Why is despotic empire formed by horseniggers who coudn't

>>2427457
>As a Bulgarian
There we go

>>2427467
There goes what?

File: Campaigns_of_Ivan_Assen_II.png (1MB, 2156x2297px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2156x2297px

>As a Bulgarian, I wish we were under austrohungary, at least their subjugated peoples were under european civilisation and were in an industrialized nation, not a clusterfuck Islamic gangs, beys and brainwashed slave soldiers
You were already under the fucking Byzantine empire.
But then you decided to throw a hissy fit and fight for independance only to later declare war on everyone in the region weakening them and allowing Osman to start expanding Westwards.

Hell, while Constantinople was being conquered by the Ottomans you took the opportunity to secure the Black sea for yourselves instead of sending aid.

>>2427503
But I will credit the Bulgarian Momchii, who was the first person to realize the Turk threat and pleaded for an Balkan alliance against the Ottomans, but instead the Bulgarians, Byzantine and Serbs were just going for eachother throats in the civil war.

>>2427503
>You were already under the fucking Byzantine empire.
That also fucked us over by trying to assimilate us. And that was more than 150 years before Ottomans had a presence in the Balkans.

If only the 2nd Bulgarian Empire hadn't fractured,...

Can we agree that the balkans should never have been touched by Islam or Catholicism?

It was the Byzantines who started using ottoman mercenaries, which later rebelled and fucked the region over.

But that's not . . .

>As a Bulgarian
Ah, I see.

>>2427457
>As a Bulgarian,

Ah alright, just a butthurt Balkanshit thread, move along.

>>2427568
>That also fucked us over by trying to assimilate us.
Good. It's not like Bulgarian culture is in any way valuable anyway.

>>2427457

>as a Bulgarian

really makes you think...

>>2427457
>As a Bulgarian
A what?

>>2427602
>>2427597
>>2427595
>>2427590
>>2427467
>The Ottoman empire was objectively shit
>A bunch of roaches spam ad hominems due insecurity about their shit tier empire

>>2427612
>Insecurity
So . . . this . . . is the power . . . of Bulgarian projection.

>>2427612
Who is this traveller from an antique land?

File: yugo.jpg (135KB, 500x460px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 500x460px

>>2427457
Completely agree.
Pic related. Try to find the old border between Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire.
Also try to find the 1878 border between them and Serbia.

>>2427619
>Serbia has been independent for over a century
>It's the Turk's fault we're a shithole

Classic Balkanshits
I also love how you ignore how Serbia was literally decimated in WW1, hence the low population.

>>2427623
No, these are literacy rates. And Serbia's been independent for little over 30 years when WW1 happened. The point are territories that were under the Ottomans longer, look at Bosnia and Kosovo.
I'm a Slovene.

>>2427629
It wasn't. Serbia revolted from the Ottoman Empire in 1804 and won in 1817.

>I'm a [balkanshit]
I know.

>>2427637
It was under Turkish administration until like 1865 (circa), and gained complete independence in 1878 alongside Romania.

>>2427644
It was under autonomous administration, it was however occupied by Turkish forces and didn't have a separate foreign policy to the Ottoman Empire.

>>2427457
Ottomans had printing press durin the tulip period which is still late but still.
Also there is a reason austrohungary imploded you faggot.

>>2427629
How the fuck are the Ottomans at fault for low literacy in Yugoslavia? The Ottomans used neither the latin nor the cyrillic fonts, so why should they have taught the populace to read and write them? In contrast, the Austro-Hungarians benefitted from Slovenians and Croats being literate in latin, since both used the same writing system.

>>2427703
Also christian millets had autonomy in how they arranged schooling for their people.

>>2427612
>arguing on the merit of empires by using "objectively" and knowledge gained from memes
This board is a shithole

>>2427596
Then you're no better than roaches...

>value
Just because your burgershit education didn't bother to mention it doesn't make something less valuable.

>>2427457
Read a book, turklet. You have more to be proud of in your Ottoman heritage, than in your bulgarian one.

>>2427681
Show me single ottoman printed book(quran or other durkascripture doesn't count)

>>2427730
You are under the false impression that printed books are inherently superior to handwritten ones. The Ottoman empire did in fact have printing houses, but only Jews and Armenians used them. The Turks did not like books that were printed in the printing houses, but rather preferred hand-written ones. The published books lacked the art and grace of hand-written books. Ottoman intellectuals, who were keen on aesthetics, enjoyed books written with elegant handwriting and whose ink shined, along with edges that were ornamented with golden gilt and covers that were made with care. Reading books was not only a necessity, but also a pleasure. Besides, there were many calligraphy artists who copied plenty of books rapidly. All these people could be out of a job. On top of that, those who were keen on books belonged to a certain class, just as today.

>>2427728
You know, just because your education system is full of nationalist WE WUZery doesn't make it true.

The entirety Bulgarian """history""" is put to shame by a single western meme-country like Belgium or Ireland. Had the entire place been levelled to the ground by the Byzantines or the Ottomans the world would be no worse off to do without Bulgaria.

Now this is not a bad thing in itself, there's plenty of irrelevant shitholes in the world. The problem is Balkanshits have convinced themselves that were it not for the big bad Ottoman Empire they would be western and relevant.

They wouldn't, their own indigenous culture is just as backwards and unremarkable as the Ottoman's if not more so. Rather than constantly blaming all their shortcomings on the Turk like niggers maybe they should fess up to the fact that their history and culture is, in reality, nothing to be proud of.

>>2427737
>Had the entire place been levelled to the ground by the Byzantines or the Ottomans the world would be no worse off to do without Bulgaria.

Spread Christianity to Moravia, created and spread the Cyrillic alphabet, lifted the Arabian siege of Constantinople.
Not even butterfly effect, tangible major events that shaped history.

>>2427742

Excuse me, you said "major events" but appear to have listed utter trivialities

>>2427744
You are making a fool of yourself in an attempt to win an internet argument. Reconsider your values. I won't respond further.

>>2427742
Yeah, after the Greeks already introduced you to those things to begin with. Not to mention that's no more of an accomplishment than Turks boasting of spreading Islam and Arabic script to Europe.

> lifted the Arabian siege of Constantinople.
In between trying to take it themselves.

>>2427748

I'm not >>2427737, I just agree with him. If Bulgaria disappeared overnight, nobody would notice.

File: cant ban the erdogan.jpg (2MB, 3500x2615px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3500x2615px

>>2427457
Greater then Bulgaria ever was or will be

File: atasfturk_050.jpg (203KB, 820x1159px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 820x1159px

>>2427940
Absolutely disgusting.

name me Turkish inventions.
the only two I know about are cigaretes and yogurt

>>2427735
Adding to this, Ottomans had higher literacy rate than European contemporaries before printing press became widespread because they had big clergy that translated and written books.

>>2428055
What do you expect? It's a shithole with 80 million people but only 2 (two) nobel prize laureates.

>>2428084
the Nobel price do give some biash from politics so I still want to give them a chance.

>>2428055
That's more than enough, desu

>>2428055
>cigarettes and yogurt
Those are major and widely relevant ones, though, unlike many of the padding inventions of other peoples.
They also brought coffee and dessert to Europe, again two relevant and still important things. And the military band, not relevant today, but very relevant in the past.
The whole military parade and presentation was a turkish invention brought to Europe.

They also have a bunch of unique string instruments and dishes that are less important, and types of swords, bows, etc.

File: REIS.webm (1MB, 460x674px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 460x674px

>>2427457
>As a Bulgarian

kekstra

>>2428467
When will the Sultan make a move to reclaim Thrace?

>>2427749
>Introduced
>>2427737
How has Ireland been more relevant? Does the British Isles use a Gaelic scripts and speak gaelic dialects? Did Irish stop a foreign invasion into the British Isles? Was english influenced by Gaelic, was there a gaelic empire?

Anyway instead of using Bulgaria as an ad hominem, prove to me that Turks were as civilized as europeans.

>>2427737
> Having your own country instead of being genocided, forced into serfdom, and being subject to consntant islamic pogroms and jannisery kidnappings until the late 19th century is kinda necessary for the prosperity of your culture.

>They wouldn't, their own indigenous culture is just as backwards and unremarkable as the Ottoman's if not more so
If you don't know what you're talking about, then don't.

>>2428434
Brought, not invented. Yoghurt is not an invention BTW, it has been used by many different culture before there were turks.

>>2427735
If there were printing houses, then why the fuck would balkan intellectuals have to go to Austria or Russia to print their books?

>>2429895
as that guy said, only jews and armenians had their own presses

>>2429876
Popularizing something only used by very, very few people very far away, to the center of the civilized world, is akin to inventing it.
You are only arbitrarily choosing to reward the first innovator and ignore everyone who followed and perfected a thing, and influenced its spread.

>>2430574
Jews and Armenians didn't own them iirc, they just used them. Those still had to be owned by muslims, even if they were just token muslims for the sake of owning it.
Keep in mind pre-reformation Turkey used the arabic script, as well. This is notoriously hard for a printing press to work with.

>>2427729
Kek.

File: ottoman influence.jpg (309KB, 650x607px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 650x607px

i'm just dropping by to leave this astute observation by a fellow /balk/anlar here

>>2427590
>>2427595
>>2427597
>can't prove him wrong so ill use ad hominem to win the argument

everything he said is 100% correct

File: equality.jpg (64KB, 1016x715px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1016x715px

>>2434215
Protip: its not IQ these measure, its another point scoring system, aggregating a few things in education.
Read the survey that the author used to make the map to find out for yourself.

File: 783px-Abagar_003.jpg (204KB, 783x600px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 783x600px

>first printed book in turkish: Vankulu, year: 1727
>first printed book in bulgarian: Abagar, year: 1651

why are turks so useless? an enslaved people were more literate then the so called great empire

>>2427503
>Hell, while Constantinople was being conquered by the Ottomans you took the opportunity to secure the Black sea for yourselves instead of sending aid.

