, guy is a man

[gogo t]

so many people in this forum, there might be some gays Do not discriminate them
just joking
---------

I'm pretty sure that this topic has got no more room to expand and it's better to be closed

[Visarion]

In every document from 3-13th century there are evidence only for bulgars, slavs, hungarians, pechenegs, avars and cumans but aromanians?

I am reffering to the first and the second Bulgaro-Vlach Tsardom! You are right now they are called Aromanians, back then they were called Vlachs.

Vlachs from modern Romania were indeed first mentioned in the 13th century AD but Vlachs from the Byzantine Empire were first mentioned in the 10th century BC! The 13th century French traveller Rubruquis speaks of all the country between Don and Danube as Asen’s land or Blakia.

Maybe we shoud start a new discussion about Romanian origins

I was not reffering to Romanians, I was reffering to Aromanians! Most live in Greece now! They are the descendents of the Thracians!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The first mention of Vlachs in a Byzantine source is about the year 976, when Cedrenus relates the murder of the Bulgarian tsar Samuel’s brother " by certain Vlach wayfarers," at a spot called the Fair Oakes, between Castoria and Prespa. From this period onwards the Ruman inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula are constantly mentioned by this name, and we find a series of political organizations and territorial divisions connected with the name of Vlachia. Rumans were the inhabitants of Rumania. Rumania or Roumania was the Greek name for the Eastern Roman Empire! Inhabitants of modern day Romania were called Vlachs as well because they were related to the Romanised inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire!

See Vlachs!

[Scarrus]

As about the tracian origin yes there are maybe 5-8 % tracian blood but thats all most of us are bulgaroslavs origin

To be honest I really doubt only that much of the autohtonus Thracian population survived. Let's say even if there was a mass massacre, the women would still be left alive and taken by force by the invading force(which one?) so you'd have about a 50-50 population after the first invasion of that region... adding Slavs, Mongols and later Turks + afterwards migrated Romanians and Aromanians there you'd have about 30% of Thracian descendance.

Also what does "Slav" really mean? When did this culture form and wasn't it from a mix of Sarmatian + Skythian and Dacian peoples? + Skythians lived in that region before the arrival of Romans.
I really believe in this "theory" and judging by it, doesn't it mean that we "eastern, south-eastern Europeans" are one same people who has practically lived here since the beginning of time?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Aromanians ??? what is this as i know the romanians or so called walachians had theyr history from 14 century ? In evry document from 3-13 centry there evidens only for bulgars,slavs,hungarians,pechenegs,avars and cumans but aromanians ? Maybe we shoud start a new discusions about romanian origins

Actually Romanians had their history when Bulgars were somewhere east of the Urals trying to figure out how to cross into Europe if you want to get snappy.

As for what Bulgarians are...they are mostly Romanized Thracians who's language became more slavonic with the adoption of Christianity. The slavic element, as is with most migration was much smaller than the established population. Culturally and genetically speaking, Serbs, Croats, (As well as Bosniaks) Romanians, Bulgarians and Greeks are almost genetically and culturally identical. The "Slavs" in the Balkans have more in common with the latins and greeks in the balkans than they do with Russians or Poles. The Bulgar element (which may be Turkic or Iranic) was the most minor of all.

Edit: @ Scarrus...well who went around to kill all the Thracians then? Why? What for?

[MeAgain]

I wouldn't rely on this genetic stuff as proof of anything. You say Bulgarians today are (genetically) mostly Thracian. Then what was the genetic make up of Thracians?

In reality every single person is a mixture of bygone eras, it's not possible to say what and who we are (I am Thracian, Dacian, etc) because genetically we are not just one thing. The only thing that most people seem to agree on is that we all originated in Africa, as for the rest, it's all just speculation.