Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Question to Iranians!
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
shinai View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 13-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 219 		  Quote shinai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Question to Iranians!
    Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 16:34
I just forgot t say in the film of Sparukh khan I saw he is holding a sign ( Horse), this  sign was a clear Iranian sign, I saw one of them found in Iranian Azerbijan, city of Ardebil.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 16:49
Shinai
The problem is that some of the Turkish members forget that the central asia were an Iranic Area and the nomads living there were Iranic.
 
Got any proof?
 
Plus, its not like there arn't any Iranic people in Central Asia, isn't Afganistan Central Asia, also Tajikistan.
 
Turks have always been in Central Asia aswell.
 
 
 
Also we need to consider that the genral image of Iranic is diffrent from modern Iranians. Iranic tribes mixed with mongols and their language changed to Turkic in central asis.
 
This just make sense, Mongols speak Mongolian, why after mixing with Mongols would they speak Turkic?
 
Did you mean Mongoloid people instead?maybe I misunderstood.
 
 
 
Just becasue the Bugarian were nomadic horsemen we can not consider them Turkic.
 
Umm its hardly the only reason let's also add
 
- Turkic language which Volga Bulgaria Bulgars still speak today
- Religion - Tengrist
- Culture
- Society/Social structure - they were even connected to Oghurs, they leader's were Khans etc etc
- Historians and scholors of the past who identified Bulgar's as Turkic
- The fact that today Bulgar's are Turkic.
 
 
 
 
Iran still have one of the largest nomadic populations, qashqay,
 
Qashqay are Turkic, you should know this. Plus Qashqay actually live in Iran, right in the South far away from mainly Turkic areas.
 
 
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 17:42
 
Again a lot of mess:
 
Originally posted by Bulldog

mm its hardly the only reason let's also add
 
- Turkic language which Volga Bulgaria Bulgars still speak today
 
So what? Balkan bulgars nowadays speak slavonic language due to "slavjanization". Apenine Bulgars speak nowadays Italian. Pannonian Bulgars still speak Hungarian today. Kouber Bulgars were assimilated by Greeks and thus speak Greek. Some Bulgarians were assimilated by caucassus nations (most likely Armenians). Who speak the true Protobulgarian language? Chuvashs just because it is more convenient for you and your grandpa Vasil Zlatarski? Situation is much more complicated and have no simple answer.
 
- Religion - Tengrist
 
Never in none source it was said that they believed in Tengri. Some of them, like Kubrat himself were thought to be Christians.
 
- Culture
 
Several times I asked you to provide details of this Turkic culture. Horse sacrifice maybe? You can find such an act even in Ancient Romans. Did they borrow this tradition in Turk nomads? Wink
 
- Society/Social structure - they were even connected to Oghurs, they leader's were Khans etc etc
 
Which leaders were khans? Where did you get this information? Kavhans, bogoturs and maybe tumentarkan words are of turkic origin but this is not surprising after 100 years under Avar and Turk rules. Turkic militari tactics and organization proved to be efficient.
 
- Historians and scholors of the past who identified Bulgar's as Turkic
Historians of the past identify them as Huns, Gots, Gets, Moesi, Kimmerians, Skyths, Sarmats and etc. Identification of Bulgars with Turks started at the end of 19th century.
 
 
- The fact that today Bulgar's are Turkic.
I have seen this somewhere.... Smile Bad idea to use the same argument twice. You started with this: "- Turkic language which Volga Bulgaria Bulgars still speak today". Wink
 
I repeate for twentyth time maybe, Turkic version of their origin is a theory with some arguments in favour but weak sides as well. Like several others it have right to exist but none of theories that I know is convincing yet.  


Edited by Anton - 02-Feb-2007 at 17:43
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 17:45
Originally posted by Bulldog

Got any proof?
 
For what? About skyths and sarmatians? Tell us who were they?
.
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408 		  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 17:58
Originally posted by Anton

Wow, such an impressive post, DayI.
It was less impressive then your previous post with full of knowledge. For me it was the "post of the month" really Clap


 
Whats the big deal ffs!!! They have the same name and are the same people!!
That's right. I just pointed that you may find much more information about them in Greek and Roman chronicles.
Ok post then what those chronicle's say about danube or volga-bulgars.
 
