|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 7, 2009 23:42:32 GMT 3
thracianglad,
That's the image I was referencing. I posted it somewhere else here before. Yes, it shows frogged kaftans being worn by Bulgarians. Notice the fur lining? Those are also a bit different from the Alan style frogged closing, which it looks like one figure has (the blue kaftan with the single lapel on the right lined in red).
I think some Hungarian reconstructions try to ignore the frogged kaftan because the double-lapel GokTurk style is more "eastern" while the frogged kaftan does look very "western" (maybe it looks kind of Chinese though?) I think the Sassanian kaftans were closed in a similar manner.
As for the more modern frogs, I'm really unsure as to where that comes from. It is possible that's a hold over from the earlier frogged kaftans. The Rus took up that style too. They started adding wide cloth stripes going across the front of the breast. I thought that Western european soldiers didn't start wearing clothes like that until they started adopting the style from the East (i.e., Hussar fashion).
|
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on May 8, 2009 0:00:31 GMT 3
Well, How did you find out it is anti-turkic I don't know ;D Brannik was organisation of the Bulgarian youth during the WW2. Nowadays some skinheads calls themselves Branniks, but the pic was propaganda poster of the old one. So they weren't anti-turkic, because the Turkish was our alias during WW2. So I can't understand why you have removed my pic?! Maybe it was used by rascist, but there was a Bulgar warrior. I haven't made propaganda! Dude I am anti-fascist(I am not anarchist or member of anti-fa groups), I didn't want to make advertise of the group(which doesn't exist nowadays), so I think it was wrong to delete my image. Actually the pic was ok. However I was angry when I saw Brannik title. I saw many videos especially in Youtube about these guys who are hostile against Turks. One of them they burned a Turkish flag. So I think you can understand me why I behave like this. If anyone put a group pic who burn Bulgarian flag. you also feel the same things like us.  Yeah, because of that I told you there are new organisation Brannik(If I can call them organisation) and old organisation(without any anti-turkish feelings). They were fascist this is true, but they didn't hate Turkish. Nowadays Branniks are neo-nazi skinheads, nothing with the old one. Of course they are not supported by the government as the old one |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 8, 2009 1:33:13 GMT 3
You are funny. How could the nation-master to disapear?! Have you ever seen Bulgarians? You can identify one of them, every men have different kind of face and skull. Another question - It is not prooved that Bulgars were turkic tribe, as the Turkic in Altay. They had Europid faces, it is prooved because of found skulls from Volga Bulgaria of killed by Mongols people. After Danube Bulgarians becaming Christians many pagans were killed because they couldn't accept the new religion - Their skulls were Europid. No it's not me who is funny, it's you. Ever heard of assimiliaton? There are many peoples who conquered others but got assimiliated into the conquered ones, such as the Franks, Normans or the various Turko-Mongol peoples in Northern China (Huns, Tabghach, Shatuo Turks, Kitans, Jürchens, Manchus, etc). The case for Bulgars was the same. And ok, what if some Bulgar skulls are "Europoid"? Don't you know that these people lived next to Finno-Ugrian, Iranic and Slavic peoples at a time when religion or lifestyle wasn't a barrier between different peoples to mix with each other? |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 8, 2009 4:25:57 GMT 3
Well, first of all I don't understand why being Turkic means being Mongoloid? It's already a mistake by itself. There are many Uighurs or Tatars that 100% more "Europoid" than any Bulgarian, yet nobody doubts that they are Turks or that their ancestors were Turks.
|
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on May 8, 2009 13:35:29 GMT 3
Well, first of all I don't understand why being Turkic means being Mongoloid? It's already a mistake by itself. There are many Uighurs or Tatars that 100% more "Europoid" than any Bulgarian, yet nobody doubts that they are Turks or that their ancestors were Turks. Isn't it true  So Turkic(not Turkish one) were people who comes from Altay, it is not bad to be with Mongolic face of course, but the Turkic has Mongolic faces. I don't care about the language just about the DNA, I am really confused - is it a ethnical group of tribes or just the language  |
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on May 8, 2009 14:00:43 GMT 3
You are funny. How could the nation-master to disapear?! Have you ever seen Bulgarians? You can identify one of them, every men have different kind of face and skull. Another question - It is not prooved that Bulgars were turkic tribe, as the Turkic in Altay. They had Europid faces, it is prooved because of found skulls from Volga Bulgaria of killed by Mongols people. After Danube Bulgarians becaming Christians many pagans were killed because they couldn't accept the new religion - Their skulls were Europid. No it's not me who is funny, it's you. Ever heard of assimiliaton? There are many peoples who conquered others but got assimiliated into the conquered ones, such as the Franks, Normans or the various Turko-Mongol peoples in Northern China (Huns, Tabghach, Shatuo Turks, Kitans, Jürchens, Manchus, etc). The case for Bulgars was the same. And ok, what if some Bulgar skulls are "Europoid"? Don't you know that these people lived next to Finno-Ugrian, Iranic and Slavic peoples at a time when religion or lifestyle wasn't a barrier between different peoples to mix with each other? Ok I don't care about the DNA of the Bulgars(I care but not in this topic ) I wants to tell you that Bulgars didn't ruled over the Slavs, it was an anti-byzantine aliance. The creating of the Bulgarian nationality is during the khan Krum to tsar Boris I Michael. Khan Krum has changed the folk clothes of the Bulgarians and the Slavic with Avar folk clothes. Tsar Boris has change the religion and he became Christian. Union, not Slavery, it's true the Bulgars ruled the country, but they had tradition in the ruling of a country, not as Slavs at ruling of a tribe. As in the movie "The day of the rulers " - "My ancestors have ruled a tribe and they were right, I am ruling a state"(Khah Krum the Scary) |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 8, 2009 18:19:53 GMT 3