Nigger Bulgaria fell before Constantinople.
And while all of Eastern Europe came to the aid of Bulgaria during the Crusade of Varna, the Eastern Roman Empire was trading with the Ottomans, and didn't engage them.

>>2434236
>pieces needed to print in bulgarian ~ 100
>pieces needed to print in ottoman arabic > 9001

Also see >>2427735

>>2427735
>>2434241
yes yes, amazon tribes can fly rocket ships if they wanted, they just prefer to live in dung huts

File: press.jpg (301KB, 919x665px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 919x665px

>>2434248
No, you turkish turk, its just simply easier to print in bulgarian than it is in the arabic script ottomans used.
You need less, much much less pieces.

If bulgarians had to used arabic to print, they'd still be trying to figure it out.

>>2427457
>As a Bulgarian
filthy backstabbing turkgypsy

>>2434255
that's because bulgaria was part of a superior civilization that created technology to accommodate it's own needs

turks were stuck in the middle ages with the rest of islam

>>2434262
The printing press was in fact not invented by bulgarians.
Bulgaria didn't exist when the printing press was created, and the people who we historically call bulgarians were ottoman citizens and subjects of the sultan.

>>2434268
and yet still bulgarians printed books before turks

>>2434270
Because its easier to print in cyrillic compared to arabic. You are arguing in circles.

>>2434275

And bulgarians used cyrillic because they were part of a superior civilization. Turks were stuck in the middle ages(most bulgarians were stuck too, because they were part of this backward barbaric empire)

quit promoting your shithole of a country on this board you gypsies

>>2434323
are you some kind of turk-admirer?

>>2427457
The world would be a better place if the Ottomans retained control of the Balkans.

Nothing good comes out of that shithole

>>2434371
Except, you know, democracy, republics, philosophy, and western civilization?

File: 1471675814098.jpg (64KB, 709x538px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 709x538px

>all these turk lovers and roaches

god this board is trash

>>2434455
Roach love is fuelled by eternal Balkan asspain.

Keep it coming

>>2434455
more like Balkanposting is terrible and defending the Turks is the best way to trigger you Balkanshits

File: nigel.png (324KB, 279x612px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 279x612px

>>2434280
>And bulgarians used cyrillic because they were part of a superior civilization.

balkanshits actually believe this

>>2428055
Linear algebra

Why are people still posting in a thread made by a butthurt balkanigger?

>>2434234
The fuck is this and why is Macedonia green? Good or bad?

File: turd remover.jpg (103KB, 730x643px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 730x643px

>>2434455
meh, it's more of the fact that roaches are the only ones who can stop the turd threat

>>2427457
Honestly it probably was a shithole at some point but imagine how much of a shithole bulgaria must've been to be conquered by literal roaches?

>>2427457
Why did they not conquer the Adriatic coast?

>>2427457
fuck off with the racism

>>2436341
Its green because the albanian "minority" is allowed into the same schools, at the same rates, as the ethnic macedonians.
I am explaining why countries in the east have low scores, two of the parameters for this study (which measures score, not IQ) are gender equality and ethnic equality, based on how many people enter and graduate school from the different genders and minorities.

>>2427457
>a great civilisation
Never. They were considered a great power, which for much of their life they were, but no one ever looked to emulate the Turk.

>>2436388
>country is a shithole because it got taken over by an endless horde
rlly made me think

>>2438523
France ad Britain had high opinion of the Turk between 15th and 17th century. There was much use for it to fight the Germanics and Russia, and there was much state propaganda to raise public opinion of Turks. Coffee and sweets helped.

It wasn't really until Gladstone that Britain got cured of its pro-Ottoman views.

>>2438527
>endless hordes

During the battle of Varna, which was when it was decided that Bulgaria is now Ottoman clay, the armies were well matched.
Some sources even say that the European-Bulgarian army had more dudes than the Turkish-Serbian one.

>>2427637
Slovenia isn't Balkan by any stretch of imagination.

>>2434256
said the eternal Ottoman ally lmao

>>2438540
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwDrHqNZ9lo

>>2427703
They could just teach them to write Serbo-Croatian using arabic script, you knoe?

>>2438548
Yeah I know the video, I'm also not that Slovenian guy. Anyway, to be culturally/historically Balkan a country has to be ex-Ottoman, Orthodox and poor. Slovenia is none of those.

Since when does /his/ hate the Balkan countries so much? Did /int/ and /pol/ invade?

>>2438556
It's just Turks.

>>2438553
The term "balkan" is retarded, all of those labels are retarded and we should only use them in context.
The cultural cluster in the area is different to the economic cluster in the area, for example.

Anyways, based on what a peninsula is, this is the Balkan Peninsula, without the political border fixing to make things nicer to understand.
In the very raw, basic, no strings attached definition, some of Slovenia is in the Balkan Peninsula, because some of Slovenia is in the land that sticks into the seas surrounding on three sides.

Again, when I talk about Balkan, I just mean Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, and I don't like the term at all, but if I had to I can make a case for Slovenia being Balkan geographically, culturally, and historically, based on slav linguistic group, based on ex-Yugo, based on what a peninsula is.

>>2438538
You're reffering to the battle of Nicopolis and I'm not really sure about the size of the armies, there are a lot of conflicting accounts on the number of combatants

>>2438556
Balkans don't record their history, don't have enlightenment, and are always on the wrong side of history.

>>2438567
Slavs have nothing to do with it, there's several Balkan countries that aren't Slav, such as Greece, Albania, Romania or even Turkey itself (partially).

File: joseph-de-maistre.jpg (67KB, 672x359px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 672x359px

>>2438573
>don't have enlightenment
wtf I love Balkans now

>>2438576
As I said, I don't consider Greece to be a "Balkan" country in the cultural or economic sense of the word, which is how its mostly used.
It is in the geographic area, and thats that. Slovenia is more Balkan than Greece is, when you consider the stereotype of what Balkan has come to mean.

>>2438582
>cultural
Greece is the most culturally Balkan country that exists, other than perhaps Bulgaria.

>>2438582
Slovenia is significantly wealthier than Greece if you mean that.

>>2438588
Yeah, in the last 10 years maybe.
Slovenia is culturally Yugo, linguistically Yugo, eats Balkan food, has Balkan songs, trades with the Balks, tells the same jokes, shares the same stereotypes.

Greece is unique in the area.

>>2438587
There is nothing similar between Greece and Bulgaria, other than smoking a lot of tobacco and not paying tax.
Whatever you think "balkan culture" means, it can't include both Bulgaria and Greece, they are too different.

>>2438573
>he doesn't want to make his ascent to transcendence more rewarding by living in a location plagued by complete decadence

>>2438603
Slovenia has typical Austrian/German cuisine, not the Turk shit Serbia or Greece has. In fact Serbia is much culturally closer to Greece than it is to Slovenia and it's not just Orthodoxy.

I mean for fuck's sake I'm not even Slovenian and I know this, how come you don't?

>>2438571
>battle of Nicopolis

What a shitshow that is.
Holy Roman Empire, France, Hungary, England, Genoa, Venice, Wallachia, Switzerland, Burgundy, Poland, Bohemia, Castile, Byzantium, Croatia, Bulgaria, all the knight orders (Teutons, Livonians, Hospitaller, St. John, etc...) send troops, and nobody, NOBODY brings any siege weapons.
Meanwhile, Serbia brings some to help the Ottoman army.

JUST

>>2438605
Look up on google images right now:

Bulgarian Church
Greek Church
Slovenian Church

File: german food.jpg (58KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x375px

>>2438612
Oh ja mein kaiser, I love me some vine leafs around last week's bread crumbs with lemons and olives, meine krauten sausage gets blitzkrieged just thinking about this traditional holy roman imperial cuisine.

>>2438620
>church is all the culture there is

I guess Croatia is also Germanic, while Ethiopia is Balkan.

>>2438628
Except Ethiopian churches don't look Byzantine at all you dumb fuck.

>>2438641
Oh, you mean the look of the buildings?
In that case Slovenia is a soviet republic, your churches are just raw concrete rectangles, like russian affordable housing.

File: deadpool.jpg (40KB, 560x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 560x400px

>>2438641
>catholic churches don't look like orthodox churches, thus Slovenia is german and not balkan

File: belgrade_church_night.jpg (137KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x533px

>>2438647
Orthodox churches don't look the same everywhere. Russian churches for example heavily use the onion dome design while countries like Serbia and Bulgaria utilize the Byzantine (Greek) design.

>>2438644
>your churches
I'm not Slovenian.

>>2427735
>Ottoman intellectuals

File: bulgarian church.jpg (1MB, 2568x1232px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2568x1232px

>>2438648
Okay, let me google for some bulgarian churches... oh would you look at that, they are different to each other.
Its almost as if people build these however they want.

ITT: Roaches try to defend their shit-tier empire

>>2438664
is there a problem?

>>2429851
Ireland has produced a wealth of literature and science.

Are the world renowned Bulgarian books and plays that are translated into almost every language? Did Bulgaria ever discover something as important as modern chemistry?

>How has Ireland been more relevant?
Except
a) Cyrillic was invented by Greeks
b) The Balkans doesn't speak Slavic because of Bulgarian influence, but rather Slavic migrations from which Bulgarian also came from
c) Bulgaria was conquered by the Ottomans before anywhere else in the Balkans.
> was there a gaelic empire?
No, but that's what makes this even more hilarious. Ireland until modern times was never anything more than a bunch of squabbling lords, yet still managed to absolutely dwarf Bulgarian history in significance.

