Quote:| ROFL Khagan, the way you said it... are you aware that it kinda sounds like; YOU GOT OWNED! o.O |
|
LOL
Quote:I would actually disagree with this point of view.
First of all, we don't really know the exact number of Bulgars that moved to Balkans. It might in fact be quite siginificant. Secondly, modern Bulgarian are not just direct descendants of local Thracian Slavonic population. They are in fact a product of intermixing between Turkic Bulgars, Slavonic population and also remnants of local Thracians.
A ruling class of nomadic Bulgars didn't exist separately from the Slavonic population. While in the beginning it was a kind of ruler-subject relationship with the passage of time it transferred to symbiosis, and finally to the stage when Bulgars and Slavonics complitely merged into a new Bulgarian ethnicity. So, in my opinion, it's obvious that Bulgarians are both descendants of Slavonic people and nomadic Turkic Bulgars. Moreover, the role of nomadic Bulgar heritage for the Bulgarian self-consciosness and self-identity couldn't be overestimated. It has been always regarded as "our own" in Bulgaria and Bulgar component is actually much more imortant for the early Bulgarian history than it's Slavonic component.
Bulgarian history begins with Khan Kubrat in pre-pontic steppe rather than with some Slavonic warlords that invaded Thrace from the North. |
|
Ok, yes you are right, I mean modern Bulgarians of course are not 100% Thraco-Slavic, but my point is that the majority are, or more correctly, the amount of original Bulghar-Turkic origins among modern Bulgarians is quite low. If these original Bulghars were larger in number, they wouldn't have been assimiliated. Plus, their language and culture does not have much deep impact on the Bulgarians, I mean the Ugrian Magyars probably have more Bulghar influence than the Bulgarians have (at least, this is what I have seen). Finally, the Bulgarians don't have any Turkic physical characters at all. |
|