If Bulgarians are not Bulgars, why is the country called Bulgaria?

Any evidence for cultural inheritance (just having a language of Latin origin, like there are several others which do not claim it)? Claiming Romanians are Romans is almost cultural appropriation....

[-]

The evidence is the same as in case of Italy, France, Spain, Portugal - which are all descendants of the Romans: history- we were all part of the Roman Empire and there is clear historical evidence on how our nations were formed; language- Latin based Romance language; heritage- we all have Roman monuments, statues, archaeological sites; also character: we as Latins have a certain character and certain way of life, the blood runs faster in the veins, we treasure good food, good life, culture etc

[-]

GarumRomularis@reddit

I’m not trying to dismiss your point, but when it comes to Romania, I don’t think we can say it has the same level of evidence as countries like Italy.

Italians have a clear and well-documented link to their Roman heritage, through language, culture, and traditions. They’ve long identified as the successors of Rome, frequently emphasizing their Roman roots. A crucial examples would be the Papal States, where people literally called themselves Romans and continued using titles like consul, patrician, tribune, princeps, senator, and, of course, SPQR.

On the other hand, while Romanians clearly preserved the name, we know far less about how much of Rome’s traditions, culture, or historical memory they retained. Their identity remained tied to the name, but beyond that, the continuity is much less evident. Still, it’s fascinating to see how they managed to keep the name alive through the centuries, especially in the territory they inhabited and after different foreign invasions.

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

I wasn’t trying to argue that we are more Romans than Italians :)

The way we are seeing things, the Latin countries of Europe - Italy, Spain, Romania, Portugal, France are all the descendants of the Romans, forming a Latin family that is extended throughout the world not only through language but also culture, traditions (Latin America is an example here).

Of course Italy is the centerfield of the Roman heritage, Rome was on the territory of Italia province, has the most heritage and bears the most of the responsibility for the continuity of this historical heritage.

As for us, we didn’t only preserved the name (which in itself has a special meaning- much more than a linkage to Rome), but also history, culture, traditions, customs. I would reference for instance that our cities are called “municipii”, the government representative within the counties is called “prefect”, and the whole legislative and executive institutions are Roman inspired. We are learning Latin in school and we use Latin expressions. The Roman era monuments and historical sites are historical landmarks which are highly treasured.

We even have a statue of Lupa Capitolina în each of the major city

[-]

GarumRomularis@reddit

To be perfectly honest, I don’t see a meaningful connection between Latin America and the Roman world. While language is a factor, speaking Spanish doesn’t inherently link a country to Roman culture, traditions, or history. Claiming that Latin America has ties to Rome would be like arguing that Indians are connected to the Anglo-Saxons simply because of British colonization.

That said, I’m not trying to question Romania’s Latin heritage. I’m interested in how medieval Romanians saw their own identity, especially given their proximity to the Eastern Roman Empire. Are there any medieval primary sources that discuss Romanian identity?

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

The history is (as always) more complicated.

When Emperor Aurelian decided to retreat from Dacia (the reasons being the secession of Hispanic and Gallia provinces, but also the resurgence of the barbarous people from Asia) a big part of the Dacia’s population, elites and administration had retreated as well and formed the Dioecesis Dacia south of Danube. North of Danube remained the majority of the population which mixed with the free Dacians and various migrants groups that came along and were assimilated.

But on both sides of the Danube, the Dacian population (which had evolved into Daco-Romanian) was speaking Latin and were in close contact with each other, trading goods etc.The only difference North of Danube was that there was no Roman army to protect the territory. Even so, there was multiple cases when the Roman army made incursions and fought barbarians north of the Danube. Basically North of Danube was a part of the Empire even though it was not officially.

Roughly around the time when the Eastern Roman Empire ceased to exist, the Romanian state was formed in 1330 with the name “Țară Românească” - the Germans gave it the name Wallachia which stuck in the West, but the real name was Țară Românească (Romanian country). In 1859, when Țara Românească united with Moldova, the name România was adopted. The meaning of the name is alluded to the name Romania - the official name of the Roman Empire of the East, but the more in depth meaning is that we still are the Roman Empire, still standing in our part of Europe, where Roman Empire is no more anywhere else.

Just quickly on the Latin America point. We can debate on what are the differences between on being Roman and on being Latin. But those people are speaking Romance languages and their society is build following the Spanish and Portuguese model. As an example, Argentina is almost an European country. They are calling themselves “Latinos”. The architecture and culture is generally European. That makes them Latin? Is there a connection to the Roman Empire? I would say yes, but I agree that there are two sides of the argument

[-]

tizzk@reddit

No. After assimilating most of the italic tribes these were Romans. In Portugal you had Lusitanians. In Spain Iberians, Celto-Iberians. In France you had Celts. In Romania you had Dacians and Gethae. Blood runs faster in veins? That would be a high pulse a needed to be checked by a physician. Everybody treasures a good life - this is not a Roman invention. Your good food is obviously of balkan origin. Archaeological sites? You got them also in Germany, Britain and Africa - doesn't make them Roman as well.

Fun fact: before the 16th century there was no mention of Romania at all, so my guess is that the inhabitants of this region got their literacy over 1% by that time and had to come up with some origin.

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. You are mixing things and distort history.

All the modern nations of Italy, Romania, France, Spain, Portugal are descendants of the Romans because the local population was mixed within the Roman empire. Sure in our case it was the Dacians and Geto-Tracians ( very small differences between them), but within the Roman Empire and after the Roman empire ceased to exist the nation evolved into Daco-Romanians.

What you don’t read on Wikipedia is that Wallachia was the name Germans gave, the real name was actually “Țara Românească” meaning “Roman country”. In fact the name “Romania” actually comes from the fact that the Roman Empire of the East was colloquial called Romania and the meaning is that the nation of Romania represents the Roman Empire in our part of Europe, still holding the fort where everywhere else the Roman empire is no more. But I guess is to hard to research past more than a Wikipedia page…

[-]

tizzk@reddit

You got me there, touché. I take it back with the literacy. But there certainly is a difference between being roman and having a roman administration 2000 years ago - the Byzantine Empire also never claimed that region. Reading further into the article of Wallachia, it also states that the original inhabitants were slavs and later invaded by more non-roman cultures. The result of all these people coming together with several other migrations formed the ethnogenesis of today's inhabitants. Mostly slavic (up to 60%, your closest relatives might be the Slovaks). Why not just accept that you are unique?

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

You are extremely misguided, Slavs only arrived in the Balkans in the 6th-7th centuries, history in that area very much predates them. In fact, some of the oldest settlements in Europe were there like the Cucuteni-Tripylia culture. So no, the slavs are not “the original inhabitants”, they were thousands of years late.

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

Original inhabitants of Wallachia were Slavs? Do you buy your history manuals from Temu? 🤣🤣🤣

[-]

tizzk@reddit

Let's end it here - I didn't want to hurt your self-esteem. You guys are the true Romans.

