How true are our national identities?

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Exeter

Is it popular because it might be true or that it sounds better?

I think of it as highly unlikely, so I believe it sounds much better than usual Bulgarian ethnogenesis theories, to those people who invented it.

Croatia has similar theories.

Yes, we have similar theories. They are mostly based on certain toponyms in Croatia, that correspond to toponyms in Iran(or vice versa), some words in our language that can be connected with the old Persian and modern Iranian, and our etnonym "the Croat", which is most probably of Iranic origin. All that may point out to assimilation of Iranic-speaking people into much larger Slavic ethnic substratum, resulting with people calling themselves Croats, who speak the overall Slavic language, with some Iranic words.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by lunulae

@plethon. no, people were not aware of their national identity until herder & co reminded them of the values of their nations. 'nation' was invented in the 19th century. the content of the identity can be traced back to the middle ages (folk songs, traditions, superstition etcetera), yes.

There were various identities that evolved over time...

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by lunulae

no, people were not aware of their national identity until herder & co reminded them of the values of their nations. 'nation' was invented in the 19th century. the content of the identity can be traced back to the middle ages (folk songs, traditions, superstition etcetera), yes.

How about Greeks? I thought they were aware of their identity? And not only Greeks, there are numerous similar examples.
Perhaps the term nation was "invented" in the 19th century, but it existed long before that, so I'd rather say it was merely defined 200 yrs ago.

Originally Posted by Plethon

There were various identities that evolved over time...

Yes. Some of them even merged together, to create new identities.

[NatVox]

Originally Posted by lunulae

national identities can never be true or genuine, since they were created as a consequence of the national romanticism in the 19th century.

Actually, 19th century so-called romantic nationalism is just a one --and often flawed-- interpretation of national identities.

National identities arise through a long process of evolution, departing from a primitive concept of race, moving upwards to tribes and other forms of human social interaction and, eventually, converging in a process of ethnogenesis in which various elements are present, at which point the evolutionary process takes a more paced motion due to stability (which also implies that nations are not static in absolute terms, but they follow a stable dynamic of evolution). The process is too long and complex to be constructed.

[tankistabg]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Not Iran, for God's sake. The Bulgars came from Volga (today's southern Russia) and they were Turkic speaking people. After coming to Thrace-Moesia (present day Bulgaria) they found Slavic speaking people there. They subjugated those people and imposed their rule upon them, but were linguistically assimilated by them. leaving only the name Bulgar to the new nation.

The Turkic speaking Chuvash are probably most closely realted to the ancient Bulgars (the Chuvash are today Orthodox Christians).

this is rubbish. Volga? Cmon man. even the turcic theory sais we came from central Asia.
the bulgarian migration path:



and the bulgarian path with flags put on:




and yes - the iranic theory is the ONLY theory that is accepted today. The slavic and the turcic theory were abandoned in Bulgaria. Still Wikipedia and some other encyclopedias need to refresh their old info took from the communist times.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by tankistabg

this is rubbish. Volga? Cmon man. even the turcic theory sais we came from central Asia.
the bulgarian migration path:



and the bulgarian path with flags put on:




and yes - the iranic theory is the ONLY theory that is accepted today. The slavic and the turcic theory were abandoned in Bulgaria. Still Wikipedia and some other encyclopedias need to refresh their old info took from the communist times.

What is this theory exactly based upon?
Bulgarians in Italy?
No offense, but this looks like megalomania to me.

[Sifjar]

The word '' national identity '' is just another conversion about language manipulations, identity always manifested in several ways such as for the Swedish its the '' Mid-summer'' its about traditions and transitions passing from generations to generation, however the scientific knowledge about national identity contested in the contemporary discourse especially the academic discourse. Became contemporary popis So.....?

[NatVox]

You surely are confusing "identity" with something else, Sifjar. But I'm still not sure what..

[tankistabg]

Originally Posted by Monolith

What is this theory exactly based upon?
Bulgarians in Italy?
No offense, but this looks like megalomania to me.

a small tribe of bulgars settled in Italy. There are assimilated now, of course. Still - its recorded that there were at least 100 000.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by tankistabg

a small tribe of bulgars settled in Italy. There are assimilated now, of course. Still - its recorded that there were at least 100 000.

If they were a small tribe, and yet were so numerous(100 000), that would mean that there were millions of Bulgars back then. And that's impossible.

[tankistabg]

Originally Posted by Monolith

If they were a small tribe, and yet were so numerous(100 000), that would mean that there were millions of Bulgars back then. And that's impossible.

No its not/ Why it should be imposible?

In 632 we bulgarians had two contries:


The "Old Great Bulgaria" and the contry "Duloba". These two contries rulers were brothers( Horvat is the bulgarian khan, and Shamat is the Duloba Khan)

Later when bulgarian arrived at danube we have several historians that say this:

In the chronicle of Mannasius(491) its said Bulgarians conquered all the land between Vidin and Ohrid.

In a map from six century called "Raven cosmograph" the name bulgare is put with the following text:"In Moesia, Thrace, and Macedonia only Bulgarians live"

[NatVox]

Originally Posted by Monolith

If they were a small tribe, and yet were so numerous(100 000), that would mean that there were millions of Bulgars back then. And that's impossible.

And 100,000 in those times were almost an entire nation.

[tankistabg]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

And 100,000 in those times were almost an entire nation.

bulgarians splitted into 5 tribes. 300 000 went up to Volga to creat Silver(Volga) Bulgaria leaded by Kotrag. 100 000 went to Bitola under Kouber. 400 000 went to Moesia led by Asparukh, 100 000 went to Italy, and about 100 000stayed in the "old great Bulgaria" and they were conquered and overrun by khazars. Some of them escaped in the Caucasus

[NatVox]

I see that the presence of Bulgars in Italy in the VI century is apparently recorded. It seems that they arrived as allies or federated of the Gepids. In a similar fashion as the Alans arrived as federated of the Vandals, in Spain. Interesting.

But the figure of 100,000 Bulgarians in Italy I'm afraid that it sounds excessive. Do you have any reliable sources?

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by tankistabg

bulgarians splitted into 5 tribes.

You mean the Bulgars?

300 000 went up to Volga to creat Silver(Volga) Bulgaria leaded by Kotrag. 100 000 went to Bitola under Kouber. 400 000 went to Moesia led by Asparukh, 100 000 went to Italy, and about 100 000stayed in the "old great Bulgaria" and they were conquered and overrun by khazars. Some of them escaped in the Caucasus

Sounds familiar, but my impression is that numbers are greatly exaggerated. What are your sources?