Talk:Gagauz people

Culinary

--Surak 12:23, 10 Oct 2018 (UTC) Why is the culinary section in the past tense? It's like the Gagauz people does not exist anymore.

Old talk

--Sifakis 03:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)I wanto to know more about Gagauz, because my family Dermengi is one of then and I live in Brazil, very far from Moldova

Enver Pasha

The hero of Liberty was also from Gagauz Turkish origin. Are you planing to prepare a seperate section about famous Gagauz people? See you, Deliogul 11:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Enver Pasha was not a Gagauz. 1) There is a hypothesis that his grandfather is Gagauz. This is not enough to be a Gagauz. He in the same way can be considered as Albanian, Turk, Circassian, since he has ancestors from these peoples. 2) In addition, Enver Pasha was a Muslim (all Gagauz are Christians), this is also a sign that he is not a Gagauz. 3) Enver Pasha is one of the leaders of the genocide against the Christian population of the Ottoman Empire. He has nothing Gagauzian. He is the shame of humanity. Kongaz42 (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Gagauz people

Cheboksari (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Gagauz people were the descendants of autochthonous Turkish populations of Balkans, but which were keeping their Orthodox religion unlike the big majority of those Balkan Turks.

Those Balkan or “Danubian” Turks were absurdly accused as same as “Bulgarians” (Moesian and Rumelian Slavonics) already from the Ottoman reformist politicians in 19th (following some “European” ideas and hypothesis started with Croatian Illyrists), and today they are declared as same as Anatolian and Ottoman Turks (appearing in Anatolia only in first centuries of 2nd millennium A D). For sure the Muslimization and Ottomanization of those Turks since the 15th was joining most of those Turks to one historical, traditional and cultural Ottoman and Turkish community in empire, but that is not at all a reason of declaring them as being the guests on their own land and of denying them their own Balkan history, tradition and identity which was besides lasting much longer in their own homeland – the Balkans than those of the Turks and the Ottomans in Anatolia.

Turkish areas of Balkans were those in East of peninsula – those of the ancient local autochthonic Moesian Turks in East Balkans, forming for half-millennium their two Turkish Moesian states in 681-971 and 1185-1395, and staying highly concentrated in their old areas of East Moesia – Turkish region of Deliorman with old capitals of Pliska and Preslav and near the Black sea coast – in Dobroudja and southerner (like also in Rhodopes).

Those Turks since 15th quickly Muslimized and Ottomanized (except Gagauz) and becoming thus close and united with their Ottoman and Anatolian Turkish Muslim brothers, though having different origin, history, tradition or identity – those were in East Balkans the autochthonous Huns since 5th (established with the Byzantine support in Dobroudja after disintegration of Hun empire, meaning coming much before the Slavonics) and joining them since end of 7th Onogondours (coming small after Slavonics) forming a first Moesian Turkish state conquering, occupying and dominating local Slavonics (feudally dependent in most of history before 1878), then having a second wave of Turkish invaders – of the Pechenegs, Ouz and Koumans (Koumans most powerful from those were delivering to second state its principal aristocracy and 3 dynasties – of Assan or John-Assan, John being translation of Kouman Assan-Hassan, then having Terters’ and Shishmans’ dynasties) which since middle of 11th for about century were practically depriving Byzantines from their “Cis-Danubian” theme, committing unheard outrages, cruelties and devastations in the Lower Moesia and Thrace, for later – joining old Turkish settlers – forming second Turkish-Moesian state.

After defeated from Byzantines – parts of those Turkish new-comers were established from Byzantines under Byzantine control in the Central Balkans from where them escaping at first possibility for continuing in their East Balkans their wild outrages. Since 13th and 15th innumerous immigrants from the Tatar khanates and Tatars from Anatolia were establishing in regions like Dobroudja – those more minor movements for sure were though not important changing ethnical or political situation there.

Moesian Turks were special case on Balkans, initially steppe horse nomadic populations, hardly controllable, strongly mobile and in constant movements with a military way of life, always strongly relating their Turkish brothers over Danube, but turned in peasants under Ottomans, those Moesian Turks still today are speaking their special Danubian Turkish language. In beginning of 20th famous Polish Turcologist prof. Tadeusz Kowalski was establishing its Huno-Bulgarian North-Turkish basis with a powerful Pecheneg-Ouz South-Turkish layer – defining its South-Turkish and Ogouz character (Pechenegs and Ouz have always been pointed as Ogouz tribes and so were their Turkish languages), Kouman language occupying special position among Turkish languages (from their North branch) was not strongly influencing as Koumans – most powerful from those invaders were dominating the area, but staying strongly mobile with their principal parts remaining over Danube. The same language was spoken for those Muslim Danubian Turks and their Gagauz cousins which separating from the Muslim majority of Turks since 15th.

Also finally for that Turkish language of the Moesian Turks having a thin superficial Ottoman layer – inevitable with establishment of Ottoman Turkish as official language of society, administration and state or culture (Ottoman immigrants like everywhere staying inconsiderable). Gagauz language would be staying less influenced from official Ottoman Turkish language as the Gagauz would be less relating Ottomans, when their Muslimized brothers would be influenced, uniting and also even somehow assimilated socially, politically or culturally from the Ottomans. Reminding again that Ottoman linguistic influence was inevitable – knowing for example that Moesian Slavonics in the Balkan East spoke still in 19th language with 80 % Turkish elements – in West Balkans for the Slavonics that influence was much les felt.