After the Western Roman Empire fell, all the Romans headed straight to the east and settled down in today's Romania - preserved knowledge and the roman culture through all history and secretly controlling the world while actually acting as if they only have corrupt officials, but secretly building space ships underground(that's why such a resource-rich country has such a low GDP, not like for example the Congo or Venezuela, were it's actual corruption) to settle on another planet establishing the Space Roman Empire. Only true Romans, though - giving the Roma later on the chance to claim 2000 years later to be the true decendants of Romanian Romans because the name sounds similar, resulting in the inter-galactic Roma-Romanian Roma Wars between Earth and the reformed Roman-Romanian Enlightened Roman Empire under the mighty Nutiganescu Augustus, waging disaster across the Ceausescu Nebula...

See you later, Space-Cowboy.

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

Is not my problem that you hate Romania. Your choice, even though making it so obvious makes you look like a fool.

The real issue is that you are mentally challenged. Call the ambulance to take you to the psycho ward!

[-]

Lothronion@reddit

All the modern nations of Italy, Romania, France, Spain, Portugal are descendants of the Romans because the local population was mixed within the Roman empire. Sure in our case it was the Dacians and Geto-Tracians ( very small differences between them), but within the Roman Empire and after the Roman empire ceased to exist, the nation evolved into Daco-Romanians.

That really depends on what means as "descendants". Because while they are sure descendants of Romans, their identities are not descendants of a Roman Identity. Unlike the Rumanian / Romanian one, for it appears that as early as the 13th century AD the name "Roman" is found as an endonym and exonym in the area of Dacia, just 7-8 centuries after its abandonment by the Romans.

Now how much Roman that was, as opposed to being Post-Roman (meaning whether that name had come to have a drastically different meaning, more local and ethnic, connected to Dacia), is a different story.

[-]

Ok_Detail_1@reddit

Romans and Dacians...

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

But Romanians kind of are Romans...

[-]

Khalimdorh@reddit

They are not. They are latin speakers of disputed origin, but definitely not romans.

[-]

Organization_Dapper@reddit

"Disputed origin"

"But definitely not romans"

Sounds like you're trying to gatekeep the Romans.

[-]

Khalimdorh@reddit

Yeah. What’s next, a turk claiming the ottoman empire was actually the continuation of the roman empire? :D ridiculous

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

Do you even know who conquered Constantinople? Look at you with you skewed nationalistic bullsh*t, making me defend the freaking Ottomans!

[-]

Organization_Dapper@reddit

Nooooo!! Remove kebab! Don't defend kebaba!

[-]

AccomplishedFront526@reddit

But it actually is. This is exactly that the empire would have looked like if they changed the religion to Islam during the first siege of Constantinople...

[-]

46_and_2@reddit

We are all Romans in this blessed day 🙏

(But seriously, kinda funny when you see maps of Balkans and how long each teritorry was under Roman rule - other nations got Romanian beat by 1000 years sometimes)

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

Yeah, that’s an anomaly and one of the big reasons the origin of Romanians is such a big unknown.

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

What exactly do you think "Roman" means? It just means citizen of the Roman empire.

The disputed origin is not about Romanians being Latin and of Roman origin, lol. It's about the place where they originate from but regardless of whether they are from the south or the north of the Danube, they are still Latin speakers aka former Roman empire citizens.

[-]

Khalimdorh@reddit

Right, so britons or jews are romans because they were roman citizens once. I see.

[-]

AccomplishedFront526@reddit

Roman Britannia was invaded by the Anglo-Saxon Germans, then by the Norse Germans, and then by the Frank Germans so IMO Anglia( Roman Britannia) is populated by Germans

[-]

Khalimdorh@reddit

I agree. But you believe the proto romanians have been attacked by, got into contact and mixed with fewer cultures over the centuries?

[-]

AccomplishedFront526@reddit

Depends on the severity of the attacks. Hun attacks on the Balkans mostly eradicated the native Thracian population. Mongol invasion almost eradicated Volga Bulgars and so on. Every invasion is existential risk if there is resistance to it.

[-]

vbd71@reddit

Scots were mainly speaking a Celtic language, close to Irish, until five or six centuries ago, which is after the migrations had ceased.

[-]

AccomplishedFront526@reddit

The post does not imply that the only factor for continuity is the language inheritance. My comment is regarding the gene pool of the population. There islands of ”old” genes , language, even social organization , but they are also different than the original ancestral ones - so can’t be named as “original” themselves

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

Sure, Hungarian guy… sure :))

[-]

Khalimdorh@reddit

Or better yet. Latinos of americas are latin speakers, and descendants of the provinces of hispania. Let’s call them romans

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

This is an interesting example because they call themselves Latino due to being Latin speakers same as Romanians call themselves Romans due to being former Roman empire inhabitants. Yet you doubt one but not the other, seems like you’re a little biased.

[-]

egflisardeg@reddit

Dacia was a province of Rome 1500 years ago, but the vast majority of people in Dacia then were not Roman at all. I won't shit on your national feelings, but there is not much that connects you to Rome of old other than a very dilute romance derivative of latin language and the name Romania.

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

So you think an illiterate, rural population living in a huge area hundreds of years ago just randomly started calling themselves “Romans” without having any connection to the Roman empire whatsoever :))

[-]

egflisardeg@reddit

Of course they knew they once were a part of the Roman Empire. But Romanians are not more «Roman» than fex. Spaniards, Frenchmen, Syrians or Belgians for that matter.

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

I never said Spaniards, Frenchmen, etc were not, Romanians just call themselves that because it was a way to differentiate from neighboring Slavic speakers.

[-]

xwqcz@reddit

Brother man, have you heard of "Vlachs"? Which was used as an exonym for Romanians?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherds_of_the_Romans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs#Shepherd_culture

Considering that you're Norvegian and talking about Romania, I don't think you have a clue.

[-]

Grapes3784@reddit

you are funny, you made me laugh

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

why?

[-]

CautiousRice@reddit

Romans, Romas, still balkan bros and sisters

[-]

Chemical-Course1454@reddit

Maybe we could ask Austrian-Hungarian imperial propaganda why Romanians are Romans and Bulgarians are Tatars from Volga. It suited them to break the ocean of Slavic speaking peoples around them.

[-]

Temporary_Advance_36@reddit

Ironically considering that the hungarian authorities and nobility tried their best to portray us as non-latin and non-native to Transylvania. Imperial authorities did acknowledged our origins but the latin identity is mentioned in moldavian and wallachian chronicles long before the Habsburgs had any presence or interest in the region lol

[-]

xwqcz@reddit

The funniest thing about Hungarians trying to say that Romanians originated from the south of the Danube is that would reinforce the "Roman" identity even more, considering those territories were under Roman influence for 1000+ years instead of 150.

[-]

faramaobscena@reddit

Also wanting Transylvania when this would mean Romanians would almost become a majority in Hungary and basically make Hungary Romanian instead.

[-]

statykitmetronx@reddit

Romanians are not Romans

see that's where you're wrong

[-]

Cristi-DCI@reddit

That would have worked if the country was called Roma.

[-]

sbrijska@reddit

Bulgar-ia

Roman-ia

[-]

Cristi-DCI@reddit

Bulgars named for God knows what , Romans named after Rome.

[-]

Lothronion@reddit

If the Hellenes are not Helloi, why is the country named Hellas and not Hellenia? /s

[-]

mil_cord@reddit

Because of Roma people. Jkgn.

