What is the origin of the Bulgars? Baktria ?

[Benyzero]

Shut up.. son of Gengis kahn and grandson of Attila and Mustafa IV ...

you trippin

[Turxanthus]

Bulgarians are not Slavs, or the smallest component of their genetics is Slavic. Like any modern nation, Bulgarians are the product of a mix of different ethnicities and the Bulgarian identity has not changed for more than 1500 years. They were always called Bulgarians, and their country was always called Bulgaria no matter what geographic region it was. At least Roma or Byzantines / Pωμαίοι Muslims, nowadays called Turks, can speak of identity

There are no church sources anywhere to connect Kubrat with Attila. If you talk about the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans, that is where the beginning begins with Avitohol / some speculate that this may be Attila / but there is no evidence that it is him. History is a science that is based on documents - written, archeological. There is a document there is a history, there is no document, there is no history or we go in to speculation. Regarding the title Khan in Bulgarians - we do not have such documented. For Kubrat, there is a documented patrician title that was given exclusively if the ruler was a Christian. There is no information about Asparuh. For Tervel the grandson of Kubrat we have a documented title of kesar and images where Tervel is depicted with Christian symbols. An ancient inscription is engraved on a medallion belonging to Tervel, probably discovered in 1972, which reads: "Our Lady, keep Caesar Tervel." This title is given exclusively to a ruler Christian and in kinship with the Byzantine emperor. Omurtag has a documented Kanasubigi title from the Tarnovo inscription ... Even if a man lives well, he dies and another one comes into existence. Let the one who comes later after seeing this inscription remember the one who had it made. And the name is Omurtag, Kanasubigi. These are the reigning titles that are known and that had the Bulgarian rulers in the pre-Christian period. The Chuvash language may have been the language of the ancient Bulgarians, but it may not be. We do not know how real the connection between the Chuvash and ancient Bulgarians. I personally have no problem with the language spoken by the Turkic or Iranian language group. The language can change for two generations - 50 years, considering that they were vassals on the Avar kaganate to Kubrat, which separates from them. For example, all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire spoke the language of the Ottomans more or less, and to this day a large percentage of modern Bulgarian borrows from the Ottomans. We did not become Turkish from this. Turks do not speak the language of their grandparents today after the Ataturk reform

In an ethnographic sense, let aside modern Bulgarians, even Tatars, Kazakhs, Yakuts or even Old Bulgars were not Turkish. Turkish in an ethnic sense refers only to Oghuz people.
Actually history is a science, which is based on evidence however you, being a modern ''Bulgarian'' deny the fact that you are closest to Serbs.
Nominalia isn't only evidence, in their early era, Bulgars were also referred to as Huns by Greco-Roman sources. The title Khan and Tengrianist religion are totally absent among the Iranians. Those are seen only among the Turks and the Mongols, with some Uralic exceptions. We shall not rewrite history and fabricate stories just to please modern ''Bulgarians'' and pretend the Old Bulgars were Sarmatian. I see no point in further discussing with people having biased views and who can not face reality. Good evening.

[PAGANE]

In an ethnographic sense, let aside modern Bulgarians, even Tatars, Kazakhs, Yakuts or even Old Bulgars were not Turkish. Turkish in an ethnic sense refers only to Oghuz people.
Actually history is a science, which is based on evidence however you, being a modern ''Bulgarian'' deny the fact that you are closest to Serbs.
Nominalia isn't only evidence, in their early era, Bulgars were also referred to as Huns by Greco-Roman sources. The title Khan and Tengrianist religion are totally absent among the Iranians. Those are seen only among the Turks and the Mongols, with some Uralic exceptions. We shall not rewrite history and fabricate stories just to please modern ''Bulgarians'' and pretend the Old Bulgars were Sarmatian. I see no point in further discussing with people having biased views and who can not face reality. Good evening.

