PDA

View Full Version : The Langobards and the Vulgares



Frans_Jozef
Tuesday, April 25th, 2006, 08:14 AM
The Langobards and the 'Vulgares' in Historia Langobardorum

(p. 127-129 from Chapter II. History. Attila’s Kingdom, The World of the Huns, Studies in Their History and Culture
J. Otto Maenchen-Helfen (University of California Press, 1973, Ed. Max Knight))

. . .
North of the Danube the Langobards successfully defended their independence from the Huns. With the help of the story of Agelmund, Lamissio, and the Vulgares, the disputes between the two peoples can be reconstructed in broad outline. The story is preserved in Paul the Deacon's Historia Langobardorum, who took it from the Origo Gentis Langobardorum, written about the middle of the seventh century. Not in spite of, but because of its gaps and inconsistencies, [589] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#589.) the Origo is a historical document of the first order. To the living tradition of the Langobards it stands incomparably closer than Jordanes'-Cassiodorus' History of the Goths to the Gothic cantus maiorum. The story runs as follows: [590] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#590.)
The Langobards are said to have possessed for some years Anthaib and Banthaib, and in like manner, Vurgundaib. There they made Agelmund their king. He led them over a river, defended by Amazons. After passing it, the Langobards, when they came to the lands beyond, sojourned there for some time. Meanwhile, since they suspected nothing hostile, confidence prepared for them a disaster of no mean sort. At night, when all were resting, relaxed by negligence, the Vulgares, rushing upon them, slew many, wounded more, and so raged through their camp that they killed Agelmund, the king himself, and carried in captivity his only daughter. Nevertheless, the Langobards, having recovered their strength after these disasters, made Lamissio their king. And he turned his arms against the Vulgares. And presently, when the first battle began, the Langobards, turning their back to the enemy, fled to their camp. Then King Lamissio urged them to defend themselves. ... by arms. Inflamed by the urging of their chief, they rushed upon the foe, fought fiercely, and overthrew the adversaries with great slaughter.
Lamissio was followed by Lethu, Hildeoc, and Gudeoc, at whose time Odovacar defeated the Rugi. "Then [under Gudeoc] the Langobards, having moved out of their territory, came to Rugiland and because it was fertile in soil they remained in it a number of years." [591] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#591.) After his victory over the Rugi in the winter 487/8, Odovacar broke their last resistance in 488. Rugiland is Lower Austria, north of the Danube, west of Korneuburg. It is the first identifiable geographical name in the Historia Langobardorum, and 488 the first identifiable date. Everything before seems to be lost in impenetrable fog. Any interpretation seems to be as good as any other.
Kemp Malone dates the war between the Langobards and the Vulgares in the later half of the second century and places the story in the Baltic. He arrives at this astounding result by taking Vulgares for the Latinized form of Langobardic *Wulg(w)aras = wulg, "she-wolf", and a Germanic plural suffix. [592] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#592.) It would be difficult to find a more fanciful etymology, thought up in complete disregard of the text.
Convinced that the Langobards lived in Silesia before they moved to Rugiland, some scholars located the battle at the Oder. [593] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#593.) Klebel is more specific. According to him, the Langobards defeated the Vulgares in the region of Glogau or still farther to the east. [594] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#594.) He thinks the Vulgares are the Bulgars of South Russia; he even derives their name from that of the Volga. [595] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#595.)
The question is not the etymology of Vulgares, but what the ethnic name meant in Paul's writings. In the Historia the Vulgares are (1) the enemies of the Langobards; (2) a people living among the Langobards in Pannonia, later in Italy; [596] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#596.) (3) the followers of dux Alzeco, who left his country and joined the Langobards in the reign of Grimoald (662-671); settlers in former Samnium; [597] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#597.) (4) the Vulgarians at the lower Danube. [598] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#598.) The Bulgars of (3) and (4) are obviously not the Vulgares of our story. The Pannonian Bulgars (2), probably a tribe, or tribes, who stayed in Hungary after the collapse of Attila's kingdom, appear under this name only in the 480's, too late for the story.
As unreliable as the Origo and Paul are when they give the names of the stations of the Langobardic migration, [599] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#599.) in listing the kings, they follow a tradition in which, like in that of the Goths and Burgundians, the names of the rulers and their succession are well preserved. Lamissio reigned forty years. How long his successor Lethu reigned is not known. [600] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#600.) Allowing him a reign of only one and a half years, the shortest reign of a Langobardic king known from reliable sources, and assuming that Gudeoc led his people into Rugiland in the first year of his reign, the war with Vulgares would fall in the year 446. The average reign of the Langobardic rulers was nine years. Giving Hildeoc nine years, the victory would fall in the year 439. The computations are admittedly anything but conclusive. Still, both point to the first half of the fifth century.
The powerful enemy of the Langobards must have been the Huns. This was conjectured long ago, and should never have been doubted. But why did Paul call the Huns Vulgares? Because had he spoken of the Huns, his readers might have thought he meant the Avars. In the Historia Langobardorum the Hunni are always the Avars, "who were first called Huns, but afterward from the name of their own king: Avars" (qui primum Hunni, postea de regis proprii nomine Avares appellati sunt). [601] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#601.) Gregory of Tours, too, called the Avars Huns, and so did a century later the Langobard who wrote the Origo. In Byzantine historiography of the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, the use of http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_1.jpg for http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_2.jpg is common. [602] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#602.)
Until recently it would have been impossible to determine where the Langobards fought the Huns. Thanks to Werner's thorough study of the archaeological evidence, [603] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#603.) we know by now that southern Moravia was held by the Langobards before they settled in Rugiland. Twenty-four findspots testify to their prolonged stay in this area.
[It is possible that this section is incomplete. — Ed.]