[-]

BugetarulMalefic@reddit

We are Romans, father of the Romanian people was Trajan and other father Decebal

[-]

vbd71@reddit

Romania = non-binary nation?

[-]

BugetarulMalefic@reddit

Romania is of feminine gender we just had two dads before it was cool

[-]

proudream1@reddit

Because Romanians speak a Latin language

[-]

Familiar-Weather5196@reddit

I don't think the analogy holds up. Romania still speaks a Romance language, and their roots can be definitely traced back to the Roman Empire + the Dacians. Bulgaria is a slavic country in every way, and there's barely anything left of the old Bulgars.

[-]

kirrsjenlymsth@reddit

There are more hypotheses.

[-]

Minskdhaka@reddit

Bulgaria to Bulgaria are like Franks to France.

[-]

Mikhailo_Miki@reddit

It is very true (I'm French), the Franks (Germanics) after their invasions and settlement were assimilated with the indigenous Gallo-Roman peoples (Celts and Latins). The Bulgars (Turco-Mongols) only knew one Khanat, then disappeared, certainly assimilated by the vast majority of Slavs. In short, a story of war and domination of humanoids over others.

[-]

idders@reddit

Same for the ruling caste Rus (Viking Norse) and "Russians" (Slavs).

[-]

Parking-Hornet-1410@reddit

The Franks are why French is so divergent from the rest of the Latin based languages tho. French is the only non-phonetic Romance language due to them though.

[-]

Neutrinomind@reddit

Isn’t that due to the celtic influence?

[-]

Parking-Hornet-1410@reddit

No, the Gauls were Celts but they were assimilated by the Romans after which they spoke Vulgar Latin. The franks came in the medieval ages and changed the language as they were the ruling class.

[-]

Wrong-Wasabi-4720@reddit

But Alcuin for example, that codified a big part of medieval French, was not a frank, and many monasteries were founded by Irish monks.

[-]

Parking-Hornet-1410@reddit

Interesting! I didn’t know that. But monks were the only literate people back then, right?

Anyways, I thought the Franks were just the nobility.

[-]

Wrong-Wasabi-4720@reddit

They were most of the literate people, Charlemagne himself, considered as the father of the french school (fr he was only promoting reading for a part of nobility), is considered illiterate. I'd have to check, but I think then words weren't separated by a space, meaning you couldn't read aloud without training, and often people were specialized readers who already knew the texts.

That said, the unification of French (I mean the language, not the speakers) begins with the Strasburg serments, but isn't archived until late classic period and the invention of said lnguage by the Académie, with shifts between words import from other languages and tensions between oc and oil origins.

[-]

Parking-Hornet-1410@reddit

Yes, there were many regional languages: langue d’oil and d’oc in French. Italy also had many regional languages.

Interestingly, there are other Romance languages in the Balkans such as Aromanian (different from Romanian), but they are endangered.

[-]

Wrong-Wasabi-4720@reddit

I know about the existence of Aromanian ;).

What I meant is you can't derive the structure of the french language and all its Germanic components from the sole Frank influence, it's a political process that took much more than that. That said, the term of "gaul" is already disputable, especially if you make it equivalent to celt. The root of French is rather mixed latin, and that mixed latin had already, depending on the region, elements of many former invading tribe. There is a whole myth about what roots of France are, and it's a political affair too, because people want to be "this" and not a mix of this and that as most people. I'd argue that's the same for Romanian (like which words were taken from Slavic influence and why, for example weather...)

[-]

Parking-Hornet-1410@reddit

Da 😉.

[-]

RichardofSeptamania@reddit

Franks are not germanic. That is a modern history revision heavily influenced by propaganda.

[-]

RijnBrugge@reddit

It’s not. They were literally from the Low Countries. Old frankish is an attested language that is coterminous with Old Dutch. What are you on about?

[-]

RichardofSeptamania@reddit

Everyone comes from somewhere. Their own records tell us where they came from prior to settling at the mouth of the Rhine. And that origin was believed as fact well into the 18th Century. If you want to talk about language, that is something else, as are the Dutch people.

[-]

RijnBrugge@reddit

Afaik the Franks had their origin mostly in the Salland (Salian Franks) but I don’t know what they wrote on the subject (am quite curious though). The rub here is that if they spoke a Germanic language they were a Germanic people, unless you’re into racial theory stuff which for one I‘m not but I am aware I am on askbalkans here lmao.

[-]

RichardofSeptamania@reddit

There is no consensus they spoke a "germanic" language. It is very apparent everyone in the region who could write, wrote in Vulgar Latin, and the French languages descend from there. The first piece of germanic literature we have is the Hildebrandslied from the 9th Century. Jordannes, historian for the king of the Ostrogoths and about as german as you could get, wrote and spoke Vulgar Latin in the 6th Century. There is an inscription "odins man" from the 5th Century from a soldier, presumably in the employ of Theudimir, in Attila's army. Childeric, the future king of the Franks and Theudimir's cousin, as well as being the dux Belgicae secundae (leader of roman forces of germania inferior) wrote and spoke Vulgar latin, and also fought on Attila's side during his exile. His son is Clovis, considered the first king of France.

If you want to know anything about the early Franks, trust me when I say, you have come to the right place. I would not make a statement if I did not know what I was talking about. Franks are not germans.

[-]

RijnBrugge@reddit

They were not Germans, they spoke Old Frankish, which was Old Dutch. Their names were Germanic, as was the entire military and feudal vocabulary they introduced to Vulgar Latin. There is absolutely a consensus on them having been a Germanic people group but fringe positions exist and you have convinced yourself of one for whatever reason. That’s fine with me but not a position with academic support.

[-]

RichardofSeptamania@reddit

gtfo, there were no dutch in these times, there were the fake friesians. read some Tactius, or ask the doc to dig deeper on your next hair transplant.

[-]

RijnBrugge@reddit

Bruh I didn’t say they were, reading comprehension

[-]

Ok_Question_2454@reddit

By who for what aims lol? There aren’t any German nationals with tin foil hats saying that France is a part of Germany since it was ruled by a Germanic tribe at one point in history

[-]

RichardofSeptamania@reddit

There were many church leaders who had prophesied about a future king of the franks. The facts remain that historians from the first centuries BC until the 19th Century were uniform in their assertions that the Franks were not germanic. They occupied the border regions of Germania Inferior.

[-]

kopiledon@reddit

Why humanoids?

[-]

Pitiful_Couple5804@reddit

👽👽👽👽👽

[-]

Prestigious_Win_7408@reddit

https://i.redd.it/7ma0vq7kt9se1.gif

[-]

Prestigious_Win_7408@reddit

https://i.redd.it/b19idwwct9se1.gif

[-]

Userkiller3814@reddit

The franks are still around though, the Netherlands Belgium and some regions in germany still contain Frankish descendants Dutch is a low Franconian language for instance

[-]

patiperro_v3@reddit

🤯

[-]

Sugar_Vivid@reddit

Because romanians are not romans

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

We kind of are

[-]

Money_Ad_8607@reddit

Not until you stop using that bastardized Latin you’re not.

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

Italian is also bastardized Latin. We do what we can

[-]

Money_Ad_8607@reddit

Never said it isn’t but Italian is not one language, rather a group of languages all related to Latin. Romanian on the other hand is full of words that aren’t Latin or Greek. If I read Italian, I understand at least 70% of what is written, but if I read Romanian the percentage goes down to about 50% and it would probably be lower if I didn’t know a Slavic language.

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

You are talking about dialects of Italian, is true they have many. But also Romanian and Spanish, Italian, Portuguese have dialects.

Referring specifically at Romanian we have 4 dialects (Daco-Romanian spoken mainly within the territory of present Romania and Moldova Republic; Aromanian spoken in Greece, North Macedonia, south Albania and parts of Bulgaria; Meglenoromanian in south of Bulgaria and North of Greece and Istroromanian spoken in Croatia and parts of Bosnia). Also we have a numerous number of sub-dialects. All of them are Latin related as the core language.

Sure, the lexicon of the Romanian language contains not only Latin originated words but also words that resulted from the interaction with the neighbors in our region. So around 78-79% of the words are Latin based (old Latin, vulgar Latin, French), around 14-15% old Church Slavonic and the rest are words of Greek, Turkish, Hungarian, German, English origin. This obviously is the result of the geographical positioning of the country and the language has developed through time with interaction from neighbor countries that are not Latin, unlike Italy, France, Spain, Portugal which are geographically close.

Apparently from syntax and morphology standpoint we are extremely close to Latin, maybe on Italian level, but I am not a specialist in this area so I can’t speak too much about it.

Your level of understanding of a language is influenced by your mother tongue and also by the languages you know/speak. For instance Romanians can easily understand Italian (without studying it in school) in a high percentage, then French, Spanish, while Portuguese is the harder to understand for us. Obviously we can’t understand Slavic languages or any other language, maybe except English (because all movies and media is all in English and you pick it up almost involuntarily)

[-]

Money_Ad_8607@reddit

The moment you said that the Italian dialects are comparable to Spanish, Portuguese, etc, is the moment you lost me. Italian dialects are dialects only by name. They are basically a group of different Latin based languages that are used in Italy, and not actual dialects as you’d see, for example, in Portugal.

Of course Romanian has easy access to other Romance languages, but Romanian isn’t as accessible to those languages. It’s a one way street. Spanish, Portuguese and Italian are so accessible to each other that you could pretty much communicate without changing languages. This is not the case with Romanian. Even French is more accessible tbh. However, it is true that Romanian has managed to keep itself closer to Latin in some aspects but then again it does stuff that not even Latin nor modern Romance languages did/do, so it’s pretty much void.

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

I didn’t say that the dialects are comparable, I said that dialects are present in cases of other languages. Of course, I understand what you mean, I know the difference between Italian and Neapolitan for instance and the difference in speaking Italian between someone from Toscana and someone from Milano. The latter is a sub-dialect.

I would argue that the distinction between Italian dialects are comparable with the Romanian dialects, if you will understand the difference between Daco-Romanian and Aromanian, Istroromanian and Meglenoromanian.

Yes you are right as regard the mutual understanding, we understand better the most of the other Romance languages and not vice-versa because of the non-Latin part of our language but also because of the additional characters that are completely unknown to the others Romance language speakers (ă, â, î, ș, ț). Even so, I would argue that an Italian will still struggle to understand Portuguese almost as much as an Romanian.

[-]

Money_Ad_8607@reddit

Dialects are weird no matter how we look at them and people misunderstanding each other because of them is also normal. Romania has a lot of languages influencing Romanian and it’s regions and respective dialects, so I can agree that the diversity and differences are significant. However, countries such as Norway also have dialects that might as well be different languages especially when we compare to how Swedish and Danish are considered languages. My point here is that Italian is the only language that I know where its dialects are actually seen as separate languages.

As for Romanian being understood by other Romance languages, I would argue that Portuguese and Italian have the best shot at that, especially Portuguese. Romanian has very typically Portuguese characteristics such as ~ sounds and being rather flat. Italian has the ce and ci sounds tho. Reading Romanian is confusing at times but if you have context and try to sound out the words it helps. As for Italian and Portuguese, they are surprisingly easy to understand each other despite the geographical gap (I know this from experience, and this tends to be rather trans dialectal but extra easy amongst north Italian dialects).

[-]

Sugar_Vivid@reddit

No we’re not, under no theory, even the latinisation one, the ones that came to the current romanian territory war second generation colonisers of romans (basically romans made kids in other countries with those countries women and then those were sent to romania to do whatever).

But this discussion is pointless I know.

[-]

proudream1@reddit

Right, so genetically maybe not romans per se, but still colonized by soldiers of the Roman Empire + we speak a Latin language.

[-]

Sugar_Vivid@reddit

Correct

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

You are mentally challenged

[-]

Denturart@reddit

In French people are not Franks (who were germanic people), why is the country called France?

[-]

Ok_Detail_1@reddit

Or America. Since there are almost 500 000 native Anericabs (native Americsn Indians)

[-]

Ok_Detail_1@reddit

Bulgariania.

[-]

Suitable-Decision-26@reddit

Who said we are not Bulgars? They are part of our acenstry. Modern nations are not the same as their Medieval counterparts, but we originate from them.

[-]

Secure_Will_9797@reddit

Bulgarians are not Bulgars: (Turkic) Bulgars, which orchestrated (and fought) the battles against Roman Empire, were allies of Southern Slavs. Low on population, (Turkic) Bulgars got assimilated into the Slavic population later on, but the name adopted by.

It’s not just Bulgarians which have some Turkic genes, Germans, Poles, Russians, Ogurs also inherit some Turkic genes in a similar manner.

Turks of Turkey is no different actually, having some Turkic genes, they are actually native Anatolians which adopted the language and the culture.

[-]

Suitable-Decision-26@reddit

Did you read my post. I think, you didn't ;)

[-]

Secure_Will_9797@reddit

I did read your comment but apparently you didn’t get what I said: I oppose your statement, Bulgarians are not Bulgars. You adopt a tribes name that none of you speak their language nor live their nor believe in their religion (Tengriism)

[-]

schizoesoteric@reddit

Bulgars migrated here, made an empire, then made the choice to adopt a new language and religion.

The reason we don’t speak Bulgar or believe in Tengrism, is because the Bulgars themselves abandoned it.

Just because Bulgar culture changed significantly, doesn’t mean it is no longer Bulgar. Cultures change as they interact with others, no culture stays exactly the same forever

[-]

geniuslogitech@reddit

same with serbs and croats, came here a bit before slavs but all 3 of us then took slavic stuff

[-]

schizoesoteric@reddit

I thought the OG Serbs were a Slavic tribe, is that not the case?

I have no idea what’s going on with Croatia every once in a while I see some deranged Croatian comment about how they are the original aryans and came from Afghanistan or some shit

[-]

geniuslogitech@reddit

no croats actually did come from like very south of Iran(maybe they lived at some point before in afghanistan too but it's more probably that tribes from afghanistan came in contact with croats in todays iran then went back to afghanistan and some of them to pakistan), and south from that were serbs and south of that are slavs, no source when croats came but serbs came by end of 3rd century because in 1st century they are mentioned by romans as barbaric tribe they need to be careful with(if serbs were slavs they wouldn't mention serbs and slavs separately), then by end of 3rd century serbs are already mentioned as part of roman army, serbs came from Czech republic to east Germany then came down to todays Serbia, when hungarians came they split of small part of serbs who at that point already have mixed with slavs heavily and they got stuck south of Hungary, that's Slovakia now, probably they are more slavs less serbs after all the other slavs living nearby. Today in newest research from past maybe 3 years 30% of serbian paternal side are serbs while 50% genetically while other 50% and 70% of paternal side are slavs meaning serbs and slavs didn't reproduce at same rate that's why disbalance in percents. not sure on genetics of croats but they are also heavily mixed with slavs so they are surely also 40% slavs, might be even more than 50% of serbs

[-]

schizoesoteric@reddit

What the fuck are you talking about. Croats came from Iran, south of that Serbs, and south of that Slavs?? Are Slavs fucking Indian bro? What the hell is this schizo Balkan lore

I’m pretty sure Serbs were a Slavic tribe that came from east Germany/poland, and the origin of Croats is unclear but they likely have a Germanic, Slavic, or steppe origin. The Iran theory likely comes from heavy nazi influence on Croatian cultural creation myths, I mean obviously they would love to be some pure aryan group.

Either way, Balkans are pretty much the same genetically. nearly half Slavic, nearly half paleobalkan, then some steppe/ottoman/random ancestry thrown in there. Some areas stand out a bit from others, but it’s pretty much the same

[-]

Amieszka@reddit

Well technically all Slavs also came from Asia, same as Germans & Celts before them and so on.... You just need to look back enough. Native Europeans were almost totally removed from the continent (almost because I think Basques have some unique European DNA features).

[-]

schizoesoteric@reddit

Not really. Slavs came from east Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. Slavs weren’t an ethnic group with a common origin, but a family of languages.

If you are trying to say Europeans are Asians because of the Aryan component, that’s not really true, the Aryans were in modern day Ukraine/Caucasus region, not really Asia.

Asia and Europe are a single continent geographically speaking though, and there have been many interactions between Asians and Europeans throughout prehistory. Same thing for Africa and the Middle East

[-]

Secure_Will_9797@reddit

Good point but… Mixing with a ruling elite which later adopted the language of the majority/religion doesn’t necessarily make the majority to use the title of minority. For example, is it OK for Indians to use the title British for themselves because they were governed by them for a limited time? Is it OK for Macedonians (Slavs) to use a Greek title?

There is only one nation which can call themselves Bulgar: Chuvash. They are direct descendants of Bulgar and speak a modern dialect of the language.

You are Bulgarians, not Bulgars.

[-]

schizoesoteric@reddit

Bulgarians weren’t just governed by Bulgars, but identified under a common identity with them. The Slavs and Thracians considered themselves equally Bulgarian under a common confederation, not as a separate people.

Again, same thing that happened with the original Bulgars. Old Great Bulgaria was not just made of Bulgars, it was a union between many steppe cultures.

is it ok for Indians to call themselves British

No, because no Indian considered themselves British during colonial rule. They, and the British, considered them as lower class colonized people

The Bulgars did not treat Slavs or Thracian’s as colonized people, they considered them to be Bulgarian as well.

is it ok for Macedonians (Slavs) to use a Greek title

I mean, you know how I feel about this, Macedonians come from Bulgarians and pre ottoman was territory largely inhabited by Bulgarians

there is only one nation that can call themselves Bulgar, Chuvash

Why? Volga Bulgaria was the same shit as Bulgaria, Bulgars creating a confederation with local Slavic and Finno Urgic people. They also abandoned Tengrism for Islam(The chuvash specifically are Christian somehow?). They just kept the language, but that doesn’t mean anything, languages of groups are meant to change as they come into contact with new people

[-]

Suitable-Decision-26@reddit

Did I say we are Bulgars... I said they are part of our ancestry, which they are... So you haven't read anything.

Also their religion was most definitly not Tengrism. Your info is like 40 years old.

Also, also, their language is not that well known, but some modern Bulgarian words are believed to originate from it, so we do in fact use their language or what is left of it.

[-]

RedditStrider@reddit

Its not entirely same to be honest, simply out of proportions. Bolghars who settled in modern day Bulgaria was not as populous as Oghuz turks whom settled in Anatolia. It was mass-migration from Iran that continued for a long time afterwards.

I would say its true in theory. But Bulgarians are less Bolghar then turks are oghuz, latter had the numbers to effect the region's genetics.

[-]

Otherwise-Strain8148@reddit

Yeah but turks speak turkish a language belonging to a different language family from far away. Though tengrism was lost along the way many tengrist rituals were incorporated into turkish islam and unlike bulgars turkic migrations had happened in waves for couple of centuries so there wasnt a static turkic population to be assimilated.

Bulgars were one tribe among many turkic tribes, due to their migratory lifestyle their population was relatively small. And they weren't reinforced by other turkic migrations therefore analogy between turks and bulgars isn't working.

If bulgars would merge with other nearby turkic tribes such as pechenegs, cumans etc and form a larger political entity maybe more of that turkic heritage of them would survive.

[-]

nakadashionly@reddit

Bulgarians are Turks confirmed.

[-]

RegionSignificant977@reddit

[-]

nakadashionly@reddit

[-]

RegionSignificant977@reddit

That's the theory from the 18th century. Yet modern means of research are failing to proove it.

[-]

GabrDimtr5@reddit

*19th century

[-]

RegionSignificant977@reddit

It should be around Catherine II of Russia times.

[-]

Suitable-Decision-26@reddit

Some of them, but not all. The Turkic theory is an old one. The communist used to loved as we HAD to be predominanlty Slavs, because we HAD to be like the Russians. As it happens, the truth is more nuanced.

[-]

grimvard@reddit

So we’re cousins? Hey cousin, I have some problems with money….

[-]

ViscountBuggus@reddit

Why cousin, you took the words straight out of my mouth!

[-]

Suitable-Decision-26@reddit

Nah, cousin, my other cousins took waht they could. Sorry...

[-]

Secure_Will_9797@reddit

“Who said we are not Bulgars?” You said this. You can open an issue in Wikipedia about “Bulgars” topic, or develop “new” scientific arguments. I don’t care to be honest.

[-]

Suitable-Decision-26@reddit

I feel like the majority of peoples in this sub either has poor command of English or don't read past the 1st sentence. Which is which? I don’t care to be honest.

[-]

pdonchev@reddit

Why not?

[-]

Maximus_Dominus@reddit

It’s actually named after burglars.

[-]

rakijautd@reddit

The first ruling elite were Bulgars, and gave name to the country, populated mostly by early Slavs. The name stuck and the Bulgars assimilated into Slavs or died out.

[-]

anonymous4username@reddit (OP)

So in which century did they become completely extinct?

[-]

rakijautd@reddit

In Bulgaria? Idk if there are still old Bulgars in Volga-Bulgaria, or whichever place was their territory of origin.

[-]

IlerienPhoenix@reddit

The closest modern-day descendants of Volga Bulgars would be likely the Chuvash, Tatar and Bashkir peoples.

[-]

GabrDimtr5@reddit

The Volga Bulgars were almost completely wiped out by the Mongols.

[-]

vbd71@reddit

In Volga Bulgaria the old Bulgars were swamped by Kipchak tribes. Modern Kazan Tatars could have as little Bulgar ancestry as the Bulgarians.

The Chuvash people descend from some Bulgars and some associated tribes (like the Sabirs) plus a great deal of Finno-Ugric peoples (like Mari/Cheremis).

[-]

RegionSignificant977@reddit

Volga Bulgaria was created at roughly the same time as Danube Bulgaria that predates modern Bulgaria. Old Great Bulgaria is a different thing and it's closer to modern day Bulgaria geographically. In 7th century it was reaching the Danube delta, and Modern day Bulgaria was overlapping some of the lands of Old Great Bulgaria. The eastern part of Old great Bulgaria was somewhere in Donbas or modern day Ukraine. Volga Bulgaria is farther east.

[-]

ivelin_lfc@reddit

They didn't become extinct. When Bulgars first arrived on the Danube river they formed some sort of confederation state with the Slavs who were already living there. Later on the state become unitary. After adopting the Christianity as an official state religion and therefore leaving the old religions, they slowly started to form what we call today Bulgarian people. So basically Bulgars + Slavs = Bulgarians.

[-]

Chemical-Course1454@reddit

Ok, but when you check DNA of Bulgarians they are literally half Slavs (like Polish) and half Balkans (like Greeks) there’s not even one percentage of Bulgars who were central Asians.

[-]

ivelin_lfc@reddit

The Bulgars who arrived on the Balkans were not more than 100 000, so they were in а sea ful of Slavs and other smaller etnic groups. Also later Bulgarians were living with Greeks, Ottomans, Tatars etc, etc. It's compleatly normal that the modern day bulgarian's DNA has less than 1% Central Asian.

[-]

Chemical-Course1454@reddit

What I don’t get is why are those 100K Bulgars so crucial for your national identity? Genetically you aren’t them, culturally you are very similar to other nations around you with your unique twist, but that uniqueness has nothing to do with them. You based you origin story on some random tribe from dark ages instead on Trakians who were amazing civilisation and you have their genetics still strongly present. Or on Slavs who are most populous group in Europe and you are good part them. Or even on Greeks and Byzant.

[-]

ivelin_lfc@reddit

Because they (Bulgars) were the military elite which succeded to unite the slavic tribes and to form a state. In the first decades they were the rulers ot the newly created state and the slavic tribes had some kind of autonomy.

[-]

Chemical-Course1454@reddit

Which century they formed the state? It could be just coz those were times when states were formed in the area.

[-]

vbd71@reddit

The state was formed in the 7th century AD, about 680-681. Slavic language started serving as the official language about two centuries later, reinforced by the common religion and the Cyrillic script.

[-]

Chemical-Course1454@reddit

Slavs, by official narrative came to Balkans at around same times. Did they actually come together? Sarmats are considered related to Slavs and someone mentioned that Bulgars were, maybe, Sarmats

[-]

TheGhostOfRammstein@reddit

More like first 2 centuries

[-]

Besrax@reddit

The Bulgars established the empire, fought for it, then unified all tribes by Christianizing and Slavicizing it, arguably with great success on both counts. Since we identify as Christian and Slavic to this day, we can't ignore what the Bulgars did for us. If it wasn't for them, who knows what those tribes would do. Maybe there would be 3 different countries in the place of Bulgaria.

[-]

Chemical-Course1454@reddit

Ok, there’s an answer, thank you. But weren’t Slavs already Slavicizing Trakians when Bulgars came? We’re there any conflicts?

I’m just thinking Greeks take so much credit for being called Greeks and being associated with ancient Greeks. They probably have as much in common as contemporary Bulgarians have with Trakians. It just a shame that Trakians civilisation is back in the past and you could be taking credit for it.

[-]

MartinBP@reddit

Because they named the country 1400 years ago and that name hasn't changed since, nor has there ever been a need to change it.

[-]

TheGhostOfRammstein@reddit

I'm a fan of naming the country Sclavinia or some shit and completely ruin American heads with all these names like Slavonia/Slovenia/Slovakia/Sclavinia/Serbia/Sorbia

[-]

vbd71@reddit

If they were really 100000, there would be a much larger trace of them today.

[-]

HumanMan00@reddit

The origin of the Bulgars, much like that of the Tatars, Goths and other famous tribes of that period is still disputed.

There is a high probability that they were highly mixed even before they got to current day Bulgaria and that they originally werent even central Asian but a Sarmatian offshoot.

The same can be said for the Goths, Magyars and even Turks.

[-]

vbd71@reddit

Why fear Central Asia? The "Slavic Y-DNA haplogroup" R1a is very common across Central Asia even today, and not only due to Russian admixture.

[-]

Chemical-Course1454@reddit

That’s a Northwest Central Asians haplogroup. Original Balkans it’s more I2a, which is high in Bulgaria.

[-]

HumanMan00@reddit

There’s no fear at all at least in Serbia.

My mother has some Asian features and so do many of my friends.

Im also aware that Serbs of the middle ages settled Pechenegs and Kumans in Serbia as auxiliaries. I think they were assimilated.

I was just answering his question about the Bulgars.

[-]

jastorgally@reddit

Slavs were not there when the Bulgars arrived, as a matter of fact Avars let Slavs into the Balkans.

[-]

theteagonnachewcam@reddit

Thracians who were there first

[-]

46_and_2@reddit

Nobody became extinct, tons of people passed through the Balkans and assimilated with other peoples over time.

[-]

vbd71@reddit

IMHO, both Bulgars and Slavs were minorities in the lands that are today's Bulgaria. The remnants of the old Thracian people were still the majority, and they contributed the majority of today's Bulgarians' genetic makeup.

[-]

TheGhostOfRammstein@reddit

yeah its one of the theories. It's a clusterfuck on the whole

[-]

Itchy_Method_710@reddit

Those peoples were a mix of Roman Greeks and Paleo-balkan peoples such as Thracians and others, the later "oppressors" or rulers were the Slavs and Bulgars that came to be the Bulgarians.

[-]

Besrax@reddit

We have about equal parts Slavic and Paleo-Balkan genes.

[-]

darth_vladius@reddit

Not particularly true.

Bulgarian Knyaz Boris I Mihail undertook actions to remove the division between Slavs and bulgars, joining them into one nation.

It is a wonder what an adopting a common religion and common writing can do to people who already speak a common language.

[-]

kutkun@reddit

Just curious: I wonder if there is an attempt to change the name of the country and the nation for a Slavic word?

[-]

Radagorn@reddit

Why?

[-]

MinuteMinX@reddit

If French are not Franken, why is it called France?

[-]

ReanCloom@reddit

Same reason they don't call him "Karl der Große" instead of "Charlesmagne"

[-]

manguardGr@reddit

We greeks called them Γαλλια / Gallia, from the old name of Gauluoises, the land of Gauls((Latin: Galli; Ancient Greek: Γαλάται, Galátai).

[-]

JovanREDDIT1@reddit

thats so cool icl more countries should call rance “gaul”

[-]

RijnBrugge@reddit

In Dutch French-speaking Belgians are called Walen for this reason

[-]

JovanREDDIT1@reddit

I thought it was since they’re called Walloons, like from Wallonia? Or is the origin of “Wallonia” the word “Gaul” or “Gallic”?

[-]

RijnBrugge@reddit

Exactly. The g in French is generally a w in Walloon. Wales has the same etymology by the way.

[-]

Affectionate-Arm-405@reddit

That's correct. I believe the Gauls lived mostly in today's southern France

[-]

RijnBrugge@reddit

All over really, as far north as the Netherlands

[-]

gramoun-kal@reddit

You had to come up with a new country name for France in German. Cause "France" was already used to the land of the Franks. Franken. So they called what we call France "Francery". Frankreich.

[-]

RijnBrugge@reddit

They were from what we now call the Benelux though, not Franken

[-]

Hallo34576@reddit

They were from the Rhineland and parts of the Benelux*

[-]

RijnBrugge@reddit

More the other way around. The Franks started with a migration from the Salland Southwards towards the Rhine between what is now Utrecht and Nijmegen and from there upriver along both the Maas and Rhine. Charlemagne was from near Liège and held court in Aachen.

[-]

Fumblerful-@reddit

They should rename it to Frence

[-]

itWedMiDuds@reddit

If they were a bit nicer we could even go for Friends

[-]

Butterpye@reddit

In Bulgarian, Bulgarians are indeed called Bulgars, and Bulgars are called Protobulgars.

[-]

koczkota@reddit

It’s actually same in Polish

[-]

Bejliii@reddit

Same in Albania. One of the last Illyrian tribes from Roman/Byzantine era, called Albanoi formed the first state of Albania in medieval times. During this time many scholars classified them as an ethnic group, including other tribes. We also have the ancient community called Arbereshe which settled in Southern Italy after the Ottoman invasion, and they still speak in archaic Albanian. Very similar to Griko people in Calabria/ex Magna Greccia.

[-]

Popikaify@reddit

Besides the fact that Albanians call themselves Shqiptare,not Albanian or Arberesh.Its foreign term for Albanians,just like Greek is foreign (roman) term for Helenes just like they call themselves. Albanoi doesnt equal modern Albanian.

[-]

FreeThem2019@reddit

Shqiptar is a rather late innovation among Albanians and replaced the original arbër in the 18th century. Arbër (Tosk)/arbën (Gheg) and arbëresh/arbënesh is still in use, though not as common as Shqiptar. Arbër/arbën is derived from Albanoi/Arbanoi.

[-]

Popikaify@reddit

Then i can also claim that Serbs were Triballi in ancient times,it was literally synonim for Serbs by foreigners ,check it by yourself

[-]

FreeThem2019@reddit

There is a key difference. Albanians historically identified as Arbër/Arbën, which is directly linked to the ancient Albanoi and this continuity is well-documented in Byzantine and medieval sources (Arbanitai/Arbanenses). Even today, Arbëreshë in Italy and Arvanites in Greece preserve these terms. Triballi, on the other hand, were a Thracian tribe with no linguistic or cultural continuity or connection with Serbs. Just because Byzantine sources occasionally used Triballi as a poetic reference for Serbs doesn’t mean Serbs ever identified as such.

[-]

bbaattoo@reddit

so you mean greek doesn't equal hellenic?

[-]

Popikaify@reddit

To Greeks its irrelevant how others call them in that way,unless its derogatory

[-]

bbaattoo@reddit

your point being?

[-]

Special-Hyena1132@reddit

I just was on a trip in Southern India with a woman whose last name was Arabeshe and she told me that exact origin story. History is fascinating.

[-]

vlaada7@reddit

Fun fact, there's also a small Croatian community called Moliški Hrvati in Campobasso in Italy. Also fled from the Turks in 15th and 16th centuries. Still mutually intelligible with modern day standard Croatian.

[-]

Unfair-Way-7555@reddit

In Russia and Ukraine Bulgarians are Bolgary but Bulgars are Bulgary.

[-]

Parking-Hornet-1410@reddit

Burglars 😉.

[-]

TheGhostOfRammstein@reddit

man that's a juicy wallet you got there

[-]

Parking-Hornet-1410@reddit

Not as juicy as yours 😈.

[-]

Sus_scrofa_@reddit

You're still talking about wallets, right? Right?

[-]

Parking-Hornet-1410@reddit

Maybe 🫣

[-]

Constant-Twist530@reddit

Real

[-]

fimari@reddit

Not wrong

[-]

noxx1234567@reddit

Right flair

[-]

Swaydelay@reddit

Did bulgars invent bulgur?

[-]

Sus_scrofa_@reddit

No, it's bulgur that invented bulgars.

[-]

TheKnightKadosh@reddit

Romania to Rome…

[-]

mearcliff@reddit

Same as Hungary

[-]

vbd71@reddit

But Hungarians call themselves Magyars.

[-]

Andreuw5@reddit

Our nation ancestors were Thracians, Slavs and Proto Bulgarians.

[-]

TheeRoyalPurple@reddit

Bulgur > Bulgar

My high school history teacher literally said that once pujhahahhahaha

The "Bulgar" name came from Bulgur

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgur

Turkish education system hell yeahhjh

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

Bulgur is actually delicious 🤤

[-]

etnoexodus@reddit

We are Bulgars, just more slavic than Bulgar. Any nation you see today is generally a mix of a few older tribes

[-]

canastataa@reddit

I would speculate that the bulk of asian genes mixed into the bulgarian DNA are not proto-bulgar, but cuman, pecheneg, or turkic from the ottomans.

However establishing a state next to the strongest empire of that time (Byzantium) is admirable, and should be celebrated. Slavs by themselves could not accomplish it.

[-]

geniuslogitech@reddit

bulgar means mixed, bulgars were all of the ones you are mentioning

[-]

etnoexodus@reddit

Ottomans did not at large mix with the Bulgarian population. Occasionally rapes would occurr but they saw us as lesser

[-]

Unfair-Way-7555@reddit

From what I saw, Bulgarians have same or even less Asian DNA than Russians, Ukrainians and Georgians.

[-]

Classic-Ad-6903@reddit

They're actually Bulgry.

You see, people mistakenly referred to as Hungarians are living in Hungary. By this logic, the country you're referring to is actually called Bulgary. The citizens of the former country are in reality Hungry, this leads to our conclusion of citizens of the latter being Bulgry.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. You can buy my recently released book by the exits.

[-]

schizoesoteric@reddit

They are Bulgars

[-]

XtrmntVNDmnt@reddit

It is common that when "Barbarians" (Germanic or Turk) conquered lands, the lands got named after them, even if sometimes they didn't let the language.

France is named after the Franks, even if French (the North-Eastern ones which are the only "French") speak a Romance language and have a Latin/Roman-based culture and little to no Frankish influence. Similarly, Lombardy got named after the Lombards despite the language and culture not being Lombardic. Likewise, Languedoc and Northern Catalonia used to be known as Gothia. Hungary would be in a similar situation, their name (in most European languages) is derived from the name of a Turkic/Bulgar tribe that occupied parts of their country.

[-]

walleryana@reddit

There are approximately 6 million Bulgarians, give or take a couple of hundred thousands. That's out of roughly 8 billion humans on the planet. That means that Bulgarians are 0.0775% of the world population, which is not even a tenth of a percent. This means that more than 99.9% of humans are not Bulgarians. How do we know this? Government censuses.

