What can you tell me about Thracyans?

You think they would like anime?

No.

>Reminds me of Bulgaria for some reason.

Literally the same people. Bulgars came with a huge cavalry force, beat the Romans, and using the Thracian and Slav tribes founded a nation. Seeing how Slavs and Bulgars were few, and Thracians were many, we can assume that Thracians are modern Bulgarians. Further, the initial Bulgar state was in modern Romania, and the Slavic tribes were in the Danube valley and to the west in Serbia, while the most populous areas of Bulgaria are around Serdika/Sofia and Philippopolis/Plovdiv, traditional Thracian land.

>Bulgaria has had successful states... post Ottoman
No, it didn't. Post Ottoman Bulgaria is entirely unsuccessful. Lets see what goals it had:
>regain Macedonia/FYROM
Failed.
>regain Solun/Thessaloniki
Failed.
>regain Odrin/Edirne
Failed.
>regain northern Dobruja/Dobrogea
Failed.
>regain Nish/Nis
Failed.
>take Tzarigrad/Istanbul
Failed.
In fact, not only failing to achieve these, it lost territory, including its Mediterranean port.
It failed in uniting its nation, it failed in keeping them in touch (bulgarians in Greece and Yugoslavia forgot their roots), it failed to purge turkish and romani people despite trying, it failed at monarcy, it failed at fascism, it failed at communism, and is currently failing at democracy.

>First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire
For these to be empires, they have to rule over numerous people. Thats how you are an empire - you are one people, ruling over numerous other peoples.
Who did these states rule over? Thracians, Slavs, Bulgars, the makup of the bulgarian nation. No foreigners half the time, though at tomes some greek/roman cities and provinces.
Overall the traditional land of the bulgarian "empires" was just the land inhabited by bulgarians, and they were thus not empires. Only under a few rulers did this change and it extended further south into Greece and further west into Epirus. Possibly once into Serbia, although that is questionable. Never further north than Wallachia, which was the same slav/bulgar people, never once east of the Black Sea coast, never once south into Asia.

If Bulgarians are Thracians than t*rks are hittites

They are.

They were empires, the correct term is tzardoms.

>take Tzarigrad/Istanbul
Simeon was the only ruler who ever had his eyes on Constantinople, maybe Kaloyan because he wanted the Latins out.

>post Ottoman failure
That's what happens when you have an inbred homosexual German megalomaniac with no sense of honor for a head of state.

*were never

King Ferdinand I wanted to take Istanbul during the First Balkan War, I've seen it referenced in many books.
It was allegedly the source for him falling out with the Russians, and thus starting the Second Balkan War rather than appealing to the Russian Emperor for arbitrage on the issues.

Imbecile, both countries are classified as empires, just because they predate your colony-funded, early modern shitholes doesn't give you the right to berate their success.

>was just the land inhabited by Bulgarians, and they were thus not empires

By that logic, the German Empire wasn't an Empire either because it was only inhabited by Germans.

>For these to be empires, they have to rule over numerous people

Guess what, the Slavs of Bulgaria were numbered in millions and the countries were modeled after the Byzantine Empire, the only difference was in the language they've used.

Yeah, he did, he was way in over his head as always.What I meant was that historically Constantinople was never perceived as rightful Bulgarian clay to be taken and the Third Tzardom's main national goal has always been to return the San Stefano borders of 1878.

>The Seven Slavic tribes
>millions of slavs
choose one

They were full of slavines (i.e. autochthonous thracians), I'll give you that.

>modeled after the Byzantine Empire
Hell no.Over time many similarities evolved, but the initial Bulgarian state was a different beast.

successors of Illyia. Genocidal Kings.

>that shield

Yeah partly descended from.

I'll chose both, because tribes can be composed of hundreds of clans of varying size and besides, the English word "tribe"occurs in 12th-century Middle English literature as referring to one of the twelve tribes of Israel,but was later used in literature to describe barbarian peoples of Early and Late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.

>Hell no.Over time many similarities evolved, but the initial Bulgarian state was a different beast

Not entirely true, it became a true empire during with the coronation of Simeon I, but the original foundations for the country's rise elevation were laid by Boris I.