[B]589. "It is hopeless to get any possible scheme of Lombard chronology out of the early chapters of Paulus," Hodgkin 1898, 5, 99 (Hodgkin, Th., Italy and Her Invaders, Oxford, 1898).
590. Hist. Lang. I, 16-17 (Historia Langobardorum (Paulus Diaconus) – 1. Waitz G., ed., Historia Langobardorum, Hannover, 1878; – 2. Foulke, W., trans. History of the Langobards by Paul the Deacon, New York, 1906). Leaving out a few embroideries, I follow the translation in Foulke 1906.
591. Ibid. I, 19.
592. Malone 1959, 86-107 (Malone, K. Studies in Heroic Legend and in Current Speech, Copenhagen, 1959).
593. Most recently Mitscha-Marheim 1963, 112 (Mitscha-Märheim, H. Dunkler Jahrhunderte goldene Spuren, Vienna, 1963).
594. Klebel 1957, 28 (Klebel, E. Probleme der bayerischen Verfassungsgeschichte, Munich, 1957).
595. Ibid. 79.
596. Hist. Lang. II, 26.
597. Ibid. V, 29. To the literature quoted by Moravcsik, BT 2, 357 (Moravcsik, Gy. Byzantoturcica 2: Sprachreste der Türkvolker in den byzantinische Quellen, Berlin 1958), add Pochettino 1930, 118 (Pocherrino, I.G. I Langobardi nell’Italia meridionale, Caserta, 1930).
598. Hist. Lang. VI, 31, 49 (gens, quae super Danubium).
599. Their identifications with medieval or modern place names are without exception completely arbitrary. The "Bardengau" in the Lüneburg Heath, which is supposed to have preserved the ethnic name, is actually named after a Count Bardo who in the ninth century had estates there; see R. Dorgereit, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelallers 10, 1960, 601.
600. The exact dates assigned to Agelmund and Lamissio in the Prosper edition of 1483 (CM I, 489-490) are without value. The interpolated passages referring to the Langobards are taken from Paul and fitted into Prosper's chronological framework.
601. Hist. Lang. I, 27.
602. Moravcsik, BT 2, 234.
603. J. Werner 1962, 144-147 (Werner, J. “Die Langobarden in Pannonien”, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Philosophisch-historische Klasse), N.F. 55a, Munich, 1962).


link (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html)

blut
Wednesday, December 13th, 2006, 02:43 PM
The Langobards and the 'Vulgares' in Historia Langobardorum

