explain howcome when Eastern Europe did fall to the Turks, howcome they did not turn muslim then?

 

It's also naturally something Bulgarians consider a part of their history as everybody likes claiming heroic victories however, also other Bulgar's who still today are Bulgar's with the same language and identity as back then and Turkic groups can consider it a part of their history. 

 

The reason I made that comment is due to some certain members of this forum who have attempted to renounce any link what-so-ever to "Bulgars" because they were initially a Turkic people (and still are in some other areas outside Bulgaria).

 

In my opinion ofcourse this is Bulgarian history, I was just pointing out the ironical stance of some members here, who renounce Bulgars one minute and are proud of them the other.

 

Certain members is me   I just asked to point me to proofs of turkicness of protobulgars and got irony instead of answer...

 

What was that?

 

Muahaha! You think you can stop it by posting similar sh*t in every thread?

 I will name it: greek nationalistic dreams.

 

Me??? Where for example? Did you read my first answer in this thread? Who is blind after that?

 

Edited: not in this thread but another started by Ludovik.

 

Well, you are probably tired of my favorite example but I will repeat it again: Greek nationalism is what was in your favorite movie about wedding  

Where did I do that? In which "every thread"?

 

 Tell me what am I dreaming. I have no idea what I am dreaming. As for the signature, there are some dudes who believe that nationality of the researcher  influences the results. My signature is an answer to them. I have explained this before but you are so blind to read everything, just hat you want. "Be serious. At least try to be" (C)

 

Brainstorm,

 

You owe your existence today to the heroic sacrifice of the Bulgarian soldiers, who fought and died in 718 so that your ancestors would not become slaves to the Arab conquerors.

 

Show some respect!

However, if the Arabs had suceeded would it have been worse for humanity? looking at the achievements of Al-Andalus, Europe could have benefited really.

 

That is too complicated question. It would be different. There would be more Avicenna's and Hayams. May be whole Europe would be Islamic. Definitely not worse not better.

Arabs had none of them, so they could just make some noise in front of the walls, like many others did.

 

As for Bulgarians being saviours, let's get serious - Bulgarians were at the feet of some other powerful aggresors (vassals to Mongols, subjugated by Ottomans) and Europe lived. Actually, if we look back we notice no single power could ever conquer militarily the entire Europe, therefore anyone hunting heroic saviours should first prove how Europe could be conquered. This is the burden of proof!

 

Humanity?

 

What do you want from him,bg_turk? He wants to see us blind, accroding to his previous posts 

 

No, they weren't. Arab invaders inherited a lot from "Byzantines".

 

 

Can you point out the scientific, cultural, economic, social advancement of Arabs until the 2nd decade of 8th century? If you can't by then (the time of the siege), let's expand it for the entire 8th century. Name reformers, scholars, philosophers, anything. If you don't know individuals, try to support some alleged achivements with evidence.

Afterwards, I'm sure not only me, but many others can flood this thread with Byzantine achievements (and remarkable individuals) in the same age.

 

It's amazing how so many modern Bulgarians and Turks (Anatolian Turks, I mean) constantly minimize Byzantine history.

 

Not in the 8th century for sure,but surely in the timespan between 9th and 11th centuries

 

The very existance of the Eastern Romans post 8th Century is due to the Bulgars. The fact that Arabs were defeated by them in undermined unbelievably. If the Bulgars never defeated the Arabs there was a serious chance that Eastern Roman Empire could have fallen. Its no good saying that the Arabs would have failed and all the Bulgars did was get rid of them quicker than the others would have. This is simply not acceptable, the Arab forces were very powerfull, organised and advanced, it was no easy feat to defeat them at this battle.

 

However, what do we ever hear of the Bulgars? about their culture, civillisation and influences on the Eastern Roman Empire.

 

There is this myth that Eastern Roman Empire influenced everyone and nobody else influenced them as they were all inferior.

 

Just because not everyone heralds the Eastern Roman Empire in the same way other's do, doesn't mean they are "undermining" them, their just being more realistic and less romantic about it all.

The Arabs were not defeated by Bulgarians alone, so there's no undermining. I've seen no analysis on this thread how the power, organization and superior technology/discipline/whatever of Arab forces could be a dangerous combination for the security of the city or even the Empire. Can you give us an overview of the successes of Arab artillery against Constantinople's walls? Their successes on sea against Byzantine navy? Some parallels between the siege of 717-718 and the sieges of 1204 and 1453 to at least build a believable hypothesis the city could have fallen to Arabs?

