Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bulgarians/Macedonians are anything but Slavs, even Hitler said it.
Serbs: not sure of their genetics but if you've even seen a Serb you'd see how they're darker to be Slavic;
Czechs are Germanic;
Ukrainians were known as the Scythians, way more ancient than the Slavs;
Croats: like the Czechs.
Maybe you have point only about Belarus and Slovenia. With that being said Belarus is so russified, even its name means "White Russia", so I ommited on purpose by mentioning only Russia.
You have a point about the south Slav's, especially Bulgarians who originally were the Volga Bulgars a Tatar group from central Russia who migrated south and adopted the Slavic language but Ukrainian are not Scythian. Scythian's where an Iranic speaking people and the only living people who are most like them are the Ossetians in the Caucasus. And although Kiev is a very ancient city it was not originally a Slavic city but rather a Khazar one, it was only when the Rus up north in Novgorod lead by Oleg conquered the city in 882 did it become a center of east Slavic culture. And southern Ukraine was part of the Crimean khanate for a very long time which is why the southern cities are fairly young, similar in age to cities found in the US such as Odessa which was founded in 1794, Dnipropetrovsk in 1776, or Donetsk in 1869.
Bulgarians/Macedonians are anything but Slavs, even Hitler said it.
Serbs: not sure of their genetics but if you've even seen a Serb you'd see how they're darker to be Slavic;
Czechs are Germanic;
Ukrainians were known as the Scythians, way more ancient than the Slavs;
Croats: like the Czechs.
Maybe you have point only about Belarus and Slovenia. With that being said Belarus is so russified, even its name means "White Russia", so I ommited on purpose by mentioning only Russia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by euro123
I said "even Hitler". Fine, DNA studies by the Bulgarian academy of sciences found that just 18% of the population are Slavic. You kind of sound like that other Russian user here: "It doesn't matter if you really are, it only matters that you will be seen as Slavic". Sure, it only matters what Churchil, Raegan and the rest think.
I doubt that Bulgarians are only 18% Slavic. When your nation speaks a Slavic language, it generally hints at a greater Slavic blood contribution. That said, Bulgarians may be the least Slavic of the Slavs, perhaps notably less so than other South Slavs.
Btw, hitler also considered Croats to be Germanic, which is nonsense. This categorization had much more to do with realpolitik. Same thing can be said about his views on Slavs in general: realpolitik, and influenced by the nazi desire to steal Slavic lands to the east, wipe out and germanize the populations.
And yeah, there is an ancient connection between us Ukrainians and Scythians, an old Iranic people. But some say that Slavs originated from Scythians. Slavic.origins are still a big unknown.
You have a point about the south Slav's, especially Bulgarians who originally were the Volga Bulgars a Tatar group from central Russia who migrated south and adopted the Slavic language but Ukrainian are not Scythian. Scythian's where an Iranic speaking people and the only living people who are most like them are the Ossetians in the Caucasus. And although Kiev is a very ancient city it was not originally a Slavic city but rather a Khazar one, it was only when the Rus up north in Novgorod lead by Oleg conquered the city in 882 did it become a center of east Slavic culture. And southern Ukraine was part of the Crimean khanate for a very long time which is why the southern cities are fairly young, similar in age to cities found in the US such as Odessa which was founded in 1794, Dnipropetrovsk in 1776, or Donetsk in 1869.
B.s.. Kyiv was founded by Slavs - i.e. the ancestors of today's Ukrainians- in the 5th century.
B.s.. Kyiv was founded by Slavs - i.e. the ancestors of today's Ukrainians- in the 5th century.
Well it is a contested subject and it's very possible that it was founded by Slavs and possibly continually populated by Slavs, but that doesn't change the fact that it was ruled by Khazars for many centuries.
You have a point about the south Slav's, especially Bulgarians who originally were the Volga Bulgars a Tatar group from central Russia who migrated south and adopted the Slavic language
Noo... Some Volga Bulgars probably did, but there were already Christian Slavs living in present-day Bulgaria then. You're mixing with Hungary where the migration was deliberate.
Noo... Some Volga Bulgars probably did, but there were already Christian Slavs living in present-day Bulgaria then. You're mixing with Hungary where the migration was deliberate.
Well I suppose you are right, but the first Bulgarian empire was founded by the Bulgars, but I think it was a similar situation with how the Vikings founded the Rus nation, but the inhabitants themselves were not Vikings but rather Slavs. So Bulgaria probably had a similar situation where the inhabitants were Slavs and the ruling elite where the Bulgars. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars
You have a point about the south Slav's, especially Bulgarians who originally were the Volga Bulgars a Tatar group from central Russia who migrated south and adopted the Slavic language but Ukrainian are not Scythian. Scythian's where an Iranic speaking people and the only living people who are most like them are the Ossetians in the Caucasus. And although Kiev is a very ancient city it was not originally a Slavic city but rather a Khazar one, it was only when the Rus up north in Novgorod lead by Oleg conquered the city in 882 did it become a center of east Slavic culture. And southern Ukraine was part of the Crimean khanate for a very long time which is why the southern cities are fairly young, similar in age to cities found in the US such as Odessa which was founded in 1794, Dnipropetrovsk in 1776, or Donetsk in 1869.
Ok, this makes more sense. Thanks for this reasonable response
Well I suppose you are right, but the first Bulgarian empire was founded by the Bulgars, but I think it was a similar situation with how the Vikings founded the Rus nation, but the inhabitants themselves were not Vikings but rather Slavs. So Bulgaria probably had a similar situation where the inhabitants were Slavs and the ruling elite where the Bulgars. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars
Ariete has a point. You're wrong here.
"It is thought that the territory of Volga Bulgaria was originally settled by Finno-Ugric peoples, including Mari people. The Bulgars of Kubrat's son and appointed heir Batbayan Bezmer moved from the Azov region in about AD 660, commanded by the Kazarig Khagan Kotrag to whom he had surrendered."
The Volga Bulgar were NOT some sort of asian-russians who found Bulgaria. In fact they were expelled from the real Bulgaria and then travelled to Russia today - to put it vaguely. They aren't tatars also. You managed to write so many historical inaccuracies in one sentence, I didn't even bother to correct you .
If you wish to educate yourself though about the history of Bulgaria for whatever reason, see here:
"It is thought that the territory of Volga Bulgaria was originally settled by Finno-Ugric peoples, including Mari people. The Bulgars of Kubrat's son and appointed heir Batbayan Bezmer moved from the Azov region in about AD 660, commanded by the Kazarig Khagan Kotrag to whom he had surrendered."
The Volga Bulgar were NOT some sort of asian-russians who found Bulgaria. In fact they were expelled from the real Bulgaria and then travelled to Russia today - to put it vaguely. They aren't tatars also. You managed to write so many historical inaccuracies in one sentence, I didn't even bother to correct you .
If you wish to educate yourself though about the history of Bulgaria for whatever reason, see here:
"The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari;[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction who flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century."
Germanic-Latin. Linguistically, they are both apart of the "centum" branch of Indo-European languages. But also, culturally, latins and germans are more...for lack of more sensitive term, perhaps, "civilized" than Slavs. Both have played a major role as pillars of western culture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
