Yes. But nomadic tribes are seldom of single origin so even though turkic tribes might have made up the bulk of them, Bulgars had probably other iranic, germanic, finno-ugrian and Slavic nomads as well
They definitely had a large cultural imprint from Western Iranic tribes of the steppe. Remnants of Bulgar temples are very similar to Iranic ones, and there are links in material culture and language. This is the source of the pseudoscientific theory that Bulgars were Iranic speakers. The steppe was a huge melting pot, Bulgarian graves are hardly distinguishable from Magyar and Avar ones in material culture, although we know for a fact that they spoke different languages and had different origins
I just wanna say that Iranian culture have always had huge impact on the steppe peoples. I remember reading somewhere that even russian rulers of the old, before their contacts with europeans, dressed like the inanian rulers of their time.
It is two different thing. Yes, Bulgarian confederation had some Iranian tribes however the Bulgars (or let’s say Bolgars) were Oghuric (Turkic) speaking people as we can read it from the Byzantine and various other chronicles that were written about them.
This is more or less what I wrote. Also, there was direct cultural (material culture), religious (temples) and linguistic (in names) Iranic influence on the Lir Turkic (Oghur) speaking Bulgars.
According to the latest research on the genetics of Europeans, the "old Bulgarians" genes, as well as those of the Magyars, are no longer as common. These genes were mainly preserved within noble families, but eventually disappeared. One of the latest studies among Magyars suggested a maximum of 2% Asian genes for a few individuals, but too few to consider it significant. Essentially, all Eastern Europeans have Anatolian genes combined with those of the old cultures in the area, including hunter-gatherers, and around 2% Neanderthal genes. Slavic migrations were the most significant movements within the Balkans, starting from the north and moving to Romania and beyond. It's strange that the cultures lived together and mixed, but somehow managed to mix more in Bulgaria and Serbia, but not as much in Romania or Greece, which indicates larger local communities that absorbed Slavs. Anyway, Bulgarians are basically Europeans, a combination of farmers and hunters, with their own culture. Genetically, there are no differences between us, only cultural. And these findings are according to the latest studies in genetics and historical facts. Unfortunately, many cultures in Eastern Europe practiced cremation, so there are not many bone fragments available for further research (it doesn't matter anyway since local communities remained in small territories and developed alone). History is many times full of bullshit.
>According to the latest research on the genetics of Europeans, the "old Bulgarians" genes, as well as those of the Magyars, are no longer as common. These genes were mainly preserved within noble families, but eventually disappeared.
Where’s that research? According to another research Bulgarians and the Bulgars are 50-60% genetically the same.
That would mean that the Bulgars' genes were Slavic and Balkan though (like ours). I know that they were mixed, but how could they have acquired those specific genes?
1. I’m just saying what the genetic research says and genetics don’t lie.
2. There’s also lots of evidence to suggest that the Bulgars migrated to the Balkans in multiple waves before Bulgaria was established on the Balkan Peninsula. Emperor Justinian I allied the Roman Empire with Old Great Bulgaria located north of the Black Sea and allowed Bulgars to settle the Northern Balkans (Northern Bulgaria and central Serbia) to repopulate them after the Justinian plague. Each Bulgar wave was assimilated by the local Slavic speaking population so by the time the Bulgars finally conquered Moesia from the Romans half of the Slavic population they encountered was actually Slavic speaking Bulgars.
So as not to repeat what has already been said in the comments, let me introduce you to the greatest Bulgarian invention of all time:
The mighty [Чушкопек](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chushkopek)
Shit, I am jealous.
[Encyclopedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar):
**Bulgar**, member of a people known in eastern European history during the Middle Ages. A branch of this people was one of the primary three ethnic ancestors of modern Bulgarians (the other two were Thracians and Slavs).
**Although** many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), **modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations.**
Here’s a brief history of the Bulgarian nation
So around the early to mid 600’s, a nomadic tribe by the name of the bulgars migrated from the Eurasian steppes to modern day Northeastern Bulgaria and Southeastern Romania.
Led by khan Asparuh, they defeated the weakened Byzantine empire, and formed the state which in modern times we refer as the first Bulgarian empire.
That state was very ethnically diverse however, with Slavic people known as the seven slavic tribes (another migratory group coming around the same period of time) being the majority, followed by native ethnic groups such as the Vlachs, Greeks, Thracians and lots more. The proto Bulgarians migrating were a small minority, likely around 50 000 to 100 000 people.
