I never knew Bulgaria had an empire. Found out while looking for something different.

Map Of First Bulgarian Empire 650 AD: http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn...0BulgariaR1.jpg

By 900 to 1150 AD it looked like this. Large part of what was to be Russia controled by them.(map does not show Bulgarias area West of the Blk. Sea.). This map of 1150 AD so of Second Bulgarian Empire: http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn...arsDjavarEn.gif

Got this from a site on Turk history. They also talk about huns, tartars and others. It has many maps which are hard to find which include Europe and Asia.

http://images.google.com.pr/imgres?imgurl=...ficial%26sa%3DN

To go to the home page hit home upper left. Then for more maps hit where it say geography maps.

Edit:

'Bulgaria' is such an ugly name.

It sounds like contraction of 'bulge', 'vulgar', and 'malaria.'

It's still not as bad as 'Uruguay' though. LOLOL "U R GAY."

^ I never notice that with Uruguay. "You" must get ribbed alot with that since you came up quickly with it in a posting on Bulgaria! And stop insulting Bulgaria. There are Bulgarians here.

that's cool and all but what does this have to do with asian culture anyway? and how many bulgarians are there here lol

i guess you could say the ancient bulgars were part turkic and from central asia. although modern bulgarians always deny that and say they were descended from some aryan iranians that migrated to europe lol

i heard bulgarians are descendant of the ancient uyghurs. ?? no ideas.

^ i dunno, as far as i know there are bulgarians living in volga river before, but they are destroyed by the mongol invasion

and plus... first Bulgarian empire got owned by my favorite Byzantine empire. Emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonus blineded some 14,000 bulgarian soldiers and sent them back to their country

but in the end the byzantines got fu-ked in the @$$

byzantine empire pwned all... except for them nasty turks

^you bet your @$$ thats right


tbh the byzantines only held up against small tribes who only where intrested in raids but as soon as the main tribes arrived from Central Asia trough Asia Minor all was lost pretty quickly except for constantinople

^ no, it is because the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert in 1071. Emperor Romanus III Diogenes was captured by the Seljuks and was executed by the Byzantines who chose a new emperor, plus, the Byzantine army at Manzikert is large and most of its soldiers are generally those who guarded the borders, thats why by the time when they are defeated at Manzikert, the defense of Anatolia/Asia Minor is so weak that the turks are free to cross the borders and slowly moved westwards. But the resurgence of Byzantine power under the Comnenus emperors Alexius I, John II, and Manuel I is very promising for the Byzantines but only halted by the defeat of Byzantines at Myriocephalon by the Seljuks... plus the Franks (Western Europeans) are very suspicious to the Byzantines.

I know about manzikert

the fact is the byzantines had no answer for the fighting style of the turks on large scale there armies where still smaller but more mobile and fierce because they were tribal warriors who got booty and not soldier who fought for a fixed pay.

Europes forces where no match for the Turks untill they started to adopt the same fighting style see winged hussars and uhlans and gun powder.


the bottom line is the Byzantines got 2 cocky and lost

yeah, but if you'll look in history, Byzantine Empire is no doubt one of the greatest empires in history, like it endured some 1,150 years of existence, sometimes on offensive, sometimes not

if an emperor like Nicephorus II Phocas and John I Tzimisces appeared when the turks are lurking on Anatolia, it is no doubt that they would win. Byzantines are great tacticians and they are only defeated by the nomadic turks because they are unfamiliar with the tactics of the nomads.

accualy they wouldn't win the Turks defeated the Byzantine army not with full force the battle of manzikert was won by a few marchlords not the main Seljuks horde.

the same style of war was used by the Mongols 2 centuries later and it was still effective the mongols had to defeats 1 by the mamelukes who where Turks sold as slaves to the arabs who both used Central Asian and bedouin war tactiks both are nomads.


and by the Polish & BULGARS.


rhe byzantines never where the millitary power of the Romans it was just luck that they survived had Attila decided to burn constantinople instead of Rome it would have been Rome who survived that long or all would perish