>Anyway instead of using Bulgaria as an ad hominem, prove to me that Turks were as civilized as europeans.
My point isn't that Turks are as civilized as Europeans. My point is that Balkanshits aren't either, they are and always have been Turk tier yet love to imagine themselves as tragic oppressed "Europeans", as if just by being European that means you were bound to be western some day were it not for the evil Turk.

As evidenced by the fact that the only things you can cite about Bulgaria is medieval WE WUZery.

>>2429869
> being genocided, forced into serfdom, and being subject to consntant islamic pogroms .
Bulgaria was never genocided.
Bulgaria, like all eastern European nations probably would have retained serfdom well into the 19th century Ottoman Empire or no Ottoman Empire. Austria and Russia certainly did.
Bulgaria wasn't faced with "Islamic pogroms". The Jews however were pogromed in every country they visited, yet still managed to contribute massively to society.

And I love how all of you manage to totally miss my point. That Balkanshits reflexively blame all their problems on their Ottoman Empire and imagine their own cultures as pure shields of Europe.

>>2438776
>Cyrillic was invented by Greeks
Glagolitic was. Cyrillic was invented by the bulgarians.
>Slavic migrations from which Bulgarian also came from
Bulgarians weren't slavic, and were present in the region of the Danube valley earlier than that.
>Bulgaria was conquered by the Ottomans before anywhere else in the Balkans.
Serbia was a vassal in the conquest of Bulgaria, and ERE was a shadow of itself at the time. Albania was partially conquered earlier as well.
>Bulgaria was never genocided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batak_massacre

Read a book, nigger.

>>2438788
>We looked again at the heap of skulls and skeletons before us, and we observed that they were all small and that the articles of clothing intermingled with them and lying about were all women's apparel.
wtf I hate the ottomans now

File: _3d_12-1-e1441901632461.jpg (301KB, 1915x1027px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1915x1027px

turkish here. im at lunch break so can get few questions and/or compliments

>>2438805
>"Ahmed Aga, who commanded at the massacre, has been decorated and promoted to the rank of Yuz-bashi..."

t. Mr. Baring's and Mr. Schuyler's Reports on the Atrocities Committed Upon the Christians in Bulgaria, 1876

What did the Sultan mean by this?

>>2438805
What do you think of the Albanian genocide?

Idk much about them but the fact that mere mention of them triggered all the altright larpers out of the woodwork means they're doing something really right

>>2438805
What do you think of the Armenian genocide?

>>2438805
What do you think of the Pontic genocide?

>>2438805
What do you think of the Assyrian genocide?

>>2438788
>. Cyrillic was invented by the bulgarians.
Cyrillic, was not invented by the men for whom Cyrillic is named. Brilliant.
>Bulgarians weren't slavic,
We're getting into next level we-wuzery now. Bulgarians are, and always have been, Slavic. If you're talking about Bolghars that gave Bulgaria it's name they were literally, Turks.
>Serbia was a vassal in the conquest of Bulgaria, and ERE was a shadow of itself at the time. Albania was partially conquered earlier as well.
This is true. But Bulgaria as you indirectly acknowledge, was the first to be completely conquered.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batak_massacre
That's not a genocide, that's a massacre of a few thousand.
That also happened extremely recently, ruining the point that the evil Turk was keeping the Bulgarian man down.

>>2438805
What do you think of the Zilan massacre?

>>2433255
yes, because eastern europe lacks people that are good at sheperding so much, doesnt it?

>>2438821
Saint Cyril wrote the Glagolitic script. The later Cyrillic script was named after him for that reason.

And I won't even comment on the rest of your inane post, you are rationalizing beyond belief, twisting what a genocide is, while disagreeing with the royal British ambassadors who defined it as such, and saying that Bulgarians didn't exist until some arbitrary point in time when they started losing, insisting they were others while they were winning.

This is my last reply to you, reconsider your views, next time as a neutral observer, not a "next level wiwuzer" or whatever caused you to take an anti-factual view of history.

>>2438805
What do you think of the content of this article:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Turkey

File: iste-fatih-sultan-mehmet-in-not-defteri-fatih-sultan-mehmet-padisah-1352662.jpg (19KB, 251x350px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 251x350px

>>2438810
i never heard that before, obviously, but the sentence looks very clear. what do u not understand?

>>2438812
>>2438815
>>2438817
>>2438820
chill the autism, son

>>2438826
Is there any country that has caused more genocides/has massacred more?

>>2438821
Cyrilic was invented after Cyril and Methodius' death. Their Slavic disciple Gorazd was chased away from Great Moravia to Bulgaria by Svatopluk and his disciples developed Cyrilic.

>>2438832
China, depending on how you define it. Succession isn't as clear there as it is between Ottoman state and modern Turkey.

>>2438825
>twisting what a genocide is
A genocide is a concentrated attempt to wipe out an ethnic group. A flash in the pan massacre is not a genocide, that's twisting the definition of a genocide.

Not to mention the word "genocide" didn't even exist at the time, so no one could have defined it as such.

>Saint Cyril wrote the Glagolitic script
And is traditionally credited with Cyrillic.

>and saying that Bulgarians didn't exist until some arbitrary point in time when they started losing, insisting they were others while they were winning.
When the fuck did I say that.
I said that Bulgarians are and always have been Slavic, and that their namesake is a Turkic ethnic group called Bolghars.

>>2438776
>Ireland
>science
Don't make me laugh.

>>2438826
probably illimuati wants human sacrifice to keep the satan goin

"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe." corinthians 4:4

>>2438839
>And is traditionally credited with Cyrillic.
And is factually not. You are repeating an urban myth over historical fact.
>They were Bolghars while they were winning, and they became Bulgarians when they started losing
10/10 bait, got me to reply again, closing the thread and wiping the browser cache.

>>2438837
Does massacring your own people count?

>>2438839
>Cyril magically invented Cyrilic 20 years after he died
Wew I guess he really had magical powers

>>2438840
To be perfectly fair virtually all famous Irish scientists were British.

But still, it's not like Ireland isn't British in denial anyway.

>>2438848
More like Iberians in denial.

>>2438847
Uhh he was a Saint, maybe he got resurrected

>>2438843
>You are repeating an urban myth over historical fact.
If you have some facts that say Cyrillic was independently invented by Bulgarians I'd like to see it.

>They were Bolghars while they were winning, and they became Bulgarians when they started losing
That's not what I said. I said the Bolghars were their namesake, not anything about anyone winning or losing.

That's not even a source of controversy. That's widely documented and accepted historical fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars

Not sure if they teach it in Bulgarian nationalis-, uh, I mean history classes.

>>2438854
Not him, but provide any evidence that Cyrilic was invented by Cyril. It's universally accepted it was created in Bulgaria long after his death.

>>2438839
Bulgarians speak a Slavic language, but they aren't genetically Slavic.

>>2438854
What is the arbitrary point in time that you choose to accept as the date Bulgars went extinct, and a similar number of Bulgarians materialized to replac them?

File: 3775.png (214KB, 292x313px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 292x313px

>>2438871
>replac them

>>2438870
Nobody is genetically slavic, there is no such thing.

>>2438870
South Slavs in general are genetically very different from other Slavs. But you would still consider them Slavic.

>>2438876
>oh shit you had me there, but luckily i noticed you have a spelling mistake, haha now i win

File: image.jpg (20KB, 252x212px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 252x212px

>>2438812
>>2438815
>>2438820
>>2438822
Its sad how people create identities based of historical events like those. I know 1 armenian dude, hes whole identity is "ZE OTTOMAN MASSACRE SEYFO, HOW CAN I LIVE" while hes been to armenia once and doesnt even speak armenian...

>>2438878
Only by language.

>>2438880
im not that anon, you cock gobbler

>>2438871
I don't think such a point in time exists. I think the Bolghars and Bulgarians (as we now call them) co-existed and in the 800s~ the Turkic Bolghar language waned in favour of the vernacular Slavic.
As you will notice in the languages section here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire
>Old Bulgarian (official since 893)
Probably not coincidentally this is shortly after it adopted Christianity.

Not to mention they didn't go extinct until centuries later, and many of them migrated away to the Volga Bulgaria region in Russia, for which is also named after them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria

>>2438884
I am >>2438815 and I am actually called a genocide apologist, since I claim that the Armenian genocide wasn't intentional cruelty, rather administrative negligence.
Ottomans went to war with Russians, and Armenians were friendly to Russians. So to prevent revolts near the battlefield, Armenians were moved away into a more secure zone, where they won't rebel and join the Russian army.
The movement of such a large amount of people in such desperate time of famine produce much death, because of general incompetence up high and micro cruelties on the personal level, due to ethnic clashes.

So no, I don't build an identity around it. I do however acknowledge the well documented facts that:
1. Such a large scale death occurred, and the Turkish government at the time is to blame.
2. The modern Turkish government, which does claim inheritance and succession to the Ottoman empire, denies it.

This is poor form and deserves more punishment by the international community, including withdrawing diplomats and tourist and economic embargoes until the modern Turkish government accepts the facts. I am not asking for a Germany-Holocaust tier cuckold solution, just a big sorry and some monuments to put flowers on, and to publicly accept fault. You can't claim Ottoman heritage and ignore Ottoman crimes.

>>2438893
>migrated away to the Volga Bulgaria region in Russia,
They didn't migrate there, they came from there.

>>2438893
Strange how those two peoples coexisted and ran an empire together, and the Romans didn't write about it. In fact nobody wrote about those two people as separate entities, until Wikipedia was published on the internet. Very strange.

Also consider that the English didn't change their ethnicity and nation when their monarch changed his religion to get a divorce, nor are they different people just because modern English children can't read Shakespeare in original and need to translate it.

>>2438902
They didn't come from there either.
The original Bulgarian state (that we know of from the Romans) is in southern Ukraine. The Khazars invaded, and the Bulgarians split into two people, and migrated to Volga and to Danube to form two kingdoms.

