Can anyone offer me an explanation as to the origin of the term Bulgar?

Central-Asian, there is a place in Mongolia called BULGAN fro example.

When they arrived in Europe and within the vicinity of the Roman Empire, the multitude of people (bulgar-led hordes) inspired the term "Vulgar", as in "the common mass of people", "commoners", also "uneducated mass", etc.

Unless of course the term VULGAR is present in Latin prior to the 7th century, which would then make it even more interesting.

Good thread MKD, hopefully we can come to a consensus on it and try and explain the varying meaning of the elusive term "Bulgar", which has had almost as varied meaning throughout history as the term "Greek".

Probably from the name of the river Volga. They wrote in an Indo-Iranian language so the answer might be in that.

The Bulgar tribes came from much further east than the Volga, that is a placename given after the first Bulgar tribes settled in Euro-Asia. The people who live in that area today, Chuvash and Tatar tribes claim direct descent from the Bulgar tribes of Asparukh, this is, after all, the place of Great Bulgaria. They call themselves Bolgari, the Slavs in Thrace call themselves B'lgari, none of them refer to themselves as Volgari.

They claimed their first king to be Attila and after him his son Irnik (Avitohol and Irnih, dates match as well). Both of these kings are of Scythian/Russian origin.
All of the Bulgar inscriptions are written in an Indo-Iranian language closest to the language in the regions of Pamir and Kashmir.

The answer to this problem I'll leave to the experts, namely the Russian ones. I have seen their work, it is very impressive, and they too argue whether the Proto-Bulgars were Slavs, Iranians or Turks.

http://www.kcn.ru/tat_en/history/h_bulge.html



Notice also the flag is the same colours...

I believe they were a Turkic-Altay tribe who, during their westward migration assimilated with Iranians, and by the time they attacked the Roman Empire they also had a multitude of Slavic warriors amongst their ranks.

The Bulgars were not Slavs, this is a fact. The only confusion arises with the question of wether they were more Turkic or more Iranian. Either way, East and/or Central-Asian.

Hmm, interesting stuff.

which ever way you put it guys modern bulgaria is arguably the second most innaproprite balkan name after hellas.

hellas a nation of christians of many ethnicities and languages with little ancient hellenic cultural or linguistic influence in the mjaority of the population.


bulgaria a medieval name plucked out by a macedonian monk and taken on by a nation of mainly thracoslavic peoples with no lingusitic or cultural links withe the bulgars.

and these two clowns are considered good enough for the eu.

greece is even allowed to claim a non existant link with the ancient hellenes, thus inheriting all the glory and prestige of ancinet hellas macedonia and the eastern roman empire. our greek posters will once again come up with the same old tired arguments cementing their claim to all the above.

Волжските българи:
dgien.narod.ru,
www.tatar.ru
www.kcn.ru
www.tatinfo.ru
www.ite.narod.ru
www.tatarculture.ru
www.idel-ural.on.ufanet.ru
www.tatargen.on.ufanet.ru
www.kazan.ru/list/
www.mtss.ru/?page=language
www.chelny.ru/city/gcdt/wrestling/index.html
www.elina-computer.ru/archeology/home.html
www.egi.kth.se/nps/staff/askar/snongs/songs.htm
www.akm.kazan.ru/alex/mosques/mosques.htm

Mk, I think I just realized one of the points I'm making (it sometimes just comes to me, you know).
The point is that Proto-Bulgars and the today's Bulgars in Russia are not related, that is, you can't presume that because today's Bulgars are Tatars that the Proto-Bulgars were as well.

If we can think about other things reasonably, why do we accept that this case is so simple when it obviously isn't?

I've seen a genetic research for the Chuvas people and they are not related with the modern Bulgarians.

Iranian or Turkic (but not mongoloid) is the most probable!

ps. I just read the post of Slovak above me, seems he is right.

To make it more clear what I'm saying is that you can't say that Indians (of India) and Indians (Native Americans) are related just because they are called the same (and only by non-Indians).

There are many mistakes made in history because of confusion and wrong relation of names: Germans (Deutche) and Germans (of ancient Germania), Avars (ancient) and Avars (of Caucasus), Hungarians (Magyars) and Huns (Kievans/Ukrainians), etc.


I would like to try and see whether the Proto-Bulgars and the ancestors of Chuvash Bulgars are in fact related in any way than just by name.

Slovak, I have never thought of the Balkan Bulgars as Tatars in Racial way.

I like to tell them that they are most likely of Thracian and Moesian Blood, and have love affair with the Tatar Name.

Even though we dont really know if this name was initially Tataric i.e. Turkic.

I mean if you just look at the Culture and Folklore of the Tatars, it has nothing in common with the Culture and the Folclore of the Balkan Bulgars.

And speaking of the language, their language seems to have more Thracian affiliations, than with the Tataric.

at the bottom line, the Balan Bulgars as the Indians in America, got named by foreigners as such, and acctually have nothing in common with those where this name originate.

No, Mk, I'm not talking about MODERN Bulgars, I'm talking about the ANCIENT Bulgars who invaded Thracia and Moesia. I'm saying they have no relation with the Bulgars in Russia.

I dont know about that, it could be...

If so, we have two Terms Bolgar(from Volkga)and Voulgar(from VULGER).... not related to each other, but deceptively similar..

To prove this is prety hard, and than again it comes close to the second spreaded meaning of the Bolgar word in the Balkans, i.e. PEASANT, COMMONOR, UNCIVILIZED PEOPLE....

Well, what is the theory about the term Bulgar being used to denominate pheasants/commoners yet it first was used as a name of a noble warrior class?

The way I understand the Bulgarian thing is that they came to the Balkans and were most likely Tatar people.
They were called Bulgarians.
Because the Greeks seem to have a speech impediment and cannot pronounce the sound "B" then called them "Voulgari".
The Greek version was adopted by the West for some time just as they thought Serbians were called "Servian" for some time.
The "Voulgari" mispronunciation led to a theory they they may have come form the Volga river from Russia. This was fueled by the desire for Bulgarians to create a "Slavic" history for themselves as well.
Although they have many similarities to the Tatars including their flag the Bulgarians deny that they have Asian roots and claim to be Slavs.

This is the way I always understood the Bulgarian Identity.

Well that's the point, we 'presume' and 'understand' our whole lives that something 'is the way it is', but what if isn't?

I don't want to get too philosophical about this, but my point is that why 'choose' what they were when there are hints, sometimes outright evidence, that they were not Tatars? I 'chose' that they are neither and all. So until I or someone else dose a serious and detailed research I will never say Bulgars were Tatars, or Turks, or Slavs, or Iranians, I'll say they were all of that because there is no criteria suitable to place them into any of these groups, they were simply Bulgars.

I don't care what do modern Bulgars think about it. If they have problems with their past, that's a psychological issue of the present not a historical one of the past, except maybe the recent one.