Second Siege of Constantinople

y 8th century, there's nothing impressive to hear about Bulgars (culture, civilization and influences on Byzantine world).

To prove you wrong, they did (have a culture). Recent theories, which are getting large support by archeological findings suggest that Bulgars came from the region of Bactria, the mountains of Hindukush (sorry if I misspelled it) and are of Indo-iranian origin. In old-bulgar tongue it was called Imeon- "horse mountain". Some places in the region have retained their bulgar names.

Now, about culture- it's been proven that the bulgars had the most accurate callendar, better even then the Gregorian. It was based on a 12 year moon cycle. As far as I know in 1976 some bulgarian scientist proposed that it became official international callendar but it was refused due to problems with switching it with the Gregorian.

Bulgars had sophisticated skills in metallurgy and created fine weapons and jewellery, some of which are preserved today and are in an astounishingly good condition. Bulgars were also very good with leather, medicine and mathematics (the callendar).

Though bulgars were mostly nomadic people, they were surpricingly good with architecture as the capital of "Old Great Bulgaria" proves, as well as the cities in Danube and Volga Bulgaria. The Xth century Preslav was decribed as a splendid city, with great walls and magnificent churches second in the christian world only to Constantinopole.

While Bulgars were pagans they were religously tollerant. Khan Kubrat, the founder of "Old Great Bulgaria" and first acknowledged bulgar ruler was a christian and was raised in the palace of Emperor Heraclius.

The thousands of stone carvings created during the rule of khan Omurtag (815-831) are recorded in european history as "bulgar stone literacy" and are unique.

the reference "civilized" in the region and era is the Byzantine world, the Bulgarians were "wild", "uncivilized".

Recorded by whom, the byzantines? Be fair and look at it logically- the bulgars were natural enemies of the byzantines and in every case byzantine chroniclers tried to describe them as cretinous and strange.
Bulgars had literacy. Look at historical monuments and documents if you don't believe me.

As for later periods- X-XIth century - Bulgaria was the cultural centre for the slavic world. Today largely unknown (and slammed as "bulgarian nationalism") acros Europe is the fact that the cyrylic alphabet, the first slavic literature and art, as well as the autocephalous slavic church were created here. Preslav was the greatest school in the slavic world, formed by the best students of Cyril and Methodius.

So, prove me wrong that bulgars were wild cretins with no culture? Where do you take proof of this, apart of chroniclers such as Theophane?   

I don't think in sort of  "which dick is longer" could lead to somewhere. Literary Byzantium culture was definitely superior and was the best in the word. Identification of Bulgarian culture in negative terms is improper. Major let us say "function" of it was creation of Slav literary culture which was done by people like St.St.Kliment ad Naum, Konstantin Preslavski, other followers of Konstantine and Methodios and Chernorizec Hrabr during times of Boris, Simeon and Peter.

Edited by Anton - 28-Oct-2006 at 19:45

There was several attempts to change it into something usefull.   Did you try to support them? Bulgarian brilliance need not to be emphasized it is obvious

Edited by Anton - 28-Oct-2006 at 21:01

Come on, Constantine. Dark Ages occured because of human nature, not arrival of Islam. Remember for example what happened in Europe including Russia just few tens of years ago.

Sorry that I answer by question, but how could you explain things like stalinism and fascism?

Originally posted by Chilbudios Copernicus was never burnt. How could Islam provide a better alternative to a world you don't know?

I mixed Copernicus and Bruno. This does not change the argument. It was a time when the muslim world was more advanced than the backward theocratic christians - it was in the muslim world where mathematic, astrnomy and other sciences thrived, whereas scientists were put to deat in the most hedious way across in the western world.

What pushed the West ahead was in my opinino the discover of the new world and access to unlimitted resources. If Iberia remained under Moor control, it may have been the muslims who colonized the new world, and the industrial revolution may have first taken place in a muslim country.


Edited by bg_turk - 29-Oct-2006 at 09:07

I mixed Copernicus and Bruno. This does not change the argument. It was a time when the muslim world was more advanced than the backward theocratic christians - it was in the muslim world where mathematic, astrnomy and other sciences thrived, whereas scientists were put to deat in the most hedious way across in the western world.

Bruno can be hardly called a scientist (and by scientist I mean of course a "natural philosopher", as they were called in those days), he was a big-mouthed mystic with interesting ideas (mostly copied from Cusanus and others which were not burnt for them!). Western Churches had  their periods of instransigence but the Christians in the eras you addressed weren't by far the backward society (Muslim society was as well theocratic - you're making false differences here) you're trying to picture. I'll rephrase my challenge - for each Muslim scholar, explorer, engineer, artist, reformer you'll name for 16-17th centuries (Bruno was burnt in 1600), I'll give you three contemporary Europeans from Christian world. I also expect from you a representative list with "scientists" put to death in Western Europe for their "scientific" discoveries.

Edited by Chilbudios - 29-Oct-2006 at 09:59

Edited by Bulldog - 29-Oct-2006 at 14:07

Is there similar architecture in Bulgaria?

Originally posted by Bulldog Krum if your referring to "Bulgars" they were and are a Turkic people's Bulgarians arn't the only one's with Bulgar heritage, Volga-Tatar-s/Chuvash also are descendants of Bulgar's

I found a mighty proof:

�Although we�re considered as Tatars by others, we are actually Bulgarians. Our closest relatives are the Bulgarians of the Danube. Just some of us stayed at the Volga River, while others went to the Danube and mixed with the Slavs.�

Talgat Tadjmudin � Sheikh ul-Islam, Mufti, chairman of the clerical council of the Muslims in Russia and the European countries