When the old Bulgarians embraced Christianity and their rulers began to call themselves kings and emperors, that's how it changed them. I told you that the old Bulgarians do not have a Khan title registered, and the Tengri cult does not have any data for the whole pagan period of Danube Bulgaria. The iconic pagan shrines of the Proto-Bulgarians are different from the Tengri and what is left and can be seen in Bulgaria in the area around Pliska. I do not deny the fact that modern Bulgarians are close to the Serbs, and this is normal given that Bulgarians and Slavs began to mix gradually from the middle of the 9th century. Christianization, which makes the same difference, is most strongly influenced by this. Not too much of the time, present-day Serbian lands and the entire western Balkans were part of the Bulgarian medieval state. With the advent of the Ottomans in the Balkans, there were mass migrations of populations from the eastern Balkans to the west, far from the invaders. Throughout the Ottoman rule of the Balkans there were movements of large masses of people from east to west and back, from north to south and back. The reasons were different - economically, politically related to another war of the Ottomans, internal problems in the empire, which always had a bad impact on the Christian population, displacement of people in Anatolia for punishment / exile /. If you expect to find a population today with the same genetics as it did 1000 or 1500 years ago, I don't think you will succeed. You write the history of your people, and leave it to the people who know the subject about the history of the Bulgarian people.

[oszkar07]

Hungarians, Bulgarians and Turks share same ancestry ( Attila, Huns, Tartars, Mongol, Middleast ect ect ).. Bulgarians also got "great" influence from slavic people, Turkish also got "great" influence from middleeast people ( Syria Iraq Lebanon Caucasus )... Hungarians also got "great" influence from mongol and Gypsies..... even the language is "mongol"...



Read the comments of this "youtube".. Turkish classicl music


Greetings from Hungary... Mongolia.. Pakistans...




Also from Italy... Who "like" turkish music in Italy ??!!!!

sorry ...but seems you do not know what you are talking about if that was a serious comment ?

Hungarians didnt get big influence from Gypsies ... other way around in terms of music - language.

Hungarian language has nothing to do with Mongolian language , btw Italy has more middle east genetic than Hungary or Bulgaria.

[Mens-Sarda]

They originated somewhere around the river Volga

Volga -> Bolga -> hence the ethnonym Bolgar -> Bulgar

[Benyzero]

sorry ...but seems you do not know what you are talking about if that was a serious comment ?

Hungarians didnt get big influence from Gypsies ... other way around in terms of music - language.

Hungarian language has nothing to do with Mongolian language , btw Italy has more middle east genetic than Hungary or Bulgaria.

He is just clowning around with his chauvinistic shit as usual , I can't even be mad at him

[renaissance12]

sorry ...but seems you do not know what you are talking about if that was a serious comment ?

Hungarians didnt get big influence from Gypsies ... other way around in terms of music - language.

Hungarian language has nothing to do with Mongolian language , btw Italy has more middle east genetic than Hungary or Bulgaria.

Hungarian Language has nothing to do with Europe..

Your country and Scandinavia -with all your insignificant cultural background - could vanish immediately and nothing would change in Europe .

I consider this a cultural European forum.. And you.. genetically and cultural speaking... have almost zero contritution to Europe.

It is strange.. this forum is full of people who are completely alien to european culture..


95% percent of all the European significant figures can be enclosed in an area that does not include Russia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, the Balkans, Poland, Hungary, East and West Prussia, Ireland, Wales,..





And don't forget that this map has been "designed" by an anglosaxon.. who is known to not "love" Italy..

[Dick]

Hungarian Language has nothing to do with Europe..

Your country and Scandinavia -with all your insignificant cultural background - could vanish immediately and nothing would change in Europe .

I consider this a cultural European forum.. And you.. genetically and cultural speaking... have almost zero contritution to Europe.

It is strange.. this forum is full of people who are completely alien to european culture..


95% percent of all the European significant figures can be enclosed in an area that does not include Russia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, the Balkans, Poland, Hungary, East and West Prussia, Ireland, Wales,..





And don't forget that this map has been "designed" by an anglosaxon.. that is known to not "love" Italy..

Frankish propaganda.

[renaissance12]

The question should be: How much Italian is the European core ?

[Dna8]

In terms of Modern Europe, the biggest players are Germany, France and England.