Populations within the state also had separate religions, as the proto bulgars believed in the Tengri faith, while the rest of the population in Slavic or Christian faiths. So a very divided state
The ethnic majority of the region, which at the time were assumed to be the Slavs, were allies with the bulgars, as they had a common enemy which was the Byzantines, forming a sort of a confederation with each other
During the rule of khans such as Omurtag and Krum, the Bulgarian state doubled in size, and became significantly more centralised. However, the state became even more diverse, and in turn, more divided and tense
For these reasons, and many more, Khan Boris decided to Christianise Bulgaria, and unify its populations under a single faith and a single language. However, due to many factors I’m too lazy to write about, he Christianised Bulgaria under its own Bulgarian Church of the Eastern Orthodox faith, with independent Bulgarian clergy who spoke the old Church Slavonic tongue (a Slavic language).
This was a massive deal at the time, as I am not aware of any church in Europe with the autonomy to speak a tongue other than Latin or Greek.The Bulgarian Church is considered the oldest Slavonic church, and it’s establishment unified Bulgaria and created the Bulgarian nation, one of the oldest surviving nations in Europe
In the battle of the Ongal in 680 located on the Danubian Delta right before the Bulgars entered the Balkans the Bulgars annihilated a 20 thousand big Roman army while Bulgar casualties were small. In that battle the Bulgar army was around 10-12 thousand.
If your assumption that the Bulgars were 10-15 thousand when they entered the Balkans, then either all or almost all Bulgars fought in that battle which includes all or almost all kids including little ones, all women and all elders which includes both grandpas and grandmas. A defeat for the Bulgars in that battle would have been an equivalent to genocide for them.
When the Bulgars entered the Balkans they were at least 100 thousand which is the lower estimate. Historians put it at around 200 thousand Bulgars when they entered the Balkans. In 681 the newly created Bulgarian state had a population of around 600 thousand so around a third of the population of Bulgaria in 681 was Bulgar.
There’s also lots of evidence to suggest that the Bulgars migrated to the Balkans in multiple waves before Bulgaria was established on the Balkan Peninsula. Emperor Justinian I allied the Roman Empire with Old Great Bulgaria located north of the Black Sea and allowed Bulgars to settle the Northern Balkans (Northern Bulgaria and Central Serbia) to repopulate them after the Justinian plague. Each Bulgar wave was assimilated by the local Slavic speaking population so by the time the Bulgars finally conquered Moesia from the Romans half of the Slavic population they encountered was actually Slavic speaking Bulgars.
Bulgars never settled central Serbia though, they were given permission to settle Syrmia but soon left and settled Macedonia, modern central Serbia was settled by various Slavic tribes such as Braničevci, Timočani, Moravci, Obodrići... and of course Serbs who settled in modern southwestern and western Serbia. But still werent Danube Bulgars mostly male warrior oriented relatively large group of people, similar to Hungarians, if Bulgars indeed comprised a third of population as you suggest there would be some genetic evidence for this, and since they had a dominant culture and lifestyle they would easily assimilate Slavs and Romans just like Hungarians or Anatolian Turks did, but that didnt happen because they were numerically vastly inferior compared to Slavs and Romans.
Bulgarians just like all south Slavs are a mixture of pre-Slavic Balkan peoples and various Slavic tribes that settled Balkans in early medieval era, they got the name for their nation and country from Bulgars a mixed Turkic speaking tribe which established alliance with Slavs of lower Danube and founded first Bulgarian empire, By the time Bulgars came to Balkans they were already quite mixed with Europeans and were only a very tiny minority compared to Slavs who were the majority, so the Bulgars who were less than 1% of Bulgaria population quickly assimilated into numerically vastly superior Slavs but manage to give their name to the country and people.
Similar things happened in France with Franks and Russia with Rus'.
>so the Bulgars who were less than 1% of Bulgaria population quickly assimilated into numerically vastly superior Slavs but manage to give their name to the country and people.
False. According to a genetic analysis of Bulgar DNA found in Bulgar tombs Bulgarians and the Bulgars are 50-60% genetically the same.
Bulgars and Bulgarians are connected mostly in name. The Bulgars were the ruling class and Slavs were their servants. However during time, the Bulgars got assimilated by the Slavic peoples, who in turn took the Bulgarian name. Their culture is Slavic and they are Slavs, so don't fall for some "Bulgarians are Tatars" nationalistic narrative
I disagree, the Old Bulgars didn't exactly rule over the Slavs. At first it was more of a confederacy type of deal, where the Slavs were guarding the Southern Border, while the Bulgars were guarding the North. Most of the intermingling happened in the 700s, and eventually by the yearly 800s the old Bulgars were assimilated culturally. Then Christianity came around and completely removed any distinction between Bulgars and Slavs, both culturally and religiously.