Byzantine is a military power, thanks to the great generals Belisarius and Narses under Emperor Justinian I, this caused the north africa, southern spain and the whole italian penninsula to be a part of the Eastern Roman empire once again. And plus, no turkic nation survived for a thousand years

yeah, Mongols are great tacticians, but the irony is that they are defeated by mamelukes (who were originally steppe nomads) using the feigned retreat tactic. lol, they were later defeated by the javanese and vietnamese. and Byzantine empire was very weak at that time (the Palaeologus emperors are not very capable rulers)

yes thats true but you forget to mention why the Turkic nations allways made way for another. Soul exception is Communist Russia & China when at that Time the Turks lost all power even the Ottomans retreated back to the Anatolian Heartland but that was more a philosphic war then anything else with the upcomming Communism & nationalism

the point wis in strictly military sence the byzantines weren't the Romans the People you summerised are truely great men but tell me one thing


which of them crossed half the world to conquer the whole region ?


True CONQUEST is strictly for the Nomad governing is something else

the nomads are able to "cross half the world" because theres no great power located on their way until they met the settled civilizations of middle east and europe. unlike the nomads, the Byzantines are surrounded by Arabs and Persians in the east, Slavs and Catholics in the west, all of these proved to be formidable foes. And the geography of these regions aren't like those in the steppes, these regions are mountainous and you can't just swept in these lands without resistance, while the nomads are able to swept through the flat and wide plains of eurasia without any resistance.

and the western civilization must thank the Byzantine Empire which served as the shield from the Arab attacks (other one is Spain which is eventually annexed by the muslims), and the Byzantine Empire had given the western europeans enough time to develop on their own. Plus, the capture of Constantinople by the turks led the western europeans to seek a new passage to the east and later the discovery of Americas.

hmm the fact is that there where no great power between the Turks and teh byzantines is beacuse lets see they conquered them. The persians where a far greater nation and far older than the Byzantines. The Turks conquered and replaced the heart of the ancient persian empire wich then was in Central Asia

and the Turks conquered all those people you said 2

and your biggest mistake is to see the Turks s a single entity

ps compared to the numbers of teh armies the Nomad armies have shown there superiority over millenia

they are one because they only have one common origin, all of them came from the steppes.

and lets say that compared to military tradition, nomads are better than the Byzantines which were the successors of Hellenistic and Roman armies. but if based in importance, Byzantines are far important than the nomads who only know just to conquer other nations and to move and move. While the Byzantines had greater cause of survival, they want to protect the Christians as well as to preserve their identity as Romans (although they already lost it for most of their existence).

But hey, we are talking about Bulgarians. The only thing i could thank the Bulgarians is when they saved the Constantinople from the Arabs (wikipedia is your friend). The Bulgarians helped the Byzantines from defeating the Arabs through land while the Byzantines concentrated on fighting the muslims in the sea.

what the fu-k does protection of faith have to do with greater good?

Turks where the Protectors of Islam since 1000 until the end of WWI

the Bulgars fought as mercenaries after there convertion to christianity

The Romans are the ones who made christianity backwards as it is now. with there church fathers who decided what was 'approriate' and not in the bible.

The byzantines where the protectors of Orthodox Christinity and the Romans of Catholic (in later era's) hmmm.

The Nomads never had a sence of governing a country because they just wanted to raid.


about the shared origin bewteen Turks & persian isn't true the Turks lived in Siberia and western Mongolia when the Persian lived in CA. They conquered and assimilated the Persians.
But for instance the Seljuks left a great amount of cultural heritage because they wanted to rule mabey not in the history that was though 2 you

same go's for the Ulus (mongolian empire) just because they slaughtered the europeans and the arabs doesn't mean they didn't left cultural heritage in Central Asia

and the best example for the white people are the Ottomans. There system was one of the most succesfull.

their Cast system (even the slaves under the ottomans had it much better than the pesants in europe)
Freedom of religion (sure there where higher taxes for non-muslims but why not. It was a Islamic state)

Anybody could become anything the people of the balkan who hate the Turks so much often held possitions of great power in the Ottoman empire.


the Army the janisary is mabey the greatest millitary 'invention' ever. Some think it's cruel. But they where giving a verry good education, training and a carreer something they couldn't have done herding sheep in their villages.


