Quote:
Originally Posted by milen
Galaico, I will be quite happy , if you show us some proof about the fact that ancient bulgars represent not more than 5% of present bulgarians.It's debatable as well that they are of turkic origin.As for the macedonians, for more than a thousand years they have called themselves bulgarians, why the last fifty years they choose to call themselves macedonians.It's a bit strange? Don't you think so? And maybe somebody else help them to change their mind? Crvena zvezda may tell us more about this.
I don't think that their is any ancient macedonians' blood present in the veins of the nowadays ones.At the time when the slavic tribes arrived on the balkans, the macedonians were long time hellenised and they were (all the greeks) the enemy .So i don't think they mixed in any way.It's unknown if the thrakians had been hellenised. But if so, probably the slavic didn,t mixed with them as well.
|
Generally speaking the development of national ideas in Europe last occured in FYROM. They tended to view themselves as "Slavs" and had little real or etnhic affiliation. How Bulgarian they viewed themselves is debatable, but sense of "Bulgarianess" was probably rather weak. That would explain why very few thought to remain in Bulgaria during the 2nd Balkan war, why few thought for Bulgaria in WWI, why so few celebrated when they were incorporated into Bulgaria during WWII and why they so easily took the label "Macedonians" after WWII. The specific name Macedonia was adopted largely because the Partisans initially wanted to incorporate areas of neighbouring areas into Yugoslavia -- these areas included parts of Greece, Romania and Austria in addition to Trieste in Utaly.