>>2438905
>Strange how those two peoples coexisted and ran an empire together
Who said anything about them running an empire together?
>until Wikipedia was published on the internet. Very strange.
Yeah dude, Wikipedia and all it's sources are Turkish propaganda designed to keep the Bulgarian man down.

Fucks sake.

>Also consider that the English didn't change their ethnicity and nation when their monarch changed his religion to get a divorce,
Well that's because nothing meaningful changed about them. The state language didn't change, the ruling ethnic group didn't change, the dominant culture didn't change, all that changed was they went from Catholicism to Anglicanism (aka Catholicism-lite).

However there is a point in English history when their national identity (not such a thing existed in the middle-ages but I understand what you mean) was altered significantly. And that's called the Norman conquest, where in the events following that the Old-English language went extinct in favour of a very Latinized and alien evolution of it recognizable as the ancestor of present day English and Anglo-Saxon culture underwent a heavy period of change under this new Norman influence.

> nor are they different people just because modern English children can't read Shakespeare in original and need to translate it.
You're a fucking idiot.
Shakespeare is perfectly intelligible to present day English speakers and no one needs to translate it. The language is archaic and awkward, but you can still read it perfectly fine. And modern English children DO read Shakespeare in the original dialect in school.

A more apt comparison would be Beowulf which was written in Old-English which is totally unintelligible to present day English speakers. But we do distinguish the Anglo-Saxons and the post-Norman English.

Not to mention the Bolghars were more like the Normans of Bulgaria than the Anglo-Saxons of Bulgaria.

File: 1456458810131.gif (997KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 245x245px

>>2438932
>England
>ruling ethnic group didn't change

>>2438932
>the ruling ethnic group didn't change

m8 england has had several different types of french rule it, they changed all the time

>>2438933
Under Henry VIII it certainly didn't.

File: 1335976871055.jpg (47KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x600px

fun facts:
did u know that, in turkish, india means hindistan, and hindi means turkey. so hindistan means turkey people land?

did u know that Kazakhstan translates as kazakistan, and kazak means sweater? so kazakistan meeans sweater people land

did u know that america translates as amerika, and it means dumb people land?

>>2438935
Read, idiots, read.
>>2438938

>>Also consider that the English didn't change their ethnicity and nation when their monarch changed his religion to get a divorce,
>Well that's because nothing meaningful changed about them. The state language didn't change, the ruling ethnic group didn't change, the dominant culture didn't change, all that changed was they went from Catholicism to Anglicanism (aka Catholicism-lite).

When Henry VIII changed the state religion that was all that changed.

>>2438938
Angevins/Plantagenets weren't Normans you cyclopean retard.

>>2438941
Stan = camp. So nomad people gathering.
Kazakh = cossacks. So the ukrainian people prior to Russian imperialism.

Thus Kazakhstan = rightful Ukrainian clay.

>>2438945
When did I say they were?

Not to mention the Tudors weren't Angevins or Plantagenets.

File: 1480796409778.jpg (7KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 150x150px

>>2438941
>did u know that america translates as amerika, and it means dumb people land?

That's not true though.

>>2438952
So the ruling ethnicity did in fact change when they went from Normans to Angevins, dumbo.

>>2438932
>Shakespeare is perfectly intelligible to present day English speakers and no one needs to translate it.

I've had english and american people tell me otherwise. Perhaps you read a translation and didn't even know it. Or perhaps you are lying to save face.

>>2438961
Yeah, but that happened long before Henry VIII was even born you fucking retard.

Did I say the ruling ethnic group of England NEVER changed? No, I said that specifically under the reformation it didn't, you dribbling troglodyte.

>>2438955
>That's not true though.
ill need proove on that, mate

>>2438965
I come from the UK and we read Shakespeare in the original dialect at 14 in school. If you can speak English well enough to read and write on 4chan you could do it too.

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/lear/full.html

Any English or American person who told you that is an idiot.

File: on the letters.jpg (37KB, 1343x80px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1343x80px

>>2438893
Bulgarian text from 893. Originally written in Glagolitic script, later written in Cyrillic, but the language is the same.
Modern slavs should find it readable. So no, 9th century bulgarians didn't speak hunnic or some similar.

>>2438977
I never said they did, I said Bolghars did.

Did I not make a point of spelling it out to you that Bolghars and Slavs coexisted? Not that first they were Bolghars, then magically transformed into Slavs?

>>2438982
Bolghars/Bulgars is just a word used to describe pre-christianity Bulgarians. They are the same people.

>>2438984
They fucking aren't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars

This is the nationalist pseudo-history I'm talking about.

>>2438988
Don't give me Wikipedia articles.

Link me to primary Byzantine sources that the people who they had at their temples and palaces spoke some foreign strange language, and not just the local dialects.
Link me to primary sources of this strange language you describe being written.

Protip: no such thing exists. Nobody ever mentioned this language, until political agenda drove people to invent the "out of Siberia" theory, to bring Bulgaria closer to the USSR.

>>2438975
Should've known the imbecile spewing immense horseshit all over the thread was an Anglo. You're also the one who claimed Slovenia as a Balkan country aren't you?

>>2439003
>Don't give me Wikipedia articles.
Why? Is Wikipedia out to hide the great secret history of poor Bulgaria as well?
> until political agenda drove people to invent the "out of Siberia" theory, to bring Bulgaria closer to the USSR.
The WE-WUZery is real. This is like talking to the fucking Nation of Islam.
If this is your insane theory here's an English source from 1930, before Bulgaria was under Soviet influence.
http://macedonia.kroraina.com/en/sr/sr_app5.htm
Which does indeed include primary sources of the Bolghar language.

>>2439020
You continue to give NO PRIMARY SOURCES.
Give primary sources for your claims, or admit them to be exactly that, empty claims.

File: 1482475923075.jpg (135KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 768x768px

>>2439007
All /int/ memes no argument, eh?

Are you not even going to fess up to the fact that what you said about Shakespeare needing to be translated being monstrously retarded?

>>2439023
The thing is this is the established academic consensus. It's you who's making empty claims.

And you didn't answer, why do you have a massive hate-boner against Wikipedia?

And are you going to admit that your nationalist-nonsense theory about the USSR is clearly false?

>>2439029
You failed to answer the question bitch boy.

>what you said about Shakespeare
That wasn't me.

>>2439029
Even if his example doesn't stand, Shakespeare is 400 years old, Bulgarian is 1200 years old.
Texts of similar age in almost any country will not be readable, yet the 1100 year old text I posted is readable and understandable by anybody.

>>2439032
>The thing is this is the established academic consensus.

If its established, there must be plenty of proof. Where are those tasty delicious primary sources?
Surely the Romans, faced with an alien foreign language, would at least make a mention of it? They had Bulgarian kings in their palaces and negotiated plenty, even before the Danube kingdom.
The Bulgarian successor to the throne studied in Constantinople while Bulgaria was still stationed in southern Ukraine. No mention that he spoke a weird foreign language.

>>2439033
The answer is no.

>>2439034
So it is, but I never Slavic Bulgarian didn't exist, as a matter of fact I explicitly said it did.

I didn't say the Bolghars "transformed" into Bulgarians.
I said the Bolghars ruled Bulgaria and eventually waned in importance in favour of vernacular Bulgarian.

Similar to how the Normans ruled England and eventually French waned in importance in favour of vernacular English.

>>2439041
Using that logic, currently Germans rule Britain, and thus England is a cooperation between Germany and the English, with the Germans waning in power.

>>2439039
>If its established, there must be plenty of proof. Where are those tasty delicious primary sources?
In the Wikipedia article you will find lots of sources, and you'll find even the sources have sources.

>Surely the Romans, faced with an alien foreign language, would at least make a mention of it?
They did.
>The names Onoğur and Bulgar were linked by later Byzantine sources for reasons that are unclear.[37][24][25] Karatay interpreted gur/gor as "country", and noted the Tekin derivation of gur from the Altaic suffix -gir, which is related to the word yir, meaning "earth, place".[38] Generally, modern scholars consider the terms oğuz or oğur, as generic terms for Turkic tribal confederations, to be derived from Turkic *og/uq, meaning "kinship or being akin to".[39] The terms initially were not the same, as oq/ogsiz meant "arrow",[40] while oğul meant "offspring, child, son", oğuš/uğuš was "tribe, clan", and the verb oğša-/oqša meant "to be like, resemble".[39]

>>2439045
>They did.
Post those primary sources, not the turkish academic effort to claim Thrace.

File: eu flag.jpg (54KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x401px

>>2439044
> currently Germans rule Britain
Is that supposed to be a secret or something?

Not to mention I don't see how you came to that conclusion using that logic at all. Not that your conclusion is wrong however.

>>2439048
Open the article, and click on the citations. Danta-dan, there's your sources.

>not the turkish academic effort to claim Thrace.
lmao

Balkanshits truly do have pure nationalism where their brains should be.

>>2439051
Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha is a german dynasty that produces the british royal family.
Using your logic, Britain is a german holding.

>>2439058
>Open the article, and click on the citations. Danta-dan, there's your sources.

There are zero primary sources there, which is the reason you refuse to link any.
Stop arguing from passion and argue from facts, and accept their lack.

>>2439061
As I said, I agree, Britain is a German holding.

But that's not my logic at all. I never ruling dynasties, I was referencing the ruling group in general.

>>2439066
>There are zero primary sources there, which is the reason you refuse to link any.
Yes, there is.
But academics being Jews paylock them behind sources of their own. And I'm not paying to educate you, so if you want the sources you can buy them yourself.

>Stop arguing from passion and argue from facts, and accept their lack.
I'm British, what passion would I have to prove that in the early medieval era Bulgaria was ruled by Turkic people?
However, you, as a clear Bulgarian nationalist. I can see much reason why you would want to deny this.

