Revised History of the Bulgarians (Thracian connection)

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,975
Republika Srpska
Yes it is. No-one is disputing that Serbs have Illyrian blood, every Balkan group has, but we are still a Slavic people. When people talk about the connection between Illyrians and Serbs, 90% of the time it is because they are claiming Serbs are the "native" group in the Balkans (as if being in a region for 1500 years doesn't make you native) and to counter the Albanian narrative that they are autochtonous (which is silly as well).

I also disagree that the rejection of Serb Illyrian heritage is what enables fringe theories. It does not. No historian denies that Serbs are not 100% pure Slavs, but they also do say the Serbs came to the Balkans in the Early Middle Ages and then mixed with groups already there. And they should. It is the historical truth. So, even if Serbian historiography starts paying more attention to our Illyrian heritage, it would still not be enough for those people because they are not guided by rational and scientific methods, but by nationalism and any evidence to the contrary of their theories is the proof that the "truth" is being hidden.
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
7,055
Romania
It's not. It's misused by certain groups who equate Illyrians and Slavs and claim they're the same thing, e.g we were here since the dawn of time, etc. That's different from saying Serbs have partial Illyrian descent. Even Bulgarians learn in schools about Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians as the three building blocks that formed their nation. They have their autochtonist schools, too, but they're a fringe group same as in Serbia. We're culturally Slavic, that's the people we most relate to so it's perfectly normal that they take the spotlight in our historiography. But there's no need to ignore the other (native) half just because the nationalists are bent over their back trying to prove we're those people. I think by not accepting that part of our history is what is enabling them in the first place because too many questions are left unanswered by ignoring that part entirely leading some to believe its intentionally shoved under the carpet as to not find any "proof" that Serbs have always been in the Balkans. Strictly speaking, we have. The modern Serbs, that is. We're not the same people as the Serbs of 7th century that came to the Balkans for the first time.
One thing is to claim that the modern Serbs are in an important part of Illyrian descent, another to claim that the modern Serbs are the same people as the ancient Illyrians. The same with the Bulgarians: one thing is to claim that the modern Bulgarians are in an important part of Thracian descent, another to claim that the modern Bulgarians are the same people as the ancient Thracians.
 
Aug 2019
571
North
One thing is to claim that the modern Serbs are in an important part of Illyrian descent, another to claim that the modern Serbs are the same people as the ancient wuoIllyrians. The same with the Bulgarians: one thing is to claim that the modern Bulgarians are in an important part of Thracian descent, another to claim that the modern Bulgarians are the same people as the ancient Thracians.
After dacia was conquored by the romans, many former worn out legionaries from all over europe and beyond came to dacia and became occupied by farming, etc. So, forget your myth about your descent from the dacians. The bulk of them were sold as slaves all over europe and beyond.
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
7,055
Romania
You said Bulgarian Thracian inheritance is actually Roman because Thrace was incorporated and its culture lost. Following that logic Romanian inheritance is Roman only, as well. That's what I meant
The problem is the degree in which the Thracian culture was assimilated with its particular characteristics into the general Roman culture of those times, and his opinion is that it was largely assimilated, so following the logic is like saying that the Romanian inheritance is Daco-Roman rather than directly/immediately Dacian. Obviously, the whole of the Romanian inheritance is more complex than that, but I think that you missed the point.
 
Last edited:

Perix

Ad Honoris
Dec 2009
10,047
Romania
After dacia was conquored by the romans, many former worn out legionaries from all over europe and beyond came to dacia and became occupied by farming, etc. So, forget your myth about your descent from the dacians. The bulk of them were sold as slaves all over europe and beyond.
This "Dacia was emptied by Dacians" is a myth itself. On the other hand, large people from north and south Danube continued to call themselves Dacians(and Romans too), no matter their blood inheritance.
 
Aug 2019
571
North
This "Dacia was emptied by Dacians" is a myth itself. On the other hand, large people from north and south Danube continued to call themselves Dacians(and Romans too), no matter their blood inheritance.
Are you saying that the romans would've left such a relatively rebellious nation stay in their homeland? No, the romans scattered them all over, just as they did with the jews. Just as charlemagne would do to the saxons.
 

Perix

Ad Honoris
Dec 2009
10,047
Romania
Are you saying that the romans would've left such a relatively rebellious nation stay in their homeland? No, the romans scattered them all over, just as they did with the jews. Just as charlemagne would do to the saxons.
There are no source to support your statement. On the contrary, the Dacians are well mentioned in the time of Commodus as not disturbed by any exile. On the other hand, the roman capabilities were limited in their case. Large territories remained nor conquered, and the conquered lands were full of difficult terrain to support such a policy. Anyway, as I said, there were populations who carried on calling themselves Dacians, even they were loyal roman citizens
 
Aug 2019
571
North
There are no source to support your statement. On the contrary, the Dacians are well mentioned in the time of Commodus as not disturbed by any exile. On the other hand, the roman capabilities were limited in their case. Large territories remained nor conquered, and the conquered lands were full of difficult terrain to support such a policy. Anyway, as I said, there were populations who carried on calling themselves Dacians, even they were loyal roman citizens
So dacia wasn't conquered?
It may not have been exile, but selling prisoners of war as slaves. I imagine the whole male population, bit by bit, would have partaken in wars against rome.
The conquered lands were full of difficult terrain to support what kind of policy?
 
Last edited:

Perix

Ad Honoris
Dec 2009
10,047
Romania
So dacia wasn't conquered?
It may not have been exile, but selling prisoners of war as slaves. I imagine the whole male population, bit by bit, would have partaken in wars against rome.
The conquered lands were full of difficult terrain to support what kind of policy?
ok, I'm done!