Thank you very much to all honest people, who supported me! I have written, that if somebody wants to refute me, has to delete the existing of bulgarian states in early middle ages in Europe. It is impossible. Let, every honest person, who knows something about the topic to write and to clear the truth! Here, not only the siege of Konstantinopol is important, there are many others big bulgarian deeds for Europe. I have written about them.  Here are some known current european professors, who confirm my words and estimate bulgarian deeds for Europe :  1-proffesor Roger Bernard - France  2-professor Sante Graciotti - Italy  3-professor Dimitry Likhachov - Russia  4-professor Juri Oleanik - Russia  5-professor Imre Tot - Hungary  6-professor Sh. Moline - France  7-professor Ziegel - Germany  8-professor Georgi Bakalov - Bulgaria  9-professor Bozhidar Dimitrov - Bulgaria     Bulgarian historians Peter Dobrev, Boris Cholpanov and many others.   Many people can confirm that Bulgaria is a saver of Europe. But I repeat, not only the siege of Konstantinopol is important. Do not forget that in early middle ages bulgarians created 3 big and powerful states in Europe!

You left out the fun.  This thread is fun and you never know.  We may succeed in injecting some reality into Ivkhan's historical perspective. As long the thread stays civil I am willing to stick with it.

     The History is not a fun! The History is not a lie! Autocrats use the History in this way to possess the common people. You did not succeed in injecting some reality into my historical perspective, because I see the truth. Because I do not think the History for a fun, I stop to talk. I tried to show the truth, who is did not understand me has own problem. For me and for the honest people, the things are clear! I stop to talk!

The Celts were Druids weren't they?  The Irish are Catholic Christians (and many Protestant).  But anyway my point is culture and societies change so rapidly, it is unwise to attach modern societies to groups that existed hundreds or over a thousand years ago.  Too much chronological dissonance and too many variables to take into account.  You have demographic migrations, ethnic assimilations, political upheavals, and so forth that totally transform a people into something new.  The Bulgars of old are not necessarily the Bulgarians of today.

    This identifying of the peoples with the religions etc. is not correctly and dangerous. It reveals the possessing plans of the autocrats. This plans exist still from ancient times to nowadays. I have written in my article, that Bizantinium empire had begun a process of assimilation on the slav people by imposing of the Christianity and only the creating and existing of the bulgarian state prevented this assimilation. This is not only a contribution, this is literally a saving of the slav people. Now, if there were not bulgarians, serbians, chroatians etc could not be. Who knows, under this possessing plans could  be not only the slav peoples. This is a fact, which proofs what I have written, that Bulgarian state, wich was located just between the two empires ? Franc and Bizantium empires, prevented  their possessing plans. This is not only a contribution, too. This is literally a saving. This is not a propaganda, this is only a showing of the facts. You can speak what you want, but the facts exist. About the topic ? What is left from our ancestors? Many things. The roots, the base of the language in many cases, ofcorse not in every case, some cultural features and etc., and the most important thing, wich proofs, that the blood could not be a water, the genetic and anthropological investigations, wich shows our origin, in spit of the mixings. The Humanity is managed to prevents the cultural, language and other varieties on the earth. This is our biggest wealth and we have to keep it. This, what is of the biggest extent different from our ancestors, is the mind. If this mind is changed in one good meaning, the future will show. But we have to recognize the big deeds of our ancestors.

Ivkhan,My issue is with your obvious ideological bent.  It is clear that are not willing to truly engage in debate, you only want to spread your (to my mind) obviously ideologically driven mantra that the Bulgarian people saved Europe from the scourge of Islam in the eighth century.  I have disagreed with you and explained why I do so.  I am willing to acknowledge the Bulgarian victory at Constantinople in 717 important, but not critical to the future of Europe.  I even go so far as to acknowledge Bulgarian contributions to European and Western culture without nowing exactly what these might be.  That is apparently not enough.You choose to ignore my arguments and repeat your claim ad infinitum.  It takes two to debate, so far there has been only one.Lastly, I did not think we were engaged in propagandizing Bulgarian culture, I thought we were debating history.  Apparently, I was wrong.  That was my mistake and I am now clear on your purpose here.

