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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedBulgarian origins

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415 30>
Poll Question: Bulgarians =Thracian descendants?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
9 [13.85%]
21 [32.31%]
4 [6.15%]
16 [24.62%]
4 [6.15%]
11 [16.92%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Bulgarian origins
    Posted: 16-Oct-2007 at 22:25
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Right. Russians that invaded Byzantinne empire under Sviatoslav were called "Skythians" in the related Byzantinne chronicle. Another example of ignorance of the Buzantinne chronists.
 
 But the same Tzetzes makes a very clear distinction from Russians Approve in the following text,where he talks about a boy he kind of adopted:
 
 
"...we cannot communicate because he/the boy/doesnt understand my language while I dont speak barbarian,and he turns out to be not Russian but Moesian/means Bulgarian/..."
 
 -He happens to be well aware of ethnicities/ in the case above makes a difference between Rus and slavic speaker from todays North Bulgaria/ but firmly supports the view that Bulgarians in the Balkans are definitely of local origin and calls them with the old  Balkanic tribes' names!Star
For some reason during his time there were debates about this ethnic issue/he lives by the time when Bulgaria is incorporated into Byzantium-XIIc/...
 
There is good info on Proto-Bulgars and comparisons and relations with Sarmats...


Edited by londoner_gb - 16-Oct-2007 at 23:04
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 04:35
Well, this is natural. The Rus which invaded Byzantinne empire were not Slavic, but Scandinavians.
 
So, it's very natural that Slavs from Bulgaria didn't understand their language.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 09:59
Come on Sarmat..You are not saying that 60 000 Vikings streamed into BulgariaLOL...Sviatoslav was of such origin and maybe most of the notables,his guards maybe but thats at most...the overhelming majority of his troops were slavic!!
In my example above/in the Tzetzes text/ distinction is made about two different ethnicities speaking almost  the same language,which was the cause of the confusion...
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 10:20
Originally posted by londoner_gb

 
What about IoannisTzetzes in his "Chiliades"?? Confirming the very same thing:
 
" Thus they all arrived in Avlida on their ships following Achilles son of Peleus and Tetida daughter of the phylosopher Hyron...bringing an army of Bulgarian-Myrmidons numbering 2500..."
 
 
In the quote that you present above, Ioannis Tzetzes, mentions that the Myrmidons were "Bulgarians, thus Huns".
 
If you're to quote Greek texts, you better know what they say...
 
 
 
I sincerely thought that you were humorous when you mentioned that the Bulgarians took part in the war of Troy. Now I'm really concerned....Dead
 
 


Edited by Yiannis - 17-Oct-2007 at 10:22
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 10:39
I omitted it for clarity...It is to be accentuated upon while talking about the Bulgarian habitats north of Pontus...
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 10:45
I don't understand you. Ioannis Tzetzes, the source you consider credible, mentions that the Myrmidons were "Bulgarians, thus Huns".
 
Your understanding is that he means that Bulgarians North of Pontus were Huns, to the South they were Thracians?
 
If this is what you understood, based on which of his writings you made this understanding?
 
(I can't believe I'm having this discussion Wacko )
 
 
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 10:51
Sheding light upon some Bulgarian habitats beyond the Thracian Bosporus/in Asia Minor/ altogether with the European Paeones/Tzetzes says:
"  Paeones aca Bulgares
Pyrehmes led the Paeones or Bulgarians,
from the river Axios,which is Vardar,
the strategos Pilemen led the Paphlagonians.
Dios and Epistroph led the Bythinians.
Chromi and Enom led all the Mysians ."
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 10:55
So where is he correct? When he mentions Bulgarians are Huns or where he mentions they were Peones or is it whatever suits you best?
 
 
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
nikodemos View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 24-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 248
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 10:56
Originally posted by londoner_gb

Originally posted by nikodemos

there are two reasons in my opinion why these two byzantine scholars mention the Myrmidons as ancient bulgarians
1)because of complete ignorance of ancient history
2)they did it deliberately in order to show that the bulgarians,the arch-enemy of the romanobyzantines (considered at that time descendants of the trojans ) were in fact descendants of the arch enemy of the trojans, the Myrmidons
What sources have you seen that point that in the middle ages the Bulgarians were considered Trojan descendants? I am digging into the subject and it will be very interesting to see them...


No, i meant that the byzantines were considered descendants of the trojans,that's why their enemy the bulgarians were considered descendants of the Myrmidons.
It was obviously propaganda like the one in the WWII that  presented the Germans as Huns

Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 10:56
Originally posted by Yiannis

I don't understand you. Ioannis Tzetzes, the source you consider credible, mentions that the Myrmidons were "Bulgarians, thus Huns".
 
Your understanding is that he means that Bulgarians North of Pontus were Huns, to the South they were Thracians?
 
If this is what you understood, based on which of his writings you made this understanding?
 
(I can't believe I'm having this discussion Wacko )
 
 
Tzetzes studies the ethnic h9istory and changes in the Balkans from Trojan war times till his present days/XIIc/and explains which historical peoples and lands contributed to the creation of the predominant ethnicity in the area-the Bulgarians...
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 11:06
Originally posted by nikodemos

Originally posted by londoner_gb

Originally posted by nikodemos

there are two reasons in my opinion why these two byzantine scholars mention the Myrmidons as ancient bulgarians
1)because of complete ignorance of ancient history
2)they did it deliberately in order to show that the bulgarians,the arch-enemy of the romanobyzantines (considered at that time descendants of the trojans ) were in fact descendants of the arch enemy of the trojans, the Myrmidons
What sources have you seen that point that in the middle ages the Bulgarians were considered Trojan descendants? I am digging into the subject and it will be very interesting to see them...