Not to mention thus far you have summed zero facts and zero sources about the supposed non-existence of Bolghars. However you want to pretend that the entirety of academia is out to get Bulgaria and push the burden of proof onto anyone else.

>>2439086
Is it nationalist to ask for historical sources when discussion history, rather than a 2003 book about croatian nationalism, which is what you quote?

Give me primary sources. Give me the reason any historian made the conclusion you think he did.
I don't care for opinions of authors, I care for facts. Show me the facts, either contemporary journals, or other preserved texts, in stone or copied over the ages.

Primary sources. The basis of history. The way history outlives politics. Give me them.

>>2438776
>a) Cyrillic was invented by Greeks
>The exact ethnic origins of the brothers are unknown, there is controversy as to whether Cyril and Methodius were of Slavic[11] or Byzantine Greek[12] origin, or both.
Heavy implication they were Slavs. They invented Glagolitic, their students in Bulgaria made a simplified version of it, because most common people didn't have the education to understand the harder Glagolitic and in respect to their teacher Cyril they called it Cyrillic. Also, old Church Slavonic was considered a Lingua Franca among the Slavic people. Bulgaria had heavy cultural influence over other Slavic nations, even in Romania you would find in old churches Old Church Slavonic. Even in distributing names, Boris might sound like a typical Russian name for example but It's origin is Bulgarian.

>c) Bulgaria was conquered by the Ottomans before anywhere else in the Balkans.
Actually it was Serbia. Bulgarians have been doing mighty lot in defending Europe from the Muslims along with the Byzantines. Read about the Second Siege of Constantinople for example.

>>2438821
Genetically? We're not fully Slavic, I don't think even Poles or Russians are. We're like 50% Slavic at best. We assimilated the Thracians pretty well. We also have lots of Greek, Italian influence as well.

>>2439092
>Give me the reason any historian made the conclusion you think he did.
Why don't you read the book and find out? This one is free.

http://www.academia.edu/12545004/An_Introduction_to_the_History_of_the_Turkic_Peoples

> Primary sources. The basis of history. The way history outlives politics. Give me them.
I love how you're so indignant about this yet have summoned zero primary sources yourself.

>>2439110
How about you prove what you said, rather than give me many pages of claims to search through for the grain of truth?

And do you really ask me to prove the absence of something you claimed to exist, rather than you yourself proving its existence?

Two pillars of history: primary sources and burden of proof. You go against both.

>>2439116
If you want me to sift though all these books, a minority of which are even in English, and a minority of those are available for free, to find primary sources of the Byzantines, of which I imagine a minority would even be translated. That's very unrealistic, and as much as I hate "it's not my job to educate you" as an excuse I really could not be arsed doing that. And would be more than happy to let you claim victory if it means I would have to spend at least the rest of today doing that for no reward other than the ego-trip of winning an internet argument.

>And do you really ask me to prove the absence of something you claimed to exist
Except if the Bolghars weren't ruling Bulgaria, then clearly something else existed in their place, that being Bulgarians. And if you can find me pre-800s primary Byzantine sources of the Bolghar nobility officially speaking a Slavic language that would suffice.

>Two pillars of history: primary sources and burden of proof. You go against both.
And thus far, you have shown neither.

>>2439116
Though I have stumbled on this. Not a "primary source" as you imagined it, nor a Byzantine source.

But it is a compilation of old Bolghar and Volga Bolghar language fragments compared etymologically to other language.

http://groznijat.tripod.com/b_lang/bl_oldwords.html

>>2439140
>>2439116
Here's another one from a Bulgarian historian (and is available in Bulgarian) that cites remnant inscriptions of Danube Bolghar.

http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html

>>2439116
>>2439140
>>2439156
And if you can speak or understand Russian this one contains lots of primary sources of the Bolghar language.

http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/bulgar.pdf

>>2439129
>you want me to prove my claims? this is unrealistic, and its not my job to do so
Then don't make claims, and don't get aggressive when asked to defend them.

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0491-0578,_Ioannes_Malalas,_Chronographia_%28CSHB_Dindorfii_Recensione%29,_GR_LT.pdf
This text mentions bulgarians in the context of Achilles, Atreidai and Myrmidons. I wouldn't take it literally, but bulgarians were clearly known at the time.

The History, by Michael Attaleiates, writes "the Moesi ... are certainly Bulgarians who later received their new name", and again links to Myrmidons.

John Zonaras writes that "Paeonians - Latins or Thracian people of Macedonia. These are so-called Paeonians. Paeonians were Bulgarians".

John Tzetzes writes ''Pyros and Akamas (native) of the Thracian Hellespont, Maronietza Evfimos son of Treziius, Pirehmie, who was of the Paeonians they were all from the Bulgarians, from those of the river Axios, also called Vardar''.

None of these should necessarily be taken literally, but they are OLD BYZANTINE SOURCES who talk of the bulgarians as something local, and not turks from far Siberia or whatever.

>>2439140
>>2439156
>>2439161
>looking at modern bulgarian and searching for turkish words
Not a primary source. A million explanations for this, and you pick the one that suits you, like all pseudo historians before you, bulgarian or not.
Post primary sources from roman chronicles at the time. The people who met the bulgars/bulgarians, and classified them as something familiar, not new.

>>2439164
- ''Bulgarians who are named Thracians according to the previous (old) monuments'' - „Hinc iter aggressi per fines Vulgariorum, quos vocitant Thracas, ut habent monumenta priorum“ -

Fulcher of Chartres, a French priest, writes in his description of the first crusade in 1096: Hinc iter aggressi per fines Vulgariorum, quos vocitant Thracas, ut habent monumenta priorum (Bulgarians who are named Thracians according to the previous monuments/sources).

this thread is autistic

>>2439164
>but they are OLD BYZANTINE SOURCES who talk of the bulgarians as something local
Except I've always acknowledged that Slavic Bulgarians existed, as a matter of fact I've explicitly told you this many times now.

What I asked you for was sources that mentioned that Bolghar nobility prior to the 800s officially speaking a Slavic language. All of those sources come from centuries after the fact.

>Not a primary source
No, but Turkic inscriptions around the Danube that predate the Ottoman Empire certainly do attest to their presence. Did you not read them?

>>2439178
Turkic people most certainly did fight for the Bulgarian army. As late as the battle of Adrianople (1205), the Bulgarian army had steppe warriors (Cummans in this case) fighting for it, against Venice and the Latin kingdoms.

Do you also consider norse graffiti in Constantinople to constitute a claim of Swedish rulership there?

Further, the original claim that Bulgarian nobility had to make a state, and the cradle of their legitimacy, was saying they are descendant from Attila. No doubt you will disagree with that, as do most historians, since 99 different kings have claimed it. Yet this also explains why there would be some asiatic/turkic speech and calendars or other such - because there would be an effort to contact peoples affiliated with the huns and attract them to this new kingdom.

File: 4th century map.jpg (165KB, 1600x613px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1600x613px

>>2439178
Also, what I translate as "bulgarians" is written in greek as "bulgar".
The term bulgarian is never used until modernity, bulgar used to be the word referring to bulgarians.

Bulgarian is a modern word for the same thing bulgar used to mean.

>>2439191
>Do you also consider norse graffiti in Constantinople to constitute a claim of Swedish rulership there?
No because we have a wealth of sources written by people living in Constantinople documenting what was going on and why Norsemen were there.
On the other hand around the Danube in the early Medieval era people weren't writing much down, and so archaeological inscriptions (which are all over the place, not just here and there like with Norse graffiti) attest to a Turkic presence.

>Yet this also explains why there would be some asiatic/turkic speech and calendars or other such - because there would be an effort to contact peoples affiliated with the huns and attract them to this new kingdom.
Or we could go with the simpler explanation, that they were Turkic - like many other hordes in the region like the Avars.

However what's notable about the Bolghars is that their inscriptions are linguistically distinct from other Turkic languages whilst quite close to Volga Bolghar.

>>2439197
>Also, what I translate as "bulgarians" is written in greek as "bulgar".
So then we're back to square one, how are you distinguishing between Slavs and Turks when they have the same name in these sources?
Although I know they're Slavs because by this point Bolghar was effectively dead in the region, however prior to the 800s that was a different matter.

>Bulgarian is a modern word for the same thing bulgar used to mean.
It isn't. "Bulgarian" is a modern word that distinguishes between the vernacular Slavic and the ruling Turkic.

>>2439197
Also, here's a Byzantine source referring to the decisively Turkic Old Great Bulgaria as "Bulgar"

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_KgtIMoVlp98C
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria

File: map 2nd century.jpg (257KB, 1274x906px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1274x906px

>>2439224
>archaeological inscriptions (which are all over the place, not just here and there like with Norse graffiti) attest to a Turkic presence
Literally two such inscriptions of a turkic language written with greek letters. There is more norse in Constantinople than there is turkic in Bulgaria.

>or we could go with my explanation instead
Or we could not, until you prove it to be true.

>However what's notable about the Bolghars is that their inscriptions are linguistically distinct from other Turkic languages whilst quite close to Volga Bolghar.
The oldest inscription we have, the one that links bulgarian kings with Attila, is written in slavic, with greek letters. It is notable that slavic is indeed not turkic.

>So then we're back to square one, how are you distinguishing between Slavs and Turks when they have the same name in these sources?
By the fact that slavic is used, and turkic is not used. I have no reason to believe that turks wrote in a slavic language with greek letters.

>It isn't. "Bulgarian" is a modern word that distinguishes between the vernacular Slavic and the ruling Turkic.
The bulgarian language doesn't even have the word "bulgar" in it. We have bulgarian and "proto bulgarian", meaning pre christian bulgarians.

Byzantine sources put bulgarians among thracians and moesians, not slavs or turks.
If you want your 2-people-theory, make it slavs and thracians, its harder to argue against.