 
Couldnt understand this, they live between Turks and slavs, who are they then?
Bugaga, according to your logic,  turkish people are mix of Bulgarians, Greeks and Kurds.
Are you turning into your roots or something, bugaga wth?

Turkish people can be mix of Greeks - Bulgarians - Kurds or any other people too, cuz unlike you we dont give a damn about our ethnicity and that's not something I would ashamed of. If my ancestor was a Greek, Kurd, Turk or a Persian, will taht fact change my life? I have no fobia or something to fear what actually my ethnicity is or where it comes from. We are all living in between the borders of Turkey, we are all Turkish people.

So YES that's mine logic for defining Turkish people.

I already guess your logic....
 
 
 
thats why you claim that bulgarian titles where slavic while you arent an linguist.
I was talking about title Zhoapan. It is most likely slavonic.
 LOLLOLLOL
 
That is direct offense in nationalism. That is all right for me. Because, if you look carefully at the beggining of the thread you will find my phrase that I DO NOT SUPPORT Iranian theory of Bulgarian origin. But pointed that many of point of Zlatarski's theory are questionable.
You can support it or not but dont be ignorant.


Moreover, I am mix of finish, russian, (from father's side), bulgarian, valachian,  greek and most likely turkish blood (from mother's side), I am not blond and my eyes are dark, I have two mother tongues, know 4 languages, studied a bit turkic Yakutian language being interested in this amazing culture. My wife is from Yakutia and thus my children are half turkic. I think you will agree that it would be difficult for me to consider myself as neo-fascist as you tend to show me as such.
Underlined text tells much more then actually you try to tell me.
 
I do not expect excuses from a complexated panturkist, most likely hating Russians, since they destroyed the power of Ottoman Empire  (you see I can also come into quick conclusions) but if you delete your last post I will delete mine as well.

hating russians since they destroyed Ottoman Empire? hahahahaha

Dude really, there IS something wrong with you.
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg">
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 18:15

Hm, DayI. I thought you are much smarter. Sorry for the mistake.
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 18:33
Originally posted by DayI


Turkish people can be mix of Greeks - Bulgarians - Kurds or any other people too, cuz unlike you we dont give a damn about our ethnicity and that's not something I would ashamed of. If my ancestor was a Greek, Kurd, Turk or a Persian, will taht fact change my life? I have no fobia or something to fear what actually my ethnicity is or where it comes from. We are all living in between the borders of Turkey, we are all Turkish people.
So YES that's mine logic for defining Turkish people.
I already guess your logic....
Dude really, there IS something wrong with you.
 
I was trying to explain the logic in your simple minded language but you didn't get it anyway. I will try again: what you were trying to say for Volga Bulgars applied to Turkey is that Turkish people are mix of  neighbouring nations without any additional root. Which is obviously not true. Bulgars lived between Russians and Khazars but this does not make them authomatically mix of  Russians and Khazars. It could be the case indeed but must be proven. What I do not accept and I was trying to point this out is wrong translation of sources in order to prove crapy ideas.
 
Otherwise, I would be really glad to become member of big and friendly panturkist family but still see no reason. The rest sh%t from your last post probably do not need to be commented. You must be very smart trying to pshychoanalize me via the internet. LOLLOLLOL 
.
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408 		  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 18:43
Originally posted by Anton

Hm, DayI. I thought you are much smarter. Sorry for the mistake.

Atleast i could hear a "sorry" from you.
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg">
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 18:54
Anton
So what? Balkan bulgars nowadays speak slavonic language due to "slavjanization".
 
Partly due to Slavization, partly due to most people in Bulgaria being neither Bulgar or Slav but being assimilated to some degree by both.
 
Anton
 Apenine Bulgars speak nowadays Italian. Pannonian Bulgars still speak Hungarian today. Kouber Bulgars were assimilated by Greeks and thus speak Greek.
 
Bulgar's didn't enter Itally, if they did they did so as "Bulgarians" not Bulgars.
 
