Haplogroup

[clandestino]

Lol, I wonder how much those researches are accurate, and how they can give a genetic map of an entire population without testing each and everyone's genome or at least sizable share of it. For example I look at the OP's map and I see that entire Europe is covered with it, I just wonder when and where they gentically tested Serbian population in such numbers and territorial spread that they can give accurate map of genetics of Serbia? Lord knows I wasn't tested, non of my family was tested, non of the people I know was tested and as far as I know I never heard or read that there was any serious genetical study of the Serbian population, and yet there is it, a map with very precisely given distribution of certain haplogroup on certain area, including the variations in the same population. Now I'm not an expert but I think that creating of such precise map with such a precise data would have to be a result of the huge research including litterally millions of samples from milions of people. Just for Serbia there should be taken thousands and thousands of samples from the same number of people from every corner of the country, yet I haven't heard of any genetists roaming around Serbian countryside taking blood samples from the people. I think we can make some small research here on our own, I'll call all Serbian members of this forum to give a statement if they themselves or members of their family or any of their friends were a subject of any genetical study, or they even heard of anyone being subject of such study, I bet that there won't be many positive answers.

[Wallachian]

Wallachian could you explain to me when Wallachia and Moldova united why the state was called Romania why not something els ?.Abot the genes i understand that the romanians in the forum will disagree with my opinion and that is absolutle normal (every one have his own opinion ), the same time i don't belive in the thracian theory of the bulgarian and romanian origin, for me pusonaly this is attempt to excuse the existense of the state Romania and her apetite for expansion in the end of XIX-XX centry (no insults).

Of course everyone is entitled to an oppinion and there will always be conflicting oppinions. Nothing wrong with that

To answer your question, the state was called Romania because the native populations from this area have always referred to themselves as "rumani" or "romani". And that is not only in Wallachia, they refered to themselves as this in Moldavia and in Transilvania aswell. Also, in many medieval chronicles Wallachia was refered to as "Ungro-Wallachia" and Moldova was refered to as "Moldo-Wallachia", so there were two Wallachias essentially (not counting the one in Thessaly and the one in the Czech republic).

Also, they were united by elections not by military means. Following the 1848 revolutions and the Crimean War the great powers allowed for elections to be held in both principalities. In 1859 elections were held first in Moldavia and Alexander I. Cuza was elected as "Domnitor", a few weeks later he participated in the Wallachian elections and won there aswell. This way both principalities were united under a single ruler.

In 1918, after World War I national assemblies were held in Transilvania, Bessarabia, Bucovina and Banat which decided the union of these territories with the Kingdom of Romania.

Despite this, i do agree with you on one point. The annexation of Southern Dobrudja known as "Cadrilater" after the second balkan war was indeed expansionism and it's only fair that Bulgaria took this territory back in 1940.

[slavic_crusader]

@clandestino
I think there is no one who knows anything about it
@ Carpathian Wolf
What u mean not a Migrating people?

[NikeBG]

It seems actually on the other hand that on your part there is a lack of basic logic concerning migratory patterns of humans. Consider the resources that go into keeping an army supplied with food and how much the whole state has to work to do such a thing. Now imagine some wondering barbarians without such a state backing them up.

CW, don't make me laugh! You're comparing a feudal-type army with a nomadic "armed nation"-type army.

And how did the minority of Bulgars and Slavs have such control?

Presupposed opinion.

and material evidence proves that a Romanized populace remained north of the Danube.

You should point out again that it's in the mountains, while the plains clearly show nomadic and Slavic remains.

Nomadic people are always in the minority compared to the sedentary populace because of the allocation of resources.

Presupposed opinion, again.

This notion of "nationalism and Balkanism" to me is bitter to hear and a subject I think in part that this sort of language is used because of western bias. But also in part because we in the Balkans don't have an issue to self examine and criticize. When you compound these two we use this sort of language which I think is unfair.

I don't like it either, but considering I live here and see examples of "nationalism and Balkanism" almost every day, I'd say it's unfortunately fair.

Appetite for expansion? What expansion? You mean unifying with the other Romanian states that had Romanian majority?