>>2439241
Byzantine sources referred to everything as Bulgar, I have stated multiple times now that this word was used for Bulgarian.
Bulgarian is the modern word, Bulgar is the old word, same meaning.

And in what way is it decisively turkic? It just points where it sits, and where the port is, and how long it takes to sail from Constantinople to that port.

>>2438941
>did u know that america translates as amerika, and it means dumb people land?
Yeah not true, am means vagina, so u could say AMerika means land of pussies

>>2439242
>Literally two such inscriptions of a turkic language written with greek letters
And in Constantinople we have the wealth of evidence as to what was really happening. In the Danube region we do not, those kinds of inscriptions are what historians have to go off.

Those and Byzantine sources, which prior to the 800s~ depict a Turkic people.

>Or we could not, until you prove it to be true.
The thing is you're never going to accept it as true. There is no source in the world that would convince you.

>The oldest inscription we have, the one that links bulgarian kings with Attila, is written in slavic

>By the fact that slavic is used, and turkic is not used
Except
a) the sources are Greek
b) Of course it is, by the 1000s~ Danube Bolghar was basically dead. And Old Bulgarian had been the official language since the 800s, hence why I specifically asked you for pre 800s sources, as that's the time period that actually matters.

>The bulgarian language doesn't even have the word "bulgar" in it.
English does though. And quite rightly.

>Byzantine sources put bulgarians among thracians and moesians, not slavs or turks.
They didn't actually. Greek sources like Theophanes and Constantine VII refer to them as "Onogundur" or "Onogundur-Bulgars" which is a decisively Turkic name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria#Origins

>>2439249
> I have stated multiple times now that this word was used for Bulgarian.
And you're wrong to state that, it's not true.
"Bulgarian" - in the modern meaning of the word. A Slavic people, is not necessarily what the Byzantines were describing.
They had one word "Bulgar", which was originally coined to describe Turks living Ukraine, then later applied to Turks from the region that migrated to around the Danube for which their empire was named. Then when the empire started speaking Slavic officially it became the name of the Slavs from which the language was taken.

>And in what way is it decisively turkic?
The fact that the Khans of it, and the people of it all had Turkic names according to Byzantine sources. And it was organized in a fashion typical of a Turkic horde.

If you'd like to claim Old Great Bulgaria was Slavic, that is something I'd like to see proof of.

>>2439271
You repeat the same memes, and continue to either link nothing, or link Wikipedia. I'm leaving the thread, and I hope you begin studying history.

I'll address the Onogundur thing, since its actually a good clue, and based in historical sources.
Patria Onoguria was a place, it is what is today Southern Ukraine and Crimea, the steppe there that Russia, Poland and the Ottomans fought over throughout history.
The Bulgarians did in fact have a kingdom in that area, and they thus did in fact rule Onogundur, and the king was ruler of Onogundur, and so on.

Bulgarian historians call that area and period Old Great Bulgaria, and while it existed, before the Khazars defeated and broke it, you can see that the turkic people were some distance away from it.
Later this kingdom would be divided into the people who moved north, Volga Bulgaria, who accepted islam and the arabic script, and the people who moved south, Danube Bulgaria, who accepted christianity and the cyrillic script.

>>2439285
>And you're wrong to state that, it's not true.
If Bulgarian and Bulgar were two different things, and the Bulgars were gone by 9th century, and the Bulgarians ruled, why didn't the Byzantines switch names?
They continued to call the people to the north of them Bulgars. They did from the moment the rivalry started, until both the states were gone, as the Ottomans conquered them.

>They had one word "Bulgar", which was originally coined to describe Turks living Ukraine, then later applied to Turks from the region that migrated to around the Danube for which their empire was named. Then when the empire started speaking Slavic officially it became the name of the Slavs from which the language was taken.
Absolutely no fucking primary sources claim that. Stop making shit up.

>Khans
Kanasubigi, not khans. It is written once, I repeat, ONCE in the whole history of the fucking planet, and it is easily translated as княз y биги, which any slav will recognize as "king under god".

>>2439300
>and continue to either link nothing, or link Wikipedia
Except I have linked primary sources, exactly as you originally wanted. And it's still not good enough for you.

>Patria Onoguria was a place, it is what is today Southern Ukraine and Crimea, the steppe there that Russia, Poland and the Ottomans fought over throughout history.
I know, this is what I'm telling you. Did you not even open the link?

>Later this kingdom would be divided into the people who moved north, Volga Bulgaria, who accepted islam and the arabic script, and the people who moved south, Danube Bulgaria, who accepted christianity and the cyrillic script.
This is what I've been trying to tell you this entire time. It just so happens that Old Great Bulgaria spoke a Turkic language, the ones that moved north kept speaking it and it eventually evolved into other Turkic langhuages, the ones that moved south also kept speaking it but it was eventually assimilated into vernacular Slavic. Like what happened to the Normans in England, or the Franks in France.

>If Bulgarian and Bulgar were two different things, and the Bulgars were gone by 9th century, and the Bulgarians ruled, why didn't the Byzantines switch names?
Because in the middle-ages no one cared about national identity.
Hence why the Byzantines kept calling themselves Roman after they stopped speaking Latin, or how France is named after the Franks after they stopped speaking a Germanic language.

>Absolutely no fucking primary sources claim that. Stop making shit up.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. I do.
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_KgtIMoVlp98C

This was a Turkic speaking, Tengri worshipping, nomadic horde, and the Byzantines called them "Bulgars".

>Kanasubigi
Nigga, that's still a Turkic word.
http://www.promacedonia.org/vb/vb_5.html

File: map4.jpg (87KB, 658x468px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 658x468px

>>2439331
>It just so happens that Old Great Bulgaria spoke a Turkic language

CITATION FUCKING NEEDED HOLY FUCK THREE HOURS OF THIS SHIT

POST
SOURCES

>le tengri mem
Tengri is not inscribed even ONCE in Bulgaria.
People keep claiming he was the bulgarian god, he wasn't mentioned ONCE. Not once.

>nomad
Nomads don't have stone build castles and harbors.

>knyaz u bigi is a turkic title, here is a meme opinion to prove it
Go to any of the international boards and ask any ukrainian how they would translate knyas u bigi.
The non-turkic reaction might surprise you.

And now I will stop punishing myself and leave, you are rationalizing, not reasoning.

Zero Tengri inscriptions, two turkic inscriptions, byzantine chronicles call the place Onoguria, not the people, turkic people weren't even in the region at the time, you are wrong, kill yourself, potato famine.

>>2439350
>CITATION FUCKING NEEDED HOLY FUCK THREE HOURS OF THIS SHIT

http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html
Check it out, a wealth of information on Turkic presence in the area.

>Tengri is not inscribed even ONCE in Bulgaria.
I didn't say Bulgaria, I said Old Great Bulgaria i.e Ukraine.
Though Tengri is inscribed in Bulgaria proper.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=PXUroCEN1rQC&rdid=book-PXUroCEN1rQC&rdot=1
Here's the primary source.

Here's the wikipedia article I found it from, and the explanation.
>Another mention of Tengri is on the severely damaged Greek inscription found on a presumed altar stone near Madara,[149] tentatively deciphered as "Khan sybigi Omurtag, ruler from god...was...and made sacrifice to god Tangra...itchurgu boila...gold".[158]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars#Religion

And if you're about to try and say Tengriism was never practiced in Ukraine that is simply asinine. Like imagining that Old Great Bulgaria was Slavic prior to Slavic migration eastward.

>Nomads don't have stone build castles and harbors.
Did they in Old Great Bulgaria?

>Go to any of the international boards and ask any ukrainian how they would translate knyas u bigi.
Except it's still of totally Turkic etymology, though it has been incorporated into Turkic influences likes like Bulgarian and like Ukrainian. As that source will tell you.

This is like saying "literature" isn't a Latin-family word, despite being of totally Latin etymology.

>you are wrong, kill yourself, potato famine.
The butthurt is real. I know deprogramming yourself from nationalist brainwashing is hard, but you have to try.

File: sign.jpg (83KB, 602x683px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 602x683px

>>2439386
half the sign is missing you dumb shit, the meme historian made up the rest and you are quoting him, as are all the western memestorians, without knowing what the fuck they are doing

those are all parts of words, not complete words, the middle is missing
and again, its "Ta---nngav" presumably thats Tengri, eh?

its not even made on a stone from the area, it was transferred there from somewhere, and the "sacrifices" in bulgarian tradition are eating well. you make a sacrifice by holding a feast, you invite people and eat.

Tengri/Tangra was never written anywhere, it doesn't exist in script in Bulgaria

>>2439450
>as are all the western memestorians
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a memestorian and every historian in the western world is lying. Despite having literally all the best and most esteemed universities.

>it was transferred there from somewhere
By evil Turks or communists out to subvert glorious Bulgarian history I imagine? If they were going to bother doing that you'd think they'd make it a complete inscription.

>Tengri/Tangra was never written anywhere, it doesn't exist in script in Bulgaria
Well if you disregard the times when it is I suppose that's true.

Anyway, I'm going to go and do something else. So bye for now.

>>2439466
explain how you looked at those two stones with 20 greek letters spread on them and came to the conclusion that bulgarians were turkic

notice the grayed out stuff? thats the stuff the author MADE UP
its not on the stone, he invented it, to fit the narrative. this is factual, and admitted

>>2439386
>>2439450
>""Khan sybigi Omurtag, ruler from god"

And the stones actually say "Omur.... archon....".
How do you see Omur - empty space - archon, and come up with "Khan sybigi Omurtag, ruler from god"? I can help, by making shit up.
He even put both "khansybigi" and "ruler from god", which is actually the translation of knyas su bigi.

You are quoting morons who quoted morons who quoted memes, and zero primary sources were looked at.

TFW this horse nigger empire you claim was worthless was around longer than your joke you call national independence.