Even the Byzantines acknowledged the superiority of the Turkic armies when they hired Turkish Christians to fight in the crusades -> see Turkopolis

one last thing people like u under estimate the Nomad but it's the Nomad who is truely rich & wise because he is free

i think what struck a really hard blow against the byzantines and eventually led to their ultimate defeat was the fourth crusade invasion of 1204. they were weakened by that even further after losing at manzikert. their first golden age was the late 500s and 600s and then the second in the 900s, but after that they began to decline. the ottomans even surrounded their "empire" around constantinople before finishing them off

the Byzantines hates the pope and doesn't acknowledge his power over them and the Patriarch of Constantinople



I myself supports the Mongol empire against the Abbasids and muslims, but hey. they didn't left any cultural influence, they only left a gruesome image of the destruction and collapse of arab civilization



if they are the most successful, why the europeans always defeat them by 17th century, Napoleon even defeated them at Egypt



Freedom of Religion? why there are muslim serbs, croats and albanians rightnow? it is because they were forced to choose to live (accept Islam) or die (refuse to be converted)



janissaries are overrated, they are no more like the musketeers and fusiliers of europe



it is because the Byzantine empire under Palaeologus emperors cannot build a standing army because of the attacks from both east and west



but you also underestimated the settled civilizations, most of the greatest empires in history are settled (China and Roman Empire as example)

1. True about the pope.
2. Your view of the mongols is different than mine accualy the one thing that was a mistake was the sack of bagdad the one u support it was made by hulagu khan and as soon as he did that a civil war between him and his cousin Berke Khan started. Cultural influences the mongols invented the first poney expres, paper money -> Lots of military terms(well accually it was the huns but still) Central Asia flourishe under mongol rule.

3. Why aren't so many people in the Balkans not muslim it's a common fact that the Turks wheren't about religious facts. forcefull convertion was minimal the ones that where were done by the local lords who converted to Islam under the Ottomans. Why aren't greeks, serbs, croats muslim but bosniaks, albanians, chechens, circassian muslim? they didn't just converted to islam they addopted ottoman lifestyle. this policy of the Ottoman is known and accepted by scolars in the west and east. PS the ottomans weren't the spanish with there inquistion. infact the Ottomans saved orthodox christianity from the catholics.

4. You my friend know nothing about the jannisaries and teh devsirme system I will not debate such a complex matter with somebody who can't tell the difference between a jannisary and a musketman.

5. the Attack where all from the Ottomans it's called a tactic

6. China and Rome where truely great civilasations but that didn't stop them from being sacked by the Barbarians. Most of the nomads didn't want to conquer land but trade with china as EQUALS and not get ripped off; When they did they started raiding.

7. The same thing happend to the Romans in Europe the empire was to stretched out. And it was the Ottoman empire vs half a dozen Emperial European states wow what are the odds. The final blow to the ottoman empire wasn't military but philisphical it was NATIONALISM

yes i support Hulagu khan's campaign against the arabs... it was close to vanquish islam. only messed by his cousin, Berke Khan in north, when the Mongols were defeated in Ain Jalut and his dear friend, the general Kitbuqa (who was a christian) was executed. When Hulagu marched against the egypt, his foolish cousin then fought him from north thus failing to invade egypt. If his cousin didn't intervened in the campaign against the egypt, i'm very sure that Mongols would also dominate north africa.



muslims are generally fanatical, so it isn't surprising that they did forced conversions. as well as Spanish were fanatical to Roman Catholic church... Spanish converted us (Filipinos) to christianity, but theres no documented inquisition here



yes they are formidable during the Ottoman empire's rise to power, but by 17th century, the Christians were able to defeat them... that means they aren't really invincible



no, i mean both fellow christians (western europeans, serbians, and bulgarians) and muslims both attacked the byzantine empire... the christians destroy the european side while the muslims invaded the asian side of the empire.

and it is too late for the western christians to save Byzantine empire from its final fall -> see Nicopolis



look dude, the european barbarians/germans wanted to preserve the roman culture as they moved to the empire, but they failed to do it because they are lacking knowledges in governing a rich empire... and soon, they are tempted to take over the highest positions in the empire.


if the british didn't defeated Napoleon at the Levant, i'm very sure that Ottoman empire would be a part of French empire

2. See there you go again. Berke Khan converting to Islam was more of a political decesion than anything else. Because the majority of his army and subjects where Kipchak Turks who recently converted to Islam due to 'presure' from the Oghuz Turks, Berke khan saw this as an advantage he could take for 2 reasons.