He thinks the Vulgares are the Bulgars of South Russia; he even derives their name from that of the Volga. [595] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#595.)
The question is not the etymology of Vulgares, but what the ethnic name meant in Paul's writings. In the Historia the Vulgares are (1) the enemies of the Langobards; (2) a people living among the Langobards in Pannonia, later in Italy; [596] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#596.) (3) the followers of dux Alzeco, who left his country and joined the Langobards in the reign of Grimoald (662-671); settlers in former Samnium; [597] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#597.) (4) the Vulgarians at the lower Danube. [598] (http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/mh_langobards_vulgares.html#598.) The Bulgars of (3) and (4) are obviously not the Vulgares of our story. The Pannonian Bulgars (2), probably a tribe, or tribes, who stayed in Hungary after the collapse of Attila's kingdom, appear under this name only in the 480's, too late for the story.



Yes, vulgares = bulgarians. Altzeko is the smallest brother of kan Esperig. After the dead of their father Kubrat (known as Hrovat also), the 5 brothers get seperated. The oldest one, called Bajan (Bojan, Bat-Bajan) stays in the old lands, the north side of Black sea, known in those times as Great Bulgaria of Kubrat, the rest are moving to different destinations, where they are forming their countries. If you check in the roman writings, the name of Volga river is another. The name Volga is given from the bulgarians. The second brother, known as Kotrag, settles Volga Bulgaria north of Great Bulgaria, today in the region where are provinces Tatarstan and Chuvashia in Russia. Later in 13th-14th century Volga Bulgaria is destroyed by the tatars.
The third brother Esperig come to the other bulgarians south of Danube and with some battles with Byzanthene he let them free from the Byzanthenes and settles Danube Bulgaria (today Bulgaria). In older roman writings the bulgarian tribes on the Balkans are called by the romans and byzanthenes tracians, but if we check different writings, we see that the same tribes once are called tracians, and in other document are called bulgarians. Known is that the moesians (known as tracian tribe) in 3th century are called bulgarians, later the gethes and masagethes are called bulgarians and so, and so ... The forth from the five brothers settles in today's Macedonia, but later his folk joins to the country of Esperig, when the Bulgarian country become stronger (begining of 9th century with the ruling of Krum).
Interesting is the destiny of the fifth brother Altzek (known also like Altzeko). First he settles in Panonia, where is known that are several old bulgarian klans and tribes, but soon after that is known that he moves to north Italy. This, what i know from our history is that first Altzeko moves to the lands of the Langobards, and their king gives him his word, that the bulgars of Altzeko are welcome in his lands. Later there's some conflict between the bulgarians and the langobards, and as I know, one night the langobards attack the camp of the bulgarians and kill much of them. Altzeko with the rest of the bulgars is moving away from the lands of the langobards and settles in other part of Italy.

Oswiu
Wednesday, December 13th, 2006, 07:32 PM
Zdrave! :thumbup

Yes, vulgares = bulgarians. Altzeko is the smallest brother of kan Esperig.
Asparukh to me! Where did you take your spelling from, Blut? Is it a reconstruction of the original Turkic name?

The name Volga is given from the bulgarians.
It's very tempting to think so, but the fact remains that to TUrkic speakers the river is known as Itel. The Finnics who live along it retain some version of the old name recorded as Rha by the Greek geographers.
Russian 'Volga' is rather obscure in origin, the candidates being Finnic 'valka' = 'white', and Baltic 'valga' [Slavonic 'vlaga'] = wetness.

Interesting is the destiny of the fifth brother Altzek (known also like Altzeko). First he settles in Panonia, where is known that are several old bulgarian klans and tribes, but soon after that is known that he moves to north Italy. This, what i know from our history is that first Altzeko moves to the lands of the Langobards, and their king gives him his word, that the bulgars of Altzeko are welcome in his lands. Later there's some conflict between the bulgarians and the langobards, and as I know, one night the langobards attack the camp of the bulgarians and kill much of them. Altzeko with the rest of the bulgars is moving away from the lands of the langobards and settles in other part of Italy.
I believe that Gibbon even names the villages they are supposed to have settled in. Does anyone have a copy to hand? [Mine's in storage]

cielblanc
Thursday, December 14th, 2006, 05:02 PM
Asparukh to me! Where did you take your spelling from, Blut? Is it a reconstruction of the original Turkic name?
Actually, Esperig (aka Esperikh, Asparukh or Asparouh) as you suggested is one and the same name but it's not a reconstruction of any Turkic name.The whole theory of the Bulgar's Turkic origins is actually false and already totally denied from the top Bulgarian historians and anthropologists.I'm just astounded how the gouvernement (via the Bulgarian Academy of Science БАН) is not changing the old version of history school books and other official stuff yet.