>>2439514
The Ottoman Empire was Persia 2.0, it had nothing to do with horse fucking.
It was brick and mortar, palace and silk, typical oriental big hat king empire.

>mfw this thread
and yet I still don't know who's right

>>2438603
Slovenia is germanic what the fuck are you doing in a history board?

>>2439599
1. What is called old bulgarian is slavic written in greek letters.
2. Tangra is never mentioned, and the stone inscription >>2439450 has so much missing it can be translated in hundreds of ways (TA-GGRA could be -ta ggramatik, the previos word finishing with TA and the next word saying the ruler wrote something, or ggraia, meaning the king renewed something - treaty, castle, etc).
3. The title was not khan, it was king under god, and it was inherited (khans are elected).
4. Byzantnes called the bulgarians thracian, and linked them to greeks.
5. Turkish words (and also persian words, fuck those WE WUZ ARYANS) come from the Ottomans and seljuks mostly, and some previously from various people moving around. After all bulgarians (on Volga and Danube) fought the Genghis Khan horde even, among other tribes.
6. Bulgarians immediately started building ships (on the Danube, few generations later on the Black Sea) and castles, something nomads don't do.
7. The locals accepted bulgarians, and there were no revolts. In facts people accepted bulgarian rule easier than byzantine rule. This doesn't happen with nomads who are foreigners to the place.

History first finds bulgarians in southern Ukraine. They trade and exchange princes for education with Byzantium, and are paid to fight. They lose a war with the Khazars, and some go north to create Volga Bulgaria, who accepted islam and the arabic script, and fell to Genghis Khan. Others go south to create Danube Bulgaria, who accepted christianity and the greek script. Later replaced with the glagolitic script, which was altered by them in the Preslav academy into the cyrillic script.
When a joint attack by Russia and Byzantium on Bulgaria defeats her, bulgarians choose to, rather than be divided, surrender to the byzantines only, and together with them fight the russians out of the country, so that it falls all under byzantine rule, and none under russian rule. Shows how much closer the cultures were.

>>2439630
proofs?

>>2439656
"Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans" is preserved through russian copies in cyrillic, after the exodus of orthodox journalists there. They say the original was in greek script. Look it up, there are copies online.

"Omurtag's Tarnovo Inscription" is in greek language, in greek script. Its posted in this thread, you can also look up copies online. Be mindful to look at ones that show only the facts, not inventing what the author thinks was in the middle. The columns are broken as shown >>2439450

The title "Kanas u bigi" means knyaz under god, or ruler under god, and is frequently inscribed replacing the greek phrase ho ek Theou archon meaning the same thing. It has no relevance to the word khan that is widely cited, and I still get mad seeing it.

Michael Attaleiates, John Zonaras, John Tzetzes and other contemporary byzantine journalists write, and quote those earlier than them who have written, that bulgarians are, or are related to, thracians, paeonians, myrmodons, moesi, among others. On maps, byzantine chronicles write moesi, thracians and bulgarians next to each other, as if these existed at the same time, and sometimes as one being the successor of the other, or the new word for the other.

Remains of Pliska castle and temple are available online, they are stone made and don't resemble contemporary architecture in the area, meaning it wasn't built by locals. You can also visit it if you are from the EU, cheap travel.

For the claim that there were no revolts I have to admit I speculate. I can't prove the lack of something. I know that byzantines write that they had many problems with revolts, and Nikephoros I had to move people from Anatolia to the Balkans so they can colonize the area, that way the locals don't revolt as soon as the army walks out.

cont.

>>2439698
"Michael Attaleiates, John Zonaras, John Tzetzes and other contemporary byzantine journalists write, and quote those earlier than them who have written, that bulgarians are, or are related to, thracians, paeonians, myrmodons, moesi, among others"
Which time period is this in, and source? And what proofs do those contemporary journalist have? Primary sources are not equal to truthful sources, as anyone who has read Herodotus would know

>>2439698
cont.
Meanwhile we have no sources claiming that the bulgarians suffered from the same problem, and we know that when Nikephoros I's army was defeated by the army of the bulgarian ruler Krum, the later had his force bolstered exactly with the same people who were revolting and whom Nikephoros I was trying to assimilate or replace.

About turkish (and persian) words, many of them are also found in modern greek and serbian, and of course turkish, so the idea that they can be traced to some turkic heritage of the old bulgarians is flawed. I'll accept it if its proven, so far the only "proof" can be explained away by reminding that the Ottoman empire ruled here.

There are still island castles in the Danube islands, there is byzantine mention of their fleet fighting a bulgarian fleet in the river, and there is a Genoese mention of the Dobrugea bulgarian province fighting them for some crimean port with their fleet, and winning, nomads don't win fleet wars with Genoa.

>>2439709
V-VI century sources, who are quoting or copying earlier works.
About how factual historical journals are, they are the most factual thing we have. If the historical journals mostly agree with each other, and they mostly agree with language and culture spread, and they mostly agree with architecture, and they mostly agree with DNA analysis, I am willing to accept them.

The turkic and Tengri claims have neither historical backing, not cultural backing (no cities in Bulgaria named after the supreme god? no songs about him? no statues, drawings, anything?), not DNA backing (asiatic-turkic admixture above the expected from Ottoman presence, and there is barely any), not linguistic (considering 500 years of turkish being the official language, there are ridiculously few turkic words).

Thus sources for my views are few, and old, and you can treat them however you want.
Sources for the opposing view are non existent, and there are sources arguing against it.

>>2439729
so you are suggesting that ukrainian old bulgars were slavs and volga bulgars later turkizised, whilst danube bulgars simply accepted christianity and to some degree greek legacy? Even then, what was the bulgars' religion in ukraine then?

Because horse riding steppe nomads have no understanding of culture beyond "me see, me kill"

See: the Huns, Mongols, Manchus, Turks

>>2439744
There is NO such thing as "ancient slavs". The whole slav meme stems from tsarist pan-slavist revisionist germanophobic fiction from the early 19th century.

Historically speaking those tribes you speak of are eastern germanic who speak a glagolithic-derived language, nothing more and less

>>2439750
>Because horse riding steppe nomads have no understanding of culture beyond "me see, me kill"
interestingly, bulgarians have that same bloodlusting mentality

>>2439744
>so you are suggesting that ukrainian old bulgars were slavs
I am suggesting they weren't turkic, since turkic people were farther east at the time. They may have spoken a language close to what we just call slavic today, but thats video game logic, there weren't nations and hard borders, and there weren't universities and ministries standardizing language.
Look at how late the french language was formed from all the dozens of languages spoken in the territory of France.

>and volga bulgars later turkizised
I don't know if they were ever "turkizised", but they did clash with turks, since 1) they went further east 2) at the time turks went further west. So they did in fact meet. And they didn't need turks to make them muslim, the arabs sent emissaries to do that. So they were "arabized", if you like.
However the Volga bulgarians were lost first to the mongols (the capital city slaughtered for not surrendering, with the army in it), and then to the russsians, after the area was reclaimed from the mongols. It is today near Kazan.

>whilst danube bulgars simply accepted christianity and to some degree greek legacy?
They didn't accept it in that sense. First, it spread naturally, the way organized religions with fancy codes and temples push out simple religions without such. Secondly, Bulgaria was in a war with Serbia, and the Byzantines marched in, and in order to avoid a two front war the king made a deal to convert to christianity. Thirdly, the nobility didn't accept it, and there was some inquisition going on, and pagans (in soviet era movies portrayed as Tengrists) were killed by the christian emissaries sent by Byzantium. The king's son and successor even reverted the conversion, and his dad had to come out of the monastery to fight him, and since the peasantry supported that very small scale civil war, we can assume they were already largely christian at the time.

cont.

>>2439752
are you trying to imply ukrainian bulgars are like relatives of the goths

>>2439744
>>2439768
cont.


> Even then, what was the bulgars' religion in ukraine then?
Phanagoria, the capital of "Great Old Bulgaria" or Patria Onoguria, has traces of christian (orthodox, aryan, other sects), zoroastrain and other worship, including worship of sun and moon (associated with Tengrism, though not as organized).
Just like the mongols allowed whatever to be worshiped, and the romans before them, we can assume this was the case in the first bulgarian state that we know of, in southern Ukraine. Having a state religion was a novel, new thing, not the standard.
Kubrat, ruler when the bulgarians moved south and north respectively, had been educated in Constantinople, and was most likely a christian.

>>2427457
>As a Bulgarian
Christian Turks talking shit about more successful Muslim Turks.
Now it makes sense, its all just jealousy

File: Not+sure+if+bait+fact+or+both+_8c722762116ba878fca49e956a8d8fbe.png (92KB, 955x957px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 955x957px

Jesus fucking Christ this board sucks. I got in expecting a nice discussion instead a fuckton of retarted Eurofags started spewing nationalistic crap over it. I'm so fucking glad my country has 250 years of history so we don't have anything to argue about.

>>2439521
It became that after becoming empire though.
Before that they were typical horse nomads.

Ottomans just claimed the Byzantine Empire and kept the what worked going. They also happened to be the primary source for Silk Road goods and Eastern knowledge until the Age of Sail.

>>2434248
what's the point of going to space

>>2428434
>The whole military parade and presentation was a turkish invention brought to Europe.
werent triumphs a roman thing

>>2441615
Yep.

>>2434275
He's saying that cryptic is a superior alphabet to whatever Arabs use. Your argument that Arabs had a harder time using printing is because the alphabet is less suited to printing, thus I conclude that it is inferior.

>>2440639
Aussie pride m8

>>2427737
>The problem is Balkanshits have convinced themselves that were it not for the big bad Ottoman Empire they would be western and relevant.

tldr of this entire thread, they are eternally bitter over this

>>2438898
>You can't claim Ottoman heritage and ignore Ottoman crimes.

Accepting the premise of the "sins of the father's" will absolutely fuck you, Turkey.