Extra Loyalty from his men
Loyalty from the Locals like the Volga Bulgars (he was smarter than Hulagu who just burned every city and terrorised the locals I'm not saying he didn't warn them, but it's a grave tactical error if you want to build an empire that lasts. Berke khan had the right vision)

3. I won't justify this with an answer. how biased can you be

4. The complexity of the jannisary system and the jannisary is something that should be read up on befor marginalising them with musketeers. And it wasn't untill the late 18th century when the europeans could match the jannisary. and at that point the jannisary loyalty to the House of Osman changed completely.

5. the Byzantines managed pretty well untill the Turks came into the picture

6. That was after centuries of romanisation. and the second part of my sentence wasn't about the european barbarians

7. hmm if the British didn't defeat napoleon the same would go for them. Napoleon would probably conquer all of Europe and parts of asia and africa. Did you know that almost all the Tribal lords in Northern Africa defected to Napoleon. Even the Mamelukes with promises of there own States. NATIONALISM


The convertion: The Ottoman converted on mass scale. The first was Central Asian Tribals, other Turks. Most of teh Turkish tribes weren't muslim but were converted by other Turks. Some by 'force' (political pressure).

The second were the jannisaries who weren integrated into the ottoman society.

your logic of forcefull convertion wouldn't allow greek mercants, jewish royal physicians, jewish jewelers & bankers, armenian gold smiths, etc... if the ottomans converted people by force in there new provinces than surely they wouldn't allow 'infidels' to enter the cities. the Doctor of teh Sultan was a jew


The Bottom line is that you're a 'devoted' christian so you'll allways see Islamic culture as inferior.

you're a Byzantine fan so you'll allways see the Ottomans as teh barbarians who destroyed the byzantine empire

and last you fail to research befor you debate


Sir you're biased & ignorant this debate is over

Good day!

thanks...

tbh, it was a good arguement...
maybe i'll try to research about ottoman army

The Janissary were the backbone of the Turkish army. They were often Christians who sought a better life so they had a vested interest in excellence.

depens on what period you're talking about

first period --> random christians boys where taken as a part of the Devshirme Tax
Second period --> the boys where specialy selected from the christians in the Balkans
Thrid period --> The muslim inhabitans of the Balkans & caucasus insisted that there boys were taken
Fourth period --> The boys were recruited amongst the Turks, not from christians anymore

oh btw, i'm sure that the fourth period refers to the time when the janissaries controlled the sultan himself thus quite resembling when the barbarian generals control the western roman emperor. in short, they ruled in the sultan's name

yes it does

There were various sultans who tried to get rid of the janissaries but all of them were killed or dethroned

the janissaries were a state inside the state they had some much power that they started to get corrupt. When Sultan Mahmud the second wanted to introduce a european style army in the early 18th century. The Sipahi came to the sultans rescue.

The Irony is that the sultan established the the kapikulu (slave army with the janissaries as elite) to be certain of loyalty because he didn't trust the Central Asian Warords came to his rescue in the end.

And when the time came for the sipahi division to end they did so without any revolts or type of bloodshed.

You can train a dog but he'll never be a wolf

is "Sipahi" another type of military unit? is it a cavalry? i'm kinda familiar with it because i think i saw it in Age of Empires III

Woah....

Funny you should mentioned this because I had a Bulgarian girl as a classmate back in middle school.

the sipahi were basicly Turkish feudal lords who fought for the Sultan in return they received land and booty

basicly the same as knights in status

heavy sipahi


evolution of the Sipahi

Turkmen Nomads from Central Asia --> In Anatolia called Gazi (Islamic warrior) --> Establishment of the Ottoman Empire smaller beyliks(Turkish states) got absorbed by the Ottomans --> Sipahi

The Sipahi were the only pure Turkic military in the Ottoman army

lol stinkin spahis i hate those in aoe3

we know all your info about the ottomans comes from AOE

but why you hate thel? there are far better troops than the sipahi for the Ottomani in AOEIII

yeah, sometimes Americans change the true nature and meaning of a military unit...

a good example is the Persian Immortals, the movie 300 made them looked like barbarians. In some games, they made Byzantine cataphracts used swords instead of lance and bow.

Back to Bulgaria ( )

Some warriors and equipment trough the edges (yes, Hune and Persian influences). Modern days recreation of some 5-7 c. equipment.

