RuseBG Senior Moderator
Posts: 9753
(10/3/07 4:20 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
Quote:The problem is that Kubrat or Asparukh did not arrive in a depupulated area.
The problems start with you not being able to distinguish between Kuber and Kubrat.
Quote:There were at least 2.5 million local ppl here
That is fvcking funny. How did you establish that number? By their birth certificates?
Quote:did not welcomed the arriving Bulgars with aplauses.
Well, they must have been 10:1 up to your count. (that considering your latest number of Bulgars, if it were the 10 000 you counted before, it would be 25:1). Quite uncapable people not to be able to defend themselves, don't you think?
Quote:I think you should get yorself a better information about that
Like? 'Rhezus and Admin Latest Release on Bulgars'?
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
Ok, should I said Aparouhk and Kuber bulgars.. according to bulgar ethics..
Quote:That is fvcking funny. How did you establish that number? By their birth certificates?
Nope, by books where things and facts are mentionned.. What do you think, to please the bulgars, thracians moved to the steppes and left their lands to be populated by bulgars.
Listen, stepe bulgars came when the Thracian troops were in Asia Minor. That's why they dare to cross the Danube 100 or 200.000 they were not welcomed anyway - killing innocent women, children and old ppl. Plundering etc. - thats how they've made it.
Stop reading fairytales and other twisted theories. There are plenty of sources, libraries etc..
Edited by: Rhezus at: 10/3/07 4:40 pm
RuseBG Senior Moderator
Posts: 9758
(10/3/07 5:05 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
Quote:Listen, stepe bulgars came when the Thracian troops were in Asia Minor.
They must have been there for two centuries at least. You should know that Asparuh Bulgars were not the first to come here. Therev had been plenty of Bulgars living here before them.
Quote:That's why they dare to cross the Danube 100 or 200.000 they were not welcomed anyway - killing innocent women, children and old ppl.
Not welcomed by who? By those 2.5 million who were in Asia Minor?
Stop humiliating yourself Rhezus, and give up that crap you have been posting for years. It is only you and Admin who believe it.
And it is only you in the entire forum who is so ridiculous to hate the founders of his country.
Quote:They must have been there for two centuries at least.
Nope.. They've been part of Byzantine Empire, a province.
Quote:You should know that Asparuh Bulgars were not the first to come here. Therev had been plenty of Bulgars living here before them.
Haha, theories.. why those plenty bulgars did not make their state earlier then??
Quote:Not welcomed by who? By those 2.5 million who were in Asia Minor
Don't try to be funny.. The local ppl here have mostly Thracian descent - non Bulgar, capicci?
Quote:Stop humiliating yourself Rhezus, and give up that crap you have been posting for years. It is only you and Admin who believe it.
Stop humilating yourself Ruse, that crap you are talking nobody belives in Europe. It's applicable only for Bulgaria and Bulgarians like you. All is so confusing about all those theories - of we being Bulgars, having bulgar origin etc.. I respcet the things who seem to be real - not hiding things or neglecting my legacy. And you are talking about "glory Bulgar states" only.
Edited by: Rhezus at: 10/3/07 5:50 pm
londonergb Registered User
Posts: 33
(10/3/07 7:29 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
The prefered version of the 'bulgarian' ethnonym in Wiki is to translate it as "mixture of peoples" .Also apart from the nomad element in Old Great Bulgaria there was a significant settled one-town builders artisans farmers and merchantsTherefore to declare them as steppe nomads of turanik or ugro-finnish group is inaccurate.The fact that they prefered to flee the approaching khazars rather than to live under them proves that their way of life was different to the more barbaric and nomadic khazars.The development of Volga Bulgaria is also a proof of their abilities in trading and town building rather than to live on plundering their neighbouring peoples. even the opposite happened-the rus and after the mongols did that on them,untill they were ultimately overhelmed and their state destroyed for good.Kuber also settled with a similar group of heterogeneos subjects in the Pelagonian field..
It was rather the Slavic tribes in Macedonia that Bysantium found to be unsettled and dangerous plunderers. Byzantine and later Bulgar military actions in that area /Macedonia/were rather competing each other in bringing the slavs into their own fiefdoms and pacifying and civilising the area. Bulgarian wars with Bysantium proper, were mainly defensive.To sum things up : at least from the early VII c. onwards the Proto Bulgars were a sedentary people, mixed in its composition,a mix not only of Finns and/orTurans-ruling minority and military contingent/ but many others-the majority of "common folks" of different origin Indo-European mostly...
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
2.5 million ppl?
funny how the western books i've read state the area was underpopulated, if not depleted.
btw. what were the 'locals' doin in asia minor? picking grapes?
and yes, i guess u're right rhezus with regards to "ziezi", i guess the guy who wrote the bible and story about noah's arch is an idiot.
2.5 million people losing to a mere 10,000, thank Ziezi i'm not mainly thracian. yea...i tapped that
RuseBG Senior Moderator
Posts: 9762
(10/3/07 9:36 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
Quote:Nope.. They've been part of Byzantine Empire, a province.
What is the difference? They were here, regardless of the name of the land.
Quote:Haha, theories.. why those plenty bulgars did not make their state earlier then??
Haha. Why those 10 times more numerous Thracians didn't make their state then?
Quote:And you are talking about "glory Bulgar states" only.