I presume he means Dobrudzha (unless he also knows about Transylvania).

Even Anna Comnena calls the Vlachs as "Dacians."

Btw, can you give me an exact quote? I searched the Alexiad, but couldn't find anything clearly relating the Vlachs with the Dacians. Maybe it was just a shorter version...

Ok since i have given modern examples ill give u an ancient one. Ok here it is-- The Dorians!

A better example are actually the Thracians themselves. More precisely - the arrival of the nomadic Thracians to the Balkan area and the extinction of the neolithic settled Balkan culture/proto-civilization (Vinca, Karanovo, Varna). Simplistically put, if it wasn't for the Thracians, we might have been a few thousand years more advanced now. Not that I'm blaming them (or the Romanians) or anything, I do consider the Thracians as my potential and partial ancestors, just saying it quite simplistically (and thus open to inaccuracies) - there was a neolithic culture on the way of becoming the first real European civilization and one of the greatest in the world and then the nomads came and completely obliterated it.

Now I'm not an expert but I think that creating of such precise map with such a precise data would have to be a result of the huge research including litterally millions of samples from milions of people.

Millions from the whole of Europe would be good, yes. For a country like Serbia or Bulgaria, 5-10 000 are statistically enough, IF they're specifically done and selected (i.e. equally distributed and described), not just gathered from already done researches of a few separate individuals, as the current researches mostly are.

To answer your question, the state was called Romania because the native populations from this area have always referred to themselves as "rumani" or "romani". And that is not only in Wallachia, they refered to themselves as this in Moldavia and in Transilvania aswell. Also, in many medieval chronicles Wallachia was refered to as "Ungro-Wallachia" and Moldova was refered to as "Moldo-Wallachia", so there were two Wallachias essentially (not counting the one in Thessaly and the one in the Czech republic).

Ougro-Wallachia, at least in the beginning. And you missed the Vlachs to the south of the Danube who also called themselves Romane/Rumane.

Despite this, i do agree with you on one point. The annexation of Southern Dobrudja known as "Cadrilater" after the second balkan war was indeed expansionism and it's only fair that Bulgaria took this territory back in 1940.

The inclusion of Northern Dobrudzha was also expansionism, but at least that one was from the Russian side (they took Besarabia and gave you Northern Dobrudzha instead, which Romania had no interest in until that time) and Russian imperialism from that time (and not only then) is quite famous.

[clandestino]

Millions from the whole of Europe would be good, yes. For a country like Serbia or Bulgaria, 5-10 000 are statistically enough, IF they're specifically done and selected (i.e. equally distributed and described), not just gathered from already done researches of a few separate individuals, as the current researches mostly are.

I agree, until there is comprehensive research which would include at least 10,000 people from Serbia distributed all over the country ( and with the regard of their actual area of origin ) there is no base to believe in such researches like in the OP. For example I see on that map that the area where I live in has significantly smaller frequency of haplogroup I then the areas of Bosnia, Montenegro and Dalmatia, but I wonder how this is possible when at least 2/3 of population of this area have moved there from Bosnia, Dalmatia and Bosnia in last 80-90 years and should have same genome as the people from those areas?
I mean how ridiculous can it get? How big was the sample for this research, how many people were tested in Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Croatia etc? How the subjects were distributed across the countries, was their actual place of origin included in the research, was the factor of migrations taken into account etc? I mean there are so many variables that any research of such magnitude and precision would take years and cost millions, and that's something that no one would do just for the sake of science.

[slavic_crusader]

TRUE TRUE TRUE

[Bagatyr]

Wallachian the information you give me is itresting and stange ,about Dobrudja it was fair not only for the south but for the north too
Carpathian Wolf you think about the slavs and bulgars like a some band of robbers that are surching for raping and killing without think that if they where so few the romans wont have problem to just crush them .Your example with the spanish conqistadors isn't correct because is about very difrent time and another continent , difrent objective and difrent evolution of the races . You use Anna Comnina but i can use also Procopius of Caesarea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procopius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikepho...Constantinople - Nikephoros I of Constantinople. Tell me why the romans will asebul 80 000 army tho crush some bulgar band ? Or why the slavs if are so few reach on a seag of Solun 584 ?

