Relationship bw Bulgar and Iranian Langua

Weapons Used by the Bulgars

The success of the Bulgars from the 4^th century AD to the 9^th century AD was made prevalent by their use of force from horseback.  Most valued by the Bulgars in this application of force were a warrior's cunning, skill, and fierceness in battle.  Furthermore, a warrior would amount to nothing without their weapons.  Whether in the Balkans, the Northern Caucasus, or along the shores of the Volga River, the Bulgar warriors chose weapons that would bring them victory.

Widely accepted amongst the light and heavy cavalry of the Ancient Bulgars were the usage of the spear, the hand ax, the knife, and the lasso.  To a lesser extent the usage of the short sword and javelin were found amongst these horsemen.  For the light cavalry, the main weapon however was the recurve bow and an assortment of arrows to do different jobs.  For the heavy cavalry, a larger spear was the preferred weapon of choice while javelins were used to make up for the lacking of missile weapons.

In regards to the recurve bow and the arrows shot from this, the first wave of any attack would be carried out.  The bow itself was highly prized by the warrior because it could outshoot and outperform others of its time.  As with the Hunnish methodology in making a recurve bow, the Bulgar recurve bow took over five years to make through an exacting curative process.  Hence, like modern ICBM technology of today, the secrets in making these bows was heavily guarded as well as the trading of the bows themselves.  A unique format of resins, wood, sinew, and composite materials such as horn blended together gave this recurve bow a notorious reputation for striking down Byzantines, Franks, and Arabs.  Arrows sent at a given enemy would be made with tips of bone or iron complete with designs for different functions.  These designs could involve a smaller head for better penetration of an opponent wearing metal armor, or a wider head of iron for causing more hemorrhaging upon entry.  They could also be designed to fly further by modifying the shaft length or the feather construction in the tail.  Some arrows might even be made to send communications on the battlefield by making noise through flight.

Both the recurve bow and the arrows would have been a nuisance if it weren't for the mechanisms in controlling these wile galloping on a horse.  Such equipment included the iron stirrup introduced by the coming of the Avars in the mid-6^th century AD, the leather bow case kept usually behind the rider on the right side of the horse, and the leather or birch bark quiver for carrying arrows on their left side.  Also a strap of leather would keep the warrior's spear directly on their back when working with the recurve bow.  All of these gave the Bulgar greater versatility in shooting targets in a number of otherwise awkward angles while mounted.

For the heavy cavalry, a larger, longer spear was incorporated into weapon design for the purpose of breaking enemy formations what much easier.  More weight and support behind the spear meant more impact especially if one considers the heavier armor the rider would wear.  If the enemy was not maimed or killed by the second wave consisting of a charge of thrown javelins and the impalement with the handheld spears, the lasso would be considered.

The Hunno-Bulgar warriors would use the lasso where other direct weapons had failed.  Made for the purpose of entangling, the lasso would be thrown over a given victim, and then they would be dragged impacting with stones, trees, and other horses hooves.  If the enemy were not thrown off their balance, the Bulgar would then proceed to come at them with hand axes, swords, or knives (with the knife being the last offense besides fists, kicks and wrestling).  As Ammianus Marcellinus, the famous Roman historian reported of the Huns that came before the Bulgars (Hunno-Bulgars), "They fight from a distance with missiles having sharp bone instead of their usual points, joined to the shafts with wonderful skill, then they gallop over the intervening spaces and fight hand to hand with swords, reckless of the own lives; and while the enemy are guarding against wounds from saber-thrusts, they throw strips of cloth plaited into nooses over their opponents and entangle them."

i know today bulgars slavs

There's no need for insulting my intelligence.You're obviously not in touch with the latest genetic results.Bulgarians are as slavic (genetically) just as serbs are-meaning 10-20 %.Majority of your genes are native to balcans-they were there before bulgars or slavs arived-which means that both slavs and especially bulgars were low in numbers, and that the natives (with thracians among them) were simply assimilated by the more powerful newcomers.. As i said - it's the same case here in serbia...Look at your countrymen-do they look like poles or czechs?Maybe some do, but a majority is clearly different.And when I said that part about mediteranians -i didn't mean to offend anyone (btw-why would anyone be offended when you call him ''mediteranian''- a number of serbs has got mediteranian appearance-what's wrong with that?).This is what C.S Coon said about the anthropological type of bulgarians:

