|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 26, 2009 14:49:30 GMT 3
OMFG you serious?!!! O.o Show me such a claim please  |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 26, 2009 19:42:35 GMT 3
Yes, but if you notice, in Western Europe and the Americans, the battle is always portrayed and thought as if fought primarily between the Mongols and Teutonic Knights. No one thinks the majority were Poles, while German and other knights formed only some of the units. Well, first of all, technically it wasn't possible because there were not too many Teutonic knights who were the elite troops. A thousand of Teutonic knights would be a tremendous army. Most of the Teutonic Order army consisted of auxiallary troops, knights formed only a small elite. In the famous battle on Ice, when Livonian knights were defeated by the Russian Prince Alexander Nevsky (some historians theorize that he did it with the direct help of Mongols) only 400 knights were killed according to the Russian chronicles which was almost a fantastic number for its time, the number of auxillary Order's troops killed was much more greater but it was not even important, so the Russian chronicle goes on by saying and the unknown number of "auxillaries was killed." For the sake on objectivity I have to say that contemporary European chronicles gave even a much smaller number of the knights killed (around a few dozens) which nevertheless was considered an impressive number. As for the Liegnica battle, there is no doubt that the majority of troops were formed of Polish and Czech units. Teutonic knights could also participate for sure, but their number couldn't have been more then a few hundreds at best. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 26, 2009 23:43:55 GMT 3
Thanx for the info. Yes, if the Teutonic Knights are counted, other European mercenaries should be counted as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 27, 2009 16:24:19 GMT 3
Thanx for the info. Yes, if the Teutonic Knights are counted, other European mercenaries should be counted as well. You kidding? That's going to add to the list of Europeans being under total pawnage, your books will be responded with a big "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!" ;D |
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on Apr 27, 2009 17:30:17 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 27, 2009 20:29:19 GMT 3
ROFL ;D ;D ;D
Hi Thracianglad, welcome aboard.
Unfortunately, your pictures have clearly nothing to do with this thread. Bulgaria was and is never a part of the Steppe.
|
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on Apr 29, 2009 0:00:41 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 29, 2009 0:46:23 GMT 3
Sorry friend, they are not the descendents of the Bulgars, or let's say the majority are not. The Bulgars were a Turkic people who ruled over the Thraco-Slavic residents of modern Bulgaria.
|
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on Apr 29, 2009 15:22:48 GMT 3
Sorry friend, they are not the descendents of the Bulgars, or let's say the majority are not. The Bulgars were a Turkic people who ruled over the Thraco-Slavic residents of modern Bulgaria. So isn't our name Bulgaria?!  Yes u r right we are mixed Bulgars, Thracians and Slavs. And Bulgars didn't rule the Slavs and the Thracians, they just were in Union. www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pSttx_skzA&feature=channel_page |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 29, 2009 17:55:07 GMT 3
No, you Thraco-Slavs were their subjects, the real Bulghars ruled you, just like how the Germanic Franks ruled over the Celto-Latin Gauls who are now called French The amount of real Bulghar (which is Turkic) origins among the modern Bulgarian population must be very low. But anyway, we already have other threads about this, the Bulgarians are not our topic here |
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on May 5, 2009 13:51:08 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on May 5, 2009 14:11:54 GMT 3
ROFL Khagan, the way you said it... are you aware that it kinda sounds like; YOU GOT OWNED! o.O
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 5, 2009 19:49:12 GMT 3
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on May 5, 2009 22:42:22 GMT 3
Bulgarian warrior  Bulgars  king Kaloyan(Yoan or John) of Bulgar againt the crusaders  khan-yuvigi Ispor, also called Asparuh, crossing Danube river and establish Bulgaria  and one beautiful Bulgarian bagatur girl   Tartars.... Actually I am not sure  Getic warrior  Thracian horses, image from the tomb in my town  Homer said really good words about their horses in "Iliad"  |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on May 6, 2009 1:34:17 GMT 3
One day I'm going to have to dress up my wife in that outfit, arm her with a bow and sit her on a horse bareback... ... that pose has a very unique charm... |
|
This guys are descedants of the Bulgars, who cames from the steppes 
Yes u r right we are mixed Bulgars, Thracians and Slavs. And Bulgars didn't rule the Slavs and the Thracians, they just were in Union. 
Homer said really good words about their horses in "Iliad"