Bulgarian origins

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

   londoner gb, first off your list of ancient Kings is a quite impressive. Now how on earth did a 9'th century monk or whatever, know about ancient Kings from Troy? How are they Bulgarian? Same question on down that list. 

Next, do you exclude Bulgar history form central asia or don't you? If you do (which seems to be the case) then who were those people that were called Bulgar (Bolgar)? 

Maybe you should write to wiki and change the encyclopedia. That darn web page keeps showing things like this:

The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians) were a seminomadic Turkic people, originally from Central Asia, who from the AD 2nd century inhabited the steppe north of the Caucasus and the banks of river Itil (now Volga).

Here is a ethnocentric Bulgarian web page highlighting Thracian and Slavic ancestry with a brief note on proto-Bulgarian history. 
http://www.spellintime.fsnet.co.uk/Folklore.htm

The ancestral homeland of the Bulgars, often known as the Proto (early/original) Bulgarians, is uncertain but it was probably the Altai Mountains of Central Asia or the Pamir mountain lands north of Pakistan. 

The Proto-Bulgarians left their ancestral lands long ago, becoming part of the Great Migration of peoples in the early centuries AD. They were nomadic, kept herds, revered horses, and drank mare�s milk as an essential part of their diet. They were skilled in metalwork, and lived in clans under the leadership of khans who held absolute power. They were excellent warriors with a well-organised army, fighting alongside Attila the Hun.  In the seventh century AD they established a state called Great Bulgaria in the Russian steppes north of the Caucasus. 

Hmm. Let's see here. They were from the Altai mountains. Drank mare's milk. Were under leadership of a khan and even fought under Attila the Hun. They were proto Bulgars while living like Asian nomads. Yet while identifying with Thracians the author of that article calls them Bulgars only. 

After the 6th century AD the Thracians were absorbed into the Slavic and Bulgarian peoples (not Proto Bulgarian. notice the bias here) who settled in the area, but the subsequent Bulgarian Kingdom inherited their legacy. 

and the author remembers to use the classification of Proto-Bulgarians once again when talking about asiatics.

In 681 AD he founded the first Bulgarian state in the Balkans in exchange for protecting the local Slav population against Byzantine attack. But the Proto-Bulgarians were a minority ruling group, so eventually their language and culture were absorbed into that of the Slavic majority.

We all know about their Slavic assimilation. Most of us recognize the Turkic Proto-Bulgars and their central asian origins too. Afterall a people called Bulgar (who were Proto - early/original) did move into Thrace and become assimilated. 

Somemore bias from the author.

The Ottoman Turks conquered Bulgaria in the 14th century and ruled it for 500 years as part of the Ottoman Empire. This also left its mark on Bulgarian myth and folklore. For example, tales about Nastraddin Hodja, the Turkish imam and wise fool, were assimilated and adapted into the Bulgarian oral tradition, one positive product of this dark and bloody period of Bulgarian history.
After reading such web pages and your posts it is evident that modern Bulgarians who pay heed to such mythological theories (in the link provided) have a deisred fixture on historical revisionism. Central Asian themes are devalued or in your case ignored by denial. Instead your focus is to highlight the virtues or Thracian and Slavic history and myths. Not only that but you will use clever and slick criticism towards those who either disagree with your slant or discuss a history you would rather deny. Your attacks against Sarmat12 is evidence of such behavior. By assuming he is both Turkish and a communist you furhter try to bully your way into persuasion. He clearly denied your wrong assertions and corrected your mistakes. Not only are you blinded by ethnocentricity but you assault those who aren't. Also, you could have focused more on Bulgaria's rich Slavic culture. Instead you dig up folklore and unleated Kings into your arguement, while denying those factual Khans that are part of your history. 
I must say this interlude has been and eye opener and entertaining for me. I am sure you may try to attack my character too. Whether you do or don't now that I called you on it is up to you. However, you now have a chance repeat your usual intentions or admit something you would rather not.

Edited by Seko - 13-Oct-2007 at 05:40