[NikeBG]

I mean there are so many variables that any research of such magnitude and precision would take years and cost millions, and that's something that no one would do just for the sake of science.

There are people who would easily devote years to such researches (the Bulgarian anthropologic one I mentioned above took 17 years), but the money are indeed a problem. Especially here...
And, IMO, those borders on the haplogroup I map are not meant to be precise (it's impossible for them to be precise like that, at least), but to just give a somewhat-supposed variation of percentage groups (each level tone equals a span of 10%, so the "borders" between two such groups would have a difference of 1% from the two immediate sides of the border). F.e. they have several people with a higher percentage of the I haplogroup in Bosnia a few guys with lower percentage from Belgrade and nobody inbetween. And since it's higher in Bosnia and lower in Belgrade, they just make supposed levels to show the gradual decrease from point A to point B.

Edit:

if they where so few

Which they weren't. The Manasses chronicle f.e.:
During the reign of emperor Constantine the Bearded, the Bulgars crossed the Danube and as they defeated the Romans, they took from them that whole land in which they live even to this day. It was called Moesia before. Being so numerous, they filled that whole side of the Danube all the way to Dyrrhacium.
And that, btw, is archaeologically attestable.

Or why the slavs if are so few reach on a seag of Solun 584 ?

Thessaloniki? Man, the Slavs settled all the way to the Peloponesus. They raided Crete in 623 and even Southern Italy a few decades later.

[Wallachian]

I presume he means Dobrudzha (unless he also knows about Transylvania).

Huh, knows what?

Ougro-Wallachia, at least in the beginning. And you missed the Vlachs to the south of the Danube who also called themselves Romane/Rumane.

Ugro-Wallachia, Ungro-Wallachia, Ougra-Wallachia they are all spellings of the same name used to differentiate it from Moldo-Wallachia. Well i was referring to the vlachs from within the territory of modern day Romania. Of course we have groups of vlachs all over the Balkans calling themselves Megleno-Romanians, Istro-Romanians etc.

The inclusion of Northern Dobrudzha was also expansionism, but at least that one was from the Russian side (they took Besarabia and gave you Northern Dobrudzha instead, which Romania had no interest in until that time) and Russian imperialism from that time (and not only then) is quite famous.

Hmm, ok didn't think of that one. Both Romania and Bulgaria have historical claims to the territory and I'm not knowledgeble enought in the subject to argue either way. But yes, that was the Russians compensating us for their annexation of Bessarabia which was done in violation of their previous promise to respect Romania's territorial integrity. Indeed they awarded Romania territory that did not belong to them in the first place.

[Bagatyr]

Yes i meen Dobrudja and Transilvenia

[Bagatyr]

I don't see what claims could Romania have on this territory it was one of the oldest bulgarian lands in the Balkans and even if there was a period that was for some short time in romanin hands it was for several years

[NikeBG]

Huh, knows what?

CW's activities in the VV with the Hungarian members (one of the reasons why I rarely visit it (combined with the lack of time and multitude of interesting things to read)).

Edit:

I don't see what claims could Romania have on this territory it was one of the oldest bulgarian lands in the Balkans and even if there was a period that was for some short time in romanin hands it was for several years

In that sense, it was also one of the oldest Daco-Thracian lands in the Balkans. And they actually hold it to this day. And held Southern Dobrudzha not for several years, but several decades (until WW2).

[Bagatyr]

I meen before San Stefano and Berlin 1878 year!is the stete called Romania or Daco-Tracia?I see on the map Romania not some strange state that it is not clear that is existed and what are the conektions between romanians and this mytical population that did't have his own writhing

[NikeBG]

More or less the same between modern Bulgarians and ancient Bulgars, Slavs or Thracians, none of which had their own writings (well, at least the Bulgars had runes, even if they used almost only Greek language and alphabet, as did the Thracians).

