Revised History of the Bulgarians (Thracian connection)

Perix

Ad Honoris
Dec 2009
10,046
Romania
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!
I not quite sure I got what you mean. it is the story of everyone in this world
 

Perix

Ad Honoris
Dec 2009
10,046
Romania
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.
Nobody in the late Roman Empire was thinking thet they'd want to be that kind of romans as Romulus and Remus. They were simply the citizens of the Empire they lived in - their siblings were part of the roman army, roman administration, roman clergy...even roman emperors. The former ethnicity became very volatile within the empire borders: they mainly called the second identity after the province they lived in. For sure French, Spaniard or Italians would kept calling themselves romans if they were alone surrounded by germanics, or slavics, like Romanians were. On the other hand, for sure would been not Romanians if the main Balkan population would remained romance speaker: probably would been few peoples with different designations. The migrants made the romance in Balkans to coagulate themselves within the romance designation. But they did it from the stard - the designation as "Vlachs" was an exonym(is not something peiorative in Romanian - just not used intern). The language was called "romaneste"(Romanian).
 
Feb 2019
63
US
Nobody in the late Roman Empire was thinking thet they'd want to be that kind of romans as Romulus and Remus. They were simply the citizens of the Empire they lived in - their siblings were part of the roman army, roman administration, roman clergy...even roman emperors. The former ethnicity became very volatile within the empire borders: they mainly called the second identity after the province they lived in. For sure French, Spaniard or Italians would kept calling themselves romans if they were alone surrounded by germanics, or slavics, like Romanians were. On the other hand, for sure would been not Romanians if the main Balkan population would remained romance speaker: probably would been few peoples with different designations. The migrants made the romance in Balkans to coagulate themselves within the romance designation. But they did it from the stard - the designation as "Vlachs" was an exonym(is not something peiorative in Romanian - just not used intern). The language was called "romaneste"(Romanian).
could you please tell me what you wanted to say with this because I cannot for the life of me decipher it.
romanians for sure have nothing to do with romans per se. they are the descendants of the conquered Dacians (thracians) that fought to the death for independence from Romans. Obviously some significant slavic element is mixed in (the royals and dukes of Vlachia/Wallachia spoke and wrote Bulgarian during the middle ages as is evidenced by documents coming down from Vlad and Mircea the Elder)
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,178
Portugal
could you please tell me what you wanted to say with this because I cannot for the life of me decipher it.
romanians for sure have nothing to do with romans per se. they are the descendants of the conquered Dacians (thracians) that fought to the death for independence from Romans. Obviously some significant slavic element is mixed in (the royals and dukes of Vlachia/Wallachia spoke and wrote Bulgarian during the middle ages as is evidenced by documents coming down from Vlad and Mircea the Elder)
Not sure what you mean by “romans per se”. In time the conquered peoples became Romans in many places, they embraced their “Romanhood”, even peoples that initially fought fiercely against the Romans. That is also why today Latin languages are among the ones that are most spoken in the world.
 
Feb 2019
63
US
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.
A few interesting tidbits of info.
There is mention in historical accounts of the Bulgars joining their relatives (the thracians) in struggle for liberation and a second one mentioning the Bulgars coming back to reclaim the land that is rightfully theirs. There is yet another document which speaks of the Bulgars as being displaced by the conquests of Philip and Alexander in the Balkans and returning after centuries in exile. I can get the references if need be.
It is quite a coincidence that the Bulgars appear on the balkans precisely at the time when the long line of Thracian emperors heading the Eastern Roman Empire is terminated and greeks take over.
Suffice it to say the story may be stranger and more convoluted than we may envisage.
 
Feb 2019
63
US
Not sure what you mean by “romans per se”. In time the conquered peoples became Romans in many places, they embraced their “Romanhood”, even peoples that initially fought fiercely against the Romans. That is also why today Latin languages are among the ones that are most spoken in the world.
i think i was quite clear what I said. If they thought of themselves as "romans" they would have formed Roman Kingdoms. They did not they formed states that did not call themselves that and had a separate identify altogether. There was influence and cross-pollination of culture but these peoples all maintained a separate identity even after centuries of roman rule. Note that all of these peoples - Gauls, Germanics, Thracians (Dacian) fought fiercely and to the last man for independence.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,178
Portugal
i think i was quite clear what I said. If they thought of themselves as "romans" they would have formed Roman Kingdoms. They did not they formed states that did not call themselves that and had a separate identify altogether. There was influence and cross-pollination of culture but these peoples all maintained a separate identity even after centuries of roman rule. Note that all of these peoples - Gauls, Germanics, Thracians (Dacian) fought fiercely and to the last man for independence.
If I said that I was not sure, it means that it was not clear to me. Sorry! If you want you can clarify.
 
Feb 2019
63
US
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!
Not sure what you mean by "make the difference". I assume you may mean "tell the difference". ...In any case you are mistaken.
As far as Deaf being "sexagenar" that only makes this worse....
 

Perix

Ad Honoris
Dec 2009
10,046
Romania
could you please tell me what you wanted to say with this because I cannot for the life of me decipher it.
romanians for sure have nothing to do with romans per se. they are the descendants of the conquered Dacians (thracians) that fought to the death for independence from Romans. Obviously some significant slavic element is mixed in (the royals and dukes of Vlachia/Wallachia spoke and wrote Bulgarian during the middle ages as is evidenced by documents coming down from Vlad and Mircea the Elder)
keep insist! You are skipping an important stage: all those Dacians and thracians transformed themselves into romans. and, yes, slavic culture are , physically, an important layer of our culture, but, sentimentaly, slavs means nothing for us. All slavs obeyed for Romanian identity. slavs means absolutely nothing for us!
 
Feb 2019
63
US
keep insist! You are skipping an important stage: all those Dacians and thracians transformed themselves into romans. and, yes, slavic culture are , physically, an important layer of our culture, but, sentimentaly, slavs means nothing for us. All slavs obeyed for Romanian identity. slavs means absolutely nothing for us!
Why does it mean nothing? Yet the identity of your conquerors is so readily accepted? The Dacians fought to the last man against the romans. Once the Romans took over they stole all the wealth. The huge deficit in the treasury was taken care of for 2 years.