 Who speak the true Protobulgarian language?
 
Bulgar's of Volga Bulgaria, they spoke Turkic a millenia ago and a millenia before that and they still speak it today.
 
Why is it hard to accept that Bulgar's always have spoke Turkic? since the day Bulgar's have been Bulgar's they've spoke Turkic.
 
 
Anton
Never in none source it was said that they believed in Tengri. Some of them, like Kubrat himself were thought to be Christians.
 
Are you actually going to deny that Bulgar's were Tengrist? Confused 
 
Anton
Which leaders were khans? Where did you get this information? Kavhans, bogoturs and maybe tumentarkan words are of turkic origin but this is not surprising after 100 years under Avar and Turk rules. Turkic militari tactics and organization proved to be efficient.
 
Your just trying to minimilise anything Turkic, if these were all Iranian words you'd be using it as evidence for your case.
 
Just a few words?
 
 
check this post.
 
Anton
 Identification of Bulgars with Turks started at the end of 19th century.
 
Volga Bulgarian Bulgar's didn't suddenly start becoming Turkic at the end of the 19th Century.
 
 
Anton
For what? About skyths and sarmatians? Tell us who were they?
 
Can we ask a skyth or sarmatian today? No.
 
Seen as though Scythians didn't leave written works it will be hard to determine.
 
However, in Central Asia there were Iranic and Turkic people's so it's likely that there were Turkic and Iranic tribes which made up the Scythians.
 
But can we ask Bulgar's today? yes we can, they are Turkic and that's the end of the story.
 
Bulgar's were a sub-branch of the Ogur's, what more is there to discuss, it's hardly a big conspiracy theory or some big puzzle. 


Edited by Bulldog - 02-Feb-2007 at 18:58
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408 		  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 19:14
edit; double post.


Edited by DayI - 02-Feb-2007 at 19:16
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg">
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408 		  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 19:15
Originally posted by DayI

Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by DayI


Turkish people can be mix of Greeks - Bulgarians - Kurds or any other people too, cuz unlike you we dont give a damn about our ethnicity and that's not something I would ashamed of. If my ancestor was a Greek, Kurd, Turk or a Persian, will taht fact change my life? I have no fobia or something to fear what actually my ethnicity is or where it comes from. We are all living in between the borders of Turkey, we are all Turkish people.
So YES that's mine logic for defining Turkish people.
I already guess your logic....
Dude really, there IS something wrong with you.
 
I was trying to explain the logic in your simple minded language but you didn't get it anyway. I will try again: what you were trying to say for Volga Bulgars applied to Turkey is that Turkish people are mix of  neighbouring nations without any additional root.
I didnt try to say that, it is well known where Bulgar tribes came from and with whom they lived, see barbar his post. But because you are from the first post confused you keep to post confused stuff which I think you even have no idea about it.

Well let me som it up:
(barbar) We have records by Arabic historian how the Bulghars (during Muqtedir) who came for Haj claimed they were people mixture of Turks and Slavs.
 
(anton)Not at al. They didn't claim that. They said that they live between Turks and Slavs.

(Dayi)Couldnt understand this, they live between Turks and slavs, who are they then?

and the totally irrelevant post of you:

Bugaga, according to your logic,  turkish people are mix of Bulgarians, Greeks and Kurds.


I or anybody else didnt claimd that Bulgarians where a mixture of Russians and Khazars. Bulgars where a tribe on their own, they where people which highly consisted of Turkic(!) and Slavic people. Thats why I think that those people where called Bulgars, cuz they are mixed and yea "Bulgar" still means "mixed" by some Turkic language's surprize Anton!!

 
[QUOTE]Otherwise, I would be really glad to become member of big and friendly panturkist family but still see no reason. The rest sh%t from your last post probably do not need to be commented. You must be very smart trying to pshychoanalize me via the internet. LOLLOLLOL 
 Clap you are dumber then I tought actually you was.
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg">
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 19:26
Originally posted by Bulldog

Anton
 
Partly due to Slavization, partly due to most people in Bulgaria being neither Bulgar or Slav but being assimilated to some degree by both.
 
