Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Heirs of Byzantium |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 34567 14> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||
londoner_gb 
Pretorian 
Joined: 04-Oct-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 196 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Heirs of ByzantiumPosted: 26-Oct-2007 at 19:57 |
|||||
|
Seko this is old data...First I dont agree that Bulgars were less civilised than the slavs-their calendar and stone-building abilities military organisation etc...even few centuries later the Rus capital was still a wooden fort! All proto-bulgar exhumations in present day bulgaria show proto-Bulgars as Indo Europeans with a very weak/around5%/asiatic genes and on top a scull deformation as seen amongst sarmats!
You are showing travel guide info /based on the Books of XIX and XX c historians/, while I am relying on the newest genetic and archaeological findings! Edited by londoner_gb - 26-Oct-2007 at 20:21 |
||||||
|
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
|
||||||
 |
||||||
|
Anton
Caliph 
Joined: 23-Jun-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 20:27 |
|||||
That is a good question. This predominancy was determined by linguistic studies I guess. Results obtained by populational genetics usually contradict to those obtained by linguistics. At least with present European populations. In case with ancient Bulgars there are quite many graves that you can assume they were Bularian. One can use them for genetic analysis. Are there any graves suggested to be Avar?
|
||||||
|
.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Seko
Emperor 
Spammer Joined: 01-Sep-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8595 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 20:27 |
|||||
|
Lgb, I not surprised at your rejection. First of all I didn't write that artcle in my link. So I have no invested opinion on the civilization comparisons other than saying that the pastoralist Bulgars did have stationary homes made of wood in the Volga region. Which is a change from the usual roaming yurts of mobile steppe tribes. The graves would tell a lot. First, were they of the proto Bulgars themselves (first Bulgars) or of older tribes prior to Bulgarian arrival? That would tell you much about the genes of 'those' skeletal remains. A big factor yes?
Next, cranial deformation. So what? Perhaps you also knew that even the Egyptians and later Attila's huns practised this rite too.
The Bulgars have origins in central asia. They migrated and coexisted with multitudes of people. Eventually settling in present day Bulgaria and the Volga regions. I most assuredly agree with you that today's Bulgarians are not the same as the original. I disagree with you in giving a strong Cimmerian, Schythian or Thracian element to current Bulgars of Bulgaria. Not some ancient exhumed body of who knows whom! Thracian perhaps. Most likely. Yet gone. Dead. Not part of the modern ethnic equation. Thracian offspring may have a chance. Yet articles attest that this is insignificant to matter. How many of the origianal settlers of Bulgaria are still attributed to them? Can one really say they are the major genetic pool today? Too many tribes have created another mix.
Edited by Seko - 26-Oct-2007 at 20:27 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 20:33 |
|||||
The thing is that that kind of objection you can apply to basically ever point of the theory of central asiatic origin of Bulgars:
Boil? So what? Perhaps you knew that even Russians had Boyars?
Bogotur? What is the difference with Russian Bogotir?
Malamir? What kind of Turkic name is that?
etc. etc.
|
||||||
|
.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer Joined: 01-Sep-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8595 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 20:41 |
|||||
|
It's a proper objection to the kind of evidence provided by lgb. He says 'as seen amongst Sarmats'. I say so what? What did he prove? Good for the Sarmatians that they had cranial deformation. Instead of fashioning tailor made, ad hoc examples, where one needs to make a leap of faith in order to believe his arguement, it would be better to mock his connection until more pertinent comparisons are presented.
Yet, Anton instead of relating to my whole post one way or another you side with an ambiguous arguement and assume one cannot react in kind. However, the whole of my post is beyond glamour and ignores nationalist revisionism. Edited by Seko - 26-Oct-2007 at 20:50 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Athanasios
Colonel 
Joined: 23-Jan-2007 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 546 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 21:05 |
|||||
|
Is this supposed to be a topic about Byzantium?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
londoner_gb
Pretorian
Joined: 04-Oct-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 196 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 21:08 |
|||||
|
-Well I kind of declared it "a natural continuation of the Bulgarian origins topic" so excuse our occasional return to the former:)...
|
||||||
|
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ioan-Assen II
Knight 
Joined: 18-Oct-2007 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 66 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 21:13 |
|||||
But we have our old capitals Pliska, Preslav from which we have ruins. They were built by the Bulgars. How did the steppe tribes did it? Also we have the stone inscription on a wall near Madara (made around the reign of Tervel in the begining of 7 century). We have ruins of stone buildings around there too.