The false version of the proto-Bulgarian origin is lanced at the end of the 19th and the beggining of the 20th century by a wannabe Czeh "historian".With significant lack of any proof he decided that proto-Bulgarians were Turkic people.After 1945AD commies took his theory and somehow made it official not only in Bulgaria but worldwide.

In fact, proto-Bulgarians were a folk from Iranian origin.The ancient Bulgarians came from the Valleys of the Pamir mountain and the neighbouring Valley of Tarim situated between Tian Shan and the north side of Tibet from where their dispersion began to other parts of the world. Ferdinand von Richthofen (1833 - 1905) considers the Valley of Pamir and Tarim to be the center of the first civilization ever.In Pamir they organized their earliest states - the ancient Balgar and Balhara. In Europe the Bulgarians founded three more states - Bulgaria under khan Kubrat, Bulgaria on Volga river, Bulgaria of today, founded by the great khan Asparouh on the Danube river.

I suggest you read "The path of Bulg-Aryans" (aka "The Bulg-Aryans") from Dimitar Saselov, who was awarded from the Third Reich for Contribution to the Aryan Historiography in Germany.

About the river Volga.The word "Volga" is a derivate from the ethymologycal name Vulgares (aka Bulgars).There are lots of historical researches prooving it but I'm affraid all articles are in Bulgarian (of course that's how it should be) however if I find something about it in English I'll notifie you if you're still interrested.

Oswiu
Thursday, December 14th, 2006, 05:24 PM
Actually, Esperig (aka Esperikh, Asparukh or Asparouh) as you suggested is one and the same name but it's not a reconstruction of any Turkic name.
But where is it from ?

The whole theory of the Bulgar's Turkic origins is actually false and already totally denied from the all top Bulgarian historians and anthropologists
Please be open to the idea that the new academic freedom your historians enjoy and combine with their revitalised national spirit er ... leads to certain [I]immoderacies... :)

The false version of the proto-Bulgarian origin is lanced at the end of the 19th and the beggining of the 20th century by a wannabe Czeh "historian".With significant lack of any proof he decided that proto-Bulgarians were Turkic people.After 1945AD commies took his theory and somehow made it official not only in Bulgaria but worldwide.
You can't blame a Czech! Our Edward Gibbon wrote the same back in the 1700s. It's a commonly accepted fact.

In fact, proto-Bulgarians were a folk from Iranian origin.
I find it HIGHLY likely that the Turkic Bulgars picked up considerable Sarmatian elements in their travels across the Steppe, but the name remains Turkic.
Why is there still a Turkic people in the Caucasus that call themselves Balkar?
Why do the marginalised descendants of the Volga Bulgars, the Chuvash, speak an archaic Turkic tongue?
Why do the inscriptions on epitaphs in former Great Bulgaria read in Turkic?
Why were the Bulgar Kings known as Khans?
Why do the protoBulgars share a suffix with other Turkic peoples like the Cottrigurs, Onogurs, etc?

The ancient Bulgarians came from the Valleys of the Pamir mountain and the neighbouring Valley of Tarim situated between Tian Shan and the north side of Tibet from where their dispersion began to other parts of the world.
How can anyone possibly prove that?!?
Iranian speakers came from Europe before they ever saw the Pamirs. I base that on linguistic relationships.

Ferdinand von Richthofen (1833 - 1905) considers the Valley of Pamir and Tarim to be the center of the first civilization ever.In Pamir they organized their earliest states - the ancient Balgar and Balhara.
Where are thesse names written? Balkh is completely different.