Bulgars and Slavs 101:

>bulgars come, win a battle against romans under king Ispor
>they assimilate 6 tribes, of which one was friendly (severi) and five were conquered (unknown)
>time passes, romans raise a new army north
>bulgars lose the battle under king Krum
>his treasury and capital are burned, he rides around with whats left of his army trying to draft new soldiers
>he goes around all the free slavic tribes and forces them to move into his land or be butchered
>drafts all the men (according to some sources also the women) into his army for one last all in go at it
>wins the battle
>starts raiding the roman lands, forcing greeks to retreat south
>now has more slavs in his country than any other ethnicity
>soon after slavs get their first king of Bulgaria, Boris
>soon after Bulgaria becomes christian, as the slavs were susceptible to it
>soon after the slavic king of Bulgaria purged all the bulgars and all tengrist shamans
>Bulgaria is a slavic state since

The thracians are lost in this story, sadly. Probably mixed with the slavs during roman times.

That's good summarizing.

Okay, so Spartacus was thracian. But he was named after Sparta.
Was that just his stage name or what?

Man with a semi-exotic name from a tribe you might know as mercenaries or slaves...

OR

A MAN FROM MOTHERFUCKING SPAAAAARTAAAAAAAAA

Must feel shit being remembered in history under your porn name.

Now you know how 70/80's pornstars feel.

That's a lot of bullshit, especially the "slavic king" and "purging all the bulgars and tengrist" shit.

He was called Bogoris (slavic name) or Mikhail (christian name). You can find him on Wikipedia as Boris I, Prince of Bulgaria.
When he accepted christianity, and his family, he forced it on all the aristocrats (who were mostly bulgar tengrists). They disliked it, and some rebelled. The rebelion was beaten and the people responsible executed. Then all other aristocrats were also killed, and their families as well. And even after abdicating the throne to his eldest son, so he can be a monk instead of king, Bogoris had to come out of retirement because his son turned to tengrism, and he gathered peasants around him and sieged his own son, and crippled him, then replaced him with the younger.
That way king Bogoris Mikhail killed all his lords, and his eldest son, in order to turn Bulgaria christian.

All the sources of this information are in old greek, however. Here is some latin source from France.

1. There was not tengrism, that's just an old retarded theory.
2. His name was Boris, not Bogoris. It's accepted that's a Bulgar name. After the ruler became famous and a saint for the christianization that name became popular in some Slavic countries. That doesn't make it Slavic in its origin.
3. There's no source saying he's somehow a Slavic king, different form the Bulgar dynasties before him. The Slavinization of Bulgaria was a gradual process that took centuries, not some fantasy-tier confrontation game of thrones shit.

As far as your previous post you have stupid errors and misconceptions. I dunno know you are or where you're from, but please don't try to present yourself as knowledgeable on Bulgarian history.

Lets look at Krum's dynasty names...
>Telerig, Kardam, Krum, Omurtag, Malamir

They don't ring quite the same way Bogoris or Boris do.
And Bogoris became king at the same time when slavs were allowed to form Serbia and Moravia, two slavic kingdoms.
And he made treaties and deals with them, and attacked the germans with them.
And under his rule church slavic language became the official language in Bulgaria.
And he killed all the pagan (if you would not concede them to be tengrist, but they were surely some kind of shamanist people) aristocrats, as documented.
And he returned from the monestary to dethrone his own son, because he tried to return to old bulgar ways.
And we know that shamanist/tengrist pagans were notoriously hard to convert, because their religion already explained everything satisfactorily, and couldn't be easily proven wrong or illogical, but slavs were easy to convert, their belief softer and less sophisticated.

We don't know, because bulgarians didn't write down history at the time, but we can strongly suspect he was slavic. His name, actions and context of his rise point to it.

You can't control them

>>Telerig, Kardam, Krum, Omurtag, Malamir
>They don't ring quite the same way Bogoris or Boris do.
They don't because you've grown to associate the name Boris (not fucking Bogoris, you retarded moron) with Slavic countries. That name became popular because of him and the things he did. If Omurtag was the ruler who converted the country to Christianity, his name would have been all over Russia and the rest of the Slavic countries.