Volga Bulgaria hasn't been destroyed by the golden horde (just a convenient explanation for pan-salvic cmmmies' propaganda). Conquered yes, but it claims independance lather. Just to be finally destroyed a few decades lather by russians . Now the remains are called "Tatarstan" within boundaries of Russian federation, despite the population doesn't wish to be called "Tatars". Never fused with the russkie trough, even while they tried their best to assimilate for centuries.

look for Kazan tatars

yeah, Khazars where quite interesting people

based on what i read on Wikipedia a long time ago, the Khazars later where converted to Judaism and where named after some Hebrew names... and they were and allies with Byzantine empire

theres even a Byzantine emperor who has a Khazar blood. he is Emperor Leo IV the Khazar who was a son of Emperor Constantine V by his wife Irene (originally named Tzitzak)

also, Emperor Justinian II Rhinotmetus married a Khazar named Theodora and bore a son named Tiberius (Tiberios)

EDIT : I THOUGHT IT WAS KHAZARS NOT KAZAN... WELL KHAZARS ARE NOMADIC PEOPLE BTW... SO THAT STAYS ON-TOPIC

History so back ago is always a subject of speculations (I've even observed changing of history books once).
Anyway, Bulgars have long and interesting history with Khazars, Avars and Cumans (a nation that seem not to leave much traces. The constant wars with Khazars and Avars most probably crashed what we now call "Old Bulgaria" where is Ucraine now after de death of Khan Kubrat (by the way grown up and close friends with Byzantine's emperror). And made them split and move parts of the horde to denube nad volga. They all must seem pretty simmular to foreigners nevertheless bulgarians did build stone fortresses and cities (Ucrainian scientist report of more than 200 discovered in Crimea only), but all the same - steppe warriours. Lack of solid sources about them trough. It's even a subject of speculations if there used to be a link (and what kind of) between Attila and Kubrat.

I'd wish to know more especially about the Cumans. They're known to assist bulgarian Emperor Kaloyan in crushing the latin knights of Baldwin I. Some bulgarian rullers were cumans (even founded three dinasties), were a respected part of the elite probably there used to be whole cuman districts in bulgarian cities... and that's it.

i heard that a whole nomadic tribe was annihilated during the invasion of Emperor Alexius I Comnenus of Byzantien empire with the cooperation of Pechenegs... but i'm not sure whats the tribe's name

If it has been only one... At the dark ages ofter the fall of rome and before medieval times the "annihilate everything different from us" seemed to be the usual foreign policy. . How may tribes and cultures had nee just phisically slain and what amount of culture, inventions, etc. lost...

One of the nice parts about bulgarian empire is that there are not traces of doing so. In the old land they used to be pretty cosmopolit, ruins prove that everyone good in something has been welcome and people of different tribes (even those being in war) lived all happily together, not even separated in districts or gettos - no matter of your ethnicity, if you're worth, you are welcome.
After moving at Denube, they did not kill and robber the salvs and thracians as usually steppe peoples did, but made a contract with them. Giving fairly just as much and as good and protected land elsewhere if a slavic tribe had to be moved. Pretty strange for horse people towards farmers at that time, keeping in mind that Khan Asparuh came with enogh millitary power to gain victory over 80000 Byzantine army. Annihilating slavs wouldn't be a problem, but they chose peace.

Now in capital in 5 minute walk we have big chirch, biggest mosque and jewish temple. All in perfect downtown area, despite of the great that christians are much more as numbers. No, not a problem or conflicts with this.

4. "The complexity of the jannisary system and the jannisary is something that should be read up on befor marginalising them with musketeers. And it wasn't untill the late 18th century when the europeans could match the jannisary. and at that point the jannisary loyalty to the House of Osman changed completely."


the jannisaries where matched at the second battle of vienna in 1683

i think you garbled the account of the byzantines paying the magyars to attack the bulgars in the late 800s AD, and in return, the bulgars paid the petchenegs to attack the magyars, many many magyars were slaughtered and their territories in the crimean steppes where conquered by the petchenegs, forcing the magyars to move west as a people onto the pannonian plains.

first of all the battle of vienna was a small crusade meaning a dozen european states involved and it wasn't the european musketeers that caused the defeat but the Polish winged hussars who suprisiingly mastered mounted or steppe warfare so well


so the Ottomans basicly got defeated by there own tacktic