• This topic has 24 voices and 66 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 68 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #345051

    Anonymous

    I read a time before that Volga Bulgaria is land origin of today Danube Bulgarians,what you think about that ?

    #410347

    Anonymous

    I don't know either. Btw am not sure how right wiki is but they say this;

    Bulgar (also spelled Bolğar, Bulghar) is an extinct language which was spoken by the Bulgars. It was a language belonging to Oghur subgroup of Turkic languages.

    It is named for the Bulgars, a tribal association which established the Bulgar khanate, known as Old Great Bulgaria in the mid-7th century, giving rise to the Danubian Bulgaria by the 680s. While the language was extinct in Danubian Bulgaria (in favour of the Slavic Bulgarian language), it persisted in Volga Bulgaria, eventually giving rise to the modern Chuvash language.

    #410348

    Anonymous

    Wiki is right. :D
    Those were two very different state formations which have never been in contact, with very different major population (Slavs and remnants of Hellenized and Romanized Thracians in the case of early Danube Bulgaria, predominantly Finno-Ugric peoples in the case of Volga Bulgaria). The only thing in common was the ruling class (Bulgars).

    #410349

    Anonymous

    It is actually right, they lived there, but I can not actual sources where u could read it cuz I do not know much about bulgarian history. It is accepted theory though.

    #410350

    Anonymous

    Volga Bulgarians are no different than us. The ethnic composition may be a little bit different but ethnoculturally we're the same. It's just like Russians from Saint Petersburg are not exactly the same as Russians from Sochi but they are still Russians. Bulgarians in Volga Bulgaria are still Bulgarians.

    #410351

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Volga Bulgarians are no different than us. The ethnic composition may be a little bit different but ethnoculturally we're the same. It's just like Russians from Saint Petersburg are not exactly the same as Russians from Sochi but they are still Russians. Bulgarians in Volga Bulgaria are still Bulgarians.

    How so?

    #410352

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    I read a time before that Volga Bulgaria is land origin of today Danube Bulgarians,what you think about that ?

    I read that early Bulgars lived between Caspian and Azov seas. One group went west to Danube River being assimilated by Slavic tribes. The other group went north to Volga River mixing with people living on Volga River.
    Some scholars believe Chuvash people, who live on Volga River, speak the language which belongs to Bulgar Turkish language. It is a distinct Turkish language that does not belong to a specific subgroup of Turkish languages.
    The culture and the language of Chuvash people is different to those of modern Bulgarians. So is the religion.

    #410353

    Anonymous

    Proto-Bulgarians from Danube & Volga lived before those two states were formed in the Caucasus and eastern Ukraine. Before that, the land of origin was in Mt.Imeon region, southern Tadzhikstan and northern Afghanistan (similar place names there as in Balkans).

    There are no Volga Bulgarians today, 90% of them were genocided by the Mongol horde.

    image

    #410354

    Anonymous

    English, please.

    #410355

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    English, please.

    Troll, if you don't know what Mt.Imeon is, just google it.

    #410356

    Anonymous

    Isn't Volga Bulgaria today known as Tatarstan?

    #410357

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Isn't Volga Bulgaria today known as Tatarstan?

    Indeed. And the people inhabiting it (Volga, or Kazan Tatars) speak a Kipchak Turkic language since 13th century (the language(s) of the Bulgars and, possibly, Khazars and Avars belonged to another, rather specific Turkic branch, of which Chuvash is the only surviving remnant nowadays).

    #410358

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Indeed. And the people inhabiting it (Volga, or Kazan Tatars) speak a Kipchak Turkic language since 13th century (the language(s) of the Bulgars and, possibly, Khazars and Avars belonged to another, rather specific Turkic branch, of which Chuvash is the only surviving remnant nowadays).

    What do you think of certain Bulgarian nationalists today who like to link the two Bulgar states, accentuate the Bulgar influence of today's Bulgarians, and down-play the Slavness of Bulgaria?

    #410359

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    What do you think of certain Bulgarian nationalists today who like to link the two Bulgar states, accentuate the Bulgar influence of today's Bulgarians, and down-play the Slavness of Bulgaria?