[Carpathian Wolf]

Despite this, i do agree with you on one point. The annexation of Southern Dobrudja known as "Cadrilater" after the second balkan war was indeed expansionism and it's only fair that Bulgaria took this territory back in 1940.

And even that was a reaction of Bulgarian aggression toward all of it's other neighbors.

@ Carpathian Wolf
What u mean not a Migrating people?

Dorians were not nomads. Either way we have no clue of the people in those lands before the Greeks were exterminated or simply assimilated. Kind of how people used to think the Anglo-Saxons wiped out the Romano-Britons and pushed them west in to Wales, the remaining becoming Welsh (which the term is related to Vlach) only to later find out that that population was simply assimilated and were in the majority.

CW, don't make me laugh! You're comparing a feudal-type army with a nomadic "armed nation"-type army.

No I am showing that supporting large groups of moving people is a difficult task to do and even the "unwashed masses of barbarian hordes that ran in a deluge into the Balkans" was still comparatively smaller in numbers than the established populace.

Presupposed opinion.

Not really. Slavs and Bulgars were in the minority and they had a large influence especially on you.

You should point out again that it's in the mountains, while the plains clearly show nomadic and Slavic remains.

Some of the plains sure. But many parts of the plains that we see today, not even 200 years ago were completely thick deep forest.

Presupposed opinion, again.

No this is a fact. Sedentary populations always have a larger number because of the allocation of resources.

I don't like it either, but considering I live here and see examples of "nationalism and Balkanism" almost every day, I'd say it's unfortunately fair.

I just think it's non sense that when the Brit is proud of being British, the French proud of being French, Spaniard proud of being Spanish, German proud of being German, it is being "cultural." When the Serb is proud of being Serbian, when the Bulgarian is proud of being Bulgarian, when the Romanian is proud of being Romanian, when the Greek is proud of being Greek, it's "ZOMG BALKUN NASHUNULIZM!"

I presume he means Dobrudzha (unless he also knows about Transylvania).

Yes my mistake how can we forget the imperialistic campaign of rape and pillage against southern Dobrogea in which tens of thousands died in heated battles, the skies were blackened with falling artillery, the western coast of the black sea all ran red with blood and the fires could have been seen from Neptune all against peaceful Bulgaria who at the time did nothing but mind it's own business.

Btw, can you give me an exact quote? I searched the Alexiad, but couldn't find anything clearly relating the Vlachs with the Dacians. Maybe it was just a shorter version...

My mistake, I wasn't thinking of the Alexiad even though I wrote it down. My reference was to this:

A passage in an 11th-century Byzantine document describing the events of the rebellion of 1066-1067 in the hinterland of Larissa (in Greece) may be the first account of the Vlachs, a generic term describing Romance populations, in Southeastern Europe.[6] Its author states that these Vlachs descended from the Dacians, and he implies a southward migration of these Vlachs. The document suggests that these Vlachs’ “homeland” used to lie south of the Danube, and it also mentions the Bessi (an ancient Thracian tribe living south of the Danube) among their ancestors.[7]
They /the Vlachs/ were conquered by Emperor Trajan who had defeated and annihilated them. Their king, named Decebal, was killed (...). They are, in fact, the so-called Dacians and Bessi who used to live near the Danube and Sava rivers, where now the Serbs live, in inaccessible and inhospitable places (...)
And they left the region: some of them spread to Epirus and Macedonia, although the majority of them settled in Hellas.
—Kekaumenos (11th century): Strategikon[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literar..._the_Romanians

A better example are actually the Thracians themselves. More precisely - the arrival of the nomadic Thracians to the Balkan area and the extinction of the neolithic settled Balkan culture/proto-civilization (Vinca, Karanovo, Varna). Simplistically put, if it wasn't for the Thracians, we might have been a few thousand years more advanced now. Not that I'm blaming them (or the Romanians) or anything, I do consider the Thracians as my potential and partial ancestors, just saying it quite simplistically (and thus open to inaccuracies) - there was a neolithic culture on the way of becoming the first real European civilization and one of the greatest in the world and then the nomads came and completely obliterated it.

