Talk:Seven Slavic tribes

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Bulgaria High‑importance Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

old bulgarian

how come bulgarian language got extinct, and they adopted the old bulgarian language? which it is now? the newer or the older? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edi1kanobi (talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common misunderstanding, so I'd like to address it even though the question was asked some time ago. There is a crucial difference between the Bulgars and the Bulgarians. The Bulgars were people related to the Huns, the Avars, and the Khazars. Some branch of the Bulgars left Old Great Bulgaria to settle on the Danubian Plain. There, they created a common state with some Slavic and local people (most likely of Thracian origin). The subjects of this state mixed, and gradually became one people, known as the Bulgarians. A crucial step in this was the adoption of a common faith (Orthodox Christianity) and a common language (Old Bulgarian) by one of the state's rulers — Kanasubigi Boris. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the common language chosen by Boris was not his mother tongue, Bulgar, but the language of the Slavic-speaking population of the state. Initially, this language was simply referred to as Slavic, but because the state itself was officially the Bulgarian Empire, the designation of the language changed to Bulgarian. Of course, this was long time ago, and as centuries passed, the language evolved into Modern Bulgarian (and also Modern Macedonian).

One would ask, why did the Bulgars adopted another tongue instead of their own? Part of the reason was that the Slavs in the Bulgarian Empire were more than the Bulgars (which were kind-of the military elite). Another was that there were many more Slavic tribes outside the empire, and they were potential new subjects. But I think that the main reason is that codifying a spoken language into a written one is not a simple task, and the work for Slavic was actually already done before its adoption from Boris. Two Byzantine missionaries St. Cyril and St. Methodius codified the Slavic tongues spoken in the area as a part of Byzantine Empire's plan to spread its influence on the Slavs by converting them to Orthodox Christianity. The first "clients", the Moravians, were actually not in the region, but their language was very similar. However, the Moravians decided to go with the Catholic Chrurch, and Pope Stephen V drove the Byzantine missionaries out of Moravia. Kanasubigi Boris used this opportunity and welcomed the banished missionaries in the two literary schools of Preslav (in modern day Bulgaria) and Ohrid (in modern day Macedonia). This helped not only the Bulgarian Empire, but was the starting point for the later literary tradition among the Serbs and the East Slavs as well. Somewhat ironically, the name "Boris" is one of the few words of the Bulgar language that remain in modern day Bulgarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.31.108 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden, Peter B. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1992.

User:Historyycall, your addition to the article has nothing to do with the sourse you have cited. On page 245 of the book you гhave mentioned, there is nothing written about the Seven Slavic Tribes. Moreover, what you wrote is complete nonsense. Wikipedia is based on serious sources, not on artificial intelligence or free writings. On page 247 of the same book, Golden writes the following on the matter: "The Slavic union of 7 tribes, hitherto dominant in the region, submitted to them or worked out sorne kind of political relationship. In any event, there can be little doubt that of all the groupings there, the Bulgars represented the most powerful, cohesive, military force. Like their kinsmen in the Middle Volga region, they imposed themselves on a militarily weaker sedentary population." Please, keep to sources. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A technologically superior minority Turkic group invades the primitive Slavs and uses them as a meat wave against the Romans. For God's sake, don't make a pun , this is colonization. Historyycall (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see the term colonization in the source? Do not put here your POV, please. Jingiby (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Historyycall, the names of the tribes you are putting into the article are not the names of the 7 Slavic tribes. This is off-topic. Jingiby (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are the tribal names given by Theophanes the Confessor, stop lying kid, this is clearly vandalism and fraud Historyycall (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And may I see this source? Jingiby (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]