No, i meant that the byzantines were considered descendants of the trojans,that's why their enemy the bulgarians were considered descendants of the Myrmidons.
It was obviously propaganda like the one in the WWII that  presented the Germans as Huns

...Well from a much smaller distance in time such authors thus explain which ethnicity survived and was predominant in Byzantium of their time-it is their statement not mine that this happens in an overhelming extent to be rather the Anatolian peoples while the European greeks apparently suffered the worst-extinctionCry
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 11:17
..To sum things up- the tendency to have thracian or thracian-related people embroyled in fratricide,persisted from the Trojan siege/example-Mirmidons being on Greek side against their next of kin Troy /which was backed by other Thracians too/ all the way till Byzantium-Eastern Rome-where again the population is overhelmingly of Thracian or Thraco-related/Bythinian,Mysian or Paphlagonian/ origin combatting The Thracian descendants majority in the Bulgarian state....

Edited by londoner_gb - 17-Oct-2007 at 11:20
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 11:26
Originally posted by Yiannis

So where is he correct? When he mentions Bulgarians are Huns or where he mentions they were Peones or is it whatever suits you best?
 
 
Following the same logic -were the Byzantines correct to call themselves Romanoi?LOL
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 11:36
Yainnis You Greeks fail to acknowledge that your post-Balkan war logic is hopelesly outdated..drawing conclusions only from the state's names! It is the people Yainnis!The people!!!
Did the other Romance peoples ever said to the French"We dont want you here you germanics!!!Go home!!Angry"??!Only our Balkanic mantality is prone to this!Unhappy
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
nikodemos View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 24-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 248
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 13:08
Originally posted by londoner_gb

...Well from a much smaller distance in time such authors thus explain which ethnicity survived and was predominant in Byzantium of their time-it is their statement not mine that this happens in an overhelming extent to be rather the Anatolian peoples while the European greeks apparently suffered the worst-extinctionCry


I don't agree with that.I just think that this trojan descent story was part of the byzantine policy to be presented as the heirs to Rome
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 14:24
-Rather at such an early stage the conclusion was made that apart from the Isthmus ,the islands and Peloponese the greek ethnicity was everywhere else a tiny minority including all the coastal trading colonies spreaded in the balkan and Anatolian coasts.the rest was populated by pelasgians,their thracian descendants and whatever horsenomads came in, the latter being in fact closer to the Thracians themselves rather than to anything else/i repeat this is the case both in Balkans and in western anatolia/...
There was never a greek ethnic boom to change this status quo and to justify the pretentions of nowadays greeks of almost purely helenic genetic resemblance with the ancien greeks!
horsenomads have from the times of old incursed into Thracian lands and were traditionnaly easily assimilated while foreign ethnicities in Peloponese survived for long time-for example the two slavic tribes "Ezeriti" and "Milingi" who preserved their identity all the way till XIVc...
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
londoner_gb View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 04-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 14:42
 The next summary that follows is that both medieval states-Byzantium and Bulgaria were ethnicaly of predominantly Thracian or Thraco-related stock both using foreign languages as official and foreign names to denote themselves...in this struggle the proper greek lands/Isthmus,Peloponese and Islands were rather a backyard or even outside spectators...
 
From this perspective we find it natural that Greeks alway denied and ignored this period of their history- regarded as ethnic helenic ancestry Byzantium was never  theirs
But Bulgarians should change their stance and regard themselves as descendants of both medieval states-Bulgaria and Byzantium!
Greeks thus are in a situation similar to the Romanian one-having a historical gap in their statehood of 1000 years...Well dont be sad guys it is still better than other neighbours  who never had it prior to 1913LOL!
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 15:41
Originally posted by londoner_gb

Yainnis You Greeks fail to acknowledge that your post-Balkan war logic is hopelesly outdated..drawing conclusions only from the state's names! It is the people Yainnis!The people!!!
Did the other Romance peoples ever said to the French"We dont want you here you germanics!!!Go home!!Angry"??!Only our Balkanic mantality is prone to this!Unhappy
 
On the contrary! I consider that modern day Bulgarians are a mixture (as all people in the balkans and Europe -not to mention the majority of the world-  in general) of local ancient people and the ones that migrated there over the centuries: Bulgars, Slavs, Greeks, Turks etc). I simply question your logic to extract arguments from dubious and obviously erroneous sources.
 
You mention that Tzetzes (a medieval writer) calls the Myrmidons (mythical people who dwelt in Thessaly in Central Greece - Achilles people) as "Bulgars" and you try to show that they're the same as the Bulgars that we know today.
When I point out that Tzetzes also mentions that: "Myrmidons were Bulgars, thus Huns" you choose to ignore it and stay with what you consider favorable to your views. No more comments from my side...
 
 
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 15:44
Originally posted by londoner_gb

Following the same logic -were the Byzantines correct to call themselves Romanoi?LOL
 
Absolutely, they had this legal right as continuity of Roman Empire. They ferociously defended this right till the end of their empire. That did not meant that they considered themselves as Romans in ethnicity.
 
 
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 16:13
Absolutely, they had this legal right as continuity of Roman Empire. They ferociously defended this right till the end of their empire. That did not meant that they considered themselves as Romans in ethnicity.

First, what was the Roman Empire? How could some state be considered its moral succesor?

Second, by Romaioi I think that Byzantines rather identified themselves as Christians, because Elinoi (sory for perhaps not typing corectly) was identified with teh Paganism.

Or perhaps because they were not having other name for their state and nation.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415 30>

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 0.188 seconds.