Bulgaria

Hali!

In my view the most interesting ruler of the paganistic period is Krum.

He is not famous only with his military achievements.Krum is the bulgarian ruler who introduce written laws for first time in bulgarian history.There are many things i can say about Krum but now i am going to .

About the Nagyszentmiklos treasure - here's the Bulgarian article of Prof. Ivan Dobrev, which I mentioned. But from the two inscriptions, which it views, it shows the original text only of the second one and not of the one, which mentions Asparuh.

As for writing something about Bulgaria - perhaps a somewhat concised history of the First Bulgarian Empire would be best? Although that would be too much to write. Maybe only about paganistic Bulgaria, i.e. from before the establishment (with or without the raids centuries before that) till around the Christianization...

Edit: Anton, do you have something in mind too?


Edited by NikeBG - 19-Dec-2006 at 02:39

Well, rider, I believe that somewhere in the beginning of the thread tzar or red lord were already asked to write something, but then it wasn't posted in the main site. However, since now we have a bit better "presence" in the forum, I guess someone could have the time to compile something (of his own, not copied from somewhere else) and present it to you. I hope that if we finish our current project at work today or tomorrow, we could get some "rest" and I could help with that too (preferably, with someone else's help as well). What exactly would you prefer? General Bulgarian history, history of the rule of some ruler or something else?

WOW!!! I see some 14 or what pages of Bulgaria here.

That makes me wanna ask, how many of you wish to write something of Bulgaria (of the Empires', of some tzars' or whatever)... please express your feelings.

And I ask again - what exactly are these evidences? F.e. I've read in one of Prof. Ovcharov's books that the style of art and some other things are the closest to the Bulgar style of art. But he didn't explain what exactly are the similarities in this style of art. I'll have to read that other article again though, as it seems to have a more detailed information on the treasure.

Thanks! 
Although I wouldn't say we're any better than anyone else - we just have our good sides and bad sides, like everyone else.

Btw, instead of making a new thread, maybe I could post here a question that's been bugging me for awhile: In most of the Bulgarian books, studies, articles etc. the Nagyszentmiklos (Nagi Sent Miklosh, as it's usually transliterated to Bulgarian) treasure is being claimed to be of Bulgar origin. However, as one article stated, this is the treasure, which has probably been claimed by the most nations - Khazars, Avars, Magyars, Pechenegs, even Cumans. And I haven't really seen any clear evidences, which could direct us to one side or another? So, does anyone here know why do we think that this treasure is Bulgarian? I could post some more things later, if I have some time...

Originally posted by theMacedonian Whell if u say Slavenised Vlachs (serbs romanians wore slavenised Vlachs) and so on and so forth... Whats wrong with the concept of Slavenised Macedonians...? I don't see a problem here.

I ve asked you before but i didnt receive any answer-
1)Do you believe that when Slavs arrived in 600 AD + found any people feeling ethnically Macedonians?

2)Do you know that most the region of modern FYROM was inhabited by a non-macedonian tribe-the Paionians? (Paeones/Paiones)

(a part at the south by Macedonian tribes,and a part at the north(incl Skopje-the capital) by Dardanians )

3)Also,can u explain me ,how the Greek population of Macedonia was found in the area ?
Did they came down from Mars?







Edited by Brainstorm - 17-Nov-2006 at 06:08

Originally posted by theMacedonian Whell if u say Slavenised Vlachs (serbs romanians wore slavenised Vlachs) and so on and so forth... Whats wrong with the concept of Slavenised Macedonians...? I don't�see a problem here. �

    What's wrong with the concept of Hellenised Macedonians then?
    What's wrong with the concept of Romanised Hellenised Macedonians then?
    What's wrong with the concept of Slavenised Romanised Hellenised Macedonians then?
    What's wrong with the concept of Bulgarised Slavenised Romanised Hellenised Macedonians then?
    What's wrong with the concept of Serbised Bulgarised Slavenised Romanised Hellenised Macedonians then?
    What's wrong with the concept of Hellenised(for a 2nd time!!!)Serbised Bulgarised Slavenised Romanised Hellenised Macedonians then?

When after several decades some "Macedonians" will begin to talk about Albanised Serbised Bulgarised Slavenised Romanised Hellenised Macedonians, only then there will be something wrong with the concept?
According to your logic, for sure now we can talk only about Macedonised Neanderthals.
    

Edited by Desperado - 14-Nov-2006 at 10:27

I guess you actually mean Turkic, which differs from Turkish?