[HISTORICAL ISSUE] - The Bulgarian People

[Carpathian Wolf]

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.

I'm not saying Bulgarians are mostly Thracian because we have some sort of magic Thracian gene we can link them to. But we do have the genetics of modern day Romanians, Serbs, Croats, Greeks and Bulgarians and they are very very close to one another. And then we have to ask ourselves which people could fill such a substratum? Could it be slavs? Well no because the "slavs" in the Balkans are closer to Greeks and Romanians than with Russian or Poles. So the people in the Balkans have this Thracian substratum as well as Illyrian and Greek all of which were closely related.

[slavic_crusader]

Africa??? y africa, what civilisations were there?? to me sounds like in mesopotamia(summerians)... was the birth of civilisation so it must be near there, and possibly the indus valley in india.

Anyways were getting off topic..
So what i can see. Culturally bulgarians are slavs which is obvius. Gentecially mixed like everyone.. But what they think they are is the question. Some niether say turkic or slavic, some thracian, some just slavic and some like the old bulgars. Ok?? which is the popular view eveyone sees. Becuase right now everyone has very different ideas.. and its really confusing and conflicting


I also want to add isnt Krubat(think that how is spelt) Avar? he came from there did he? doesnt that mean turkic?? Obviusly im generally talking of the old bulgars here. And in that time, were slavs already settled in modern bulgaria area??

[Son of Fire]

Well for African civilizations Egypt is pretty well known...
Then there is Carthage, Axum, Kush, Wolof, Ghana, Mali, Kongo, Songhey, Great Zimbabwe... there a quite a few...

[MeAgain]

I'm not saying Bulgarians are mostly Thracian because we have some sort of magic Thracian gene we can link them to. But we do have the genetics of modern day Romanians, Serbs, Croats, Greeks and Bulgarians and they are very very close to one another. And then we have to ask ourselves which people could fill such a substratum? Could it be slavs? Well no because the "slavs" in the Balkans are closer to Greeks and Romanians than with Russian or Poles. So the people in the Balkans have this Thracian substratum as well as Illyrian and Greek all of which were closely related.

I taught we were talking about Bulgarians?

Africa seems to be the most popular theory and with the most evidence to support that. I'm not saying it's true, but I'm saying that it's the most widely excepted theory.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Africa??? y africa, what civilisations were there?? to me sounds like in mesopotamia(summerians)... was the birth of civilisation so it must be near there, and possibly the indus valley in india.

Anyways were getting off topic..
So what i can see. Culturally bulgarians are slavs which is obvius. Gentecially mixed like everyone.. But what they think they are is the question. Some niether say turkic or slavic, some thracian, some just slavic and some like the old bulgars. Ok?? which is the popular view eveyone sees. Becuase right now everyone has very different ideas.. and its really confusing and conflicting


I also want to add isnt Krubat(think that how is spelt) Avar? he came from there did he? doesnt that mean turkic?? Obviusly im generally talking of the old bulgars here. And in that time, were slavs already settled in modern bulgaria area??

Culturally Balkan, not slavic. Linguistically slavic yes. But culturally even the folk costumes are more like other Balkans.

Bulgarian:

http://blog.adrianaallen.com/wp-cont.../folkdress.jpg

Romanian:

http://www.produsin.ro/wp-content/up.../09/port_2.jpg

Russian:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/r...meSeverUg2.jpg

I taught we were talking about Bulgarians?

Africa seems to be the most popular theory and with the most evidence to support that. I'm not saying it's true, but I'm saying that it's the most widely excepted theory.

We are but I am using those as an example to show you.

[slavic_crusader]

Yea Egypt was not the first, that y was refering to summerians.

Balkanic?? Romanians themselves only touch a tiny bit of the balkans and i also think they are influenced by the slavs as well. Obviusly not a great extent but at some.

[Son of Fire]

Well it is very old, but the language, art, and the foundations of human skills started in Africa.