Yeap, the graves are Bulgarian. They were studied, it turned out that in the Bulgars there was very little turanoid genes (5%), which doesnt proove their "turkic" character. Also its not known where they came from. We only hear about them when they are alreadsy in nowadays Ukraine. Everything else before that is speculation. Plus I dont think the Bulgars have crutial influence on nowadays culure or language (but have on the state).
Well this is NOT a fact. Actually its the first place we know they lived (but we dont know where they come from), before migrating to Volga region, Moesia, Macedonia, Italy etc.
A fact.
Well articles which are illogical still are written, yet we have to look around us. We are Meditarenians, we arent asiatics, we arent mainly slavs either. What are we? We have this most numerous tribe "Thracians", that lived on this land, we have the close genetic relation to the Romanians (supposed heirs of the Dacians, who are one of the many Thracian tribes or at least are very closely related to the THracians). We have the customs still, we have their words (the same or slightly changed with the same meaning, why?). I think we can assume we are mainly them, but not only them - we have the slavic culture and language and genes and also the Bulgars.
According to the genetic research we can.
Edited by Ioan-Assen II - 26-Oct-2007 at 21:16 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer Joined: 01-Sep-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8595 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 21:49 |
|||||
|
That is what I would like to know too. "What, who are you?" I have admiration for someone who can explain this without resorting to a fruitless imagination. Let's eliminate Proto-Bulgars from this picture for the sake of this arguement. Eliminate asian genes too, which one of you is more than gladly willing to do. Eliminate Slavic ancestry. Eliminate Greek relations. Eliminate Avar relations.
Instead let's focus on the Thracians. Not only Dacians, the heirs of the land, or the Romans mind you. Let's go further back in time and include the Cimmerians in this too. Then let's conclude that you have more ancient Thracian genes in modern Bulgaria than all of the latter day peoples put together.
You see how hard it is too believe. Shouldn't ancient graves relate only to those ancients? The rest is theory or wishful thinking. I will play ignorant fo a while and assume that Thracians are the predominant ancestors of modern Bulgars. Happy so far? I don't know why other than they 'llived on this land'. Centuries before todays Bulgars! Being somewhat rational, I wonder, whatever happened to those other peoples, after the Thracians, that lived in Bulgaria? Slavs, Avars, Bulgars, Greeks, Turks, are they not part of today's Bulgar composition?
But I'm not finished. I want to be just as proud of my heritage too. So I will absurdly say that I am Akkadian, Hittite, Lydian, Greek, Persian, Turk, and anything else that gloriously passed my ancestors way. Most importantly I will fixate on one of the most distant and assume I have 70% Hittite genes. Then I would dig up all kinds of ad hoc articles to prove my point. In fact, I will mentally eliminate anyone, after the ancients, so I could sleep well at night!
Who am I really?
Who are you?
Edited by Seko - 26-Oct-2007 at 21:53 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
londoner_gb
Pretorian
Joined: 04-Oct-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 196 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 22:09 |
|||||
A very important factor,often underestimated concerning the BG ethnogenesis was the practice of Bulgarian rulers to depopulate vast Roman areas and cities and to settle their population in Bulgaria-to mention only a few-Krum and the thousands upon thousands of Romeans he settled in his lands,Samuil-who deported the entire population of Larissa in Thessalia into his realm/he even married a woman from amongst the captives:)/ and some extract from Geoffrois de Villehardouin about the "contribution" of Kaloian in the above field:
"...
DESTRUCTION OF PHILIPPOPOLIS BY JOHANNIZZA
Then did Johannizza send his host before Philippopolis; nor had he been there long before those who were in the city surrendered it to him, and he promised to spare their lives. And after he had promised to spare their lives, he first caused the archbishop of the city to be slain, and the men of rank to be flayed alive, and certain others to be burned, and certain others to have their heads cut off, and the rest he caused to be driven away in chains. And the city he caused to be pulled down, with its towers and walls; and the high palaces and rich houses to be burned and utterly destroyed. Thus was destroyed the noble city of Philippopolis, one of the three finest cities in the empire of Constantinople.