There is not a single contribution in this thread to say the Bulgarians had no role in defeat (therefore your claim the Bulgarian role is downplayed has no support for this particular example), there are many contributions in this thread saying the Bulgarians saved the Empire, Europe, without them the Arabs would have conquered the Empire, the City, the Islam would have conquered Europe, Arabs were more advanced than Byzantines in the 8th century, in other periods - a lot of claims of "Byzantine inferiority" without a shred of evidence, without a decent scale for comparision and at least hints, if not arguments. Amazingly, the posters of such things are in a visible majority Bulgarians or Turks. On the other hand, you can't identify a cultural or ethnical background of those who disagree with them (we're not all Greeks or something like that, at the best one can say we like Byzantine history to a degree), so to me the shape of the bias is obvious and well-justified (Seljuks, Ottomans and Bulgarian Medieval states had Byzantine Empire as enemy). There are other stereotypical images about Byzantines on these forums: they were saved by their diplomacy, there is only one famous victory against Bulgarians (Kleidion) largely mentioned for the 14,000 blinded Bulgarian soldiers, rather for the military brilliance of Basil II or his army (the other Byzantine victories are amorphous, indirect or attentuated by near events - the Bulgarian tsars were weak in the 8th century, Nicephorus sacked Pliska before he was killed, etc.) - one is left in wonder how Byzantine could even reconquer Balkanic peninsula with so little major victories but with so many defeats!

 

The myth you mention exists too but also, at times, it is a fictional enemy as you take opposite positions even where the myth is not present. The claims made here were openly suggesting a Byzantine inferiority not influences of some sort. There's one thing to discuss about the trade between Byzantines and Muslim world or about the golden age of Islamic intellectual achievements, there's another to say the Bulgarians saved the Empire or Europe.

Bulldog i must say i'm amazed to see a guy from western europe protecting Bulgaria.

His discourse is usually pro-Turkic and anti-their-enemies (and he considers Bulgarians of a definite Turkic origin).

 

that bulgarians are some kind of an unwashed wild tribe which had received civilization from the byzantines

Weren't they? They have brought engineers and scholars from the steppes or wild warriors?

 

 

 

 

No, they were not that wild as you think. Pliska and Preslav fortificatications as well as bulgarian cities in Caucasus according to Horenatsi, prabulgarian calendar, political construction of the countries that they created and some other stuff points that they were not that wild nomadic tribes as some believe. If one compare them to Byzantium and Roman civilizations the comparison will not be in favour of protobulgarians, of course, but it is incorrect to speak about them as wild tribes.

 

Originally posted by Anton No the were not that wild as you think. Pliska and Preslav fortificatications as well as bulgarian cities in Caucasus according to Horenatsi, prabulgarian calendar, political construction of the countries that they created and some other stuff points that they were not that wild nomadic tribes as some believe. If one compare them to Byzantium and Roman civilizations the comparison will not be in favour of protobulgarians, of course, but it is incorrect to speak about them as wild tribes.

If the reference "civilized" in the region and era is the Byzantine world, the Bulgarians were "wild", "uncivilized". Let's discuss a single aspect: literacy. The debate has ended, thank you.

 

Also, it's a bit hilarious to attempt to prove a sophisticated culture in Balkans at the end of first millenium AD with achievements like "calendar" or "centralised state".

 

as well as the cities in Danube and Volga Bulgaria.

I'm a bit familiar with the archaeology on low Danube and I know of no surprising architecture. Have no idea about Volga, though.

 

The thousands of stone carvings created during the rule of khan Omurtag (815-831) are recorded in european history as "bulgar stone literacy" and are unique.

I know only of several. Can you detail about these thousands? Are they in any online epigraphic database?

 

Recorded by whom, the byzantines? Be fair and look at it logically- the bulgars were natural enemies of the byzantines and in every case byzantine chroniclers tried to describe them as cretinous and strange. Bulgars had literacy. Look at historical monuments and documents if you don't believe me.

First, this is a self-contradictory statement. If Bulgarian literacy was anything impressive, how come in the earlier period there are no records from themselves, and we have to rely on Byzantine, Italian or Frankish records? Second, name 10 Bulgarian authors writing under the first Bulgarian Empire. If you succeed, I'll name you 20 contemporary Byzantine authors in exchange.

 

As for later periods- X-XIth century - Bulgaria was the cultural centre for the slavic world. Today largely unknown (and slammed as "bulgarian nationalism") acros Europe is the fact that the cyrylic alphabet, the first slavic literature and art, as well as the autocephalous slavic church were created here. Preslav was the greatest school in the slavic world, formed by the best students of Cyril and Methodius.