But do we even have any proof that these Thracians weren't perhaps the continuation of these 'proto-civilizations'? I mean even the Huns and the Franks didn't simply destroy everything. They caused damage but they tried to adopt what was good as much as possible.

Wallachian the information you give me is itresting and stange ,about Dobrudja it was fair not only for the south but for the north too
Carpathian Wolf you think about the slavs and bulgars like a some band of robbers that are surching for raping and killing without think that if they where so few the romans wont have problem to just crush them .Your example with the spanish conqistadors isn't correct because is about very difrent time and another continent , difrent objective and difrent evolution of the races . You use Anna Comnina but i can use also Procopius of Caesarea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procopius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikepho...Constantinople - Nikephoros I of Constantinople. Tell me why the romans will asebul 80 000 army tho crush some bulgar band ? Or why the slavs if are so few reach on a seag of Solun 584 ?

I don't think the bulgars and slavs were just a bunch of robbers for the record. They were people like all of us and had a hand in shaping the Balkans.

I assume your question is "If Slavs and Bulgars were so few why did the Romans fight so many of them?" Well simply put they judged the numbers of the enemies by the names of those leading it. So an invasion force of Germanic Rus in Bulgaria suddenly became an army of all "Rus." Even though most of the army was probably composed of Slavs from Ukraine and the Rus leading the armies were probably at least partially slavic themselves too. People for the most part were also judged by their linguistics. So if you spoke Greek, you were a Greek. Spoke Slavic, you were a Slav.

A great more modern example of this is the Ottoman Turks. Culturally and genetically the people in Turkey aren't really Turkish. I did this before in VV and put up a picture of a Greek, someone from Turkey and a Turkmen. The Greek and the person from Turkey looked much more similar than the person from Turkey and the Turkmen. The House of Osman themselves were sedentary and to use the term "Turk" was actually an insult because it referred to the nomads which the Ottomans chased out to the east and persecuted. So anyway you had these large armies that were of the "Ottoman Turks" whom everyone in the Balkans called "Turks" who in their language spoke Turkish but in actuality were mainly composed of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, even Romanians who had been taken as part of the blood tribute and raised as "Turkish." As well as of course the various Anatolian people such as Pontic Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, Georgians etc.

You can not look at history with such rigid lines.

I've had people show me this map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...century_AD.png

And then say "Look there is no Romanians on that map. It's all slavs or gepids in modern day Romania. Romanians did not exist, or Romanized Dacians/Thracians or whatever you want to call them. Look at the map!

So to them Wallachia and Moldova is all slavs and Transilvania is all gepids. But this is simply.... It's a political map designed to show the political structure at the time. If I show a map of the Spanish Empire in south america does it mean everywhere the color is yellow or whatever color we are using to denote, that there live Spaniards (and only Spaniards) or even ANY spaniards?

Which they weren't. The Manasses chronicle f.e.:
During the reign of emperor Constantine the Bearded, the Bulgars crossed the Danube and as they defeated the Romans, they took from them that whole land in which they live even to this day. It was called Moesia before. Being so numerous, they filled that whole side of the Danube all the way to Dyrrhacium.
And that, btw, is archaeologically attestable.


Thessaloniki? Man, the Slavs settled all the way to the Peloponesus. They raided Crete in 623 and even Southern Italy a few decades later.

Sure they were many. But you know who else was numerous and raided far and wide and settled many lands? The Vandals. And if it wasn't for the Orthodox Church Christianizing the Slavs who arrived in Europe making for them an alphabet and actually molding to the linguistic culture of the slavs, unlike in the west who tried to make everyone speak latin, the Slavs too would have been a foot note in history like the Vandals and that would have been that. If you want to use the "so numerous" argument, then answer me why everyone in Greece doesn't speak a slavic language right now?

Honestly if I had to put a percentage on it i would say Bulgarians are 80 percent Thracian, 15 percent slav and maybe 5 percent at most Bulgar. Just using those 3 groups to compound it.

CW's activities in the VV with the Hungarian members (one of the reasons why I rarely visit it (combined with the lack of time and multitude of interesting things to read)).