[MeAgain]

Well, unless there are more Bulgarian (or maybe others) people who wish to have themselves heard on the subject of 'Bulgarian People', and more importantly what they consider themselves to be this thread should be locked or something. We are getting way off-topic and dragging the rest of the world into it .

[Carpathian Wolf]

Yea Egypt was not the first, that y was refering to summerians.

Balkanic?? Romanians themselves only touch a tiny bit of the balkans and i also think they are influenced by the slavs as well. Obviusly not a great extent but at some.

Well that is the old geographic definition. Whatever it is.

Well it is very old, but the language, art, and the foundations of human skills started in Africa.

That's just a theory...

[Son of Fire]

Not really, it is generally accepted...

The oldest cave paintings are in Africa, the basics of counting and numbers are found in Africa, same with language.
The beginnings of Humans an their learning and skills started in Africa, as that is were we all originated from.

[slavic_crusader]

what part?

[Son of Fire]

Eastern Africa is where it is generally thought that humans arose and thus started developing the foundations that would lead to later civilizations...

I only brought it up to address the "what civilizations were in Africa" statement.

But keep in mind, contemporary Africa, is not the Africa of old...

Either way, it is off topic, so we should get back on to the topic at hand, that being Bulgarians...

[slavic_crusader]

AGREED

[NikeBG]

I'm already confused what the topic is, but...

So what i can see. Culturally bulgarians are slavs which is obvius. Gentecially mixed like everyone.. But what they think they are is the question. Some niether say turkic or slavic, some thracian, some just slavic and some like the old bulgars. Ok?? which is the popular view eveyone sees. Becuase right now everyone has very different ideas.. and its really confusing and conflicting

I don't know about others, but in my view:
- Culturally we're Balkaners and South-Slavs more specifically.
- Linguistically we're Slavs.
- By nationality we're Bulgarians.
- By religion we're Orthodox Christians.
- Genetically we're mixed like everyone, as you said, though I'm sure there would be people to disagree.

I also want to add isnt Krubat(think that how is spelt) Avar? he came from there did he? doesnt that mean turkic?? Obviusly im generally talking of the old bulgars here. And in that time, were slavs already settled in modern bulgaria area??

He might have been half-Avar (not certain, but there is such a theory), but he was considered to be a descendant of the Bulgar ruling elite (one part of which was subjugated by the Avars, while another - by the Gokturks). If you want, I can write a more detailed overview of pre-OGB Bulgar history? Because it's otherwise too complicated to explain in a couple of sentences.

[Visarion]

If you want, I can write a more detailed overview of pre-OGB Bulgar history? Because it's otherwise too complicated to explain in a couple of sentences.

Yes please! I am fascinated by the old Bulgars! Very interesting is that in Bulgaria the Turkic Bulgars made the first state and in Wallachia the Cumans. This means that Turkic people from Northeastern Europe were very advanced. They were both the elite ruling class of Romanians and Bulgarians but eventualy were assimilated. It is believed that Basarab is a Cumanic name. Basarab I of Wallachia (1310-1352) defeated the Hungarians at Posada in 1330. He was the son of Tochomerius and is considered the founder of the first Wallacian state even if before him other small factions existed.

[Kara Kolyo]

There are very interesting researches on the topic of the traditions of the "Steppe empire" in the First Bulgarian kingdom, written by Tsvetelin Stepanov from Sofia University. He is considered the most serious bulgarian scholar on the topic of the ruling traditions, connections with the steppe etc. His overviews of the historiography of the theories of the origin of the bulgars are excellent as well. Don't know how many of his works are available in english though.

[slavic_crusader]

NikeBG it will be great if u can write it.
Thanks

[NikeBG]

Well, I'll try to keep it short:

What is considered to be the first mention of the Bulgars by a Western European source is in an anonymous Latin chronographer from 354 which, while describing which nations in the world stem from which sons of Noah, includes the line "Ziezi ex quo vulgaris" at the end, meaning "Ziezi, from whom are the Bulgars". There are, however, older Armenian sources speaking about the Bulgars living to the north of the Caucasus, including about one wave of Bulgars under the leadership of Vund/Vanand that crossed the mountain and settled down as Armenian foederates somewhere around the 2nd c. AD.