There was so great a slaughter of people killed, that it was a marvel. And Bgue of Fransures was taken before Johannizza, who had him killed incontinently, together with all, whether Greek or Latin, who were of any account; and all the meaner folk, and women and children, he caused to, be led away captive to Wallachia. Then did he cause all the city-which was verv good and very rich, and in a good land, to be cast down and utterly destroyed. Thus was the city of Napoli rased to the ground as you have heard. NEW INVASION OF JOHANNIZZA; RUIN OF NAPOLI Now listen and hear how little this served them, and what a misadventure was their flight; for the city was so strong, and so well enclosed by good walls and good towers, that no one would ever have ventured to assault it, and that Johannizza had no thought of going thither. But when Johannizza, who was full half a day's journey distant, heard tell that they had fled, he rode thither. The Greeks who had remained in the city, surrendered, and he incontinently caused them to be taken, small and great-save those who escaped-and led captive into Wallachia; and the city he ordered to be destroyed and rased to the ground. Ah! the loss and dar.,iage! for the city was one of the best in Roumania, and of the best situated. Thence he marched to the city of Daonium, which was very strong and fine; and the people did not dare to defend it. So he caused it to be destroyed and rased to the ground. Then he marched to the city of Tzurulum, which had already surrendered to him, and caused it to be destroyed and rased to the ground, and the people to be led away captive. And thus he dealt with every castle and city that surrendered; even though he had promised them safety, he caused the buildings to be destroyed, and the men and women to be led away captive; and no covenant that he made did he ever keep. Then the Comans and Wallachians scoured the land up to the gates of Constantinople, where Henry the Regent then was, with as many men as he could command; and very dolorous was he and very wroth, because he could not get men enough to defend his land. So the Comans seized the cattle off the land, and took captive men, women, and children, and destroyed the cities and castles, and caused such ruin and desolation that never has man heard tell of greater. So they came to a city called Athyra, which was twelve leagues from Constantinople, and had been given to Payen of Orlans by Henry, the emperor's brother. This city held a very great number of people, for the dwellers in the country round about had fled thither; and the Comans assaulted it, and took it by force. There the slaughter was so great, that there had been none such in any city where they had been. And you must know that all the castles and all the cities that surrendered to Johannizza under promise of safety were destroyed and rased to the ground, and the people led away captive to Wallachia in such manner as you have heard. And you must know that within five days' journey from Constantinople there remained nothing to destroy save only the city of Bizye, and the city of Selymbria, which were garrisoned by the French. And in Bizye abode Anseau of Cayeux, with six score knights, and in Salymbria abode Macaire of Sainte-Menehould with fifty knights; and Henry the brother of the Emperor Baldwin remained in Constantinople with the remainder of the host. And you may know that their fortunes were at the lowest, seeing that outside of Constantinople they had kepl& possession of no more than these two cities. THE GREEKS ARE RECONCILED TO THE CRUSADERS - JOHANNIZZA DESIEGES DEMOTICAWhen the Greeks who were in the host with Johannizza - the same who had yielded themselves up to him, and rebelled against the Franks - when they saw how he destroyed their castles and cities, and kept no covenant with them, they held themselves to be but dead men, and betrayed. They spoke one to another, and said that as Johannizza had dealt with other cities, so would he deal with Adrianople and Demotica, when he returned thither, and that if these two cities were destroyed, then was Roumania for ever lost. ..." Edited by londoner_gb - 26-Oct-2007 at 22:11 |
||||||
|
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
The Hidden Face
Chieftain 
Ustad-i Azam Joined: 16-Jul-2005 Location: Mexico Online Status: Offline Posts: 1379 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 22:15 |
|||||
|
||||||
|
londoner_gb
Pretorian
Joined: 04-Oct-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 196 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 23:32 |
|||||
|
Our ancestors were a proud and free-minded people...
 Spartacus fights his way through the Roman ranks on horseback
..but once their creative forces were put in use they were able to Great achievements!
 Bronze statue of Constantine I in York, England, near the spot where he was proclaimed Emperor in 306
   |
||||||
|
ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ / ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ / ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ / ΡΑ
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Sander
AE Moderator 
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 04:02 |
|||||
|
Taking every thing in account, I settle for the Greeks. That the empire consisted of several etnicities that played a role as well cannot be denied ofcourse.
That the capital was situated in what is now Turkey does not change much for my choice. I think that many will agree that when the Ottoman capital ( same city ofcourse ) would for some reason have ended up in Greece, it would be strange when the Greeks would suddenly claim to be the foremost heirs of the Ottomans. Edited by Sander - 27-Oct-2007 at 04:06 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ioan-Assen II
Knight
Joined: 18-Oct-2007 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 66 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 05:37 |
|||||
No one is taking the Bulgars out of the picture. They are part of the genetic pool. No one is taking the Slavs out too. Greeks have participated in the formation of the Bulgarians too. So did the Avars, though I m not sure if any significant number even settled in what is nowadays Bulgaria, but even if 100 avars past and settled, they are part of it.