Edit:

In that sense, it was also one of the oldest Daco-Thracian lands in the Balkans. And they actually hold it to this day. And held Southern Dobrudzha not for several years, but several decades (until WW2).

My "activities" make you not want to visit VV?

Exactly concerning it being Daco-Thracian.

I meen before San Stefano and Berlin 1878 year!is the stete called Romania or Daco-Tracia?I see on the map Romania not some strange state that it is not clear that is existed and what are the conektions between romanians and this mytical population that did't have his own writhing

When you actually decide to read a history book you'll find out that the Daco-Roman continuation is no more mythical than the fact that French are descendants of Gallo-Romans. Literally everyone who mentions the origin of Romanians throughout history either speaks of a Dacian origin or a Latin one. I don't see why you are so obsessed with this specific topic and seem to be so hell bent to make an issue out of it.

[son of romans]

History should be defended because this mod is for it's acuratecy in Medieval II.

[alien_t]

And even that was a reaction of Bulgarian aggression toward all of it's other neighbors.

Sorry to blowing your dreams, but it wasn't.

[Bagatyr]

Carpathian you still disrespecting the fact that in 680 The East Roman Empire assemble her hole elite military potential,to do so the enemy shoud be very powerful and outnumbering in fact a hole nation was advancing .

[NikeBG]

And even that was a reaction of Bulgarian aggression toward all of it's other neighbors.

Haha, sure, if you say so!

No I am showing that supporting large groups of moving people is a difficult task to do and even the "unwashed masses of barbarian hordes that ran in a deluge into the Balkans" was still comparatively smaller in numbers than the established populace.

Large groups of moving people have existed in the steppes since times immemorial and exist even to this day. Sure, life isn't easy, but it's far from impossible.

Not really. Slavs and Bulgars were in the minority and they had a large influence especially on you.

Not really. As I said, that's a presupposed opinion. While archaeological remains show quite a lot of both Slavic and Bulgar traces (and earlier Gothic, Hunnic etc) and more or less no Thracian ones from the time of the Great Migration.

No this is a fact. Sedentary populations always have a larger number because of the allocation of resources.

Larger numbers aren't a constant.

I just think it's non sense that when the Brit is proud of being British, the French proud of being French, Spaniard proud of being Spanish, German proud of being German, it is being "cultural." When the Serb is proud of being Serbian, when the Bulgarian is proud of being Bulgarian, when the Romanian is proud of being Romanian, when the Greek is proud of being Greek, it's "ZOMG BALKUN NASHUNULIZM!"

That's just a matter of Western hypocrisy. It irritates me as well, but it would be hypocritical from me to deny the fact that the Balkans have a clearly higher temperature of nationalism*. Combine that with what I call Balkanism, which is basically the darker sides of Orientalism. Of course, it would also be hypocritical from me to deny the brighter sides of the Balkans, but they just seem too few compared to the darker ones, IMO.
*Then again, when I come to think of IRA and Northern Ireland, ETA and the Basques, the Scots wanting to secede from the UK, the UK wanting to secede from the EU, the Flemish tension with the Wallonians, all of which are more or less based on nationalistic feelings, I'm starting to think that the idea we're somehow more nationalistic than the West indeed seems weaker and weaker...

Yes my mistake how can we forget the imperialistic campaign of rape and pillage against southern Dobrogea in which tens of thousands died in heated battles, the skies were blackened with falling artillery, the western coast of the black sea all ran red with blood and the fires could have been seen from Neptune all against peaceful Bulgaria who at the time did nothing but mind it's own business.

Sarcasm doesn't really prove anything.

My mistake, I wasn't thinking of the Alexiad even though I wrote it down. My reference was to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literar..._the_Romanians

Aha, much better, thanks!

But do we even have any proof that these Thracians weren't perhaps the continuation of these 'proto-civilizations'? I mean even the Huns and the Franks didn't simply destroy everything. They caused damage but they tried to adopt what was good as much as possible.