During the Hunnic invasion, however, a large part of the Bulgars was swept away in the march to the west, while another part remained in the Caucasus. After Attila's death, the Bulgars from the "Western group" were split again - some remained in Pannonia allied with the Gepids and later with the Langobards and with the latter moved to Italy during the Avar invasion. Another part of the Western group is supposed to have been inherited by Attila's son Ernakh (Irnik in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian rulers) who returned to the east and settled in Scythia Minor as Byzantine foederates (some believe that Ernakh actually united his part of the Western Bulgars together with the old Eastern part, but that's unprovable). So, after Attila's death we have around 3 groups - one in the Caucasus, one in Scythia Minor and one in Pannonia.

In 480, 486 and 488 one part, probably the one from Scythia Minor, fought against the Ostrogoths as allies of Emperor Zeno. It's presumed they first crossed the Danube (on their own, although they had probably been earlier in the Balkans during Attila's campaign as well) in 493 and organized raids in 499, 502 and 513. They suffered defeats in 530 and 535, but launched a large scale invasion (from the Adriatic Sea to Constantinople) in 540 and captured 32 fortresses. Two further raids happened also in 548 and 552. An year earlier, in 551, the Kutrigurs (a Western group of the Bulgars), allied with the Gepids, raided Illyricum and Thrace. Emperor Justinian, however, used excellent diplomacy, dividing the Slovenes and Antes (the two Slavic groups which also raided the Balkans, sometimes together with the Bulgars) to fight each other. From that time the Bulgars also appear divided to Kutrigurs and Utigurs ("Bulgars from the Western and Eastern mark" as Jordanes calls them; probably the Scythia Minor groups and the Caucasus group). During the 551 raid, the Utigur Khan Sandilkh was instigated to attack the Kutrigur lands which eventually stopped the raid. Many of the Kutrigurs captured by the Byzantines were settled in Thrace, which became a reason for the Utigurs to protest (since they were fighting for the Romans in harsh lands, while the Kutrigurs were being settled in good lands as foederates). But in 558-559, united under Zabergan, the free Kutrigurs, together with the Slovenes, crossed the Danube and started another large-scale invasion. However, they split to three columns (one towards Greece, one towards Gallipoli and one towards Constantinople) and were defeated. In the meantime, another war between the Kutrigurs and Utigurs broke out, forcing the Kutrigurs to pull back.

Around that time (558-562), the Avars, while fleeing from the Gokturks, conquered the Utigurs. The Kutrigurs became allied with the Avars and moved to Pannonia. As previously stated, the earlier Pannonian Bulgars were then displaced together with the Langobards and moved to Italy under the Langobard King Alboin (first Bulgar migration to Italy). Soon afterwards, while chasing the Avars, the Gokturks on their own turn conquered the Utigurs. In the next decades the two main Bulgar groups were part of the two khaganates - those of the Avars and the Gokturks.

This is where Khan Kubrat appears. Born in the Avar Khaganate and supposedly a descendant of the ruling tribe, around 619 he was sent to Constantinople where he eventually befriended Emperor Heraclius. In 621 he possibly led a Bulgar-Khazar unit in the war against the Persians. It is unclear when and how exactly his rebellion started, but it's currently believed that he rose up against the Avars soon after 626 (after the failed Persian-Avar siege of Constantinople, which destabilized the Avar Khaganate). It appears that he managed to free some of the Kutrigurs in the eastern part of the Avar Khaganate and also gained control over the Utigur tribes to the north of the Caucasus. One theory suggests that his uncle, under the name Mohodo Heu, started a civil war in the West-Turkic Khaganate in 628, managed to gain the throne in 630 and to place Kubrat as his representative over the Utigurs (and the Kutrigurs he freed from the Avars). But after his uncle lost the throne in 632, Kubrat seceded from the Turks and formed the so-called (by the later Byzantine chroniclers) Old Great Bulgaria (OGB for short) which basically covered these territories (although it's believed the Sabirs were also its subjects).