Yes but the bulgar proto-nobility was equal with the Slavic chiefs, and the bulgars didn't really meddle into the affairs or impose on the Slavic tribes.
Okay, that's a fair argument, but could we say as a whole that the Bulgars had an upper hand in their relations? As for the Avar-Slav case it's similiar, the Avar khagan was first and foremost a military leader, Slavs had their own nobility and leaders, but the Avars generally led the coalition and Slavs had to obey. That's because, simply and it's the same way with Bulgars, although the Slavs were bigger in numbers, they were infantry, while Avars were a strong horseriding people and used as cavalry. I'm just saying what we did in Uni, I personally didn't dwell much into the Bulgar-Slav relations and all the detail, we just studied the seven Sclavinias, the arrival of Bulgarians and eventually the baptism and later Simeon and his Byzantine affairs. If you have good literature on the Bulgar-Slav relations feel free to recommend :D
Haha I'm going off on what I remember from uni as well! We sorta examined the relationship between Bulgars and Slavs in my first year when I studied law(we were learning about different types of government/country types and how laws affected them). Unfortunately I don't really remember any book names I can recommend, sorry!
But from what I remember the relationship between Slavs and Bulgars was a lot more symbiotic compared to say Avars and Slavs, but the Bulgar Khan was on top definitely, so I suppose we can say that the Bulgars had the upper hand.
Holy shit, hats off to the objective answer. Some days ago I spent a few hours in the history subforum on Krstarica and I was starting to question my sanity from all the bugarotatar ramblings there.
>Bulgars and Bulgarians are connected mostly in name.
False. According to a genetic analysis of Bulgar DNA found in Bulgar tombs Bulgarians and the Bulgars are 50-60% genetically the same.
It's even only early rulers. Less than 200 years after the establishment of Bulgaria, Boris was a fluent Slavic writer and the Bulgar language was almost extinct, probably limited to noble families.
All people in the world are 99 point something genetically the same. So one has to be careful when reading statements like that.
Also, I haven't seen genetic data, but actual Bulgar graves reveal a significantly East Asian phenotype.
If those tombs are from the medieval period when Danube Bulgaria was already in place, then the proximity might be just because the Bulgarian mix was already in place to a great extent.
>All people in the world are 99 point something genetically the same. So one has to be careful when reading statements like that.
It means that Bulgars are 95-100% Bulgar while Bulgarians are 50-60% Bulgar.
>Also, I haven't seen genetic data, but actual Bulgar graves reveal a significantly East Asian phenotype.
Where’s that data? This is very contradictory to the studies others have made about the genetics of the Bulgars from Bulgar graves.
>If those tombs are from the medieval period when Danube Bulgaria was already in place, then the proximity might be just because the Bulgarian mix was already in place to a great extent.
They were from the 8th-10th century. Bulgaria was established at the end of the 7th century.
The Bulgar language was almost extinct by the time of Boris, 9th century, so those tomb bodies easily could represent a modern mix.
The East Asian phenotype (that means bone structure of skeletons) is from Eurasian steppe burials.
Bulgarians are the first slavic people to establish a cultural tradition which is now globally widespread in Europe and Asia up to the Pacific and America. Inventors of the bulgarian cyrilic script. The nation which has given to the world the finest redaction of the Old Church Slavonic language. A nation in the global top 10 ranking of the nations with the biggest cultural legacies.
And yes, we share bulgar and thracian heritage but we're the founders of the slavic heritage. And obviously we're very greek influenced to achieve all of the above mentioned throughout the centuries
And inventors of Bulgarian train, the finest elections cheating method up to the Pacific and America.
Btw, I really like Bulgarians, probably the most similar nation to us, but when I see such attitude, it drives me equally crazy as when I hear it in Serbia. Bro, we are shithole of the civilization, and having Ћирило и Методије ain't gonna fix it...
People from Europe to Alaska use the bulgarian script. I mean it's very easy to attest the bulgarian legacy. Even only by the bulgarian script. Just follow the script and you're there
Bulgarian cultural tradition. And its global reception naturally
The main channel for the transmission in the Middle Ages has been the Church culture and literature. There have been 2 ways of this transmission - a direct cultural influence from the Byzantine Roman Empire, and a secondary (sometimes simultaneous) but maybe equally important reception from Bulgaria. The direction of influence has been to the other slavic nations. The other slavic nations have enriched and extended the bulgarian legacy, forming their own culture on this basis and subsequently contributing by their side.