I am forced to do it considering the absence of glory Thracian states.
londonergb Registered User
Posts: 34
(10/3/07 9:42 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
I think that the apparent lack of historical data about a given people in a certain period of time-like in the case of the romanians-a 1000 years gap ,should not be interpreted as that people being extinct or brought down to insignificant numbers- the comparison now between our population and the Romanian shows that romanised population was preserved in its majority,there is not reason to believe the same didnt happen south of Danube as well....The same plague and barbarian raids hit them as well as the lands south of Danube,same about the Albanians...
RuseBG Senior Moderator
Posts: 9764
(10/3/07 9:47 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
Londonergb, from this point on you are alone in this discussion. I smell disaster.
londonergb Registered User
Posts: 35
(10/3/07 9:55 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
...Was the welcome so short lasting?
RuseBG Senior Moderator
Posts: 9765
(10/3/07 10:00 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
Nothing to do with the welcome.
You involve Romanian history and I know perfectly well what this statement of yours will bring
I do not to be part of it any more. I am fed up with those disputes.
londonergb Registered User
Posts: 36
(10/3/07 10:36 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
where can a transated version of the anonymous chronograph be found?could someone past a link?
Edited by: londonergb at: 10/4/07 1:14 am
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
londonergb:
Quote:The prefered version of the 'bulgarian' ethnonym in Wiki is to translate it as "mixture of peoples" .Also apart from the nomad element in Old Great Bulgaria there was a significant settled one-town builders artisans farmers and merchants
Wiki could often be a very subjective view, always depending on who puts the "information" in there (not scientific source). If not nomads, steppe Bulgars had different states in different areas, which means they were moving around..
Quote:funny how the western books i've read state the area was underpopulated, if not depleted.
Haha.. there were no such "underpopulated areas in Europe, never. If we compaire to UK or Holland today, Bulgaria would be "underpopulated", as well as Norway, Finland, Sweden etc. That book must be written by somebody like Ziezi - such a nonsence.
Quote:btw. what were the 'locals' doin in asia minor? picking grapes?
Locals have never been away, but their troops/soldiers have been part of the Byzantine army, defending the entire area of Byzantium. Kubrat, are you playing stupid or just trying to be funny..??
londonergb Registered User
Posts: 37
(10/3/07 11:45 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
-------------------------------
Wiki could often be a very subjective view, always depending on who puts the "information" in there (not scientific source). If not nomads, steppe Bulgars had different states in different areas, which means they were moving around..
----------------------------------------------
I mentioned it because it differs from the more popular interpretation among us Bulgarians that "Bulgar" either should be derived from Volga or mean "marten hunter"...in Wiki I first encountered this hypothesis that it may mean "Mixed people";
Quote:Haha.. there were no such "underpopulated areas in Europe, never.
are you sure? before the fall of rome, the visgoths and ostrogoths ransacked the balkans, ... do you want to know why?
Quote:Bulgaria would be "underpopulated", as well as Norway, Finland, Sweden etc. That book must be written by somebody like Ziezi - such a nonsence.
you are taking things out of context now, its a different time, different era.
you are right, scholars know nothing, u are all wise.
Quote:Locals have never been away, but their troops/soldiers have been part of the Byzantine army, defending the entire area of Byzantium.
why would the byzantines rely on the troops of people that they have conqoured to fight for them?
the roman empire itself never did that, it would make no sense, unless they were hired mercineries.
furthermore, you're saying the local population itself was 2.5 million, how many soldiers did they have then??????
BS anyways, the byzantine army had enough military support, during Kuber's raids, during Asparukh's raids, and even before that. i swear you lack logic.
yea...i tapped that
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
londonergb:
Quote:in Wiki I first encountered this hypothesis that it may mean "Mixed people"
There are so many hypothesis about steppe Bulgars, which proves one thing - some do not want to reveal the real identity and "hide" it by creating another. No other european nation used titel "khan" or such chinese/turkic calendar. That's important to have im mind when you trace the origin of Bulgars.
Khan's crown
Bulgar woman's traditional dress.
Kubrat:
Quote:why would the byzantines rely on the troops of people that they have conqoured to fight for them?
Thracian soldiers have always been part of the Roman troops (after year 46AD). They were brave, respected soldiers and many achieved higher ranks in the Roman legions. Such was the case with the ppl of Illyria (west from Thrace) - both ciounted as the best militaries of Rome.
When the empire was devided to west and east, Thracians took even bigger part in ruling/deffending Byzantium. They were part of it - it was their own Empire. That's why their troops were all around these areas - from Panonia to Asia Minor.
Kubrat, I cannot start educating you here. Read, learn yourself!
RuseBG Senior Moderator
Posts: 9773
(10/4/07 3:12 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
Quote:No other european nation used titel "khan" or such chinese/turkic calendar.
A Bulgar calendar. The most precise and recognized by UNESCO. Not by Rhezus, though, who obviously experiences himself as a higher, more relible institution.
And Rhezus, would you enlight us how many European nations existed at that time. Nations in the modern meaning of the word.
Thanks.
londonergb Registered User
Posts: 39
(10/4/07 7:48 pm)
Re: On the Greek position about Macedonia?
Only three states exist on the map of 7-8 century Europe...The Eastern Rome ,Frankish empire and Bulgaria.
We are the only one that still exist today...
I think Rhezus that the crown from your pic is Ivan Grozni's crown...it is definitely russian I 've seen it somewhere..it was commented that it clearly borrows from the Bulgar and Khazar models... Edited by: londonergb at: 10/4/07 7:52 pm
yea...i tapped that 
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies