3 ms·

In 681. By that logic France was established by Germans, more so since the Carolingian Empire didn't even exist for another century after the creation of the f

by monochr 12y ago

In 681. By that logic France was established by Germans, more so since the Carolingian Empire didn't even exist for another century after the creation of the first Bulgarian Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire

darkhorn 12y ago
But communists were happy with the story of 681 until someone finds out, by accident, the remaining of the first Bulgarian rulers, or something like that, and it shows that the Bulgars are not Slavs, for sure, and they try to shut up the historians. Then those communists, instead to narrate the correct history (Slavs were migrating to these lands, in some period foreigners come there called Bulgars etc) they kept it like it was they thought, "Bulgars were Slavs and they established out country etc". Even, today the history of Bulgaria starts with 681, in the schools. They have to correct it, but they are offended thus they don't mention in the history books that Bulgars are Turkics, thus they don't change it. It is like in the Star Wars movie where you find out your enemy is your father.
- monochr 12y ago
  I'm not sure what you're talking about, have you thought about not believing everything the Turkish nationalist news papers print about ethnicity they don't like? You might have a hard time fitting into polite company when you start denying the various genocides modern Turkey and the Ottoman Empire were a part of. At any rate here is a google translate of the Bulgarian page on the origins Bulgars: "The origin of the Bulgars is a problem still encourage discussion. In its linguistic affiliation Bulgars are counted preobladavashtiya number of modern scholars to Turk-Altaic peoples. It is assumed that the Proto-Bulgarian ethnos was formed in Central Asia (East Kazakhstan ) between the Caspian Sea and mountain Imeon (Pamir, Hindu Kush and Tian Shan). Other possible areas are Altai, or West Siberia , Tarim basin , western Mongolia, southern Siberia and upper reaches of the Irtysh. From the late 16th century were offered various hypotheses, some of which attract with their whimsicality and stubbornness in defending them. Most authorities reject the concepts of aboriginal (or Thracian) in Slavonic, for Tatar and Finno-Ugric origin of the Bulgars . Popular, but also challenged and Hun are ogurskite options Turanian hypothesis. Some scientific papers and amateur research in recent years revived another hypothesis according to which the proto-Huns were mixed Iranian population." https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5 https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7...

by monochr 12y ago

darkhorn 12y ago

But communists were happy with the story of 681 until someone finds out, by accident, the remaining of the first Bulgarian rulers, or something like that, and it shows that the Bulgars are not Slavs, for sure, and they try to shut up the historians. Then those communists, instead to narrate the correct history (Slavs were migrating to these lands, in some period foreigners come there called Bulgars etc) they kept it like it was they thought, "Bulgars were Slavs and they established out country etc". Even, today the history of Bulgaria starts with 681, in the schools. They have to correct it, but they are offended thus they don't mention in the history books that Bulgars are Turkics, thus they don't change it. It is like in the Star Wars movie where you find out your enemy is your father.

monochr 12y ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about, have you thought about not believing everything the Turkish nationalist news papers print about ethnicity they don't like? You might have a hard time fitting into polite company when you start denying the various genocides modern Turkey and the Ottoman Empire were a part of. At any rate here is a google translate of the Bulgarian page on the origins Bulgars: "The origin of the Bulgars is a problem still encourage discussion. In its linguistic affiliation Bulgars are counted preobladavashtiya number of modern scholars to Turk-Altaic peoples. It is assumed that the Proto-Bulgarian ethnos was formed in Central Asia (East Kazakhstan ) between the Caspian Sea and mountain Imeon (Pamir, Hindu Kush and Tian Shan). Other possible areas are Altai, or West Siberia , Tarim basin , western Mongolia, southern Siberia and upper reaches of the Irtysh. From the late 16th century were offered various hypotheses, some of which attract with their whimsicality and stubbornness in defending them. Most authorities reject the concepts of aboriginal (or Thracian) in Slavonic, for Tatar and Finno-Ugric origin of the Bulgars . Popular, but also challenged and Hun are ogurskite options Turanian hypothesis. Some scientific papers and amateur research in recent years revived another hypothesis according to which the proto-Huns were mixed Iranian population." https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5 https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7...