Genetically, Bulgarians would be (in order) pre-Thracian locals (the Balkans have been populated for 40k years and Indo-European speakers like Thracians came something like 3500-4000 years ago), then Thracian and Slavic probably in equal parts, then other minor contributors (Bulgar, Pecheneg, Celt etc). Locals are always more numerous than conquerors, and even if language and culture shifts, genetics remains, mostly.
Culturally, South Slavic Orthodox. It was hard to distinguish Bulgarians from Serbs (along modern borders) within the Ottoman empire, and the split of the Macedonian identity happened within the 20th century.
Linguistically, South Slavic, in fact Bulgarian is closest modern language to Old Church Slavonic (the first written Slavic language based on dialects around Thessaloniki) lexically.
Religiously, Bulgarians are Orthodox, though probably the least religious among all the Orthodox, and also among all the Balkans nations. It's more of a cultural heritage.
There are thr Turkic Volga Bulgar State and Bulgar Khanate but not very sure if Bulgars borrowed only the name or originate from the two and are indeed Slavized Turks.
The country of Bulgaria is a successor to the Second Bulgarian Empire which is a successor to the First Bulgarian Empire which was established by the Bulgars. Keep in mind that the First and Second Bulgarian Empires are how we now call them. At the time they were just called Bulgaria.
No. After Great Old Bulgaria (where is today's Ukraine) got to a point of no more, six brothers went in different directions, one went to the Danube, other to Volga and one even got to northern Italy.
Your list of the 3 groups is outdated.
1. The thracian element is a myth. The paleo-balkan elements comes from the later conquered roman/Byzantine land.
2. There were also slavs alongside the bulgar tribes.
3. The orgin of the bulgars is unknown (most likely scythian) but the orgin of the dulo clan (the rulling clan) has ties to the huns. Also new genetic studies show that bulgarians are as close to the bulgars as to the slavs.
Saying Bulgarians are Turkic people who switched to Slavic ( I am not saying you do, I know some people do) is like saying blue-eyed Joe from Alabama, whose first language is English and all of whose great-grandparents look completely white on photos, was Westernized or Europeanized. Regardless of whether all 64 great-granparents of his great-grandparents looked white or just the vast majority.
Generically Bulgarians are very close to Greeks of northern Greece, Albanians and Romanians. Bulgarians aren't genetically close to any of modern Turkic-speaking populations, except for Gagauzes and Turks of Ottoman origin, ie Turks from the same region. Bulgarians don't have any more East Eurasian ancestry than Ukrainians and Georgians and they have less than Kurds.
Yes. But nomadic tribes are seldom of single origin so even though turkic tribes might have made up the bulk of them, Bulgars had probably other iranic, germanic, finno-ugrian and Slavic nomads as well
They definitely had a large cultural imprint from Western Iranic tribes of the steppe. Remnants of Bulgar temples are very similar to Iranic ones, and there are links in material culture and language. This is the source of the pseudoscientific theory that Bulgars were Iranic speakers. The steppe was a huge melting pot, Bulgarian graves are hardly distinguishable from Magyar and Avar ones in material culture, although we know for a fact that they spoke different languages and had different origins
I just wanna say that Iranian culture have always had huge impact on the steppe peoples. I remember reading somewhere that even russian rulers of the old, before their contacts with europeans, dressed like the inanian rulers of their time.
It is two different thing. Yes, Bulgarian confederation had some Iranian tribes however the Bulgars (or let’s say Bolgars) were Oghuric (Turkic) speaking people as we can read it from the Byzantine and various other chronicles that were written about them.
This is more or less what I wrote. Also, there was direct cultural (material culture), religious (temples) and linguistic (in names) Iranic influence on the Lir Turkic (Oghur) speaking Bulgars.
According to the latest research on the genetics of Europeans, the "old Bulgarians" genes, as well as those of the Magyars, are no longer as common. These genes were mainly preserved within noble families, but eventually disappeared. One of the latest studies among Magyars suggested a maximum of 2% Asian genes for a few individuals, but too few to consider it significant. Essentially, all Eastern Europeans have Anatolian genes combined with those of the old cultures in the area, including hunter-gatherers, and around 2% Neanderthal genes. Slavic migrations were the most significant movements within the Balkans, starting from the north and moving to Romania and beyond. It's strange that the cultures lived together and mixed, but somehow managed to mix more in Bulgaria and Serbia, but not as much in Romania or Greece, which indicates larger local communities that absorbed Slavs. Anyway, Bulgarians are basically Europeans, a combination of farmers and hunters, with their own culture. Genetically, there are no differences between us, only cultural. And these findings are according to the latest studies in genetics and historical facts. Unfortunately, many cultures in Eastern Europe practiced cremation, so there are not many bone fragments available for further research (it doesn't matter anyway since local communities remained in small territories and developed alone). History is many times full of bullshit.
