Steve Woodson wrote:
>
> > The Bulgars moved into an area more heavily settled, the
Balkans,
and may
> > have been a minority ruling elite, only. Remember that much
(most?) of the
> > Bulgar people remained along the Volga where they already had a
kingdom.
To which Michal replied
> You are probably right, but I wonder whether this theory about the
different ethnic
> composition (proportion of Slavs) in early Bulgarian and Hungarian
kingdoms was
> created only to explain the known linguistic features of both
societies, or was it
> based on some independent data (archeological sources, written
documents).
Machal, you may be interested in my History of ther Khazars which I
uploaded some time ago. It gives the explanation for the movement of
both the Magyar and Bulgar peoples.
In looking at the respective homelands of these people it is
important
to recognise that the Magyars got the Hungarian Steppe, previously
occupied by the Avars and their confederates, whereas the Bulgars got
the Balkans. The Balkans already had a settled peasant population of
Slavs, Vlach shepherds, Greek coastal traders and other odds and
sods,
and was an environment not particularly suitable for nomadic
pastoralism. By comparison the grasslands of the Hungarian Plain was
an area particularly suited to pastoral persuits, as many previous
waves of Steppe invaders had proven. No doubt this helped maintain
the intact nature of the Magyar, whilst weakening the linguistic
integrity of the Bulgars.
Hope this helps
Regards
John