- This topic has 166 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Something is amiss here methinks.
No! Every thing is right. I only show the facts. Read carefuly and rethink.
Any historian who claims "this one particular state" saved Europe should be suspect.
Why? I only show the fact. You can not deny that the help of ruler Tervel turned out decisive one for the saving of Europe.
Why? You aren't showing historical fact, you're showing historical theory. There is a difference. I would be with you more if you said the Bulgarians HELPED in the creation of Europe. To claim they alone saved Europe is a fallacy.And by the way, they were part of the Great Migration along with everyone else. So in that aspect they were barbarians. Personally, I think the term 'barbarian' is a misnomer because it has negative connotations. The Germanic tribes, Celts, Picts, etc. were all part of the "barbarian" invasion of Rome.
I mean Danube Bulgaria in this case.
Who were they? I don't deny that about Terval, but historical facts do. This is something you should look into that may change your mind about his saving Europe and helping Justinian.Battle of Anchialus
Posting the same thing multiple times doesn't make your point more convincing.The Bulgarians need to get in line to be the saviors of Europe. There is the Austrians and Polish for stopping the Turks in front of Vienna in the 16th century, the Russians fro containing the Mongols, the Hungarians for the Mongols and Turks, and the Spanish for combatting the Muslims in Iberia to name just a few. I hardly think that Tervels restoration of Justinian II to his throne counts as saving Europe. The Byzantine Empire was not in the middle of collapsing in the 8th century. At best, Tervel intervened in the dynastic dispute of another nation. Some people would call that meddling in affairs not his own.
Exuse me for the multiplying! This is my technical mistake. I have respect about the contributons of the other people beside bulgarians, but I can not ignore bulgarian contributions. You are in a big extent misguided for bulgarian contributions for Europe. Think, arabian atack on Europe on capital of Bizantium - Konstantinopol is strongest. To stop arabians by Espanian shores is many easier. Read carefuly what I wrote. Europe is not, only, the western part of the continent. I write that the slav peoples have to be grateful to bulgarians etc. You say, that khan Tervel was meddling in affairs not his own. Just this his meddling saved Europe. What could be when arabians assail Bizantium and in this momeht empire is a very weak one by the inter fights for power and what could be if Tervel did not with his troops helped the empire?
So you are saying the Bulgarian people started out in Bulgaria left and then came back? They had to spend their time wandering much like the Jews in the desert after their(the Jews) escape from Egypt I guess? I did not say they were colocated in Egypt with the Egyptians you make the claim that the Bulgarians have existed since then:
The Bulgarians are very ancient people, like egyptians. The proof is the fact, that their name exists in the most ancient legends and chronices. But egyptians are dead, and Bulgarians are alive.
As far as the Histories I know, the Bulgars are a slavic people just like the rest of the peoples of the present day Balkans. they migrated there in the latter centuries of the Western Roman Empire and just after Rome's fall. The Bulgars were one of the numerous barbarian tribes the Romans failed to hold out of their empire. See link here:Bulgarian HistoryI dont think your claim of an ancient presence of present day ethnic Bulgars in present day Bulgaria holds water. Sorry.
Do not hasten to sorry! Because Bulgarian people indeed went out from Europe after the big flood-8000 years B.C. They are not barbarians. They have state many years B.C. At leest 1000 yaers B.C. Have you heard something about bulgarian state Balhara or Balkara? Read carefuly what i write. I wrote bulgarians are not slavs. Their language shows that, after all. This the bigest proof, because it can not be falsify. How you can falsify the speech, wich we use every moment? I mean the fact, the grammer of one language can not be changed and the grammer could not exists alone without the words/the vocabulary/, wich the grammer servs. Ask some filologist. Bulgarian grammer is totaly different from this of slav peoples. In spite of that there are many bulgarian words in modern bulgarian language, wich are with the same meaning like the slav words. For example : meaning - run - slav word-biagam , bulgarian word- ticham , meaning - walk - slav word- hodia , bulgarian word - varvia etc. The genetic invastigations and antropology ones confirm that. This is not ocasionaly. Posted on: Today at 06:39:15 AMPosted by: scout1067
I havent found any evidence of Bulgarian assistance helping the Byzantines stop muslim expansion in the 8th century or any other. I would like to see more evidence of this than a Bulgarian king becoming involved in Byzantine succession disputes.
To stop arabians by Espanian shores is many easier.
Stopping the muslim invasion of Europe through Iberia and then regaining the Iberian peninsula for Christianity was anything but easy. The muslim invaders were stopped in the Pyrnees and not on the shoreline, it took almost 700 years to reconquer Iberia.Phililogical studies of language differences do indeed point to Bulgarian being a slav language. see here: BulgarianI admire your devotion and pride in your people, but you have not proven your claim that they are the saviours of Europe. The Bulgarians have done some great things. Unfortunately, saving Europe from barbarians of any stripe does not seemto be one of them. Sorry.
I think the Romanians had more to do with the defeat of Mehmet II than did the Bulgarians. I'm speaking of Vlad Dracul here.