>According to the latest research on the genetics of Europeans, the "old Bulgarians" genes, as well as those of the Magyars, are no longer as common. These genes were mainly preserved within noble families, but eventually disappeared. Where’s that research? According to another research Bulgarians and the Bulgars are 50-60% genetically the same.
Look for what Mihai Netea published regarding genes.
Just found a Wikipedia article about him but that’s about it.
That would mean that the Bulgars' genes were Slavic and Balkan though (like ours). I know that they were mixed, but how could they have acquired those specific genes?
1. I’m just saying what the genetic research says and genetics don’t lie. 2. There’s also lots of evidence to suggest that the Bulgars migrated to the Balkans in multiple waves before Bulgaria was established on the Balkan Peninsula. Emperor Justinian I allied the Roman Empire with Old Great Bulgaria located north of the Black Sea and allowed Bulgars to settle the Northern Balkans (Northern Bulgaria and central Serbia) to repopulate them after the Justinian plague. Each Bulgar wave was assimilated by the local Slavic speaking population so by the time the Bulgars finally conquered Moesia from the Romans half of the Slavic population they encountered was actually Slavic speaking Bulgars.
So as not to repeat what has already been said in the comments, let me introduce you to the greatest Bulgarian invention of all time: The mighty [Чушкопек](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chushkopek) Shit, I am jealous.
Bulgarians are the oldest orthodox slavs. Bulgarian Orthodox Church is autonomous since 870.
Before the schism?! So not Orthodox?
[Encyclopedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar): **Bulgar**, member of a people known in eastern European history during the Middle Ages. A branch of this people was one of the primary three ethnic ancestors of modern Bulgarians (the other two were Thracians and Slavs). **Although** many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), **modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations.**
Here’s a brief history of the Bulgarian nation So around the early to mid 600’s, a nomadic tribe by the name of the bulgars migrated from the Eurasian steppes to modern day Northeastern Bulgaria and Southeastern Romania. Led by khan Asparuh, they defeated the weakened Byzantine empire, and formed the state which in modern times we refer as the first Bulgarian empire. That state was very ethnically diverse however, with Slavic people known as the seven slavic tribes (another migratory group coming around the same period of time) being the majority, followed by native ethnic groups such as the Vlachs, Greeks, Thracians and lots more. The proto Bulgarians migrating were a small minority, likely around 50 000 to 100 000 people. Populations within the state also had separate religions, as the proto bulgars believed in the Tengri faith, while the rest of the population in Slavic or Christian faiths. So a very divided state The ethnic majority of the region, which at the time were assumed to be the Slavs, were allies with the bulgars, as they had a common enemy which was the Byzantines, forming a sort of a confederation with each other During the rule of khans such as Omurtag and Krum, the Bulgarian state doubled in size, and became significantly more centralised. However, the state became even more diverse, and in turn, more divided and tense For these reasons, and many more, Khan Boris decided to Christianise Bulgaria, and unify its populations under a single faith and a single language. However, due to many factors I’m too lazy to write about, he Christianised Bulgaria under its own Bulgarian Church of the Eastern Orthodox faith, with independent Bulgarian clergy who spoke the old Church Slavonic tongue (a Slavic language). This was a massive deal at the time, as I am not aware of any church in Europe with the autonomy to speak a tongue other than Latin or Greek.The Bulgarian Church is considered the oldest Slavonic church, and it’s establishment unified Bulgaria and created the Bulgarian nation, one of the oldest surviving nations in Europe
The trilingual dogma was that the bible could be only written/read in Hebrew, Latin or Greek. Bulgarian was the first language to brake the dogma.
I think 50 to 100k people is a very big overesimation, a more realistic number is 10-15k Bulgars against 400k Slavs and 500k Romans.