Curiously enough, in that time, 631-632, a group of the Pannonian Bulgars also tried to start a coup in the Avar Khaganate, but were defeated and 9000 of them fled under the leadership of Altsiok to Bavaria, where King Dagobert first welcomed them, but later ordered them to be slaughtered. The yet again fleeing survivors crossed the Alps and settled in the Benevento in what is the second Bulgar migration to Italy.
Not much else is known about Khan Kubrat's reign, nor even his year of death. It is known that he died during the reign of Emperor Constans II (641-668) and based on the coins found in his grave it's believed he died somewhen in the 660s. One interesting story connected with this is reported by Theophanes Confessor, who claims that Kubrat gathered on his deathbed his 5 sons - Bat-Bayan, Kotrag, Asparukh, Altsek and Kuber. He told them to break one whole bundle of arrows, but they couldn't. Then he broke the arrows one by one, telling them that they should stay united and strong, otherwise they would be broken one by one with ease. What makes the story even more peculiar is that, after his death, his sons did exactly the opposite thing - they split, each ruling his own inherited tribes. In this weakened state the rising power of the Khazars attacked and 4 of Kubrat's sons fled with their people. Kotrag moved to the north, where his descendants eventually created the Volga Bulgaria. Asparukh moved to the west, to Scythia Minor, creating Danubian Bulgaria. Kuber and Altsek moved further west, to the Avar Khaganate, where they also tried to start a coup, but also failed. Altsek is reported to have followed the example of his earlier namesake and joined the Langobard King Grimoald. Kuber, gathering some Bulgar, Slav, Roman and Gothic allies from Pannonia, fled further south and settled in modern Macedonia as Byzantine foederates. The oldest brother, Bat-Bayan, stayed in his lands to the north of the Black Sea and became a vassal of the Khazars in what is called Black Bulgaria (while the Volga Bulgars were also called Silver Bulgars). Here is a map of the Bulgar dispersal after the disintegration of the OGB.

And that's more or less it. With Asparukh starts the history of Danubian Bulgaria, which is better known...


Edit: You can also check the Wiki articles, though you should keep in mind that it's after all just Wiki.
Bulgars
OGB
And the South-Slavic speakers, if interested, would find the Bulgarian articles quite more detailed.

[slavic_crusader]

hmmmm very intresting story, i like it ...

This seems to be just before the arrival of the slavs. So after some time of Krubat and Asparukh the bulgars became slavizied?? when would u date that?
OR
slavs already lived in the region (which i doubt) and eventually the turkic bulgars assimulated into slavic culture??

I also want to ask. Would a modern bulgarian be insulted if the world called them slavs? Becuase for macedonians(FYROM) there simply mad of the fact they are slavs....

[gogo t]

hmmmm very intresting story, i like it ...

This seems to be just before the arrival of the slavs. So after some time of Krubat and Asparukh the bulgars became slavizied?? when would u date that?
OR
slavs already lived in the region (which i doubt) and eventually the turkic bulgars assimulated into slavic culture??

I also want to ask. Would a modern bulgarian be insulted if the world called them slavs? Becuase for macedonians(FYROM) there simply mad of the fact they are slavs....

NO, never!
What every bulgarian know about himself is that "Bulgarians=Bulgar+Slav+Tracian" so no metter what you say to him \Bulgar, Slav,Tracian\ he won't get angry for sure.
Btw you can allways make Bulgarian laugh if you tell him "mongol " or "tatar". It's like joke here and people don't eaven get it seriously.

ONLY the older bulgarians, who had lived in the period WWII-1989 \Comunism\ think that we are like 99% Slavs and 0,5% Bulgars and 0,5% Tracians.
Well we cant be brothers with the USSR, if we arn't slavs