In Europe the Bulgarians founded three more states - Bulgaria under khan Kubrat, Bulgaria on Volga river, Bulgaria of today, founded by the great khan Asparouh on the Danube river.
Wow! The Bulgars are the Chosen Race! :oanieyes

Be satisfied with the realities. You invented Slavonic literacy. That's enough. Your Tsars and Knyezes made the Byzantine Emperor tremble. You kept your identity despite CENTURIES of Ottoman violence. You make good raki. ;)

I suggest you read "The path of Bulg-Aryans" (aka "The Bulg-Aryans") from Dimitar Saselov, who was awarded from the Third Reich for Contribution to the Aryan Historiography in Germany.
That's just funny. :rotfl

About the river Volga.The word "Volga" is a derivate from the ethymologycal name Vulgares (aka Bulgars).There are lots of historical researches prooving it but I'm affraid all articles are in Bulgarian (of course that's how it should be) however if I find something about it in English I'll notifie you if you're still interrested.
I read Russian and can usually understand most Bulgarian ttexts. Davai!

The Ancient Russians knew [and fought with, and married with] the Volga Bulgars very well, but never confused the names.

cielblanc
Thursday, December 14th, 2006, 10:12 PM
You can't blame a Czech! Our Edward Gibbon wrote the same back in the 1700s. It's a commonly accepted fact.
I certainly do not blame anyone.I just think that it's unacceptible a foreigner what so ever to analyze and most important to define some other nation origins when there are plenty well educated Bulgarians who could do that.Keep in mind that Bulgaria is not and never has been some Third World country.

I find it HIGHLY likely that the Turkic Bulgars picked up considerable Sarmatian elements in their travels across the Steppe, but the name remains Turkic.
Why is there still a Turkic people in the Caucasus that call themselves Balkar?
Why do the marginalised descendants of the Volga Bulgars, the Chuvash, speak an archaic Turkic tongue?
Why do the inscriptions on epitaphs in former Great Bulgaria read in Turkic?
Why were the Bulgar Kings known as Khans?
Why do the protoBulgars share a suffix with other Turkic peoples like the Cottrigurs, Onogurs, etc?

I'll put it that way: it's natural to low civilized "nations"(if we can possibly speak for a nation back then) to adopt and accept some other culture, heritage etc.Most of the Turkic people adopted from the Bulgars, not the opposite of course.

Inscriptions on epitaphs in former Great Bulgaria do not read in Turkic.Infact Bulgars writing is still undeciphered by anyone.That is one of the biggest mysteries in the Bulgarian history.Of course there are suggestions on both Iranian, Turkic and even Celtic (:-O ) theories by different circles of historians but nothing is prooven yet.And that's a fact.You can check it everywhere you want.

The truth is that the Turkic version of the Bulgars origin has some very obscured points.Firstly all the supporters of that theory (but I really mean all of them) are basicly saying that Bulgars who settled on Danube were slighting in numbers.They all suggest somethnig betwen 3-5 000 people.On the other hand we know for sure from the Byzantine chronicles that Bulgars defeated 60 000 men Byzantine army in order to legitimate the teritory on which they settled in 681AD.The entire army of the Byzantine Empire was sent against the settling Bulgars with the Emperor himself leading the operation.Here comes the logic question: How 5000 (from who 2 500 men maximum childs and old men included) managed to defeat 60 000 well trained army, the army of the Eastern Roman Empire when we know from Byzantine chronicles that Bulgars fought alone and were supported only a by few hundred Slavonic warriors? How 5 000 people manage to create a state, a state which was getting stronger and stronger? How 5 000 Bulgars took control of the Slavonic masses on the Balkan peninsula? Current evaluations show that to achieve all that Bulgars had to be about 200-300 000 and ancient chronicles proove it."Bulgarians are as much in numbers as the grains(grit) in the sea" is only one from the numerous chronicles about the Bulgars.So, let's do the maths.Bulgars being 300 000 people means that they are the predominant ethnicity that composes present-day Bulgarians.On the other hand present day Bulgarians are Whites and Europids I think you can't disagree.What happens now? Seems like Bulgars were not a Turkic tribe after all. ;)



Where are thesse names written? Balkh is completely different.
I doubt that transcription is accurate.

