"Medieval Balkan Slavs were pretty much like Serbs or Romanians" v2

[Bosniensis]

Now we know that 10th century South Slavs are modern South Slavs.

Is that a some kind of miracle?

We know that Nemanjić, Vlastimirović etc.. are South Slavs even without genetic material.

[Lucas]

Now we know that 10th century South Slavs are modern South Slavs.

Is that a some kind of miracle?

We know that Nemanjić, Vlastimirović etc.. are South Slavs even without genetic material.

Should be obvious. Turkish rule had minimal impact genetically on most of Balkans. So what could change them since that time.

[Bosniensis]

Should be obvious. Turkish rule had minimal impact genetically on most of Balkans. So what could change them since that time.

Biological Turks have never been on Balkans, it was Balkan people who as "Turks" ruled Balkans.

[Kaspias]

Biological Turks have never been on Balkans, it was Balkan people who as "Turks" ruled Balkans.

?

[Bosniensis]

?

We never had Central Asian people here on Western Balkans as that Pole assumes.

Armies that came with Mehmed were mostly Anatolian and Balkan muslims unlike Oghuz forces that conquered Manzikert 1071.

[Kaspias]

We never had Central Asian people here on Western Balkans as that Pole assumes.

Armies that came with Mehmed were mostly Anatolian and Balkan muslims unlike Oghuz forces that conquered Manzikert 1071.

There are around 10 million Balkan Turks, which is like 4 times more than Bosniak population. There were no Turks in Western Balkans, but in Eastern Balkans, the region covers Macedonia, Thrace and Bulgaria were predominantly Turkish before Russo-Turkish War.

Armies that came with Mehmed were mostly Anatolian and Balkan muslims unlike Oghuz forces that conquered Manzikert 1071.

See my father then:

Using 2 populations approximation
1 50% Albanian_North + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 4,365
2 50% Albanian_Kosovo + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 4,711
3 50% Italy_FriuliVG + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 4,949
4 50% Macedonian + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 5,095
5 50% Italy_Veneto + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 5,451
6 50% Gagauz + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 5,534
7 50% Italy_FriuliVG + 50% Turkmen_Iran  @ 5,785
8 50% Pomak + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 5,929
9 50% Turkmen_Iran + 50% Italy_Trentino  @ 5,931
10 50% Italy_Piedmont + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 6,056

[Bosniensis]

There are around 10 million Balkan Turks, which is like 4 times more than Bosniak population. There were no Turks in Western Balkans, but in Eastern Balkans, the region covers Macedonia, Thrace and Bulgaria were predominantly Turkish before Russo-Turkish War.

See my father then:

Using 2 populations approximation
1 50% Albanian_North + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 4,365
2 50% Albanian_Kosovo + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 4,711
3 50% Italy_FriuliVG + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 4,949
4 50% Macedonian + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 5,095
5 50% Italy_Veneto + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 5,451
6 50% Gagauz + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 5,534
7 50% Italy_FriuliVG + 50% Turkmen_Iran  @ 5,785
8 50% Pomak + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 5,929
9 50% Turkmen_Iran + 50% Italy_Trentino  @ 5,931
10 50% Italy_Piedmont + 50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan  @ 6,056

You do understand that your Turkic line has nothing to do with Oghuz or Ottomans right?

Dulo, Kubrat etc.. might be related to you more closely than Oghuzes and we are talking about 500 years of Ottoman invasion.

Ottoman invasion wasn't really Turkic after 14th century when millions and millions Anatolians converted to Islam.

[Kaspias]

You do understand that your Turkic line has nothing to do with Oghuz or Ottomans right?

Dulo, Kubrat etc.. might be related to you more closely than Oghuzes and we are talking about 500 years of Ottoman invasion.

Ottoman invasion wasn't really Turkic after 14th century when millions and millions Anatolians converted to Islam.

Bulgars, if they were able to preserve themselves from the assimilation under Slavs, are surely among Balkan Turks now. Eastern Bulgaria were completely Balkan Turk before resettlement of Bulgarians. So, actually even if they are assimilated among Slavs they still should be among Balkan Turks because these Slavs assimilated among Turks afterward as well. Even though we assume that's indeed the case, it is still not possible to carry their Turkic genetic heritage until today. In this sense presence of Bulgars or being Bulgar is unrelated as the source of Turkic input we see here was freshcomer Oghuz and Tatar.

Nomadic Oghuz and Tatar settlements into Balkans only before 1530: https://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/v...li_eyaleti.pdf

We both born in Balkans where out of Turkish border. If you can't understand what is written here ask yourself why can't you speak Turkish, but I can. It is actually simple as that.

[Bosniensis]

Bulgars, if they were able to preserve themselves from the assimilation under Slavs, are surely among Balkan Turks now. Eastern Bulgaria were completely Balkan Turk before resettlement of Bulgarians. So, actually even if they are assimilated among Slavs they still should be among Balkan Turks because these Slavs assimilated among Turks afterward as well. Even though we assume that's indeed the case, it is still not possible to carry their Turkic genetic heritage until today. In this sense presence of Bulgars or being Bulgar is unrelated as the source of Turkic input we see here was freshcomer Oghuz and Tatar.

Nomadic Oghuz and Tatar settlements into Balkans only before 1530: https://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/v...li_eyaleti.pdf

We both born in Balkans where out of Turkish border. If you can't understand what is written here ask yourself why can't you speak Turkish, but I can. It is actually simple as that.

Turkish language is measurement for nothing. I have info that my older ancestors spoke Turkish.

It is a myth created by 1930 Turkey that Turkish speaking inhabitants of Balkans and Anatolia are of Turkic origin.

Just because we have your Q Y-DNA which is Turkic same can not be said for 90% of your Turkish friends.

Ottoman Turks surely called their language “lisan-ı Türki” or “Türkçe” i.e. the Turkish language, but after all, Americans call their language “English” and not “American”.

Poets writing in Turkish, living in Ottoman lands would call themselves şuara-yı Rûm, that is, Roman poets, or the poets of Rome.

Anatolia and the Balkans were always Diyar-ı Rum i.e. the lands of the Romans or the Roman lands or simply Rum, i.e. Rome.

That's what I was trying to explain to that Pole guy that Ottomans are not Central Asian people but a people who mixed with Turks in between 10th and 13th century where

their Central Asian impact, even if mixed with South Slavs should be 1-3% and Ottomans DID MIX with us.

[Lucas]

Before I was refering to modern situation, after resettlement of Turks 150-100 years ago.