The neolithic civilization is sometimes inaccurately called "Proto-Thracian", simply because we don't know how they called themselves (and some people, especially the medias, like to simplify things and make it seem like a continuous development). Archaeological traces, however, show complete devastation of everything - architecture, crafts, culture, everything that was quite highly developed made way to the new primitive replacements. True, the Thracians did develop some marvellous gold- and silver-treasures later on (though some people claim most of them are actually Greek-made, but without good enough proofs), but they appear from later millenia after a considerable lack of sophisticated civilization.*
Now, I should point out that if we're speaking purely about genetics, even in cases of total annihilation of an old culture, it's quite possible that there would be sufficient traces of the conquered population left in the new one, simply because of the most popular practice of every single victor in human history to just take the women of the defeated enemy for himself. Of course, their culture would be totally different from their original one and be the same or almost the same as the newcoming one (depending on how succesful the victors were).

*Btw, was just reading (sorry, it's on Bulgarian) an interview with the archaeologist Dr. Yavor Boyadzhiev about a chalcolitic town near Pazardzhik from around the 5th millenium BC (quite an interesting story, btw). Here are some interesting quotes:
"The massive defensive wall near Yunatsite [the modern village near which the town was located] defended the settlement for 500 years, before it was completely destroyed. In our opinion, that happened around 4200-4100 BC, when a great human wave flooded the chalcolitic settlement. After a prolonged defense, it was razed to the ground and its population was slaughtered... The death of the people of Yunatsite was most probably caused by the steppe people, who started invading the Balkans from the north-east. These are the earliest Indo-Europeans. Their invasions led not only to the destruction of the settlement near Yunatsite, but of the whole prospering chalcolitic civilization, which existed during the V millenium BC in the modern Bulgarian lands. The devastation was so total and cruel that between 4000 and 3100 BC there are almost no traces of life left in these lands. And the new Bronze Age inhabitants from centuries later were on a considerably lower cultural level."

If you want to use the "so numerous" argument, then answer me why everyone in Greece doesn't speak a slavic language right now?

The same reason why many Bulgarians even from the Bulgarian "core" (i.e. deep inside Bulgarian lands) were becoming "Hellenized" ("garcheeshti se", as we call them) just a couple of centuries ago - because Greek was the language of the educated people, while Bulgarian was left mainly for the peasants and its old version eventually for the priests, at least the ones who didn't serve in Greek. The richer and more educated people (especially the merchants) studied in Greek schools and became more and more Hellenized. What's left about territories where Greek influence was much greater and for a much longer time, like... well, Greece itself.
Btw, funny thing - the people in one of my neighbouring houses, who are also my slightly distant blood-relatives (3rd or 4th cousins), are often called "Greeks" by the rest of the people here. They even have a restaurant called "Greko", although they themselves prefer to use their own actual surname. Then again, they're "purely" Bulgarian (I've traced that part of our line at least until Turkish times and it's quite Shoppish-Bulgarian) and are called like that because of their mercantile and deceitful nature (which is what "Greek" is often associated with, in historical relation; no offense to the Greek members here). Then again, we also have an "American" family in the area, who are actually just Bulgarians who lived in the States for a few years.

Honestly if I had to put a percentage on it i would say Bulgarians are 80 percent Thracian, 15 percent slav and maybe 5 percent at most Bulgar. Just using those 3 groups to compound it.

Not even the genetic researches go that far.

My "activities" make you not want to visit VV?

From what I've seen, you're the main combatant against the Hungarians there.
And, well, once I entered the VV, saw that maybe a third of the threads on the first page were either about the glory of the Daco-Thracians or about Romanian-Hungarian fights, and I left. Of course, as I said, those certainly aren't the only factors, don't worry. It's also why I stopped visiting AllEmpires etc - too many things that seem interesting to read and too few time.

When you actually decide to read a history book you'll find out that the Daco-Roman continuation is no more mythical than the fact that French are descendants of Gallo-Romans.

Except that France was quite far from the routes of most of the migrations during the Great Migration, while Romania was practically the doorway to Europe and every single tribe passed through it.

[Bagatyr]

Carpathian witch books you meen the romanian one ?