Wow! The Bulgars are the Chosen Race!

Be satisfied with the realities. You invented Slavonic literacy. That's enough. Your Tsars and Knyezes made the Byzantine Emperor tremble. You kept your identity despite CENTURIES of Ottoman violence. You make good raki.

Excuse me, but are you actually denying the historical fact that Bulgars founded three national states in Europe? :-O Because if you do so this conversation ends here for me.I'm not gonna waste my time.

And BTW I never said such a thing "Bulgars are the chosen race".I'm not Bulgarian myself, but only from my mother's side...and when I think about it twice even she is not 100% Bulgarian but 1/2.

That's just funny.
What's so funny? If you do have a problem with National Socialism and the legitimity of National Socialist leaders and their decisions this is a completely different thing.

I read Russian and can usually understand most Bulgarian ttexts. Davai!
http://www.kanatangra.wallst.ru/ (click on the "Български" version of the site because the Russian one is not ready yet)

Oswiu
Friday, December 15th, 2006, 01:18 AM
I certainly do not blame anyone.I just think that it's unacceptible a foreigner what so ever to analyze and most important to define some other nation origins when there are plenty well educated Bulgarians who could do that.
I disagree. Otherwise there'd be no generalised scheme of world history, just a plethora of ethnocentric mythologies, hopelessly contradicting each other. Bulgarian historians NEED outsiders to comment on their work, to keep their feet on the ground and hold back their enthusiasm.

Keep in mind that Bulgaria is not and never has been some Third World country.
Wasn't too far off it before 1878. :shrug

Inscriptions on epitaphs in former Great Bulgaria do not read in Turkic.Infact Bulgars writing is still undeciphered by anyone.That is one of the biggest mysteries in the Bulgarian history.Of course there are suggestions on both Iranian, Turkic and even Celtic (:-O ) theories by different circles of historians but nothing is prooven yet.And that's a fact.You can check it everywhere you want.
Perhaps this is the case, but I've read otherwise. I'll look again.

The truth is that the Turkic version of the Bulgars origin has some very obscured points.Firstly all the supporters of that theory (but I really mean all of them) are basicly saying that Bulgars who settled on Danube were slighting in numbers.They all suggest somethnig betwen 3-5 000 people.On the other hand we know for sure from the Byzantine chronicles that Bulgars defeated 60 000 men Byzantine army in order to legitimate the teritory on which they settled in 681AD.The entire army of the Byzantine Empire was sent against the settling Bulgars with the Emperor himself leading the operation.Here comes the logic question: How 5000 (from who 2 500 men maximum childs and old men included) managed to defeat 60 000 well trained army, the army of the Eastern Roman Empire when we know from Byzantine chronicles that Bulgars fought alone and were supported only a by few hundred Slavonic warriors? How 5 000 people manage to create a state, a state which was getting stronger and stronger? How 5 000 Bulgars took control of the Slavonic masses on the Balkan peninsula?
At a moment of weakness, small numbers of determined and brave men can topple empires. See the Huns against the Han. Or the Mongols against the Sung.

Current evaluations show that to achieve all that Bulgars had to be about 200-300 000 and ancient chronicles proove it."Bulgarians are as much in numbers as the grains(grit) in the sea" is only one from the numerous chronicles about the Bulgars.
I would support a larger number. THere's no need to lump me in with the academics who believe tiny elite migrations can change entire lands.

I doubt that transcription is accurate.
It's quite conventional. Balkh in northeastern Iran/western Afghanistan.

Excuse me, but are you actually denying the historical fact that Bulgars founded three national states in Europe? :-O Because if you do so this conversation ends here for me.I'm not gonna waste my time.
When did I do that?!?