The Balkans should have be razed and salted.

File: brainy.jpg (19KB, 213x197px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 213x197px

>>2434234
>Turkey being green
Can't have inequal treatment of minorities if you don't have any minorities

>>2442380
Denying your father committed sins and calling those who suffered under him frauds will not help you out either.
As I said, I don't expect paying reparations or any other economic cuckoldry, I expect admitting the events, apologizing, and permitting people to mourn openly, making monuments and parades or whatever.

File: 1eb3295a3c57187df2b22ff252e31999.jpg (105KB, 736x739px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 736x739px

>>2441927
Its more complicated than that, in the western world the highest form of arts are paintings and sculptures, In Islamic world where religious depiction are forbidden, its calligraphy which become the highest form of art, combine this with the way arabic is written like pic related, that each letter are combined as opposed to keeping it separate like Alphabet, making it much harder to be printed, thus making printed books become undesirable as it considered lacking artistic value, not to mention calligraphic scribe is well established as professional profession in islamic world much more than in Europe was

>>2444186
Why? What do you want to know more about or discuss?

>>2427467
Case solved

>>2443564
>in the western world the highest form of art is
classical music

>>2439106
>Actually it was Serbia

Serbia was conquered in 1459, many decades after Bulgaria.

Between 1389 and 1459, Serbia was in turns either a loyal vassal, a disloyal vassal, or outright free (for a period of several decades). By 1459, when the last medieval Serbian state had fallen, Bulgaria had been long gone.

To say Serbia had been conquered (not subjugated, or vassalized, which you might be able to argue, but conquered) first is simply historically false.

To speak of Bulgar and Byzantines as being defenders of Europe but not mention Hungarians, Croats and Serbs (the peoples who actually held the line between Austria/Europe and the Ottomans for centuries) reeks of nationalist WE WUZery.

>>2445876
>surrendering and becoming a vassal doesn't count

lol

>>2445884
I understand English is your second language, Simeon, but "conquered" means a very specific thing - the violent disappearance of a state. A state swearing fealty to another was a) very common in the Middle Ages and b) didn't necessitate conquest. Or would you say England was conquered by Scotland when the Stuarts assumed the English throne?

Had the original poster in the comment chain said "subjugated", you might have a leg to stand on. As it stands, Serbia was among the last to be conquered (after Bulgaria and the Byzantines but before Bosnia, for example) in the Balkans.

Just think logically (not nationalistically) about this for a second - after the Battle of Kosovo, the Ottoman army went to their own territories, and so did the Serbian armies. The Serb state paid a yearly levy to the Ottomans and, sometimes (but not at others) assisted them militarily. This isn't conquest. Ottoman soldiers never stepped foot on 90% of medieval Serbian territory during this period.

>this whole fucking thread
Christ's sake, /his/ is probably the worst board for people interested in actual history.

>>2445982
Leave it to people who get "subjugated" every couple of centuries by a new ruling dynasty to have sixty words of expressing the loss of sovereignty to a foreign people.
Most languages don't have that need, and you will find most people do in fact consider that conquest. Example: the constant "french normans conquered England hon hon hon" bait threads.

>>2446028
All ex ottomanos dance around the fact that they were get cucked
>well they conquered %70 but look 30% was still free
>well we only helped in few wars, in others we did not
>we only payed tax
>we only accepted the phanariots nothing more

Geez, making me sick. I would understand a maltese boasting about it, they earned the right fair and square. But the balkan mentality is magical, inferiority and superiority complexes mix there
>>2446022
See above, welcome to the average /balk/ thread

>>2446045
What the fuck are you whining about? The Balkan stats did get conquered. I am not the one pussy footing around the word out of pathetic nationalistic pride and MUH ANCESTORS THO memes.

>>2427467
kek

File: 1463164014365.png (206KB, 310x293px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 310x293px

>all these assblasted serbs ITT
/his/ really is just /pol/ with dates

>>2446175
All boards are a variation on /pol/ so...

>>2446028
And now I see you just don't know history.

The Norman conquest (see! We use that word too, when it's appropriate!) is called that because the entire ruling class was supplanted by the Normans. Like the Roman conquest of Gaul, or the Spanish conquest of the Americas.

Vassalization is not that. And I doubt even in your language you don't make a distinction.

All the Balkan states were conquered. All you're arguing about is whether or not vassalization means conquest (it doesn't) so you could say Bulgaria wasn't conquered first.

And this is why the Balkans will always be a shithole. Because you refuse to accept history as fact and argue over trivialities. Like it fucking matters if you were conquered five years before or after your neighbor.

>>2446175
>Serbs
>90% of the thread is Bulgars shitposting

Are you calling them Serbs? In which case excellent troll technique.

>>2446189
>And this is why the Balkans will always be a shithole. Because you refuse to accept history as fact and argue over trivialities. Like it fucking matters if you were conquered five years before or after your neighbor.

Nigga you are the one who started arguing this shit, and then arguing semantics, and now arguing about the fact that you argued petty shit.

/his/ and this thread are both shit, but not for the reasons you are telling yourself.
Try reading your own posts as a neutral observer and be ashamed.

>>2438898
http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/russian-account-armenian-genocide

>>2446207
You're conflating me with other posters.

I made three posts total. One was in response to someone stating a historical falsehood (that you describe as petty in an attempt to downplay your Balkan nationalist bullshit which prompted this exchange). Another was saying "that's not what that word means, Simeon". The third one is reiterating my point.

You're the one (assuming it's you) who stated an erroneous claim, then when I pointed out that it's wrong, started arguing whether or not that's what the word means (with a meme arrow post, no less).

As a neutral observer who actually knows what words in my language mean, I feel zero shame.

>>2446189
>And this is why the Balkans will always be a shithole. Because you refuse to accept history as fact and argue over trivialities. Like it fucking matters if you were conquered five years before or after your neighbor
Why are you trying so hard to force this narrative? Is your perception of the world shaped by 4chan by any chance? Do you think of the Balkans as some warring tribes that start meaningless wars upon the slightest provocation? Besides a few LARPing autists nobody considers their country a beacon of civilization that just so happened to be attacked by evil hordes of subhumans.

File: genocide quote debate unqoute.jpg (53KB, 691x472px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 691x472px

>>2446234
I question the neutrality of this website.

>>2446279
>Do you think of the Balkans as some warring tribes that start meaningless wars upon the slightest provocation?
Yes.

>>2446367
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/armenia/11933115/Right-to-deny-Armenian-genocide-upheld-by-European-court-in-blow-to-Amal-Clooney.html
The European court already decided that the "Armenian genocide" isn't a fact but an opinion.
Turkey demanded proof several times from Armenia but the latter refuses any kind of conversation.

>>2446279
A few years ago, when Bulgaria and Romania entered the free movement zone of the EU, the british television channels were showing a lot of gypsy ghettos, slums and such as part of their political news coverage.
If you live in England, the only bulgarians you know of are beggars in parks and Berbatov.
Its ignorance, not malice. Don't hate on him for not knowing better.

>>2446279
I'm going to do something rare on 4chan and apologize.

You're right - the majority are normal, rational folk. I was painting with too broad a brush. I spent too much time on /his/ and /int/, where the loudest voices are of the small minority that believes in genocidal bullshit and wants Greater Whatever.

The rest of you shouldn't be lumped in with the idiots (we have our fair share of them), and thank you for reminding me of that. Good night, fellow anon. Best of luck to you.

>>2446408
Your image of the Balkans is outdated then.
>>2446452
Sadly this is still the case, recently there was a video of Farage interviewing people in gypsy ghettos in Bulgaria about wheather they want to immigrate to England. The responce was suprisingly mostly made up from declines but that didn't stop his party from using the video as propaganda
>>2446479
I went a little overboard but I'm annoyed by the image of the Balkans that's perpetuated on the internet. Your average citizen (especially from the younger generations) thinks more in line with Cioran than any nationalistic warlord
Good night and best of luck to you too.

>>2438776
>Ireland has produced a wealth of literature and science.
Like what?
> The Balkans doesn't speak Slavic because of Bulgarian influence, but rather Slavic migrations from which Bulgarian also came from

The First Bulgarian Empire spanned from serbia to Romania, and Old Bulgarian was spoken in all slavic areas in the Empire, until it diverged into seperate languages. Romanian and Russian also have a huge Old Bulgarian vocabulary.
> you were bound to be western some day were it not for the evil Turk.

Yes exactly. The ottomans murdered the entire Bulgarian administrative and intellectual class, thus preventing the natural development of Bulgarian high culture, and kept Bulgarian society medieval because Ottoman society was medieval until the 19th century.

>As evidenced by the fact that the only things you can cite about Bulgaria is medieval WE WUZery.

Because Bulgaria was a state back then?

> The Jews however were pogromed in every country they visited, yet still managed to contribute massively to society

Ottoman jews didn't

>Bulgaria, like all eastern European nations probably would have retained serfdom well into the 19th century Ottoman Empire or no Ottoman Empire. Austria and Russia certainly did.

The balkans had far less serfdom than western Europe during the 14-15th centuries. The ottomans brought it back. Also unlike the Ottoman Empire, Russia and Austrohungary actually experienced some indsutrialisation and scientific development, and this would've benefited the balkans if they were under their rule. General religious tolerance and a law system not based on the Quran would've also helped.

>Bulgaria was never genocided.
The Bulgarian kingdom had the same population as England during the late 14th century. By 1900, the Bulgarian population had only risen twice, while the English: 30-fold. This is due to constant massacres of settlements under the Turks, slave raids and jannissery kidnappings.

>>2438776

Ireland until modern times was never anything more than a bunch of squabbling lords, yet still managed to absolutely dwarf Bulgarian history in significance.

Interacting with the Eternal Anglo and having plastic paddies in the US does not mean historical significance.