    I gave you only historical facts, but you deny that. I wanted only to show this forgotten facts to clear the truth. You understand the things, differently. After all I am grateful to you.

I think what scout is saying is that the support required to sustain an army of a quarter of a million is more than what was possible at the time.  Just because you have 250,000 men able to bear arms, doesn't mean you have the infrastructure to assemble them and sustain them for an entire campaign.  Only the feats of modern industrialism allows countries to do this even now.  Just saying.

      On the battle field there are only bulgarians and bizantinians, but bizantinians are in the sea, on the land only bulgarians and arabians. The number of arabians is a very, very big at that time. They sieged Konstantinopol from everywhere. Trough 1 year bulgarian cavalry did strikes on arabians and disordered and weaked them. In the summer of 718 bulgarians made their decisive strike and complitly destroied arabians. Arabians lost 30000 men and left this part of Europe. Then bizantinium chronicler Michael Sireaski writes " Bulgarians assaulted arabians and put them to the sword, arabians had more fear from bulgarians than from bizantinians." This bulgarian victory is not ocasianaly. In 13 century A.D. bulgarians from Volga Bulgaria first win a battle against mongolians. In the begining of 20 century A.D. in balkan war bulgarians win many battles and captured Odrin, wich is thought for notcaptured. This is used for example in the textbooks for military history. This proofs, that the high spirit of bulgarians is still alive. One is sure that bulgarian victory against arabians is decisive for the sving Europe from arabians.   

Where do you get the numbers of Arabian troops and ships?  I find 5000 ships to be completely unbelievable.  The Allies amassed slightly over 5000 craft of all types for the invasion of Europe in 1944 and that was a herculean undertaking.  I find it hard to believe that the Arabs, a people who 100 years before had been desert nomads, amassed a 5000 ship fleet in 717.  The logistics alone would have been staggering.  Where did they get the wood to build the ships and men to man them?  This is after they supposedly fielded a 200,000 man army, I find this kind of a stretch.

    My source is the book of Zano Zanov "Bulgarians - one romantic history" - "Цано Цанов - Българите, романтична история". But this book is in bulgarian language. I think, that this number of arabian troops is high. But after all the number of arabians is not small and high one. It is more important and the role of bulgarians of saving Europe is very, very impressive. Bulgarians have to be put in one line with the other savers of our continent Europe! Bulgarians have and other big contributions for Europe. I will show.

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 Bulgaria

My source is linked to in blue, but here it is again :Kormesiy of Bulgaria  One of the problems with history in this period is the scarcity of sources.  There is very little documentary evidence remaining.How did the Bogomilli do this?

provided the road of western Revival by breaking of the sholastic christianity religion

  I dont fully understand the role you claim for this heretical Christian sect.  I dont see that they are any different than other heretical sect throughout history such as the Cathars, Hussites, or Manichaens of any stripe.

We do not discuss, because it is more important that bulgarians have a decisive role then.

I thought we were debating my refutation of your claim that the Bulgarians are the real saviors of Europe and have been maligned in the history books by being ignored for their decisive role in saving Europe from arab domination in the eighth century?

      I emphasize on the spreading of the movement, not on its features. This antireligious movement"Bogomili" is spread almost in whole Europe then, at least if not directly, it with a big influence. This fact leads inevitably to the breaking of the sholastic christianity and providing of the road for the Revival. This is the main difference. In many countries, this movement has a different name. But it is good to pay attention on the fact, that Danube Bulgaria is very big then and it is just between Franc empire and Bizantia empire. With this location Bulgaria and with its victories Bulgaria has a big role to prevent the possessing plans of the francs and bizantinias. This two empires if would united like Austria and Hungary would possessed the whole continent. I think that you recognised the big role of Bulgarian people of saving Europe from arabians. The name of the khan is not so important.