Serbian toponyms in Bulgaria

[Varda]

It's a chart made by HungryLion.

So what?

[Carpatz]

To think how different history could've been if the Bulgar Emperors adopted the Vlachic language instead of sl*vic barbarian dribble. We would have had a true eastern Roman Empire, stretching from Pannonia to the Bosporus

[Varda]

To think how different history could've been if the Bulgar Emperors adopted the Vlachic language instead of sl*vic barbarian dribble. We would have had a true eastern Roman Empire, stretching from Pannonia to the Bosporus

It was pretty impossible.

Bulgar Turkic elite was in interaction with Slavs in the first few centuries and they adopted language from them about 200 years after they came to Thrace. In that time Vlachs were numerous in Thrace, but they were hidden in mountains. Vlachs of Thrace are slavo-bulgarized later, in 12th/13th century.
Slavs adopted Bulgarian name from Bulgars, and Vlachs adopted quite later Bulgarian name from Slavs and also Slavic language.

[JohnnyP]

Wrong.

Macedonia is country with the most assimilated Vlachs. You are almost identical as Vlachs genetically.

Again fake posts from you , you became really boring with your blabla-ing, Serbia assimilated really big population of Macedonians/Aromanians, and Vlachs are linguistic group not genetic you need to separate these two terms, Vlach are indigenous people on Balkans , they have same/similar genetics also with Albanians and North Greeks too, btw Aromanians were also called Macedonians or Makedo-Romanci, and they are especially native to Macedonia/Aegean Macedonia/North Greece, we didn't assimilated them, we are one ethnicity.

[Edgü]

I don't know origin of this word but there are place names in Turkey like lüleburgaz

Wikipedia'ya ve diğer kaynaklara göre Burgaz (Grekçe: Πύργος, Pyrgos) İçinde kale, kule, kemer vb. gibi dikili yükseltili yapıların bulunduğu yere verilen ad.

Örn: Lüleburgaz (Kırklareli), Kemerburgaz (İstanbul), Burgaz Ada (İstanbul), Sahil Burgaz (Bursa), Burgaz (Datça'da Knidos harabeleri).

[Varda]

Again fake posts from you , you became really boring with your blabla-ing, Serbia assimilated really big population of Macedonians/Aromanians, and Vlachs are linguistic group not genetic you need to separate these two terms, Vlach are indigenous people on Balkans , they have same/similar genetics also with Albanians and North Greeks too, btw Aromanians were also called Macedonians or Makedo-Romanci, and they are especially native to Macedonia/Aegean Macedonia/North Greece, we didn't assimilated them, we are one ethnicity.

According to this in Greece there was officially 40 000 Aromanians in 1951 and unofficially their number is up to 200 000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians_in_Greece
This means most of them declared themselves as Greeks.

In Serbia officially there is 35 000 Vlachs (on the last census). Their real number is up to 150 000. They live in eastern Serbia.

Difference between Serbian Vlachs and Aromanians is that first one are basically Romanians (they came to eastern Serbia from Romania in period 1718-1739), and second ones are natives of southern Balkan close to Albanians and N. Macedonians genetically.

[Varda]

Again fake posts from you , you became really boring with your blabla-ing, Serbia assimilated really big population of Macedonians/Aromanians, and Vlachs are linguistic group not genetic you need to separate these two terms, Vlach are indigenous people on Balkans , they have same/similar genetics also with Albanians and North Greeks too, btw Aromanians were also called Macedonians or Makedo-Romanci, and they are especially native to Macedonia/Aegean Macedonia/North Greece, we didn't assimilated them, we are one ethnicity.

Same ethnicities who speak different languages. Your languages are not even from the same language family.

[JohnnyP]

Same ethnicities who speak different languages. Your languages are not even from the same language family.

Again Vardapedia, that's page is legit like your posts.
They spoke different language, genetically we are not different.

[CommonSense]

So what?

Because it's another bunch of misinformation he's having you spread around. As you can see on the Vahaduo spreadsheet, the Bulgarian average contains no more Siberian/East Eurasian than the Serbian one and it's within range of what the Early Slavic samples have. That leaves no room for Turkic-like DNA, which can only be found in Romania and Moldova and even there it's certainly no more than 5%. Gagauz people literally speak Turkish and have zero admixture of that kind whatsoever.

I'm guessing he used some contemporary Anatolian region with a low amount of East Eurasian as a referrence for the category labeled as "Turkic" That would in reality make eastern Bulgarians Anatolian-Armenian shifted, which is indeed true considering their average West Asian score on K13 is an outlier compared to the rest of the Balkans, with the exception of Greece:

Bulgaria_Southeastern,20.13,21.81,18.44,13.87,20.44,2.92,0.43,0.30,0.48,0.44,0.47,0.11,0.07

Bulgaria_Northeastern,22.15,22.37,17.46,13.43,19.44,2.56,0.46,0.32,0.49,0.24,0.29,0.11,0.10

[Varda]

Again Vardapedia, that's page is legit like your posts.
They spoke different language, genetically we are not different.

You said Aromanians and N. Macedonians are same ethnicity. One of the most important factor that some groups belong to same ethnicity is same language, genetic is not enough.