What's so funny? If you do have a problem with National Socialism and the legitimity of National Socialist leaders and their decisions this is a completely different thing.
What Nazi leaders thought expedient in wartime in terms of buttering up their potential allies has nothing to do with the inherent hilarity of such a concoction as 'Bulg-Aryans'!!!
IF they took their suffix from their Aryan heritage, by the time they appeared in history it had become corrupted in Steppe Iranian to ALAN. We should therefore see Bulgalans.

http://www.kanatangra.wallst.ru/ (click on the "Български" version of the site because the Russian one is not ready yet)

It's quite amusing to read Bulgar language, what with the incredible similarity to Russian, except with the -te article function everywhere! :)
Is it your site? If so, it's rather difficult to read the texts on my computer, for the right hand side of the text is hidden somehow.

To show you what I mean, I've highlighted the bits I can't see in red here [copy and paste works fine, obviously :shrug];
Съгласно една известна сентенция, историята е слугиня на политиката – това е особено показателно за България. Ние винаги сме повтаряли, и ще продължаваме да подчертаваме, че науката е идеология. Съвременната наука е едно от идеологическите оръжия на юдомасонските сили, които от “Великата” френска революция насам водят една непрекъсната война срещу европейските народи – за тяхното духовно обезличаване и унищожение.

Which parts of the site should I read - tell me which page. :thumbup

cielblanc
Friday, December 15th, 2006, 11:44 AM
Wasn't too far off it before 1878. :shrug

I disagree.It's a fact that there was 450 years of Ottoman oppression in Bulgaria (as long with Serbia and Greece) and Christians from the Balkans didn't have their own states, armies etc.Of course there was a significant lack of cultural and technological advance but there is no way for Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia even in their darkest period of Ottoman reppression to be compared with Afrikan or Central Asian settlements.Crafts, commerce, agriculture were still advancing despite the yoke.In fact it's interesting that during the last Russian-Turkish war, Russian soldiers fighting in Bulgaria were often asking their superiors "From what exactly are we liberating Bulgarians? They live better then we do!".And that was a well posed question because actually despite the oppression economic standarts in Bulgaria were quite good, better than economic standarts in most of Europe and certainly the best in the whole Ottoman Empire (after Istanbul of course).

And also before 1878 AD there was not only the Ottoman oppression, before 1878AD were also the two glorious Bulgarian Empires from the Middle Ages and as you probably know there were periods in which Byzantium, Bulgaria and the French Empire were the three leading forces in Europe.

It's quite conventional. Balkh in northeastern Iran/western Afghanistan.
Yes, we are talking for the same in that case.

It's quite amusing to read Bulgar language, what with the incredible similarity to Russian, except with the -te article function everywhere!
Is it your site? If so, it's rather difficult to read the texts on my computer, for the right hand side of the text is hidden somehow.

I hope you could fix this problem by clicking on "View", then "Encoding" and select "Cyrillic Windows".Actually your problem is strange because it usually occurs with the whole page unscripted, not only parts of it.

Which parts of the site should I read - tell me which page.
Texts who concern the proto-Bulgarian origin are all the texts from the chapter "История".Some texts are only for the origin of Bulgars, some only mention parts of it.

Here's another site (and a very good one), which is only about the history of Proto-Bulgarians: http://protobulgarians.com/index.htm
There is even a Russian version of some documents but I propose you to open the Bulgarian version of the site because there are more then 80 articles only for Proto-Bulgarian history and only 7 of them are translated in the Russian version.

Aistulf
Monday, January 8th, 2007, 07:04 PM
I've already read that text, and several books on the Longobards/Langobard[ian]s. I'm of partial Longobardian ancestry. Too bad this thread seems to be mostly about Bulgarians so far.

By the way, the Bulgarians being of Iranic origins is new to me; at least, I've never heard of that theory before.

bruno
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 08:55 PM
In Italy, the presence of Bulgars is also witnessed by the place names: in Tuscany (Tuscia Longobardorum), in one of the top old German settlement and in the feud of Gherardesca (counts of Langobard origin), lies the Bolgheri village ( etym. from Bulgarians), now well-known by its wines including the famous Sassicaia.

Anfang
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 09:11 PM
.


By the way, the Bulgarians being of Iranic origins is new to me; at least, I've never heard of that theory before.]


From wikidedia
The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians[1]) were a seminomadic people, probably of Turkic descent[2], originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil). A branch of them gave rise to the First Bulgarian Empire.