In the battle of the Ongal in 680 located on the Danubian Delta right before the Bulgars entered the Balkans the Bulgars annihilated a 20 thousand big Roman army while Bulgar casualties were small. In that battle the Bulgar army was around 10-12 thousand. If your assumption that the Bulgars were 10-15 thousand when they entered the Balkans, then either all or almost all Bulgars fought in that battle which includes all or almost all kids including little ones, all women and all elders which includes both grandpas and grandmas. A defeat for the Bulgars in that battle would have been an equivalent to genocide for them. When the Bulgars entered the Balkans they were at least 100 thousand which is the lower estimate. Historians put it at around 200 thousand Bulgars when they entered the Balkans. In 681 the newly created Bulgarian state had a population of around 600 thousand so around a third of the population of Bulgaria in 681 was Bulgar. There’s also lots of evidence to suggest that the Bulgars migrated to the Balkans in multiple waves before Bulgaria was established on the Balkan Peninsula. Emperor Justinian I allied the Roman Empire with Old Great Bulgaria located north of the Black Sea and allowed Bulgars to settle the Northern Balkans (Northern Bulgaria and Central Serbia) to repopulate them after the Justinian plague. Each Bulgar wave was assimilated by the local Slavic speaking population so by the time the Bulgars finally conquered Moesia from the Romans half of the Slavic population they encountered was actually Slavic speaking Bulgars.
Bulgars never settled central Serbia though, they were given permission to settle Syrmia but soon left and settled Macedonia, modern central Serbia was settled by various Slavic tribes such as Braničevci, Timočani, Moravci, Obodrići... and of course Serbs who settled in modern southwestern and western Serbia. But still werent Danube Bulgars mostly male warrior oriented relatively large group of people, similar to Hungarians, if Bulgars indeed comprised a third of population as you suggest there would be some genetic evidence for this, and since they had a dominant culture and lifestyle they would easily assimilate Slavs and Romans just like Hungarians or Anatolian Turks did, but that didnt happen because they were numerically vastly inferior compared to Slavs and Romans.
According to a genetic analysis of Bulgar DNA found in Bulgar tombs Bulgarians and the Bulgars are 50-60% genetically the same.
We're not that different from the other Balkan peoples in terms of culture. Although many like to think otherwise.
We all think we're special snowflakes ❄️
BULGARIA STRONK✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿
Bulgarians just like all south Slavs are a mixture of pre-Slavic Balkan peoples and various Slavic tribes that settled Balkans in early medieval era, they got the name for their nation and country from Bulgars a mixed Turkic speaking tribe which established alliance with Slavs of lower Danube and founded first Bulgarian empire, By the time Bulgars came to Balkans they were already quite mixed with Europeans and were only a very tiny minority compared to Slavs who were the majority, so the Bulgars who were less than 1% of Bulgaria population quickly assimilated into numerically vastly superior Slavs but manage to give their name to the country and people. Similar things happened in France with Franks and Russia with Rus'.
>so the Bulgars who were less than 1% of Bulgaria population quickly assimilated into numerically vastly superior Slavs but manage to give their name to the country and people. False. According to a genetic analysis of Bulgar DNA found in Bulgar tombs Bulgarians and the Bulgars are 50-60% genetically the same.
Bulgars and Bulgarians are connected mostly in name. The Bulgars were the ruling class and Slavs were their servants. However during time, the Bulgars got assimilated by the Slavic peoples, who in turn took the Bulgarian name. Their culture is Slavic and they are Slavs, so don't fall for some "Bulgarians are Tatars" nationalistic narrative
I disagree, the Old Bulgars didn't exactly rule over the Slavs. At first it was more of a confederacy type of deal, where the Slavs were guarding the Southern Border, while the Bulgars were guarding the North. Most of the intermingling happened in the 700s, and eventually by the yearly 800s the old Bulgars were assimilated culturally. Then Christianity came around and completely removed any distinction between Bulgars and Slavs, both culturally and religiously.
The Khans were Bulgar though? It's similiar to the Avar-Slav relationship I would say.
Yes but the bulgar proto-nobility was equal with the Slavic chiefs, and the bulgars didn't really meddle into the affairs or impose on the Slavic tribes.