    My opinion is absolutely negative, of course. On one hand, I'm not a nationalist myself and I don't see these "theories" (quotation marks are intentional) becoming mainstream, so I'm not really bothered by what they think; on the other hand though, there is a whole heavily romanticised pseudoscientific paradigm about Bulgars' "Aryan" origin and their influence over nearly half of Eurasuian populations ;D, which appeals to many people who lack basic historic and linguistic education – and this is what personally gets on my nerves nowadays, although in the 90s, when such "theories" started to rise, I used to think of them as nothing more than a funny, yet pitiful in its compensatory psychological motivation peculiarity.

    The thing about Bulgars is that, their huge and important role in the political history of the Eastern Balkans circa 7th-9th century AD aside, they actually haven't left any discernible traces in either language, music, clothing, mythology, traditional customs, material culture etc. of modern Bulgarians, nor there is proven that they ever constituted an actual element in our ethnogenesis even in the strictly biological sense. 30 or so loanwords, of which half are only attested in Old Church Slavonic and didn't make it to living Bulgarian dialects, a couple of possible toponyms in Bulgarian North-East… and that's it. In fact, there's not even any archaeological evidence that they ever settled (as a stable population and not administrative/military elite) anywhere outside of the said North-East.

    So, the real Bulgar influence on Bulgarians – again, our early political history aside –  is in the best case of microscopic scale. Their role as a ruling class in an early barbarian state formation, and as ethnoconsolidating factor was analogical to that of the Varyags in Kievan Rus, and nobody denies it, but to count them as an element of Bulgarian ethnogenesis to the point both Slavs and local Hellenophonic and Latinophonic populations were is exaggeration at best, let alone considering them more important than those two elements. This is also the reason why they are so obscure – they simply didn't left much to be studied. And here come all the eager young lads with their historic revisionism and their amateur exercises in linguistics, and impose all kinds of freakish ideas on this obscurity, and this is both disrespectfull to a culture that is dead since a millenium, and doing a bad favour to modern Bulgarians, IMO.

    #410360

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    My opinion is absolutely negative, of course. On one hand, I'm not a nationalist myself and I don't see these "theories" (quotation marks are intentional) becoming mainstream, so I'm not really bothered by what they think; on the other hand though, there is a whole heavily romanticised pseudoscientific paradigm about Bulgars' "Aryan" origin and their influence over nearly half of Eurasuian populations ;D, which appeals to many people who lack basic historic and linguistic education – and this is what personally gets on my nerves nowadays, although in the 90s, when such "theories" started to rise, I used to think of them as nothing more than a funny, yet pitiful in its compensatory psychological motivation peculiarity.

    The thing about Bulgars is that, their huge and important role in the political history of the Eastern Balkans circa 7th-9th century AD aside, they actually haven't left any discernible traces in either language, music, clothing, mythology, traditional customs, material culture etc. of modern Bulgarians, nor there is proven that they ever constituted an actual element in our ethnogenesis even in the strictly biological sense. 30 or so loanwords, of which half are only attested in Old Church Slavonic and didn't make it to living Bulgarian dialects, a couple of possible toponyms in Bulgarian North-East… and that's it. In fact, there's not even any archaeological evidence that they ever settled (as a stable population and not administrative/military elite) anywhere outside of the said North-East.

    So, the real Bulgar influence on Bulgarians – again, our early political history aside –  is in the best case of microscopic scale. Their role as a ruling class in an early barbarian state formation, and as ethnoconsolidating factor was analogical to that of the Varyags in Kievan Rus, and nobody denies it, but to count them as an element of Bulgarian ethnogenesis to the point both Slavs and local Hellenophonic and Latinophonic populations were is exaggeration at best, let alone considering them more important than those two elements. This is also the reason why they are so obscure – they simply didn't left much to be studied. And here come all the eager young lads with their historic revisionism and their amateur exercises in linguistics, and impose all kinds of freakish ideas on this obscurity, and this is both disrespectfull to a culture that is dead since a millenium, and doing a bad favour to modern Bulgarians, IMO.

    Nice response. I think it's quite similar to the ancient Macedonists in Macedonia, who like to downplay Slavness of Macedonians today. Similarly, this idealogy was prevalent in the diaspora during Yugoslav times and was only present in Macedonia to a small degree. Since independence though, it has grown enormously and given a great boost during Gruevski's rule. It seems Slavism is not fashionable in our countries these days, and I guess it coincides with EU/NATO integration. I think it's important though that the flame keeps burning, because ultimately it would be Slavdom that came to our rescue in times of national disaster, as in the past.

    Pozdrav od mene, Bylgarski brat.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 68 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.