You don't want to get my point. Why do you think Chuvash speak Protobulgar language but not other nations that had Protobulgarian roots?
 
 
Bulgar's didn't enter Itally, if they did they did so as "Bulgarians" not Bulgars.
 
Nicephorus thought differently than you. Look his "NICEPHOM ARCHIEPISCOPI CONSTANTINOPOUTANI OPUSCULA HISTORICA" . Look what he wrote under year 673.  I'll tell you more. There were several migrations of Bulgars (not Bulgarians) in Itally and they preserved their language up to 14th century. If you want more information and open additional thread we can discuss this. 
 
 
 
Bulgar's of Volga Bulgaria, they spoke Turkic a millenia ago and a millenia before that and they still speak it today.
 
Surely you can provide some proofs for that.
 
 
Why is it hard to accept that Bulgar's always have spoke Turkic?
 
Because I am not convinced. That's it.
 
since the day Bulgar's have been Bulgar's they've spoke Turkic.
You repeate yourself. I don't see any reason to suppose that Chuvash language is more "pure" Bulgar than others. 
 
 
 
Are you actually going to deny that Bulgar's were Tengrist? Confused 
Of course I am going to deny this. The main reason why they were Tengrists is because they are supposed to be Turcic nomads. If I doubt this I will authomatically doubt everything that releases from that fact.
 
 
 
 
Your just trying to minimilise anything Turkic, That is your opinion and I do not see a reason to deny this even if I do not agree with that. Difficult to minimilise turkic (or at least Turkish) side of Bulgarian culture. It is huge and I like it by the way.
 
if these were all Iranian words you'd be using it as evidence for your case.
Not at all. But I am not going to pursude you.
 
Just a few words?
 
 
check this post.
 
What are you trying to show me. Blaiming of Russians for everything bad in this world? You know, there are several groups of people in Bulgaria that have different points of view on Bulgarian history. Namely: Turkists (supporting official view), Iranists (supporting that Bulgars are Iranian tribe from Balhara, Hindukush or something like that whatever) and people that support authochtonic and Slavonic origin of Bulgarian nation. Surprisingly they ALL blaim poor Russians  to be responsible for present Bulgarian historiography. LOL
 
 
 
Anton
 Identification of Bulgars with Turks started at the end of 19th century.
 
Volga Bulgarian Bulgar's didn't suddenly start becoming Turkic at the end of the 19th Century.
You permanently fail to understand what am I talking about. If I am so bada in explaining my thoughts maybe we shold stop farther discussions. 
 
 
 
But can we ask Bulgar's today? yes we can, they are Turkic and that's the end of the story.
 
Which Bulgars??? Slavonic, Turkic???
 
 
Bulgar's were a sub-branch of the Ogur's,
 
Where is it said so?
 
what more is there to discuss, it's hardly a big conspiracy theory or some big puzzle. 
Indeed. Everything that does not fit your views is conspiracy theory, propaganda, brainwashing and nationalism. Hug
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 19:28
My dear fellow DayI,  how many shots of Raki did you take today? Smile
.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 19:32
 
 
To sum things up, if the Ottomans didn't have anything to do with modern-day Bulgaria we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be no problem for Bulgarians accepting that the Bulgar's were and are Turkic. The Iranic thesis isn't accepted by mainstream historians as it's based on pretty flimsy evidence. If the Bulgar's were Slavic it wouldn't be such a hotly contested issue as many Bulgarians could live happily knowing this and wouldn't care about chasing romantic alternate stories to try and find other ancestors for themselves.


Edited by Bulldog - 02-Feb-2007 at 19:57
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 19:38
DayI

I or anybody else didnt claimd that Bulgarians where a mixture of Russians and Khazars. Bulgars where a tribe on their own, they where people which highly consisted of Turkic(!) and Slavic people.
 
This I consider as fact that need to be proved.  But in this particular source it was said "live between Slavs and Tukrs" and not "mix of Slavas and Turks". Again, you may suppose that this means the first but there is no reason to use wrong translation. Dude, life is complicated story, you cannot fit it in your panturkist fantasies. I tell you this with all my respect to Turkish and Turkic culture(s).
 
