Do you consider Bulgarians Slavic?

[Voskos]

Slavic is linguistic term, we speak Slavic language for centuries, therefor we are Slavic. End of story

The Bulgars were described as Turks in the Byzantine sources. They were, as a matter of fact, the first Turks to invade the Balkans.Later they mixed with slavs and allied with them against the Byzantine grecophones, whom I guess they ended up assimilating.

[Varda]

The Bulgars were described as Turks in the Byzantine sources. They were, as a matter of fact, the first Turks to invade the Balkans.Later they mixed with slavs and allied with them against the Byzantine grecophones, whom I guess they ended up assimilating.

In Byzantine sources even old Magyars/Hungarians were called Turks.

[Voskos]

In Byzantine sources even old Magyars/Hungarians were called Turks.

And that's what they were. there were no 23andme and anthropologists back then.

[Far_away]

The Bulgars were described as Turks in the Byzantine sources. They were, as a matter of fact, the first Turks to invade the Balkans.Later they mixed with slavs and allied with them against the Byzantine grecophones, whom I guess they ended up assimilating.

How much do modern Bulgarians have turkic genetics today?

[gixajo]

The Bulgars were described as Turks in the Byzantine sources. They were, as a matter of fact, the first Turks to invade the Balkans.Later they mixed with slavs and allied with them against the Byzantine grecophones, whom I guess they ended up assimilating.

So we could say that those original Bulgars, apart from the name, left little in Bulgaria, something similar with the Romans in Romania or the "Huns" in Hungary, except that in the last two cases, they also left their language?

[Varda]

And that's what they were. there were no 23andme and anthropologists back then.

Old Magyars were conglomerate of several Ugric and Turkic tribes with some other influences. They had Turkic elite since Arpad was Turkic (R1a-Z83 most likely) and way of life - nomadic warriors horsemen.

When Turkic Bulgars arrived to Thrace in 681. they were not more than 50K people. Slavs and Vlachs of Thrace were much numerous than Bulgars whose name they adopted. Original Bulgars and their language in the next 200-300 years disappeared because they were in minority.

[Gotse]

The Bulgars were described as Turks in the Byzantine sources. They were, as a matter of fact, the first Turks to invade the Balkans. Later they mixed with slavs and allied with them against the Byzantine grecophones, whom I guess they ended up assimilating.

Bre, these were Bulgars(our mighty forefathers), now we talk about BulgaR1Ans
We are Slavs, unwanted unique forgotten bro who came up with writing system for Slavs, how can we not be seen as Slavic is beyond me. I see no point to discuss further, I stated my point, you stated yours and we disagree.

[Voskos]

How much do modern Bulgarians have turkic genetics today?

no idea man.i guess not too much, if you try G25 you get:
Target: Bulgarian
Distance: 1.4881% / 0.01488106
45.8 Albania_Medieval
25.4 Estonia_Medieval.SG
10.6 Turkey_Medieval
9.8 Macedonia_Medieval
8.4 Bulgaria_Medieval_oEastAsia

Target: Bulgarian
Distance: 1.5942% / 0.01594158
41.0 Albania_Medieval
30.0 Czech_Medieval
10.2 Turkey_Medieval
9.0 Bulgaria_Medieval_oEastAsia
7.6 Macedonia_Medieval
2.2 BosniaHerzegovina_Medieval

[Voskos]

So we could say that those original Bulgars, apart from the name, left little in Bulgaria, something similar with the Romans in Romania or the Huns in Hungary, except that in the last two cases, they also left their language?

Probably. i'm not so sure about Hungarians however, their language seems to be of diverse origins.

[gixajo]

Probably. i'm not so sure about Hungarians however, their language seems to be of diverse origins.

Well, that´s about vocabulary, I mean language, and Hungarian is not Slavic nor Romance or Germanic, it´s not even Indoeuropean, it´s a similar case as Finnish,Lapp, Estonian, karelian or Basque, but the later it´s isolate and the others are on the same "family".