"The Bulgarians are a composite people, with the following racial elements easily discernible: (a) a medium to tall-statured Atlanto-Mediterranean; (b) a partially blond Neo-Danubian, of typical snub-nosed form; (c) a Nordic; (d) a Dinaric, with the usual Alpine corollary; (e) a brachycephalic central Asiatic Turkish or Tatar form. The basic element is the Atlanto-Mediterranean, which probably goes back to the Neolithic; the Neo-Danubian is probably of both Slavic and Ugrian introduction, although some of it may be older; the Nordic may be of several origins, including Thracian; the Dinaric is simply the result of Bulgarian admixture with local elements in Macedonia; the Turkic is found mostly in eastern Bulgaria, and then among townsmen and shepherds rather than among agriculturalists. Of these varied elements, the first two are the most important, and the first more than the second. The presence of a strongly entrenched Atlanto-Mediterranean population of Neolithic date in all of the lowland Balkans south and east of the Iron Gate is becoming increasingly evident. In Bulgaria it is geographically most concentrated along the southern ethnic periphery, and among Bulgarian colonies abroad, as in the Crimea..."

Source:http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII15.htm

In case you don't know about Coon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon

As you can see - eventhough you're slavs culturally and linguistically, like all balcan slavs - you're genetically not particulary "slavic"-  meaning that the presence of ''slavic'' (indo-european?) marker-haplogroup hg3 is not that strong among balcan slavs.Infact,even the poles have got only around 50 % of hg3 ( highest in europe).To conclude-there's no ''genetic'' slavs, germanic, romanics- most of the genes in modern europe existed before the IE invasion.

However, you should bare in mind the fact that genotype should be separated from the phenotype- you could be of hg3 haplogroup, but that doesn't mean you look like a swedish, kurdish or pakistani kashmiri guys, who are also of the same haplogroup.I hope things look clearer to you now. 

Absolutely true - there isn't a nation in europe (except for the basques, maybe) without any near eastern/north african or central asian admixture-it's a fact- even those who like to think of themselves as of a ''pure race'' have got some ''cowboy genes".

Because Bulgarians have noting to do with Volga Bulgars-Proto Bulgars have had(but modern Bulgarians have may be 3 or 4% of the genes of the Proto Bulgars-wow what a close genetical relation)

A number of those words are not of ''exclusive'' bulgarian origin-they're pretty much in common to all south slavs-which couldn't be associated to bulgars.Like ZHIVOT-I mean-it's pronounced excatly the same in serbo-croatian...and it's not very likely that we picked it up from the bulgars- i mean, it's pretty sure we had the word personifying life before bulgars-don't you think?- i mean-it's one of the most frequently used words in every language (and one of the basic ones).Or SHUMA- which means forest in serbo-croatian.You should know that old slavs were the people of forests and rivers-they had countless no. of names for them-just like persians had for mountains...SHUGAV-again excatly the same in serbo-croatian (from SHUGA-mangy)-btw english synonymus is shebby-sounds  similar-now that couldn't be associated with old bulgars-can it?Even SHUNDA is doubtful - we serbs say SHUNDAV-the one who has a speech flaw.

THen TIGAN- we serbs say TIGANJ-also means frying pan.SVILA is in common to all south slavs;SABL(j)A also.PYRKHA - in sebian it also means to flit.SIROMA(K)H-in common to all south slavs.PRLJA- in common to all south slavs-means to make something dirty(serbo-croatian).PAPLI can be compared to serbo-croatian PIPATI- to touch (delicately) or PIPAVO - something delicate. PUG is comparable to PUKNUTI - also means to crack.PSUVAM-in common to...PSOVATI in s-c.PITA-also in common...(i had one few days ago ).PESHKIR-excatly the same in serbian-could a turkish loanword...PECHURKA- mushroom in serbo-croatian-in common to blah, blah...PELERINA-??? same in serbian...btw, very spread out -so it's  not a very good specimen.PAS (after in pashto)- in serbian it's POSHTO.MRCINA - it's used (in serbia) as an expression for a corpse-mostly animal ones-it's pretty clear it's derived from MRTAV - dead.MERA means measurment in serbian-it can be easily connected with land and pastures ( in the sense of measuring).MARTAK sounds similar to serbian ORTAK - a partner (in business usually).LESH means corpse (a human one) in sebian.KUTRAJ (pashto) is comparable to serbian KUCHE (small dog).KUKER ( a cry in pashto) is similar to serbian KUKATI-to cry, to moan.KACURA (a hood in pashto ) is comparable to serbian KACKET (hood).KOTURA (�a type of big wooden vessel� in pashto)-almost the same as KOSHARA or KOTARICA- wooden baskets in serbian.KOKICHE ( a small flower in pashto) - we use the word KOKICE for popcorn- they look like small flowers when they're done-i'd say there's a connection.ZER in bulg. is almost the same as ZAR in serbian-also used when u want to stress something out.VEZHDA (an eyebrow) in bulg. is similar to serbian VEDJA.VADJA (bulg), WADA (pashto)0comp. to serbian VADITI-to pull out.BAKHTJA SE is almost the same as serbian BAKTATI SE (to labour...)-once again-SOUTH SLAVIC...