I havent found any evidence of Bulgarian assistance helping the Byzantines stop muslim expansion in the 8th century or any other. I would like to see more evidence of this than a Bulgarian king becoming involved in Byzantine succession disputes.
To stop arabians by Espanian shores is many easier.
Stopping the muslim invasion of Europe through Iberia and then regaining the Iberian peninsula for Christianity was anything but easy. The muslim invaders were stopped in the Pyrnees and not on the shoreline, it took almost 700 years to reconquer Iberia.Phililogical studies of language differences do indeed point to Bulgarian being a slav language. see here: BulgarianI admire your devotion and pride in your people, but you have not proven your claim that they are the saviours of Europe. The Bulgarians have done some great things. Unfortunately, saving Europe from barbarians of any stripe does not seemto be one of them. Sorry.
I mean the battle near Poatie-Where Karl the great deafited arabians. For Karl the great it was easier to stop arabians, than khan Tervel and bizantinias near Konstantinopol. But I want, you to make more attention about what I wrote about bulgarian help for slavonic world. About the character of bulgarian language - information, wich you refered me is not good, there are not any details. What are the details - Bulgarian grammer is complitly different than this of slav languages. This is the miss of any cases, only remainders, the existence of a very eleborated verbal sistem, definite article, wich is locted in the end of the word etc. I wrote that the grammer of one language could not be changed. For that reason the grammer of old bulgarian language was not changed and this with the many old bulgarians words, wich exist simultaneously with the slav words /for that I have given examples/, proof that the etnic bais of bulgarians is oldbulgarian and not slavonic. The antropolgy and genetic investigations confirm that. I have written that.
Any historian who claims "this one particular state" saved Europe should be suspect.
Why? I only show the fact. You can not deny that the help of ruler Tervel turned out decisive one for the saving of Europe.
Why? You aren't showing historical fact, you're showing historical theory. There is a difference. I would be with you more if you said the Bulgarians HELPED in the creation of Europe. To claim they alone saved Europe is a fallacy.And by the way, they were part of the Great Migration along with everyone else. So in that aspect they were barbarians. Personally, I think the term 'barbarian' is a misnomer because it has negative connotations. The Germanic tribes, Celts, Picts, etc. were all part of the "barbarian" invasion of Rome.
I mean Danube Bulgaria in this case.
I agree with you that bulgarians are not the only savers of Europe. But I do not agree with you, that I deal only with a theory. I wrote that bulgarians created three states in Europe. This a fact, not a theory and only this is enougf to be said, that bulgarians HELPED in the creation of Europe. Especialy, when at this time in Europe like a state was only Roman empire. This is not the only bulgarian help for the continet. Wrote what i have written about bulgarian contribution for the devolopping of slav world.Who were they? I don't deny that about Terval, but historical facts do. This is something you should look into that may change your mind about his saving Europe and helping Justinian.Battle of Anchialus
I agree with you that bulgarians are not the only savers of Europe. But I do not agree with you, that I deal only with a theory. I wrote that bulgarians created three states in Europe. This a fact, not a theory and only this is enougf to be said, that bulgarians HELPED in the creation of Europe. Especialy, when at this time in Europe like a state was only Roman empire. This is not the only bulgarian help for the continet. Wrote what i have written about bulgarian contribution for the devolopping of slav world.Who were they?
I mean the battle near Poatie-Where Karl the great deafited arabians. For Karl the great it was easier to stop arabians, than khan Tervel and bizantinias near Konstantinopol. But I want, you to make more attention about what I wrote about bulgarian help for slavonic world.
I think you are comparing the Bulgarian assistance in lifting the Second siege of Constantinople with the Battle of Tours in 732. First of all, the two are not really comparable in effect or forces engaged. The Bulgarians assisted the Byzantines in lifting the siege but it is improbable that the siege would have been successful even if the Bulgarians had not intervened. The Bulgarian king at the time was Kormesiy and not Tervel. If the siege had been successful it is doubtful that the Arabs would have went much farther because of the resistance they would have faced in the Balkans. After 1453 the Turks did not get much farther than the Balkans either. The folks there definitely know how to fight.At Tours the Frankish leader was Charles Martel (The Hammer) and not Charlemagne( also known as Karl the Great). If it had not been for Tours it is highly probable that most of present day France would have been overrun if not all and there would have been very little stopping the Arabs from continuing their conquests in Western Europe. In my personal opinion I would rate the Battle of Tours as having much greater later impact on European history than the rasinignof the second siege of Constantinople. Simply because the consequences of failure at Tours were potentially so much graver.I will leave the origins of language out. I am not an expert on languages, I will stick to what my research has told me, which is that Bulgarian is a slavic language. Bulgarian may very well have more than one origin and probably does but everything I have read says Bulgarian is a slavic tongue. English is not a specifically Anglo-Saxon language, we borrow from everywhere.