Thats why I think that those people where called Bulgars, cuz they are mixed and yea "Bulgar" still means "mixed" by some Turkic language's surprize Anton!!
You have right to think so. As far as I remember the word was "Bulamach", not something with root "Bulgar". But surely you can prove us that Bulgar ethnonym came from word Bulamach. How about for example that word Bulgar came from word "Volga"? Although it is also unlikely. There are more than 10 theories of the origin of Bulgarian ethnonym. Again none of them is convinceing.
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 19:39
Originally posted by Bulldog

To sum things up, if the Ottomans didn't have anything to do with modern-day Bulgaria we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be no problem for Bulgarians accepting that the Bulgar's were and are Turkic. The Iranic thesis isn't accepted by mainstream historians as it's based on pretty flimsy evidence. If the Bulgar's were Slavic it wouldn't be such a hotly contested issue as many Bulgarians could live happily knowing this and wouldn't care about chasing romantic alternate stories to try and find other ancestors for themselves.
 
Amen.
.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 20:03
The only other language that could possibly have been spoken in that area are Finno-Ugric languages, which fall into the Ural-Altaic linguistic group.
 
Anton
There were several migrations of Bulgars (not Bulgarians) in Itally and they preserved their language up to 14th century.
 
Did they leave any books.
 
Anton
Because I am not convinced. That's it.
 
But you find the Iranic thesis which is ridiculously weaker than the Turkic one credible, how is that possible.
 
Anton
You repeate yourself. I don't see any reason to suppose that Chuvash language is more "pure" Bulgar than others. 
 
Why not? we know Bulgarians of Bulgaria don't speak the Bulgar's tongue, it's pretty credible that Chuvash Turkic is Bulgar because they are Bulgars.
 
Anton
What are you trying to show me. Blaiming of Russians for everything bad in this world?
 
Sorry what does this or the post have to do with Russians? it was about Bulgaria.
 
I don't know whose blaming Russians for everything bad?
 
 
Today's Bulgarians are actually lucky having such a rich diverse interesting history, they accept and embrace their Thracian and Slavic heritage also their Bulgar heritage but it would have maybe been better for them if Bulgar's wern't connected by being Turkic Wink


Edited by Bulldog - 02-Feb-2007 at 20:05
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 21:05
Originally posted by Bulldog

The only other language that could possibly have been spoken in that area are Finno-Ugric languages, which fall into the Ural-Altaic linguistic group.
 
 
Hm,what does word "perkele" mean in all Turkic langiage? Wink Do we speak about the same Finno-Ugric languages? Mine is:
Oops, sorry to post a link to wiki in front of such educated auditory Embarrassed
So, what kind of Altaic languages are those?
 
 
 
Did they leave any books.
Whom? Bulgars in Italy? I didn't hear anything about that.
 
 
But you find the Iranic thesis which is ridiculously weaker than the Turkic one credible, how is that possible.
 
1.It is not that much "ridicuously weaker" to me.
2. Except 1 word "Taggra" in greek (wich most likely is read as Tangra IUANE%20E%20-%20John%20the%20Baptistindeed) in Danube Bulgarians we have no proofs that they were Tengrians. All other things are speculations. Do you consider this as a clear proof tat they were Tengrians? I don't. Have you ever heard about stampof Tervel with inscription "Virgin Maria help to Cesar Tervel"? How about knowledge that Kubrat was baptized in Constantinople? What about medalion of Kanasubigi Omurtag with cross? How about this inscription with Bulgar runs:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Maybe not that beautifull but definitely icon. Smile
Why do you consider Bulgars as Tengrists having much more signs of Christianity? Don't get me wrong again. I do not try to proove that they were Christians, but be more critical to what you had been told.
 
3. You constantly try to make me "Iranist" how is that possible? I told you already that I do not consider any theory as true or false. Is it evil to point to some weak points of one of the theories? You blame me in beliefs in "conspiracies" and "wishes not to be connected to Ottoman Turks". One dude here directly said that I want to have blue eyes and be blond LOL
 
 
 
Why not? we know Bulgarians of Bulgaria don't speak the Bulgar's tongue, it's pretty credible that Chuvash Turkic is Bulgar because they are Bulgars.
 