So-the case is clear- a no. of words are in common to all south slavs, some are similar due to common IE roots, a no. could be loanwords., and a few could really be connected to pashto-which doesn't proove much-since all steppe warriors were more or less influenced by iranics (linguistically and genetically).There's a no. of chuvash words comparable to english ones- I wonder... .

Anyway Afghanan,-since u're fascinated with long-distance connections, here's one even further then the bulgar-pashto one:

*klipa is used in all three genders-it is used as a noun ( mostly in comical conotation)

**pretvarati is a verb-means to turn into (like turn into stone),and it also means to pretend-however it�s obviously somehow connected to pretvira and pret vara.

***Slaviti-derived from slava (glory)-or is it vice verse?However, it could be connected to the ethymology of Slaven,Sloven-Slav.

If i was to be politically correct, i should put serbo-croatian instead of serbian...but i'm not....

The last remark is closest to the truth.And Avars?They weren't even IE's-and looked nothing like the description of slavs from the early meadievals-very tall and well-built,ruddy in the face and fair-haired. It's not even an option.Avars imposed their rule on a part of eastern and southern slavs in the early medieavals (7th-9th century)-they were remembered as bloodthirsty savages-that's about all there's to say about them.And slavs are more ancient then that - Tacitus(1st century AD) mentions them as Venedi living in the east Germania.He says that they're acting as ''bandits'' - he says it's because they took over sarmatian mentality  .Interestingly-he also mentions people called Peucini (Balts?) who are also mixing heavily with sarmatians by intermarriages.He notes that their appearance has ''roughen'' greatly because of that.So i guess the sarmatians weren't excatly "nordics''-as they are depicted by nordicists .

Basically, slavs seemed to be a part of a larger IE group sometimes called germano-balto-slavic (based on lingustic and archeological? grounds).But-what's more certain is that balts and slavs seem to be closely connected (in the IE tree).It appears that they separated somewhere around 1500 BC.Trzinec-Komarow archaeological culture between the Oder and the Dnepr rivers is a candidate of proto-slavic homeland(according to Gornung and Rybakov). All the hydronyms and toponyms of that area seem to witness that it was so.

What's more interesting for you is certainly that  it appears slavs had close contacts with scyths and sarmats (since the 7th cen. BC at least).This is one of the explanations of similarity of slavic and iranian languages.Slavs were probably the ''scythians'' mentioned by herodotus that are not engaged in warfare, but are farmers that provide for scyths proper - royal scyths..Their contacts with sarmats were even closer.German maps from the early/middle medievals still depicted ''sarmatians'' in parts of todays poland - which means they had significant influence on slavs.They certainly had a significant lingustic and genetic influence at least on ucranians and south-eastern russians.However, most historians agree that they influenced all slavic languages-most common examples are words bog (god) and ray (paradise) undoubtedly of iranic origin.

How much truth is in this?

That's about it - bulgars and slavs joined forces to protect themselves from avars (that's how it started)...however, there wasn't any mixing between them for the first 200 years � each stuck to their own.But, when both slavs and bulgars accepted christianity, process of assimilation of bulgars began � they accepted slavic language as their own-so all that was left of them was the name...

And that old man is right � slavs were mostly peaceful farmers...And if u�re interested in the description of south slavs- try to find De bello gotico by Procopius of Cesarea � the part is Gotica 38.8. III (i think so at least).

Why be ashamed of the Volga Bulgars and Bulgars, they were great people, great warriors. They were also taller than Europeans wen they came, their average height was 175m and were physically very strong. While the rest of Europeans measured an average height of 160m

Little is left of our Bulgar ancestors in the Bulgarian population today though.