Revised History of the Bulgarians (Thracian connection)

Perix

Ad Honoris
Dec 2009
10,009
Romania
my sentiment exactly. nice dodging the question though. i am afraid i am talking with a teenager here considering the use of meems like these.
in any case do some more reading on the subject

Genetic differences among ethnic groups
Sorry, but you are unable to make the difference between few decades, and few centurile, and from 20 cnt and 2 cnt! And, btw, as I know Deaf is sexagenar!
 
Feb 2019
37
US
After your logic Aurelian, Constantine I, or Justinian were not romans! Fine: romanians are not the folowers of Octavian, Trajan, or Mark Aurelius, but of those wannabees Aurelian, Constantine, Justinian! But I want to ask you something : considering you'd find your genealogic tree 100 generations before. And you find at the generation 91 a cumman intervenea, at 86 a greek, at 75 a mongol, at 62 and 57 some Turks, at 34 a russian...so your dna would be a mess comparing with the bulgarians from 8 cnt, you'd not feel as bulgarian?
not ethnically they were not obviously. the original romans (the descendents of the mythical romulus and remus) were ethnic romans. the people who lived in rome and central italy.
let me ask you a question - when rome fell. did all those people - gauls, thracians, greeks, hebrews, spaniards still call themselves romans? no they did not. and the reason being it was just a political affiliation not an ethnic one. it was something that was expedient at the time to call yourself, however it had no real significance beyond the superficial political affiliation and no significance in tracing historical migratory patterns.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,224
Europix
... i am afraid i am talking with a teenager here considering the use of meems like these.
That is a blatant gerontophobic allegation!

An old man cannot use memes? Why? Is his intellectual capacities diminished as to not being able using animated GIF's?!?

... just kidding, man, just kidding.

Let's go back serious:

not ethnically they were not obviously. the original romans (the descendents of the mythical romulus and remus) were ethnic romans. the people who lived in rome and central italy.
let me ask you a question - when rome fell. did all those people - gauls, thracians, greeks, hebrews, spaniards still call themselves romans? no they did not. and the reason being it was just a political affiliation not an ethnic one. it was something that was expedient at the time to call yourself, however it had no real significance beyond the superficial political affiliation and no significance in tracing historical migratory patterns.
There are two (almost) true things in that post:

1. Genetics became an extremely valuable tool in clarifying a couple of things, like migrations. It confirmed, dismissed, brought a new light on things (we thought) we knew, based on archeology and primary sources.

2. Ethnicity is extremely fluid, it can change, evolve, transform in a blick of an eye (at historical scale).


As ethnicity remains a cultural construction, it's extremely difficult (often impossible) to determine historical ethnicity.

Archeology, Carbon dating, biological, genetic, scientific analysis in any form can tell us a lot, on a lot of things. But not on ethnicity.

All those cannot say us what language "x" spoke, how "x" ethnically identified himself.

For those, we can rely only in written sources. When they exist. If they're trustful.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,224
Europix
And you find at the generation 91 a cumman intervenea, at 86 a greek, at 75 a mongol, at 62 and 57 some Turks, at 34 a russian...so your dna would be a mess comparing with the bulgarians from 8 cnt, you'd not feel as bulgarian?
Sorry, Perix, but You're wrong on that: it's Romanian!

Bulgarian is at 90 a cumman intervenea, at 88 a greek, at 74 a mongol, at 60, 54 and 51 Turk, at 24 a russian!
 
Likes: Perix
Sep 2012
3,606
Bulgaria
By the way Deaf Tuner my country national motto 'Съединението Прави Силата' / 'Union Makes Strength' was taken from the Belgian motto 'L'Union Fait la Force' and it refers to the union between the Principality and Eastern Rumelia, historical event celebrated here as the Bulgarian Unification. Thanks for the beautiful picture of Martenica and Happy Grandma Marta :)
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,224
Europix
my country national motto 'Съединението Прави Силата' / 'Union Makes Strength' was taken from the Belgian motto 'L'Union Fait la Force' and it refers to the union between the Principality and Eastern Rumelia, historical event celebrated here as the Bulgarian Unification
Thank You, I didn't knew that.

On the other hand, and the first Bulgarian Constitution and the first Romanian Constitution were largely influenced by the Belgian Constitution, something I find logical.

Belgian Constitution was very advanced for it's time and also it was a Constitution of a new state, created "from scratch": different regions, although extremely close, most of the time separated, having parallel evolutions, sometimes intersecting, sometimes diverging, a contact point of big political entities, a meeting place for making a battle or commerce. A very sinous trajectory, that led to a unified state.

In nothing different from Bulgaria or Romania.

And another trait of similarity: Belgium had chosen as King a foreign prince, one of the reasons being avoiding possible internal tensions, the other being for reinforcing (a bit, at least) the status of the newly born state: a young prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ...

Rings a bell ?

The first Tzar of Bulgaria was of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ... ;)

Thanks for the beautiful picture of Martenica and Happy Grandma Marta :)
My pleasure!
 
Likes: Perix
Sep 2012
3,606
Bulgaria
@deaf tuner i see it now, the House of your monarchs changed its name to Belgium after WWI, because of WWI & German sounding title. I didnt know that, same as the British king George V and the House of Windsor. Our last Saxe Coburg Gotha is still among us. He was 7 years old when the commies forced him to leave the throne and the country.
 
Mar 2015
799
Europe
not ethnically they were not obviously. the original romans (the descendents of the mythical romulus and remus) were ethnic romans. the people who lived in rome and central italy.
let me ask you a question - when rome fell. did all those people - gauls, thracians, greeks, hebrews, spaniards still call themselves romans? no they did not. and the reason being it was just a political affiliation not an ethnic one.
Not all. Some did. And some of them were not ethnically Roman. Greeks kept calling themselves Romans into 20th century.
About Bulgars:
There is no doubt that most people in Bulgaria are descended from Thracians. Genetic evidence. All the other languages - Greek, Latin, Slavic and Turkic - must have come with small minorities.
There are only three slightly longer Thracian language inscriptions, from 5th to 4th century BC. Yet the people were overwhelmingly Thracian speakers. The evidence is that for centuries, the common people spoke only Thracian and were illiterate, and a few upper class people spoke Thracian as mothertongue and Greek as second language, but wrote only Greek.
After Roman conquest in 1st century BC and AD, the upper classes wrote Greek south of Jirecek line and Latin north. But there is no evidence of how much the lower classes spoke them, how much they still spoke Thracian as before. There is mention that in 6th century, Thracian speakers were so numerous that they were noted elsewhere (in Sinai).
In 6th century Slavic speakers arrived. And in 7th century, "Bulgars".
There is evidence that a Turkic language was written in 8th...10th century Bulgaria. Sometimes Turkic language in Greek letters, more often in Turkic runes.
The Turkic language would not have been written down in public inscriptions unless it was a prestigious one - Slavic language was not put in public inscriptions in 9th century.
The one sensible explanation for 9th century Turkic public inscriptions (and lack of Slavic public inscriptions) is that Turkic was then the language of the ruling minority of "Bulgars". They would not have put the Turkic language in public inscriptions if they had forgotten to speak it and adopted Slavic language in 8th century already.
 

Similar History Discussions