We know almost nothing. Ask yourself such a question: we know that Kubrat united several different tribes into a state called Old Great Bulgaria. How do we know that they all spoke the same language and were more or less the same nation? If it is not the fact then 40 years of OGB is not enough to unite them into one nation with a single language. Then ask yourself: what hapened when Kubrat died? Different brothers took different tribes and movoed here and there. So, does it really matter that if Volga Bulgars were turkic tribes than authomatically Danube bulgars or Black Bulgars or Alceko's Bulgars were turkic as well? I try to force you to understand that it is not that simple as you think. If I didn't succede I may continue. Tongue 
 
 
 
Today's Bulgarians are actually lucky having such a rich diverse interesting history, they accept and embrace their Thracian and Slavic heritage also their Bulgar heritage but it would have maybe been better for them if Bulgar's wern't connected by being Turkic Wink

Now be so kind to explain me why and what do I think is bad in being turkic. Smile A friend of my childhood has very mongoloid eyes. I think his ancestors were Kumans Smile

 


Edited by Anton - 02-Feb-2007 at 21:06
.
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408 		  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 21:05
Originally posted by Anton

DayI

I or anybody else didnt claimd that Bulgarians where a mixture of Russians and Khazars. Bulgars where a tribe on their own, they where people which highly consisted of Turkic(!) and Slavic people.
 
This I consider as fact that need to be proved.  But in this particular source it was said "live between Slavs and Tukrs" and not "mix of Slavas and Turks". Again, you may suppose that this means the first but there is no reason to use wrong translation. Dude, life is complicated story, you cannot fit it in your panturkist fantasies. I tell you this with all my respect to Turkish and Turkic culture(s).
what is "wrong translation", the records of Ibn Fazlan? Or any other who did travell into Bulgarian lands and toke notes?

Oh common Anton cut that panturkic crap in here, did I made such claims? By mentioning Turkic presence in ancient Bulgar state am I lebelled as a panturkist....
 
Thats why I think that those people where called Bulgars, cuz they are mixed and yea "Bulgar" still means "mixed" by some Turkic language's surprize Anton!!
You have right to think so. As far as I remember the word was "Bulamach", not something with root "Bulgar". But surely you can prove us that Bulgar ethnonym came from word Bulamach. How about for example that word Bulgar came from word "Volga"? Although it is also unlikely. There are more than 10 theories of the origin of Bulgarian ethnonym. Again none of them is convinceing.

Uygurs use "Bulgar" for "mixing" or "mixed", so barbar is a Uygur self he will correct me if im wrong.

We in our own dialect say "gar" for mixing.
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg">
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 21:18
Originally posted by DayI

 what is "wrong translation", the records of Ibn Fazlan? Or any other who did travell into Bulgarian lands and toke notes?
Oh common Anton cut that panturkic crap in here, did I made such claims? By mentioning Turkic presence in ancient Bulgar state am I lebelled as a panturkist....
 
To be honest I don't think this is "panturkist" but you accused me of much more serious things, so I feel free not to control what my fingers type Tongue
Mentioning of Turkic presence in Bulgar state is not bad, as well as even supposing/believing that all Bulgars were Turkic. This is official version and most of historians support it. What is crap to my opinion is that if somebody tries to formulate other theory he is immediately occused in a lot of sht. And when somebody "barks" something against official version he is authomatically fascist. How's that?

The wrong was translation of the text about Bulgars, living "between Slavs and Turks". As far as I remember it wasn't Ibn Fazlan. Who was that?

 
Uygurs use "Bulgar" for "mixing" or "mixed", so barbar is a Uygur self he will correct me if im wrong.
We in our own dialect say "gar" for mixing.
 
I can believe this. You better know. Yet, it is good hypothesis explaining bulgarian ethnonym based on Turkic theory of Bulgarian origin. But up to now I don't see any reasons to consider it as the only true explanation.


Edited by Anton - 02-Feb-2007 at 21:20
.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 2.646 seconds.