You're conveniently obscuring the huge influence of Byzantine (and particularily Greek) culture. Many of the so called "Bulgarian achivements" were in fact Byzantine achievements transplanted in Balkans, a territory which belonged to Byzantines before and after the first Bulgarian Empire (with temporary and partial reconquests between).

 

Hyperboles as "wild cretins" betray inferiority complexes.

 

 

This is the n-th thread opened by a Bulgarian about Byzantine history in order to emphasize Bulgarian brilliance.

 

What pushed the West ahead was in my opinino the discover of the new world and access to unlimitted resources. If Iberia remained under Moor control, it may have been the muslims who colonized the new world, and the industrial revolution may have first taken place in a muslim country.

As discussed in another thread here one early European industrial revolution is the one from 12-13th centuries, long before Europe entered the Colonial era. Your perspective is not supported by evidences.

 

 

 

Interesting how from Arabs vs Byzantines in 717-718 we reached to a whole millenium of Islam vs Christianity. Perhaps Anton was right, I'm feeding too many off-topics here. So bg_turk, if you are interested in the discussion you started make a new thread and be sure I'll join. Otherwise let's try to close all our parantheses.

Krum if your referring to "Bulgars" they were and are a Turkic people's Bulgarians arn't the only one's with Bulgar heritage, Volga-Tatar-s/Chuvash also are descendants of Bulgar's, they speak Turkic language and have Turkic identity. Chuvash are Christian, Volga-Tatar are Muslim and the continuation of Volga Bulgar's. 

 

 

 

The original Kermen's are by the Bulgar's, the Russian destroyed alot of the original complex but were amazed by its beauty and started using it and building similar complexes which are known as "Kremlin's" today.

 

Soyum-bike Tower

 

 

Historic and Architectural Complex of the Kazan Kremlin

 

http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=980 - http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=980

 

 

Kremlin comes from the Turkic kermen=fortress

 

The Bolgar historical-architectural complex

 

Little Minaret Bolgar

 

 

 

Ruins of Black Palace

 

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1110/ - http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1110/

 

 

 

The Bulgar's were not primitive, wild loonatics, they were advanced, powerfull and had a high level of civillisation. They founded many great cities some which are still used today like, Kazan, Yelabuga. Bulgar's had alot of influence on their neighbours and had sophisticated and tolerant forms of government, economy and laws.

 

Unfortuntaely Bulgars like the Khazars have been neglected by mainstream historians, there have been little archeological investigations, restorations and so on.

 

Still the cities of Asli, Turkchin, Tav ile have not been discovered, they were known to be great cities.

 

At its prime, Bolgar was one of the greatest cities of its era.

 

Step 1- Are you bored? Find a Bulgar.

 

Step 2- Tell him that he is a turk.

 

Step 3- Watch his reaction.

 

Step 4- Tell him that he is a  turk

 

 

Nike do you know? You are turk.

 

Krum, where was it said? Which source?

Look buddy I don't know if you're Bulgarian or not but stop spaming the forum with this bullsh*t.Just pack your vigvam and go to the stepes and have fun with your tatar friends!

 

Don't you find it strange, Iranians always show their connection to Ossetians and other quite remote groups with an old Iranic past so why not Bulgar's.

 

I'll tell you why,

 

Bulgar's speak a Turkic language, Bulgars had Turkic culture, Bulgar's had Turkic social structure and organisation with KHANS as leader, Bulgar's had old Tengrist Turkic religion before they adtoped Christianity or Islam.

 

Just because Bulgarians and Turks have an issue regarding the Ottomans it gives us no right to try and totally re-invent a fantasy history.

 

 

Exactly!

 

So many people were called "Tatars", it was just a name Russians would use for anyone Turkic in the area. Also Azeri Turks were called Tatar's as were Karacay's and so on.

 

Volga Tatar's are Bulgar's, they adopted Islam, Bulgarians adopted Christianity, Chuvash Turks adopted Christianity.

 

Nobody is calling today's Bulgarians, Turkic, however, the Bulgar's are a Turkic people and arn't just heritage of Bulgaria, Bulgar heritage stretches from Central Asia to the Danube

 

 

 

EXACTLY!

 

Bulgarians saved Europe and that's the bottom line, what is shocking is the lack of respect and recognition that they get for this.

 

What if Bulgarians said, hey forget it, were not gonna help ungreatfull Bizans, we'll join Arabs and be heralded as heroes and become the rulers of half of Europe.