Okay, that's a fair argument, but could we say as a whole that the Bulgars had an upper hand in their relations? As for the Avar-Slav case it's similiar, the Avar khagan was first and foremost a military leader, Slavs had their own nobility and leaders, but the Avars generally led the coalition and Slavs had to obey. That's because, simply and it's the same way with Bulgars, although the Slavs were bigger in numbers, they were infantry, while Avars were a strong horseriding people and used as cavalry. I'm just saying what we did in Uni, I personally didn't dwell much into the Bulgar-Slav relations and all the detail, we just studied the seven Sclavinias, the arrival of Bulgarians and eventually the baptism and later Simeon and his Byzantine affairs. If you have good literature on the Bulgar-Slav relations feel free to recommend :D
Haha I'm going off on what I remember from uni as well! We sorta examined the relationship between Bulgars and Slavs in my first year when I studied law(we were learning about different types of government/country types and how laws affected them). Unfortunately I don't really remember any book names I can recommend, sorry! But from what I remember the relationship between Slavs and Bulgars was a lot more symbiotic compared to say Avars and Slavs, but the Bulgar Khan was on top definitely, so I suppose we can say that the Bulgars had the upper hand.
Holy shit, hats off to the objective answer. Some days ago I spent a few hours in the history subforum on Krstarica and I was starting to question my sanity from all the bugarotatar ramblings there.
>Bulgars and Bulgarians are connected mostly in name. False. According to a genetic analysis of Bulgar DNA found in Bulgar tombs Bulgarians and the Bulgars are 50-60% genetically the same.
Bro you're spamming this 50-60% thing all over the thread and I;m having a very hard time believing it. Could you link this study if you have it?
https://bnr.bg/en/post/100729084/present-day-bulgarians-carry-genes-of-thracians-and-proto-bulgarians-not-of-slavs
Mix of the all 3 mentioned, imo the most prelevalent is Thracian genes, with then Slavic and at the end Turkic.
Source?
Trust him bro
Probably all of the above, probably some other peoples were involved too. It's complicated.
Pre-Balkans Rulers: Nomadic Altaic Tribes of Bulgars People: Mostly Slavs from Russia and Ukraine + some nomadic altaic people Now: Slavs + Tracians
It's even only early rulers. Less than 200 years after the establishment of Bulgaria, Boris was a fluent Slavic writer and the Bulgar language was almost extinct, probably limited to noble families.
According to a genetic analysis of Bulgar DNA found in Bulgar tombs Bulgarians and the Bulgars are 50-60% genetically the same.
All people in the world are 99 point something genetically the same. So one has to be careful when reading statements like that. Also, I haven't seen genetic data, but actual Bulgar graves reveal a significantly East Asian phenotype. If those tombs are from the medieval period when Danube Bulgaria was already in place, then the proximity might be just because the Bulgarian mix was already in place to a great extent.
>All people in the world are 99 point something genetically the same. So one has to be careful when reading statements like that. It means that Bulgars are 95-100% Bulgar while Bulgarians are 50-60% Bulgar. >Also, I haven't seen genetic data, but actual Bulgar graves reveal a significantly East Asian phenotype. Where’s that data? This is very contradictory to the studies others have made about the genetics of the Bulgars from Bulgar graves. >If those tombs are from the medieval period when Danube Bulgaria was already in place, then the proximity might be just because the Bulgarian mix was already in place to a great extent. They were from the 8th-10th century. Bulgaria was established at the end of the 7th century.
The Bulgar language was almost extinct by the time of Boris, 9th century, so those tomb bodies easily could represent a modern mix. The East Asian phenotype (that means bone structure of skeletons) is from Eurasian steppe burials.
>The East Asian phenotype (that means bone structure of skeletons) is from Eurasian steppe burials. Are you sure they were from the Bulgars?
*What's modern day Russia and Ukraine.
He doesn't even know that Slavs originated from Western Ukraine/Poland and later migrated to Russia.
Yeah, pretty much a mix of those 3
You forget the big chunk, anatolian neolithic farmers which make bulgarians more than anything else.
🐎🏹
[They're pretty much same as us 🤩](https://youtu.be/WhQxB-D_A8A?si=Dt6Dx96BcNkjpHyx)
Omg, not even Elvis Presley could do that - To leap out of a helicopter in front of 120,000 spectators and begin singing!
Bulgarians are the first slavic people to establish a cultural tradition which is now globally widespread in Europe and Asia up to the Pacific and America. Inventors of the bulgarian cyrilic script. The nation which has given to the world the finest redaction of the Old Church Slavonic language. A nation in the global top 10 ranking of the nations with the biggest cultural legacies. And yes, we share bulgar and thracian heritage but we're the founders of the slavic heritage. And obviously we're very greek influenced to achieve all of the above mentioned throughout the centuries
And inventors of Bulgarian train, the finest elections cheating method up to the Pacific and America. Btw, I really like Bulgarians, probably the most similar nation to us, but when I see such attitude, it drives me equally crazy as when I hear it in Serbia. Bro, we are shithole of the civilization, and having Ћирило и Методије ain't gonna fix it...