I mean the battle near Poatie-Where Karl the great deafited arabians. For Karl the great it was easier to stop arabians, than khan Tervel and bizantinias near Konstantinopol. But I want, you to make more attention about what I wrote about bulgarian help for slavonic world.
I think you are comparing the Bulgarian assistance in lifting the Second siege of Constantinople with the Battle of Tours in 732. irst the two are not really comparable in effect or forces engaged. The Bulgarians assisted the Byzantines in lifting the siege but it is improbable that the siege would have been successful even if the Bulgarians had not intervened. The Bulgarian king at the time was Kormesiy and not Tervel. If the siege had been successful it is doubtful that the Arabs would have went much farther because of the resistance they would have faced in the Balkans. After 1453 the Turks did not get much farther than the Balkans either. The folks there definitely know how to fight.At Tours the Frankish leader was Charles Martel (The Hammer) and not Charlemagne( also known as Karl the Great). If it had not been for Tours it is highly probable that most of present day France would have been overrun if not all and there would have been very little stopping the Arabs from continuing their conquests in Western Europe. In my personal opinion I would rate the Battle of Tours as having much greater later impact on European history than the rasinignof the second siege of Constantinople. Simply because the consequences of failure at Tours were potentially so much graver.I will leave the origins of language out. I am not an expert on languages, I will stick to what my research has told me, which is that Bulgarian is a slavic language. Bulgarian may very well have more than one origin and probably does but everything I have read says Bulgarian is a slavic tongue. English is not a specifically Anglo-Saxon language, we borrow from everywhere.
I compare the victory of bulgarians against to arabians in 717 year A.D. Then bulgarians complitly destroited 20000 arabian troops. After this victory of bulgarians, arabians went out. This is only bulgarian deed, the bizantinias did actions only in the sea, then. For that reason khan Tervel is called "The saver of Europe"-then, but then, now he and bulgarians are forgotten. You mentioned something abot khan Kormesiy in 732 A.D., but his name is Kormisosh and the begining of his rule is 739 A.D. The victory of bulgarians in 717 year is not the only their contributon for Europe. I have written about the antireligious movment "Bogomili", about what bulgarians did for slav world etc., but you did not pay attention.
I compare the victory of bulgarians against to arabians in 717 year A.D. Then bulgarians complitly destroited 20000 arabian troops. After this victory of bulgarians, arabians went out. This is only bulgarian deed, the bizantinias did actions only in the sea, then. For that reason khan Tervel is called "The saver of Europe"-then, but then, now he and bulgarians are forgotten. You mentioned something abot khan Kormesiy in 732 A.D., but his name is Kormisosh and the begining of his rule is 739 A.D. The victory of bulgarians in 717 year is not the only their contributon for Europe. I have written about the antireligious movment "Bogomili", about what bulgarians did for slav world etc., but you did not pay attention.
Actually, I am talking about the Bulgarian victory in 717 in which a Bulgarian army under King Kormesiy assaulted the rear of Arab forces laying siege to Constantinople. If the Byzantines only fought at sea in this battle who was defending the walls of Constantinople? According to my information Kormesiy was king from 715-721. Here:Kormesiy of Bulgaria732 is the date for the Battle of Tours or Poitier in Southern France in which the forces of Charles Martel stopped the Muslim invasion of Western Europe through the Iberian Peninsula. It is my contention that the Battle of Tours in 732 was more significant for later European history than the Bulgarian assistance to the Byzantines in 717.I did not ignore the reference to the Bogomilli. I fail to see how the existence of a heretical sect has implications for your claim of Bulgars being the saviors of Europe. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Here:Bogomilli, a Neo Manichean sect
If ivkhan is speaking of the Siege of Constantinople then he is correct in claiming the Bulgars were the ones who defeated the Arabs. By the way, it wasn't 20,000 Arab forces, it was closer to 80,000! (which makes the defeat even more impressive, IMO).
If ivkhan is speaking of the Siege of Constantinople then he is correct in claiming the Bulgars were the ones who defeated the Arabs. By the way, it wasn't 20,000 Arab forces, it was closer to 80,000! (which makes the defeat even more impressive, IMO).
Thank you, very much! I meant just this battle under the rule of khan Tervel and this siege of Konstantinopol in 717. We have to give the people only the truth! This the real destiny of the History!
Totally agree about truth. But we shouldn't make exagerrated claims either. (like the Bulgarians saved Europe). Saving Europe was a concerted effort made my many.
I don't deny that a Bulgarian army assisted the Byzantines in lifting the siege. I simply do not think that victory was as significant as the victory at Tours 15 years later. As I pointed out previously there is little evidence that the Arabs would have gotten much further than Constantinople. For one thing, Eastern Europe was much better organized than Western Europe at that time therefor Arab exploitation of any victory in the East would have been more difficult. The west was just getting itself back together which makes the victory at tours that much more remarkable. I still dont buy the claim of the Bulgars being the saviours of Europe. It smacks of braggadocio with little to back it up. Everyone wants to think their people is the best, the Scots and Germans make similar claims for greatness, this claim is no exception.