Well, first of all I don't understand why being Turkic means being Mongoloid? It's already a mistake by itself. There are many Uighurs or Tatars that 100% more "Europoid" than any Bulgarian, yet nobody doubts that they are Turks or that their ancestors were Turks. Isn't it true So Turkic(not Turkish one) were people who comes from Altay, it is not bad to be with Mongolic face of course, but the Turkic has Mongolic faces. I don't care about the language just about the DNA, I am really confused - is it a ethnical group of tribes or just the language Well, you're probably talking about Gok-Tuks or Turkiuts the people with whom the name "Turks" was introduced in the World. Yes, they were Mongoloids, that's true. However, those people are not direct ancestors of all the Turks in the world. In fact, when the word "Turk" became famous in Altai there had been already Turkic speaking Khazars and Bulgars in Europe and there had been Turkic speaking Xiongnu many centuries before those Altaic Turks. So, it's apparent that the people which later were called Turkic or Turks had been there for a long time before Altaic Turks appeared. Also, according to many sources they had different racial descriptions. Some of these tribes had clearly Europoid phenotype according to Chinese and other sources. So, you can't ascribe Turkic to Mongoloid race only, unless you talk about Gok-Turks. Being Turk means to have a certain culture, identity and language but not to be Mongoloid by default. |
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on May 8, 2009 18:28:36 GMT 3
Isn't it true So Turkic(not Turkish one) were people who comes from Altay, it is not bad to be with Mongolic face of course, but the Turkic has Mongolic faces. I don't care about the language just about the DNA, I am really confused - is it a ethnical group of tribes or just the language Well, you're probably talking about Gok-Tuks or Turkiuts the people with whom the name "Turks" was introduced in the World. Yes, they were Mongoloids, that's true. However, those people are not direct ancestors of all the Turks in the world. In fact, when the word "Turk" became famous in Altai there had been already Turkic speaking Khazars and Bulgars in Europe and there had been Turkic speaking Xiongnu many centuries before those Altaic Turks. So, it's apparent that the people which later were called Turkic or Turks had been there for a long time before Altaic Turks appeared. Also, according to many sources they had different racial descriptions. Some of these tribes had clearly Europoid phenotype according to Chinese and other sources. So, you can't ascribe Turkic to Mongoloid race only, unless you talk about Gok-Turks. Being Turk means to have a certain culture, identity and language but not to be Mongoloid by default. There are two theories about Bulgars - Turkic or Iranian. And there was a movie about the Bulgars which prooved that they were European, so there they said that the Turkic are Mongoloid. |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 8, 2009 19:06:36 GMT 3
There are two theories about Bulgars - Turkic or Iranian. Nobody is taking "Iranian theory" seriously. There are also theories that Russians were the ancestors of Etruscans and that they created the disc of Festus. "Iranian theory" is from the same group anti-scientific "theories." And there was a movie about the Bulgars which prooved that they were European, so there they said that the Turkic are Mongoloid. My friend, are you seeking to prove something by movies that some obscured people filmed? I can make a movie today proving that Bulgars came from Mars and that Turks are natives of Austalia. You think that would be a substantial proof? I suggest you to get more familiar with the works of professional historians and archeologists before watching some freaking movies on youtube. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 8, 2009 21:06:45 GMT 3
That's wrong! The Martians are Hungarians not Bulgars!  |
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on May 8, 2009 22:55:38 GMT 3
There are two theories about Bulgars - Turkic or Iranian. Nobody is taking "Iranian theory" seriously. There are also theories that Russians were the ancestors of Etruscans and that they created the disc of Festus. "Iranian theory" is from the same group anti-scientific "theories." And there was a movie about the Bulgars which prooved that they were European, so there they said that the Turkic are Mongoloid. My friend, are you seeking to prove something by movies that some obscured people filmed? I can make a movie today proving that Bulgars came from Mars and that Turks are natives of Austalia. You think that would be a substantial proof? I suggest you to get more familiar with the works of professional historians and archeologists before watching some freaking movies on youtube. The movie is historical, not science fiction! |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 9, 2009 0:01:35 GMT 3
My friend, are you seeking to prove something by movies that some obscured people filmed? I can make a movie today proving that Bulgars came from Mars and that Turks are natives of Austalia. You think that would be a substantial proof? I suggest you to get more familiar with the works of professional historians and archeologists before watching some freaking movies on youtube. The movie is historical, not science fiction! Yeah, not a pure science fiction, but "historical science fiction." |
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on May 9, 2009 0:23:09 GMT 3
The movie is historical, not science fiction! Yeah, not a pure science fiction, but "historical science fiction." ;D ;D ;D ;D ;DHahahaa maybe I am wrong!
|
|
|
|
Post by thracianglad on May 9, 2009 20:33:40 GMT 3
Picture from Bulgarian comics   Bulgarian khan or nobleman   khan Krum the Scary  khan Zavergan  Knyaz Svetoslav of Kiev beating a Khazar  |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 10, 2009 18:46:30 GMT 3
Khazar warrior I like the way you make your comments i.e. very arbitrary without looking at what is actually depicted on the picture. ;D Howcome this could be "a Khazar warrior" ? Or may be you meant the guy who is laying beneath with the shield with the star of David? ;D This is "Sviatoslav, prince of Rus, trampling a Khazar." Since Khazar has a symbol of Judaism on this shield, that statue was criticized in Russia for showing anti-semitic attitude. |
|