When coming on Balkans the Onogondours were pretending attributing for themselves the “Bulgarian” name as shortly belonging to a shortly surviving Caucasian “Bulgaria” of khan Koubrat (separating from West-Turkish khaganate, and where separate from principal Bulgarian population of the khanate – the Onogondours, turcisized Scythians, were after disintegration of the state chased from Khazars up to Danube), those pretensions on name of Turks-Bulgarians were later adopted from uniting those older local Turkish populations the new-comers Pechenegs, Ouz and Koumans – as Turks-Bulgarians close to the Huns were staying in European Antiquity and Middle Ages much famous, feared and respected Barbarians (being together with Huns the first Altaics and Turks reaching East-European steppes in first centuries of new era – after destruction of Hun empire in North Asia – to which Bulgarians were also belonging).

Was known during Middle Ages great Bulgaria of the Volga – spreading its power or influence on enormous territories in Eurasia and destroyed from Mongols-Tatars, but becoming center for spreading of Islam in Tatar territories (succeeded on its principal territory from a Kazan Tatar khanate).

Weakly relating the local Orthodox Churches with their Slavonic-Byzantine language and culture, (unlike their Turkish Moesian aristocracy adopting Slavonic-Byzantine culture and Orthodoxy and being massively slaughtered from Ottomans) those Turks are quickly and easily muslimized and ottomanized, though part of them – the Gagauz persecuted for their Christian religion and immigrating to Bessarabia were actually keeping Orthodoxy (together with their native Turkish language), but those Gagauz in the East Balkans though sharing same situation sure never thought of “assimilating” with local Orthodox Slavonics.

Church Slavonic as only alternative language of Orthodoxy – religion being introduced there (by force) from Byzantines was sure means of resisting grecization (inevitable with great power and influence of the Byzantine neighbor and started with christianization from Byzantines) without smallest danger of “slavonization”, “assimilation” and loss from Turks of their dominating position because of always weak and inferior cultural, political or military and social development of local Slavonics (two communities of dominated Slavonics and dominating Turks always keeping much different culture, way of life and society), though “united” from a common official Orthodox religion mixture between two races – of Slavonics and Turks was realized only with practice of spread among Turks customs of rapes and forced picking of Slavonic women for wives. Would be much more probable supposing that local populations like Slavonics or another would be entirely or partially assimilated from those Turks (like that happening from a small minority of the Turkish Seljuk conquerors in Anatolia) but that has never much happened.

After a state council convoked from prince Boris in 893 which was stating dethronation of prince Vladimir Rassate, coronnation on his place of younger son of Boris Simeon and also the translation from Greek of the Holy Scriptures – that is introduction of Church Slavonic; those being introduced there from the Illyrian Bulgaria (with its principal Slavonic-Byzantine Ohrid school forming since 886 – that is much before Preslav school in Turkish Moesia starting forming under Simeon) and specially through great influence of the known (Illyrian Bulgarian from origin) St. Clement over local prince Boris – Church Slavonic language (becoming Latin of the Orthodox East) and Slavonic-Byzantine culture couldn’t sure much influencing without speaking of “slavonizing” Moesian Turks in their own state and country – as that elevated elitarian aristocratic and minoritarian culture like in all medieval states was concerning narrow circle of social elite, and from opposite was actually separating Turks from official Orthodoxy and their Byzantine-influenced aristocracy.

Church and official culture – could never assimilate anyone in those medieval states as was case with Latin in West Europe – only language of state, and religion, literature or science for more than one millennium until 16th (could be later compared to spreading of the fashionable French – spreading among social elite) – Latin was never Latinizing anyone in medieval epoch, having the Church Slavonic – kept for about one millennium in Wallachia, Moldavia or Albania and Kossovo, either the Bielorussian in Lithuania for about half-millennium (then replaced by Polish), actually medieval states were highly characterized with opposition – social, political or cultural between elite and populace with their respective cultures.

Resistance towards introduction of Christianism was strong with Moesian Turks, naming there anti-Christian resurection in the “10 comitates”, then prince Vladimir Rassate (Vladimir – Slavonic name was becoming the Christian name of prince – like said Church Slavonic was becoming after 886 Latin of Orthodox East) trying during his short reign return to Paganism, without speaking that like said many of those populations were in constant move from this and other side of Danube, so those Moesian Turkish rulers should accepting compromise making belonging to Christian faith for all those Turkish populations quite formal or even only wanted but fictional and missing. Despite that case of Gagauz was pointing that much important quantity of those Turks were embracing the Christian faith as their own and keeping it even during hard times of Ottoman domination when most of their brothers converting to Islam.

Province of Lower Moesia (lying between North and East Barbarians and Constantinople and occupied originally from Moesian Turks) is from beginning of the 1st millennium totally devastated from Barbarians, described generally as a “Scythian desert” and having only importance for empires of Byzantines then Ottomans as buffer for empire against North Barbarians, