On Bulgarians being originally Turkic nomads
Posted by According-Article883@reddit | AskBalkans | View on Reddit | 173 comments
I've heard something like this and wanted to ask you. Are Bulgarians really originated to Christian Turkic tribes located around Volga River who came from Central Asia in the first place?
They say the name Bulgar derived from Volgar, which refers to the river itself.
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
It is not the Bulgarians. It is the Bulgars - one of the peoples that were the foundation of the Bulgarian culture and ethnicity and the ones who had the first ruling dynasty and gave the country its name. Still, a big majority of our ancestry is southern slavs and whatever was remaining on the lands from the indigenous Roman population (in the cities mainly).
EdrusTheSmall@reddit
Absolute garbage! Please, read some recent studies, books and don't spread around communist propaganda. First of all for the science the "proto bulgarians" is just symbolic, it has been proven that there is no difference between today's Bulgarians and those from 7th century. Politically they were bringing bulgarian culture and statehood. Even genetically we are almost the same, which brings me to the other topic - Slavic mix. In us the "Slavic genes" are so little compared for example to serbians, croatioans and etc so we are NOT slavs.
18w4531g00@reddit
At least looking at the several genetic studies - I agree - less than 20% slavic dna.
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
LOL
EdrusTheSmall@reddit
Какво lol бе, спрял. Вземи се образовай малко, още малко ще кажеш,че сме татари
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
Let u/EdrusTheSmall be a reminder to all of us to take our meds …
Vadelmayer44@reddit
Ah yes, the very "indigenuous" Roman population.
Fatalaros@reddit
A Bulgarian's romanticised way to say Greeks and Thracians, I guess.
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
You know that is what they would have called themselves, right? Even if they spoke Greek, at the time calling yourself Hellenic or Greek was associated with paganism and backwardness, so everyone was proudly calling themselves Roman.
Fatalaros@reddit
Of course, but Roman isn't an ethnicity. The Romans (from Italy ) were Latins and the people in the east were not.
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
This is a dumb take honestly
canyoubelieveitt@reddit
Who else you think lived here bro, you think these lands were empty?
Vadelmayer44@reddit
Fucking Thracians lmao. They were the dominant ethnic group for a couple thousand years. The Romans conquered the Thracian provinces and ruled over them for a couple hundred years, but it was far from enough to overpower the native Thracian population in number.
It's like saying the Ottomans were the indigenous population of the peninsula in the 19th century.
canyoubelieveitt@reddit
Thracians were part of the Roman Empire bro.
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
Well the Thracians were fully assimilated into the Roman and Hellenic world at that time, to the point of Thrace being just a geographical region.
Vadelmayer44@reddit
I would like a source on that chief. Especially given that Thracians were among the most rebellious of Roman subjects.
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
We are not on a scientific debate platform. Sources are easy to find, go read Wikipedia or some history book.
Lothronion@reddit
They were assimilated, but some identity remains still existed as well. For example, the Roman Emperor Julian is apologizing in his letters that he is not a Greek but a Thracian, or Roman Emperor Leo I who is described by historians as a Bessian Thracian.
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
Well, yeah. In Roman culture, the Roman identity did not fully replace the local identities and did not necessarily mean to either.
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
Maybe read a bit about the Romans before you try to act smart about it…
Ada_Kaleh22@reddit
Romanized Greeks, if we're talking ethnicity, right?
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
Romanised and hellenised whatever was on the Balkans beforehand, in Bulgaria‘s case probably mostly Thracians.
Wonderful-Wave2101@reddit
All of that added up together makes: gypsies lol
grympy@reddit
Where are you from, nobby?
Vesko85@reddit
You forget your pills!
Justanotherbastard2@reddit
There have been recent DNA studies of that indicate that the bulgars were Sarmatian / Iranic rather than Turkic. That would make sense as the Sarmatians inhabited the area that later became Old Great Bulgaria, and would explain the relatively low amount of Turkic DNA in modern Bulgarians and the relatively few Turkic words in medieval Bulgarian (there are fewer than 20 compared to Hungarian which apparently has more than 300). So the most likely explanation is that the sarmatians were conquered by the Turkic khanates, had a Turkic origin ruling elite imposed and gradually transformed.
Regarding the name of the Bulgars it could come from Volgar, or it could also come from the Turkic Bulgur, indicating a mixed population. Turkic naming frequently included the -gur suffix e.g. Uygur.
Turco-Tatar@reddit
The ancient Bulgar samples from Old Bulgarian Kingdom match closest to Central Asian Uzbeks and other Turkic people.
Some people get confused with the whole “Iranic” ancestry thing but Turkic people were quite literally born out of the merging of Sarmatians and Xiongnu tribes. Iranic steppe peoples like Scythians and Sarmatians were long gone when Bulgars came into existence and they differ from Sarmatians greatly due to being a West and East Eurasian blend typical of Turkic peoples.
Sarmatian DNA was a core component of Turkic DNA and the honorific titles used by Bulgars such as “bagatur” were first found in the Orkhon Inscriptions, which is one of the earliest historical artifacts associated with Turkic culture, in Mongolia.
Justanotherbastard2@reddit
The ancient Onogur Bulgar samples from Old Bulgarian Kingdom match closest to modern Central Asian Uzbeks and other Turkic people.
Can you link the study that states this? Because there have been a number of recent studies that suggest otherwise such as this one
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341323340_Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto-Bulgarians_final_published_version_Papers_of_BAS_Humanities_and_Social_Sciences_Vol_6_2019_No_1
“Another key observation is the absence of Inner Asian ancestry. Both early medieval and contemporary DNA samples failed to yield any connection between early medieval Proto-Bulgarians and contemporary Bulgarians, on the one hand, and ancient and contemporary Central Asian groups, on the other. However, they revealed a strong genetic connection to both Sarmato-Alanic DNA samples from the Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval Era, as well as a Sarmato-Alanic mediated connection to the contemporary Caucasian groups. For this reason, our research suggests the Caucasus Mountains and especially their adjacent regions to the north as a homeland of Proto-Bulgarians and as a place where their ethnogenesis developed”
Turco-Tatar@reddit
The actual samples are on the IllustrativeDNA website and contradict the paper you are linking. I can’t post photos here and you need a subscription to access the site but I will copy and paste the HG and closest population results below:
Onogundur samples universal code: DA142.
HG: Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer :21.4% Anatolian Neolithic Farmer :17.2% East Siberian Hunter-Gatherer :17.0% Mongolia Hunter-Gatherer :15.0% European Hunter-Gatherer :11.4% Yellow River Neolithic Farmer :9.6% Zagros Neolithic Farmer :6.0% Ancient Ancestral South Indian :1.4% Natufian Hunter-Gatherer :1.0%
Genetically closest modern pops:
DISTANCEPOPULATION 4.079Nogai (Stavropol) 4.834Uzbek (Tashkent) 4.936Uzbek5.401Uzbek (Khorezm)5.590Siberian Tatar (Tom)5.903Turkmen (Afghanistan)6.210Siberian Tatar6.268Bashkir (Kugarchinsky)6.321Bashkir (Baymaksky)6.514Bashkir (Ishimbaysky)
Genetically closest ancient pops: DISTANCE POPULATION 0.000 Early Medieval Bulgar (Pontic-Caspian Steppe) 3.542 Medieval Kipchak 4.897 Medieval Tian Shan 4.975 Medieval Turkic Nomad (Tian Shan) 5.131 Medieval Karluk 5.652 Medieval Turkic Nomad (Central Steppe) 5.913 Medieval Karakhanid 5.970 Medieval Turkic Nomad (Pontic-Caspian Steppe) 6.417 Medieval Kimak 7.110 Xionite
Justanotherbastard2@reddit
My dear Turco-Tatar, I am delighted that you have backed up your argument with the Damgaard et al (2018) study published in Nature. This is an excellent study, so excellent that it was in fact cited in the paper I linked as proof that western eurasian steppe people had little genetic input from East Asian Turkic tribes:
The conclusions from the “137 genomes” survey successfully highlight the population dynamics in the Eurasian steppes. The general outline of haplo-groups for the Western Huns is European with one exception, in which the O haplogroup is attested (Chinese contacts?), but still the clear division between Western and Eastern Huns has been confirmed
I did find an open version of the Damgaard paper and read it with interest - here it is https://www.academia.edu/36848830/137_ancient_human_genomes_from_across_the_Eurasian_steppes )
If you care to actually read it you will find that it states exactly the point I was trying to make:
"These results suggest that Turkic cultural customs were imposed by an East Asian minority elite onto central steppe nomad populations"
This precisely explains why Western Eurasian steppe populations such as the Bulgars have very little Turkic DNA but had some Turkic elite titles and calendar.
The paper you cite also does not specifically mention Bulgars at all. It deals mainly with the Huns and argues that they are a heterogeneous lot, with Eastern Huns having east Asian Turkic ancestry and the Western Huns very little. Well duh - as I clearly mentioned in my first comment the Huns are clearly far more Turkic than Bulgarians based on linguistic evidence:
"...relatively few Turkic words in medieval Bulgarian (there are fewer than 20 compared to Hungarian which apparently has more than 300)"
As for ancestry DNA businesses such as Illustrative DNA - they are not considered credible sources of evidence on genetics and are in the realms of pop science rather than serious evidence. You really shouldn't rely on them. Try actually reading the academic studies that you're citing.
Best of luck for the future.
Turco-Tatar@reddit
I just took a look at the paper you posted and they analyze proto-Bulgarians as in the Slavic people of the region, not actual Bulgars from Ukraine and Russia.
Why would you present current Bulgarians having little Asian ancestry as being proof that Bulgars were not Asian? That seems like a very big mistake to make.
The primary samples from Russia and Ukraine contained in Davidski’s renowned G25 database confirm the Turkic origins of the Bulgars as they have around 40-50 percent East Eurasian ancestry as opposed to the Sarmatians who almost had none.
You should read more carefully.
Justanotherbastard2@reddit
Thanks for giving it a look. It's a good start😂
Turco-Tatar@reddit
I mean it doesn’t make sense to use haplogroups of Slavs to determine anything regardinf the ethnic makeup of actual Bulgars right?
This is like determining ancient Norse Rus were Slavs by looking at the DNA of Slavic modern Russians which is something Russia actually argued😂
Must be a Slavic logic thing.
Turco-Tatar@reddit
Hey there, the samples themselves are the primary source and are backed by Davidski’s G25.
You seem to conflate haplogroups with genetic input. The prevalence of haplogroups has nothing to do with genetic make-up as many Turks who have around 50 percent Asian DNA have haplogroups from Arabia etc. The distribution of haplogrups are pretty random.
The raw DNA obtained from Davidski does confirm the eastern roots of the Bulgars as opposed to the previous Sarmatians. The Eastern ancestry arrived via the Turks who came to the region.
The raw data samples with the universal codes are pretty much primary sources by which these papers are derived from. The genetic components of the Bulgar graves are the most reliable information available.
Take care.
tranc3rooney@reddit
Today’s Bulgarians are a mix of Slavs, Thracians and Bulgars. But yes, Bulgars originally came over from central Euro Asian steppes.
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
Bulgars were a tiny minority elite among a sea of Slavic and Thracian subjects when they reached the modern Bulgarian geography. Their mixture is minimal among modern day Bulgarians tho.
vbd71@reddit
Bulgars squarely defeated the Byzantine armies a number of times in the first decades after they arrived in present day Bulgaria. They can't have been a tiny people.
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
Ever heard of Battle of Manzikert? Do you have any idea of what that nowdays cliché horse-archer spam + Crescent formation + Wolftrap tactic capable of destroying even getting outnumbered like 1 to 10 (especially against infantry heavy armies... Oh boy) And yeah, like 90% of the time the enemy army fell for it... for like a friggin two millenia!
Don't get me wrong tho, they were not THAT tiny, however they were comperatively tiny.
radube@reddit
I wouldn't say a tiny minority. When the Bulgars crossed the Danube in 680 the Byzantine emperor himself decided to go and chase them off with 25 000 soldiers. It showed that the numbers of Bulgars were a real and important threat. Furthermore the Bulgar army was significant enough the beat the 25 000 Byzantine soldiers. Include also women and children that went alongside with the Bulgar soldiers and you have some very important numbers. (we don't know the exact numbers of course).
Slavs were more numerous of course, but I would say that the Bulgars were more likely a "significant minority", not a tiny one.
MartinBP@reddit
I don't think you understand how few 25,000 people are in the grand scheme of things. They would've been assimilated within a generation or two had they not been a ruling class.
radube@reddit
25000 soldiers on the Ongal battle alone. Add their wives, another 25000, add their children, let’s say two kids per woman. That already makes 100 000 in total. Add elderly people, others who could not or did not take part of the battle. Add soldiers that remained on the northern side of the Danube to watch and gard the north eastern lands from the Khazars. So it's possible that the total population to have been up to 200 000 in total.
tranc3rooney@reddit
Yes, but they were the ruling class and gave the country its name. Their influence is what keeps them relevant more than genetic propagation.
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
Yeah but the "mix" is irrelevant. Just like Germanic/Nordic Rus mix among modern day Slavic Russians is irrelevant, yet the name stuck.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Its irrelevant for everyone but the sole nation who's very foundation of their nationalism is the idea that they should hate their very own grandmother if she doesent have more than >1% Central Asian DNA.
Turkish_Teacher@reddit
Where does that happen?
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Take a wild guess which country is memed for wanting to be 13% central Asian.
Turkish_Teacher@reddit
No idea!
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
Does such a thing exist in Bulgaria?
This_Lion5856@reddit
Wouldnt really say irrelevant. All of our rulers up to Simeon were direct descendants of Asparuh.
Albeit small in our modern DNA structure, they have played a very big role in the creation of the Bulgarian nationality
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
I am talking about the "mix" into population ie: Genetic influx.
_-Event-Horizon-_@reddit
If you go back over the 13 last centuries there were always people on the Balkans who called themselves Bulgarian. Sure the exact ethnic and linguistic composition may have changed, but we're talking about uninterrupted continuity over at least 13 centuries (more, if you count the time beyond the Danube).
MartinBP@reddit
What does that have to do with their comment?
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
I mean they had to. Neither the military elite nor the locals had the luxury to have beef with each other thanks to the "Byzantine nemesis".
RegionSignificant977@reddit
The Bulgars were a group of people who lived on the steppes north of the Black Sea around the 5th century CE. They were known as skilled, warlike horsemen led by khans and boyars.
Though their origin is still debated, some scholars believe they came from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia, possibly with Iranian elements, while modern genetic research suggests affiliations with western Eurasian and European populations.
From here:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
Old Great Bulgaria sits where Ukraine is now. Even remains of the noble people from that time there aren't homogeneous. So they were mixed even then. Also migration south East and south of Danube had started long before Danube Bulgaria as they were confederates of Eastern Roman Empire. Which helped them to gain land from the Roman Empire South of Danube.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Thats Yugoslav propaganda, you cant ethnically dominate someone that outnumbers you with 10 to 1 for well over 600 years.
jinawee@reddit
Seljuk Turks did.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
The Romans had their Empire army model with conscripted peasants, the Seljuks placed bounties over citties and issued rallies for whatever independent warlords wanted to show up.
The Bulgar army on the other hand was centralised Ethnic⁄Cast one. No matter how much disposable foreign auxiliary mercenaries they used there aways needed to be 12,000 Bulgars available at all times to serve the role of Shock Cavalry and do the actual fighting for their battles.
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
You do when you get totally assimilated. The elite were not even speaking Oghuric/Bolgar by the 9th-10th centuries. It was like they HAD to assimilate. Also, do not forget the "bigger Byzantinian enemy" that forced the Bulgar military minority with the local Slavs to coexist and cooperate and intermix.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
The Army of the first Bulgarian kingdom was an Centralised Ethnic one, made of predominantly Bulgars- They had the sheer numbers to last +300 years like that without making any army reforms.
The elite arguably didn't speak Oghuric since the mid to late 7th century given how everyone got married to either Byzantine or Slavic noblewomen and the official language in the kingdom of Bulgaria was defacto Greek up until Boris′ reforms.
Again Omurtags inscription was done in Greek instead of Runic. The Bulgars by all means had the opportunity to do like the Magyars by insisting that everyone should learn their language instead of it being the other way around, but they chose not to.
Boris reforms ware a long term strategic move aiming to take claim of all Balkan Slavs as the domain of his kingdom regardless of their view on the matter. He made deliberate effort to paint his Bulgaria as the “stem of all Slavs“ as to use all Slavic Duchies as the target of his expansion while retaining legislative flexibility on what peoples could later be latter included to the new Bulgarian identity- He created the Russian feudal model before Russia became popular.
And make no mistake, there was assimilation but that assimilation turned all other ethnicities INTO Bulgarians instead of it being the other way around: The Slavs became Bulgarians, the Vlachs became Bulgarians, the Arvanites became Bulgarians, the Byzantines became Bulgarians- Not Sclaveny, not Hellenes, but Bulgarians. Neither the Seljuks, the Ottomans, nor the Magyars had done anything like this by trying to integrate the lower subjects into their identity.
Boeing367-80@reddit
My understanding is that Bulgars have roughly the same role relative to Bulgaria as the Norse had in Kyiv for the Rus. Provided initial leadership and name to what became a Slavic polity.
TheOnurobo@reddit
Yes they were turkic and mixed with slavs, just like hungarians
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
Hungarians were and still are Uralic tho. Not Turkic. They happened to mingle inside some Turkic polities tho.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
The Bulgars back then ware quite litteraly considered as cousins to the Avars that went to form the Magyars & Hungarians.
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
Avars did not form neither "Hungarians"(Maybe took part in the ultimate Hungarian identity, however they were not THE "formers") let alone "Magyars". You are conflating them with Onoghurs, A Turko-Magyar confederacy. Bulgars were cousins indeed with Avars, both quite likely ethnolinguistically and absolutely culturally, however not with Magyars, except perhaps culturally (that ultimately dates back to Onoghur times.)
And why did my previous comment got downvoted I can't understand. Facts are facts even if it hurts people's emotions. Magyars were(and still are) Uralic-Ugric ethno-linguistically speaking. Having massive Oghur-Turkic influence on their culture doesn't make them otherwise. IE: Just like Slavic Cossacks are not ethnically "Kazakhs", just some Slavic people with some massive Turkic(Tatar-Kipchak)-Mongolic influence on their culture & lifestyle. Like it or don't like it yet deal with it.
nomad-38@reddit
Turkic Bulgar tribes definitely weren't Christian. They were Trngriist or however you call it when their diety is god Tengri. When they settled in the Balkans and mixed with the equally pagan Slavs, after about 2 centuries of Bulgaria existing Christianity was adopted (not without backlash) to unify the tribes into one nation.
Never heard anything about the name originating from Volga though, can't speak on that.
euxenios-svartahaf@reddit
Actually first Christian ruler of Bulgaria was the Turkic Khan Boris, he was a Bulgar (Proto-Bulgarian). He adopted Christianity, made Christianity the mandatory religion of Bulgaria, adopted the title ''Knyaz'' (Prince) and started the Slavization of ruler class due to the need of legitimacy. (Because ordinary people living inside Bulgaria were mostly local Slavs and Turkic Bulgars were minority settlers.)
A random fact too: The name Boris means ''wolf'' in Turkic Bulgar language, ''bori'' meant wolf and it was probably delivered from the name ''Bogoris''.
But in Proto-Slavic it means warrior, too. ''Bor'' means ''to fight'' and could be delivered from the name ''Borislav'' in Proto-Slavic.
dwartbg9@reddit
Boris and Vladimir - obviously and well known super common names all aroud the world, both originate from Bulgaria. The first people in recorded history bearing these names were both Bulgarian kings.
vbd71@reddit
Vladimir had Slavic blood and it was his Slavic name. Otherwise his name was Rasate. Vladimir is a Slavic name, while Boris is not. But Boris became a saint and this helped his name propagate itself to Slavic cultures, particularly Kievan Rus, where they had their own saints Boris and Gleb.
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
Ivan too
MartinBP@reddit
No, Ivan is a russism which entered the language in the late Ottoman period. The Bulgarian equivalent of the original biblical Hebrew name is Yoan, both being slavicisations of the Greek Ioannis/Yanis.
dwartbg9@reddit
Yes and no since Ivan comes from ancient names like John/Yoan/Yoannis etc...
Whereas Boris and Vladimir don't have that ancient/bible origin.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Kubrat - The guy who founded Old Great Bulgaria was a Christian.
Тервел – The very son of Asparuh who is the son of Kubrat was also a Christian.
3m3ra1d@reddit
Tervel is saint ( of point of Christianity!) . His name is : st Trivelius ..and yes he was Christian , no matter that is the kanas ubigi of Bulgars !
grympy@reddit
Sorry, how were Kubrat and Tervel Christian?
Is it too early or the timeline doesn’t make sense…
EdrusTheSmall@reddit
Wrong! Wrong ! First of all there is no proof that we have used the title khan - not one! Second, the first Christian ruler( prince, knyaz, or khan) was Kubrat, later we also had Tervel and most probably Krum. Boris was the one to elevete it to state religion
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
LOL
RegionSignificant977@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubrat
This project is concerned with Kubratos, chief of the Huns [sic], the nephew of Organa, who was baptized in the city of Constantinople, and received into the Christian community in his childhood and had grown up in the imperial palace.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
The founder of Old Greate Bulgaria, Kubrat, was raised in Constantinople under Heraclius and got buried as an Christian.
The son of Asparukh, Tervel, aka the second ever ruler of the first Bulgarian Kingdom got canonised as an saint preventing Caliphate Expansion.
Turco-Tatar@reddit
This does not indicate his descendants became Christians however hence the perpetuation of pagan Bulgar identity near Danube and the eventual need for Christianization to unify all peoples of the peninsula and even out the differences.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Tervel is quite literally direct descendant of Kubrat, what do you mean “this doesn't count“.
Unification of the populace is one thing, but the Church at its core was organised political institution: It had the final say on political marriages, it had direct hand in diplomacy, it served as intel network for spies, it was asylum for nobles who wanted to retire without getting killed, it served as neutral foothold that could exert your influence over their home territory regardless of the will of the local Emperor.
Any important leader figure needed to receive the approval from the church if he wanted to remain relevant in politics just like today everyone claims to be a Democratic Republic as to not get bullied by the Global Order.
The influence & loyalties of the Church as an political institution is why all of the billions Great Schisms & Exarchate fractions had happened, every noble wanted to have their own local church that projects their own local interests instead of answering before Rome like some sort of servant.
Helpful-Menu-2667@reddit
We Turks believed in tengri too ottoman rule doesnt sound so bad now eh?
LibertyChecked28@reddit
The very 3rd thing the Ottomans did after conquering Turnovo was to raid St.40 Martyrs and desecrate the remains of our Khans by throwing them on the streets.
This is objectively more savage than Bulgaria′s experience with the Golden Horde since the very least the Mongols wouldn't desecrate the dead.
Helpful-Menu-2667@reddit
I couldn’t care less.
iwantpizzaandyou@reddit
The Mongols believe in Tangra to this day so the Mongols destroying whole civilisations in the 12th century is also good then /s
Helpful-Menu-2667@reddit
Yes
Rebelbot1@reddit
Whats wrong with you?
Helpful-Menu-2667@reddit
Holy hell you guys are snowflakes it’s just a fucking joke. Ps: if you want to be taken seriously take pride in who you are, not who you hate Jesus fucking Christ on a crutch
Salt_Fennel8876@reddit
Ottoman rule was Muslim.
vbd71@reddit
Bulgars might have been Turkic, or not (my personal opinion is that they were). The name "Volga" is younger than "Bulgar" and it's possible that "Volga" somehow derives from "Bulgar", not the vice versa. Bulgars were not originally located around the Volga river, they arrived there later. Bulgars never really became Christians by themselves, only after they mixed with Slavs and Thracians and became Bulgarians.
Curl4Girls@reddit
Depend whats your definition of "turkic". Bulgars were genetically closest to sarmatians and alans and culturally were influenced by huns and other turkic tribes rulling over them. The orgin of the bulgars is unknown and people claiming they know the answer are pushing their agenda.
Turco-Tatar@reddit
Sarmatians and Scythians were long gone when the Bulgars came around. Turkic ethnicity itself was born out of the mixing of Sarmatians and more Eastern Xiognu tribes so Turks having significant Sarmatian ancestry is expected as do many modern day Kazakhs, Tatars and Bashkirs.
Bulgar samples from Great Old Bulgaria differ greatly from previous Sarmatians due to almost being half East Eurasian(Xiongnu) and their closest modern match are Uzbeks suprisingly. This is definite proof that they were Turkic.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Turkic ethnicity got created after the Mongols proceeded to conquer every single nomadic tribe and erase their former identity and blend them universal umbrella cast that eventually went on to become its own culture & etho identity over time.
They had Sarmatian customs, artisanship, and burial practices. Your obsession with DNA cant tip toe over that, not to mention those “samples“ you speak of are vague as $h!t.
A sample taken from a Volga Bulgarian of 14th century is just as genetically diluted as that of Dunabe Bulgarian during 14th century, likewise there is a difference between the samples taken from Kubrats remains and that of Presians remains after few hundred years of political intermarrying with the Byzantine noble lineages.
Turco-Tatar@reddit
I’m really not interested in delusional Bulgarian pseudo-nationalist narratives. Turkic culture and ethnicity was around waaay before the Mongol expansion and Mongols themselves are Tungusic not Turkic. What a racist and ignorant thing to say.
The Orkhon Inscriptions predate the Mongol migration to more western regions of the steppe and the Turks were mentioned even in Chinese sources. ——————————//
They were not Sarmatians as their genome differed greatly from them and the honorific titles they used like Bagatur were sourced from the Orhon Scripts in Mongolia.
————————-//
The sample is from the Old Bulgarian Kingdom in Southern Ukraine and Russia, not Volga lol.
Lunatic.
Admirable_Mud_470@reddit
Sounds similar to the history of our ancestors
Physical-Profit9447@reddit
Bulgar derived from the word meaning "mixed" in old Turkic I suppose. Bulgars were originally Turkic nomads and named the land.
Pitiful_Coach_314@reddit
No, they weren't "Turkic", they were mixed. Has the name Bulgar. Turks may have been a significant element (or may not have been, no one knows for sure), but they sure as hell weren't "just" Turkic.
Physical-Profit9447@reddit
OK bro.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Name me one turkic nomads who used heavy shock cavalry and ambushes behind stationary forts of wood and stone.
Name me one turkic nomads that ware all about steel sighting and iron equipped with full set Iron Armor when you take into account that the Seljuks entered the Balkans with limited Bronze working capabilities due to the nature of their nomadic lifestyle.
Name me one turkic nomad that has been open about working with other peoples since the get go instead of resulting towards subjugation, hierarchy, and slave casts.
Name me at least two Turkish countries naturally use the names of Asparuh, Kubrat, and Alcek akin to Mehmed, Oguz, and Hasan.
Pitiful_Coach_314@reddit
Whole lot of assumptions there buddy, but of course, the professors in Reddit University are going to tell you wassup. Your peer-reviewed paper somewhere? Nowhere? Yeah, I figured.
RegionSignificant977@reddit
The Bulgars were a group of people who lived on the steppes north of the Black Sea around the 5th century CE. They were known as skilled, warlike horsemen led by khans and boyars.
Though their origin is still debated, some scholars believe they came from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia, possibly with Iranian elements, while modern genetic research suggests affiliations with western Eurasian and European populations.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
MerTheGamer@reddit
Those Turkic people called Bulgars were the ruling class but the population themselves were mostly Slavs. As the time went on, Turkic people just mixed into the Slavic population. We have a habit of assimilating into the culture of the people we are ruling. Same thing happened in Persia as well.
Today, Turkic ancestry is mostly irrelevant in Bulgaria from that time and any Turkic ancestry exists there are most likely from Ottomans.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
No you don't. The Mongols didn't warm up to the people whom they had rulled over despite intermarrying with them like crazy, the Seljuks didnt become fully Ottoman and remained secluded from the Anatolian peasants for absurdly long time. The Ottomans ware assolves towards the Seljuks, the Balkan population, and the Anatolian population while being extremely picky as to whom or what they had considered to be an Ottoman- Just because you had converted to Islam didn't make you a true Ottoman despite it being so on paper.
Hell, to this very day you utterly abhorre the Kurds, Syrians, and Greeks who had been living in your territory for centuries.
geturkt@reddit
I’m surprised there’s no mention of native Americans or Eskimos being Turk yet.
oops_all_memes@reddit
I actually stumbled into a Volga Bulgar archeological dig site while traveling across Russia. As far as I remember it was explained to me that Bulgars originate from the Great Steppe and they initially travelled to Volga region and then split off into multiple branches, one of which remained within Volga region until Mongols arrived (and then Mongols and Bulgars formed what we now know as Volga Tatars) and another migrated to the current territories of Bulgaria. A thing I noted back then was that the facial reconstruction pictures they had for Volga Bulgars looked very Slavic or maybe Finno-Ugric. Distinctly not Asian
I see that the other comments here suggest other versions of events, so it might be a case of me misremembering things, so take it with a grain of salt
3m3ra1d@reddit
Bulgarian is mixed race between - Thracians , slavs and bulgars ... That is ! They was united from king ( ex kanas ubigi ) when they become orthodox Christians.... End of game 🎯
Paceronikus@reddit
All Slavic countries in the Balkans are only partially Slavic in origin. The Slavs became the dominant cultural and linguistic group, but over centuries they largely assimilated and mixed with many populations that were already living in the region when they arrived.
In the case of Serbia and Croatia, for example, genetic studies generally suggest that modern populations are a blend of early Slavic migrants and older Balkan peoples who already lived there. Those populations included Romanized locals, Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, Celts, and various groups that passed through or settled the Balkans over time, such as Goths, Huns, Avars, and Sarmatians, among many others.
The same principle applies, to different degrees, across much of the Balkans and Anatolia. Modern populations often formed through centuries of migration, assimilation, conquest, and intermixing. Modern Turks, for example, descend not only from Turkic groups that entered Anatolia, but also from the many peoples who already lived there.
That is why, in my opinion, extreme ethnic nationalism makes little sense. Most modern nations are not genetically "pure" or descended from a single ancient people. They are the result of many different groups mixing and evolving together over long periods of history.
Salt_Young_4494@reddit
Yep. I'm a descendant of a Goth. I1 haplogroup.
In reality a mixture of slavs and paleobalkan people, with sprinkled scandinavia on top.
Ornery_Proposal_3784@reddit
The problem with Turks is that they want to link origin of every nation on Earth to themselves. They will find a great great grandnephew of Ataturk and link him to Nelson Mandela if you want.
However, they don't like truth about their genealogy that is proven by SCIENTIFIC methods and not grandma fairytales.
Turks of Turkey migrated from current southern states of Turkmenistan - Ahal, Mary (Merv) regions. While moving towards Anatolia and settling there they have mixed with various Iranian, Caucasian, Arab, Greek, Balkan peoples of Anatolia and middle east. So when you look into DNA tested results, Tuks of Turkey are more Greeks, Armenians, Balkanians by % of their DNA. They have only 5% maximum of 12% genetic material of their ancestors from Central Asia. They are closer to people they hate - Greeks, Armenians, Balkan peoples, Iranians. AND YES, local tribes of Americas who were living before European conquests have same genetic map as people living in Turkmenistan nowadays (N haplogroup)...
Now genetic testing can show your genealogy - where do you come from, which nationalities are closer to you, who are you relative, which physical attributes are prevailent in your genes etc. With genes of all people in the world so complicatedly intertwined, why do we have all this physical and "imaginary" borders in culture, language, governments, religions, national movements etc. We all literally can be traced back to one location and to very very small group of people.
But governments don't like this topics. For example, genetic testing is strictly forbidden in Israel (if no court ruling). Because they dont want people seing truth that WE ARE ALL SAME irrelevant of our location and birthplace. But they instill these ideas of nationalism, ideas about perfect race, fairytales about how they established big empires etc to keep people in groups and small clusters because its easier to rule over divided people - "Divide and conquer".
So why does it matter who is originally from where and all that bs.
Lets live in harmony cause we all have better and more importants things to do like cure cancer and stop killing of children and feed everyone in the world and many more...
Immediate_Engine3066@reddit
NO bulgar came from "bulga"lama in old turkic mean mix tribes, maybe others give the river a name from bulgars, the last Tsar using turkic name i guess Mihael Shishman(Şişman) michael the fat 😃
Ada_Kaleh22@reddit
It's believed they came from Turkey or Iran possibly, with their original language being a type of Turkish. They hung out on the Volga for a few hundred years.
I suppose if there's a connection between the names it goes the other way, the river is named for the group
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
They didn't come from "Turkey". Duh... It iwas an R-TURKIC(Oghuric, sometimes even classified a seperate branch than Turkic in the broader Oghur-Turkic/Hun-Turkic language family by some linguists) language, not Turkish(which is an Oghuz Turkic language classified under Z-Turkic)
Turkic or Iranic does not mean "from Turkey" or "from Iran"....
RegionSignificant977@reddit
The Bulgars were a group of people who lived on the steppes north of the Black Sea around the 5th century CE. They were known as skilled, warlike horsemen led by khans and boyars.
Though their origin is still debated, some scholars believe they came from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia, possibly with Iranian elements, while modern genetic research suggests affiliations with western Eurasian and European populations. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
Ada_Kaleh22@reddit
brother where did they come from then? enlighten me with your amazing knowledge
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
"Turkic" ethnolinguistic group originated in modern day northeast Russia-Northeast China(South & Southeast Siberia) and gradually spread from there mainly towards west and south. Turks only in 11th century came to modern day Turkey
"Iranic" ethnolinguistic groups(Scythians, Sarmatians et al) originated around east of Urals, perhaps the only continuous Indo-European core group that did not migrate up until very recently and might be considered the legit continuation of Indo-European nomads. In the late bronze age did they reach modern day "Iran".
ExoticAd7546@reddit
First time I am hearing that they came from Turkey. It is a completely different regions that are discussed and it is not known for sure. Old great Bulgarian state later on was in modern Ukraine/Russia, while Volga Bulgaria which is a different state also existed.
Ada_Kaleh22@reddit
I don't think we know precisely where. But as said the original language of the Bulgars was a Turkic language
ExoticAd7546@reddit
We don't know before that but we know the Old great Buglaria state was in a completely different place from Turkey. Turkic doesn't mean Turkish as other have already pointed out there are many language groups who have nothing to do with Turkey who fall into that category.
Ada_Kaleh22@reddit
Certainly I agree on the language issue, but the point is that the Volga is not the origin of the Bulgars, and we dont know where they started out.
Are we in disagreement here?
ExoticAd7546@reddit
For sure there are all kinds of theories. The newer findings in genetics etc certainly point that the Bulgars were more genetically connected to Sarmatian/Iranian tribes rather than central/east asian turkic tribes. But their language was turkic definitely
Ada_Kaleh22@reddit
Ok thanks for the confirmation!
Physical-Profit9447@reddit
Yes, they were speaking an old Turkic language. Their kingdom was also a Khanate.
dcdemirarslan@reddit
Language is Turkic not Turkish. They came over the aral, Caspian and blacksea not thru Anatolia/Persia route.
Ada_Kaleh22@reddit
thanks, it's tough going first sometimes!
Rebelbot1@reddit
Type of turkic, not turkish. Turkish is also type of turkic.
Ada_Kaleh22@reddit
thank you for the correction
Michitake@reddit
Bulgars are Turkic and kazan tatar ppl are bulgars who didn’t migrate balkan. Bulgarians are bulgarians. Not really have relationship. Their culture and language are slav. Apart from their names, they have very little in common
RegionSignificant977@reddit
From encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
The Bulgars were a group of people who lived on the steppes north of the Black Sea around the 5th century CE. They were known as skilled, warlike horsemen led by khans and boyars.
Though their origin is still debated, some scholars believe they came from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia, possibly with Iranian elements, while modern genetic research suggests affiliations with western Eurasian and European populations.
Curl4Girls@reddit
"kazan tatar ppl are bulgars who didn’t migrate balkan" Asparukh(founder of danube Bulgaria) and Kotrag(founder of volga Bulgaria) migrate away from old great Bulgaria in the same period. Volga bulgars also get mixed with the local finno-ugric people and then are massacred by the Goldern horde and Tatars(who are not bulgars and came with the mongols). This idea that tatars or other people are closer to bulgars is bullshit.
euxenios-svartahaf@reddit
No. Yes, ones who migrated to Bulgaria were Turkic. But they eventually got accepted by the local Slavic people, and elites assimilated themselves into the local culture and language to gain legitimacy, tho, their pre-Slavic elements were not disappeared.
RegionSignificant977@reddit
The Bulgars were a group of people who lived on the steppes north of the Black Sea around the 5th century CE. They were known as skilled, warlike horsemen led by khans and boyars.
Though their origin is still debated, some scholars believe they came from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia, possibly with Iranian elements, while modern genetic research suggests affiliations with western Eurasian and European populations.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
Burdokva@reddit
The word Vulgar in the oejorative sense is derived from Bulgar, not the other way round. A very prolific, radical Christian sect called Bogomilism (after its founder, an ascetic priest called Bogomil, eho believed that only the soul was created by God while the entire material world was created by the Devil) emerged in Bulgaria in the Xth century. After the the Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria in 1018, many Bogomils fled, some reaching as far as Occitane (Southern France). Bogomilism became very prolific in Occitane where its followers eere called Cathars.
Eventually, it was declared a heresy by the Pope and in the early XIIIth century a Crusade was called against the Cathars in Occitane called the Albigensian Crusade. Most were eradicated, or some converted to Catholicism.
Cathars were treated as filthy heretics and a number of derogatory words were used to describe them. One of these words was "Vulgar", derived by the Latin word "vulgus", mesning "ordinary" (as in a simpleton pleasant), which is a derigatory meaning was a mispronounciation of the word Bulgar in Medieval French language, after the origin of the heresy. It stuck and became a prolific word in French, and from there on in multiole European langauges today.
Ironically, in Bulgarian too...
RegionSignificant977@reddit
The Bulgars were a group of people who lived on the steppes north of the Black Sea around the 5th century CE. They were known as skilled, warlike horsemen led by khans and boyars.
Though their origin is still debated, some scholars believe they came from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia, possibly with Iranian elements, while modern genetic research suggests affiliations with western Eurasian and European populations.
From here:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
AgentDoty@reddit
dr_prdx@reddit
Yes they are.
Dukagjini__@reddit
So here is some kinda cool history some might disagree with but the original Slavic migration could have never happened if it wasn’t for the support of Turkic Nomadic warriors. The Original Slavs migration in the Balkans happened due to the Avars invasion of the Byzantine empire. The Avars did the bulk of the fighting while the Slavs settled the land once concerned. The Slavs where the Avars subjected groups the rulled over. The Avars were in power in the late 500 AD. Following a couple generations the Avars were pretty much Slavs and their culture some what disappeared. Following the mid 600 AD the Bulgars showed up. The Avars and Bulgars are not the same people, but culturally and to certain extent genetically they would have been the same. The Slav population at this point was aware of these Turkic groups and kinda used them and their battle harden warriors to gain power in the Balkans over the Byzantines. The Bulgars would have the same fate a couple generations where the became fully Slav. Modern Bulgars probably have more Thracian / Slavic Genes then Bulgar in them (this is my personal opinion)
ExoticAd7546@reddit
One of the founding groups which were mainly the rulers of the state created in 681 on the Balkans was from Asia. "Old great Bulgaria" was in modern day southern Ukraine/Russia region basically north coast of the Black sea. After its collapse it is believed that sons of the rulers spread to different part with Asparuh being the one creating the state in the Balkans. One of the other sons created a new state on the Volga river called Volga Bulgaria, Kotrag created a state in modern day North Macedonia etc. They were the ruling class in the country for a long period of time but basically with time mixed with thracians, slavs etc and adopted christianity and all of these are part of the formation of modern day Bulgarians
This_Lion5856@reddit
Fun fact that there is still a small municipality in Southern Italy called Bulgaria as one of the Kubrat sons settled there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_di_Bulgheria
originalno_ime@reddit
They didn't come from Asia. They came either from the Eurasian steppes or North Caucasus
ExoticAd7546@reddit
Okay I agree it is a region between Asia and Europe
According-Article883@reddit (OP)
I think I'll accept this answer as truth until someone curses you with a big disappointment
ExoticAd7546@reddit
Haha well I am no expert and even experts don't know that much for sure from that period. But the above is generally accepted. Before that who knows
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
An internet search, or even better, getting help from AI assistants for some historical(or any kind of scientific) subject will yield much more accurate results than asking for the "opinions/knowledge" of Redditors or other internet forum members, believe me...
According-Article883@reddit (OP)
everyone on earth originates to Turks if you don't ask it to the correct people.
I tried my luck and also basically wanted to know how Bulgarians feel about this topic.
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
Hint: Don't ask "people" at all.... Use an AI assistent instead.
According-Article883@reddit (OP)
I need real convo, not exporting some digital brain into my life.
Thank you for your arrogance tho. Nobody needs your advice.
jinawee@reddit
So you don't want facts, just a pastime.
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
So are you unwittingly saying that you are here to stir stuff up/create polemics, rather than actually seeking knowledge?
I mean why else would someone ask about a historical/scientific subject's validity to some random people rather than searching for the info on an encyclopedic level, or instead of asking "What do you(or Bulgarians) think about Bulgars (being a Turkic tribe etc..)?" why do you ask an assumption loaded question like "Are Bulgarians really originated to Christian Turkic tribes" ? Let alone blame me with arrogance when I sincerely tried to help?
I mean, I did not want to sound "arrogant" at all, I always suggest using AI assistants for at least two years at historical AND scientific questions asked on some forum (except that froum be specifically dedicated to answers from people from those specific branches) yet you lashed out at me like this? This suggests me you have some loaded aim...
According-Article883@reddit (OP)
you don't need to. just relax and leave it behind.
asking here means wondering about whether they heard it before or not. whether it's in their history books or not. whether they feel safe about it or not. and so on.
real human conversation might still be preferable for some of us and you need to shut the fuck up, please.
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
Hint: The more you keep lashing out agressively the more you are showing yourself to be insecure of something. Maybe it was about your agenda, who knows...
According-Article883@reddit (OP)
you should just relax man, it must be hard to be you. not everyone should agree with you all the time. accept it and move on.
starting a comment with "hint:" is very unlikeable btw. you should change your attitude too.
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
I don't expect anyone to "agree" with me tho. It just irks me when people ask academic level questions on some internet forums/asking for public opinion on their validity. Sometimes my "lowkey/supposed/probable autism" kicks in. Sorry if it offended you. I did not mean to...
__1992__@reddit
Everyone on earth originates to Turks, that is a fact, except the God himself who is Serbian, also, not on earth.
anton_d66@reddit
It’s a bit like the reverse Ottoman. Instead of many local people assimilating in the ruling Turkic minority, the Bulgar Turkic ruling minority adopted the local slavic culture that had settled there a couple centuries before.
Also the Hungarians are a sort of Uralic nomads adapted to local farmer culture.
Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit
There are two caveats tho:
In case of Bulgars, it was a one time only migration by Oghuric tribes, and also they had a much bigger enemy that was the Byzantines. So it was a necessary acceptance and assimilation for the the military elite. The local folk accepted and gave them legitimacy IF ONLY they pose a power against the Byzantines, and the Bulgars knew very well that they had to intermarry with local clans
In case of Ottomans tho, it was the result of CONTINUOUS 200 years of Oghuz migrations into Anatolia, and by the time the Ottoman polity was created, most of the local folk around their establishment were already legit "mixovarvaroi"(Helleno-Turkmen mix). Also, as much as the newcomer Kayı tribals, there were as many "renegades" from Byzantines. Think about Cossacks, but that time the not only Mixovarvaroi but even the renegades adapted not only the customs but the language and religion of the military elite.
_-Event-Horizon-_@reddit
A good comparison might also be Russia - who as a nation takes the name from the Viking Rus, who were a minority ruling elite and assimilated into the local slavic population.
AST360@reddit
I agree as a Turk, that sums it up well.
FuckTheCake@reddit
Just like Hun*arians
LibertyChecked28@reddit
The Bulgars ware semi adjacent to the Pannonian Avars, somewhat related just enough as to receive above average treatment than the Slavs Goths, but still foreign enough as to be treated as disposable hench men. Turks destroyed the Avar & Bulgar civilization, quite literally the only reason why modern day Bulgaria even exists in first place is because the Bulgars back then ware utterly desperate to escape from the Turkic invasions that went to desolate the Avar Khaganate.
Now whenever you want to personally believe that the Avars ware Turks and Attila the Hun was German is entirely up to you, but this is the stupidest form of historical revisionism.
Helpful-Menu-2667@reddit
r/woosh
Panda-Wanda-8231@reddit
No. And Bulgars/Bulgarians didn’t came from Volga. When Old Great Bulgaria (located in modern Ukraine) of Kubrat dissolved Part of the Bulgars went to Volga and created Volga Bulgaria another part created Danubian Bulgaria.
Mysterious-Put1459@reddit
Wtf did I just read?
According-Article883@reddit (OP)
I was like "wtf did I just hear?" and now people correcting my post by saying Bulgars came from Central Asia steppes and they were Tengriist which is the religion of Turks before islam.
let's see what's gonna be seen with these eyes on this thread tonight :)
Ada_Kaleh22@reddit
the distinction, and they are right, is that the Bulgarian people are different from the ancient Bulgars. I missed this in my post.
It is not the Bulgarians who were on the Volga, but the Bulgars.
As said in another comment, Bulgarians are a mix of Slav and Bulgars. For awhile the Bulgars ruled over the Slavs, but they mixed anyway, still in fairly ancient times. They're said to have met around the Danube (possibly farther north as both groups ultimately came from the north), and allied themselves against the Byzantines as they fought for that land.
Salt_Fennel8876@reddit
Yes, 1400 years ago, some tribes came, very warlike and on horses. They believed in the god Tangra and before that they were part of the great union of Attila's Huns. These people founded a state with the name Bulgaria on the land of the Eastern Roman Empire. After two centuries, this state adopted Christianity and the Cyrillic alphabet, based on Slavic languages, as its script. The common territory, common language and common religion united the diverse population in this state and created a new ethnic group - Bulgarians. Which has existed for more than a thousand years on the Balkan Peninsula. 1400 years ago, another branch of this tribe went to live in the lands of the Volga River and formed the state of Volga Bulgaria. They became Muslims and existed as a state until the Mongol invasions in the 13th century. The two states with the name Bulgaria have nothing in common except the name, since their history has been different for more than 14 centuries. And that is a long time.
figflashed@reddit
I think we all try to stuff various peoples into the nationalistic borders we have today and project them onto vast complex and multicultural areas throughout Europe and Asia.
It’s a lot more nuance than that.
anton_d66@reddit
Yeah definitely. History is always a study in the complexity of societies if anything
Chemical-Practice908@reddit
Yes. Asian tribe
greekscientist@reddit
Bulgarians moved to their present homeland in 600s and stayed Turkic for more than 100 years. Then they already had influenced of local Slavs, some skirmishes happened and the Slavic tribes grew in influence and prevailed.
Mysterious-Put1459@reddit
We live next to each other for 1400 years and you still don't know the difference between Bulgar and Bulgarian
According-Article883@reddit (OP)
this comment is the most Balkan equivalent of this gif. love it!
Rebelbot1@reddit
This is incorrect in many places. I won't even ask what "stayed turkic" means, but the local tribe's influence did not cause an overthrowing of the ruling class or whatever you are implying.
TapSmall7379@reddit
The original Bulgars probably yes. Modern Bulgarians though are a whole different stories. Our lands have been occupied by thracians, slavs, bulgars, were part of the Byzantine and later Ottoman empire. Bulgaria and its people are a beautiful mixture of 8000 years of history and simplifying that to just one genetic background is impossible. It's kind of like asking are the Brazilians just Portuguese in South America? No, obviously they aren't. That's just a part of history. As is the case with Bulgaria as well.
Inevitable_Motor_685@reddit
Originally yes but they got absorbed into the slavic ethnicity and culture