But why are the Greeks predominantly your ansestors? Didnt they live at the same time, when the Thracians lived in Bulgaria and Romania and the Illirians in Serbia, Albania, Croatia? Why all those 2 people magically disapeared, but the Greeks stayed till today? Lets go further...How did the Romanians survived the attacks of much more people on their teritory and yet managed to "save" their language and the Dacians in them?(cause they are regarded of their heirs.) Do we even have such a presedent in hystory when a nation is set to be mainly heirs of later people that came in this land? Are the normans the ansestors of the English people? Should ve overlook the celts and the anglo-saxons?
They are also part of the formation of the Bulgarian nation. And no one is denying it. We are against the assumption that when the Slavs and the Bulgars came they just found an empty land with houses in which they just went to liuve in or that they killed the 200 Thracians they met. How did the most numerous tribe magically disapeared only south of the Danube? Didnt these people come through Romania?
Well u are doing the same. The Greeks were the most glorious tribe that lived on your land at the exact time span the Thracians lived. Magically only the Greeks have direct heirs today.
Ad hoc? Most do agree the Thracians are Bulgarian ansestors. Of course, probably NOT in Greece.
We dont eliminated the Slavs, the Bulgars, the Greeks or the Turks! (as for the Acars I m not so sure).
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ioan-Assen II
Knight
Joined: 18-Oct-2007 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 66 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 05:54 |
|||||
|
By the way u obviously dont know that the Thracians south of the Danube (Moesians, Peonians, Odrissians, Bessi etc.) lived at the very same time the Greeks lived on the south or the Dacians lived on the north (Dacians, according to Greek sources were one of the THracians tribes or at least very closely related to the Thracians.) The Bessi saved their language at least till 6 century (according to Greek sources).
But probably we should overlook these insignificant facts that so many people lived there and just concentrate on the Slavs and the Bulgars. Edited by Ioan-Assen II - 27-Oct-2007 at 05:55 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer Joined: 01-Sep-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8595 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 15:03 |
|||||
|
Overlook the Thracians? Not at all Ioan-Assen II. All I am saying is please explain and provide reason as to how such an ancient people could be the prevalent ethnicity in Bulgaria today. When someone claims they are 70% sounds most inappropriate. Playing devil's advocate was my intention. I hope my criticism will bring us a good understanding. My intent is not to make you all defensive but to provide counter arguements to some of your claims. Language may be a good indicator of ethncity but not always. For example most Greeks of anatolia during the migrations of the last century spoke fluid Turkish. Doesn't mean they were ethnic Turks though! I don't think we have current testimonies by the Bessi that points to them being a Bulgarian majority. You even state that their language was 'saved' till the 6'th century. Since then who knows. So I ask, what about after? Did they assimilate with invaders or stay the majority? A majority in language and ethnicity for 1500 hundred years? If not then I think we can assume who replaced them. If so, then it would be smart to have accounts of current linguistics, customs and perhaps even genetic records. So far most accounts today mention that the Bulgars speak a form of Slavic language, not Romance.
Maybe my eyes are sore and I must have missed something. I could not find any mention of Thracian origins in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_language
Note - if you have the need to respond let's take it to the Bulgarian origins thread and leave this one to the Heirs.
Edited by Seko - 27-Oct-2007 at 15:18 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Athanasios
Colonel
Joined: 23-Jan-2007 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 546 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 15:16 |
|||||
Greeks and Thracians (at least those who lived in today's Bulgaria and N/W Turkey, not the Thracian's ,who according Herodotus, lived from Med.sea to Baltic)should not be considered as something individual or different. Isolation and distance created some linguistic and cultural differences which were mainly disappeared after the homogenizing which was caused by the Macedonian and Roman domination. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Athanasios
Colonel
Joined: 23-Jan-2007 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 546 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 15:19 |
|||||
Oh , yes ,these guys even look like me LOL. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 15:24 |
|||||
Then read the article of Rashev it has much more arguments for "so
whating".
Come on, Seko! Please cut the "revisionism" crap. Any historian that is slightly agains the "established" theory is called nationalistic revisionist. If that would happen in Biology there would be no knowledge about viruses, genes, natural selection etc.
|
||||||
|
.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006 Location: Bulgaria Online Status: Offline Posts: 2888 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 15:27 |
|||||
Athanasios you constantly talk about this homogenization but never provided any evidence for it. Did you read Strabo and his chapter about Thracians? It was written after Macedonian domination and shows no sign of some hellenization of Thracians especially those on the north.
|
||||||
|
.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 34567 14> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.