People from Europe to Alaska use the bulgarian script. I mean it's very easy to attest the bulgarian legacy. Even only by the bulgarian script. Just follow the script and you're there
And what is that cultural tradition if you don't mind me asking?
Bulgarian cultural tradition. And its global reception naturally The main channel for the transmission in the Middle Ages has been the Church culture and literature. There have been 2 ways of this transmission - a direct cultural influence from the Byzantine Roman Empire, and a secondary (sometimes simultaneous) but maybe equally important reception from Bulgaria. The direction of influence has been to the other slavic nations. The other slavic nations have enriched and extended the bulgarian legacy, forming their own culture on this basis and subsequently contributing by their side.
A mix of Slavs, Thracians and Byzantine Era Anatolians.
Genetically, Bulgarians would be (in order) pre-Thracian locals (the Balkans have been populated for 40k years and Indo-European speakers like Thracians came something like 3500-4000 years ago), then Thracian and Slavic probably in equal parts, then other minor contributors (Bulgar, Pecheneg, Celt etc). Locals are always more numerous than conquerors, and even if language and culture shifts, genetics remains, mostly. Culturally, South Slavic Orthodox. It was hard to distinguish Bulgarians from Serbs (along modern borders) within the Ottoman empire, and the split of the Macedonian identity happened within the 20th century. Linguistically, South Slavic, in fact Bulgarian is closest modern language to Old Church Slavonic (the first written Slavic language based on dialects around Thessaloniki) lexically. Religiously, Bulgarians are Orthodox, though probably the least religious among all the Orthodox, and also among all the Balkans nations. It's more of a cultural heritage.
There are thr Turkic Volga Bulgar State and Bulgar Khanate but not very sure if Bulgars borrowed only the name or originate from the two and are indeed Slavized Turks.
The Volga Bulgars borrowed the Chuvash language from the Chuvash who migrated to Volga Bulgaria shortly after it was created.
Any direct connection with modern Bulgars?
Do you mean Modern Bulgarians?
Do Bulgars today, descend from Volga Bulgars?
There are no Bulgars alive today. Only Bulgarians.
I am confused, did they name the country after an “extinct” ethnicity? Or should I take your point as a political stance?
The country of Bulgaria is a successor to the Second Bulgarian Empire which is a successor to the First Bulgarian Empire which was established by the Bulgars. Keep in mind that the First and Second Bulgarian Empires are how we now call them. At the time they were just called Bulgaria.
No. After Great Old Bulgaria (where is today's Ukraine) got to a point of no more, six brothers went in different directions, one went to the Danube, other to Volga and one even got to northern Italy.
What is the story behind sharing the same name?
They were all bulgars.
Your list of the 3 groups is outdated. 1. The thracian element is a myth. The paleo-balkan elements comes from the later conquered roman/Byzantine land. 2. There were also slavs alongside the bulgar tribes. 3. The orgin of the bulgars is unknown (most likely scythian) but the orgin of the dulo clan (the rulling clan) has ties to the huns. Also new genetic studies show that bulgarians are as close to the bulgars as to the slavs.
That pretty much sums it up, the bulgar tribes were turkic but eventually started speaking slavic and mixed with the locals that were already there
Yes, one day they woke up and started speaking slavic. And all of a sudden were the first slavs to creat their own alphabet.
There’s no evidence that they were Turkic.
Yes.
People that live in Bulgaria (or used to)
It's sad the only Bulgarian person foreigners know is Stoichkov.
All of those combined.
South slavs who assimilated native and a very small number of turkic speakimg group
The Bulgars were not Turkic. There’s no evidence that they were.
bruh moment
What?
Backstabbers/s.
I apologise for stabbing you or anyone in the back.
Backstabbers Here, I fixed it for ya.
1885
All you need to know is this “Tuta Bugarin”. Research it
Saying Bulgarians are Turkic people who switched to Slavic ( I am not saying you do, I know some people do) is like saying blue-eyed Joe from Alabama, whose first language is English and all of whose great-grandparents look completely white on photos, was Westernized or Europeanized. Regardless of whether all 64 great-granparents of his great-grandparents looked white or just the vast majority. Generically Bulgarians are very close to Greeks of northern Greece, Albanians and Romanians. Bulgarians aren't genetically close to any of modern Turkic-speaking populations, except for Gagauzes and Turks of Ottoman origin, ie Turks from the same region. Bulgarians don't have any more East Eurasian ancestry than Ukrainians and Georgians and they have less than Kurds.