>We don't know, because bulgarians didn't write down history at the time
I know that, and that's why it angers me when autists start making up stories to fill in the blanks.

turks are arabs not hittites, western europeans are hittites (R1B haplogroup)

Also stop with this "tengrism". There are literally ZERO proofs that the Bulgars had Tengri as a god. It's all post 19th century theories and assumptions.

You ignored half my post, and provided no sources for your claims.
Meanwhile, there are dozens of good sources linking bulgars to tengrism, including before and after USSR, and on both side of the iron curtain.
Give me some sources that will convince me bulgars weren't part of the Xiongnu in Asia, and didn't come with Attila, and didn't break from his horde upon his defeat to seek their own fortunes.

>Meanwhile, there are dozens of good sources linking bulgars to tengrism, including before and after USSR, and on both side of the iron curtain.
Yes, there are a lot of sources in 19th and 20th century, and by sources we mean a bunch of historians and textbooks claiming that the Bulgars were tengrists. I repeat, there are ZERO sources from the middle ages mentioning anything related to Tengri. Not the Bulgars themselves, not the Byzantines, not the Westerners, not the fucking pope who has a correspondence with Boris. Nobody. It's a retarded assumption that got stuck in the official history of Bulgaria during communism when saying "wait, what are the proofs for that" was not something historians could do. The narrative of the tengrist mongol Bulgars and the blonde Slavs was the thing then. And it's still widely used, again, without any proofs at all.

One of very few inscriptions from the period we have is a document by Kanasubigi Omurtag written in stone in a pagan temple, containing "TANGRA", the bulgar name for Tengri.

No, it doesn't say Tangra.
Spare your time, there are no inscriptions relating to Tangra/Tengri. It's just one of the big medieval myths about Bulgarian history.

But it does say TAGGRA, which would be how a hun writes Tangra using greek letters.

WE

Circle in red where it says that.

I can't read it, I am quoting people who can. Also in that image most of the column isn't visible.

I know you can't. The TAGGRA inscription is from another stone (pic related) and it's like 80% unreadable. You have one TA and then on the other side of the stone you have GGRA, which the tengri-theorists read as TANGRA. Will post another pic after that.

Here's the actual readable stuff. Left is the Greek letters, right is in Bulgarian and far right it's the writing with made up stuff.
That's literally the only "proof" of Tangra. The Bulgars came on the Balkans in the 680s, they had close contact with the Byzantines since 630s. The Christianization happened in the 870s. That's more than 2 centuries and nobody mentioned Tangra anywhere.

tl;dr it's just another historical myth

There is not a single stone, book,metal or whatever with Tengri/Tangra on it on the whole Balkans. The Turkic theory is so crap that it has to die.
Answer me, why did the Bulgars fought the Avars and the Magyars, when they were all turkic and with the same religion?

>Answer me, why did the Bulgars fought the Avars and the Magyars, when they were all turkic and with the same religion?
I'm that other guy refuting the Tengri myth, but, dude, that's not really an argument. Lots of countries with the same religion fought each other.

...

no

Turks are turkic
Hittites are anatolian

maybe. if you leaveraged your spear into the ground and he ran up onto it, then you got under the weight with your full centre of gravity and just sort of shotputted-discusthrowed you could throw a 60kg cunt a good 5-10metres. maybe like 2-3 one handed

Are you a proponent to the theory that the bulgars were on the Balkans all along, and they were just forced further north by defeat in war, only to return later in victory?

>WE

ARE

>OP ask about Thracians
>Thread devolves into fuckery nonsense about slavs which this thread isn't about because of Svetovoid and other slav apes who are unable to read

every time

There is an argument that "slavs" is a nonsensical term that came later in history, while the southern slavs are in fact mostly thracians.

>Further, the initial Bulgar state was in modern Romania
More like Wallachia+half of modern Bulgaria.

You must understand: the Balkans and the Carpathians are one huge fucking mess of WE WUZes.

I really dig their outfits, desu.

>someone claims historical relevance
>check if their modern state is politically relevant
>if it isn't, spam WE WUZ at them

Gangsta as fuck yo.