The thing is, the best government censuses have a margin of error of about 1%. So, Bulgarians make up 0.0775% of the world's population, plus or minus 1%.

In conclusion, there's 50/50 chance Bulgarians not only are not Bulgars, but do not exist at all.

Thank you for joining my TED talk.

[-]

babyz92@reddit

Dude just erased me

[-]

walleryana@reddit

Reality is an illusion. We are all a Macedonian fever dream.

[-]

TheGhostOfRammstein@reddit

Understandable, have a nice day my fellow Bulgarian.

[-]

Areilyn@reddit

For those who don't know the original(?)

~~How dare you, this shit peak~~

[-]

TurdEye69@reddit

gif

[-]

Able-Mycologist885@reddit

Everyone is giving wrong answers unfortunately hahaa So yeah Bulgars (very small amount) came here and assimilated with the current population which is what everyone says but the population wasn’t even over 50% slavic , it was thracian and even now our DNA is over 45% thracian and 0.2 turkic dna and yes of course there is slavic dna as well. I don’t know why people just skip this fact that the Thracians were also citizens of the Roman Empire and lived on this lands. The Slavic as a term was created by the Russians of course to Try to brain wash us all here on the Eastern Europe( iron curtain)

[-]

tamzhebuduiya@reddit

Because ruling elite were Bulgars, who pulled slavs from Russian and Ukraine, smash Byzantium and then assimilated with other slavs.

[-]

concombre_masque123@reddit

there is a north macedonia, why not call bulgaria south romania

[-]

DanKoloff@reddit

No one said that. Bulgars ("прабългари") are one of the three main ingredients of the Bulgarians - the other two being Thracian tribes and Slavs.

[-]

BrainCelll@reddit

I think in most Slavic languages Bulgarians are called actual Bolgar/Bulgar

[-]

CmdrJemison@reddit

When Romania is gonna be renamed to Gipsyland?

[-]

vbd71@reddit

Never, because the G-word is a racial slur.

The country is named correctly right now.

[-]

CmdrJemison@reddit

But my neighbors calling themselves the G word.

[-]

vbd71@reddit

I'm aware of that. Yet, some black people call themselves the N-word, but this doesn't mean that it's okay for a non-black person to use it.

[-]

CmdrJemison@reddit

Maybe these people should learn to not freak about about certain words they call even call themselves so they can all be part of the civilized world one day

[-]

vbd71@reddit

A disappointing comment, though not exactly unexpected.

[-]

CmdrJemison@reddit

It's the personal expectations that leads to personal disappointment.

[-]

vbd71@reddit

Unfortunately, you're probably right. All a wolf can change is his coat. Expecting him to change his character is futile.

[-]

CmdrJemison@reddit

But no worries. Didn't mean to upset you. My apologize.But even if you wouldn't accept.. The most important is to be able to forgive myself then.

[-]

CmdrJemison@reddit

Can't be all sheep's.

[-]

TJ9K@reddit

Low quality troll. You need to do better mate.

Need to be more inventive. Try Thieflandia or Coruptistan.

[-]

Many-Rooster-7905@reddit

Roses are red

Violets are blue

I lost my vallet

It was stolen by you

[-]

CmdrJemison@reddit

No trolling. Just a bad joke.

[-]

Danny_da_Greyt@reddit

You're stupid and you don't know and your friends didn't tell you.

Edit: No offense , it's just a reality .

[-]

CmdrJemison@reddit

Spoken by you that sounds like something good. 👍🏻

[-]

eferalgan@reddit

When Croatia will be renamed “Serbia with people that forgot that they are Serbs”

[-]

CmdrJemison@reddit

Lol

[-]

itWedMiDuds@reddit

This is not r/balkans_irl

[-]

_-Event-Horizon-_@reddit

If the Russians are slavs rather than Rus (Vikings), then why is the country called Russia?

[-]

Wide-Competition4494@reddit

But they were Bulgars.

[-]

Georgy773@reddit

The "Bulgars" is a made up and disproven communist hypothesis. Just like any communist historiography it's insane and bullshit, if you believe in it all the prominent figures in Bulgaria were all communists along with Tsar Simeon and probably his dog.

[-]

vbd71@reddit

The Bulgars' "hypothesis" was invented long before communists.

[-]

PomegranateOk2600@reddit

If Holy Roman Empires wasn't neither Holy, neither Roman and neither an Empire, why it was called like this?

[-]

tizzk@reddit

Let me evaluate here. Firstly, it's called "The Holy Roman Empire (of) German Nations". Holy: submission to Rome / the Pope ("Holy Throne" in German), who was the only one allowed to crown a German Emperor. Roman: claiming succession for legitimacy. At it's peak it almost incorporated the whole Italian peninsula. Empire: each of these have it's own structure. Here we go with several aspects(Charlemagne, many autonomous peripheries...) German Nations: self-explanatory.

Plot-twist: Why does Romania call itself "Roman" at all? Answer: legitimacy as a nation. Same as the Germans did.

[-]

CecubeCasual@reddit

Bulgarian to Bulgaria is what is Rus to Russia, Frank to France, Angles to England.

[-]

crinny67@reddit

They misspelled burglars.

[-]

ViscountBuggus@reddit

It's called misdirection. While you were minding the spelling, a bulgarian made off with your wallet

[-]

vbd71@reddit

Don't steal our trade, Bulgars!

[-]

ve_rushing@reddit

Nothing wrong with a bit of friendly competition.

[-]

ve_rushing@reddit

with your wallet

Which is in your phone.

[-]

Ytcrap@reddit

Burglaria

[-]

Massive-Morning2160@reddit

Racist shit

[-]

vbd71@reddit

You should research the etymology of the word "bugger" :)

[-]

theteagonnachewcam@reddit

You spelt swede correctly

[-]

Georgy773@reddit

The "bulgars" are communist hypothesis. According to the communist Tsar Simeon and probably his dog were also communists, along with every prominent figure in Bulgarian history and the world till 1944.

[-]

Many-Rooster-7905@reddit

Bcs Bulghathracoslavia sounds stupid

[-]

BugetarulMalefic@reddit

I disagree, it sounds rad

[-]

walleryana@reddit

It actually sounds based af, but what would a Balkaner cosplaying as a Westerner even know about it?

[-]

rintzscar@reddit

You can find all the information you need here: click

[-]

OIOeHpup@reddit

Leads to his Onlyfans xD

[-]

BugetarulMalefic@reddit

That would have been legit hilarious, missed opportunity

[-]

Bernardito10@reddit

Because volga bulgaria went the way of the dodo

[-]

eriomys79@reddit

Initially I thought it said Burglars!

[-]

Grapes3784@reddit

Bulgarians are not Bulgars, Romanians are not Romans, Hungarians are not Huns .... there were always mixtures of populations and because at some point they wanted to be/appear more important than they were or a group was from those parts, everybody became one in time....in history was the same, why Greeks called themselves Romanoii before Greek revolution?why Seljuks that conquered Anatalia called themselves Seljuks of Rum? still, Romans and Huns were way famous than Bulgars, it's possible that Bulgar tribes to be the founders of the Bulgarian state, the romanized Tracians not being interested in make a state of their own

[-]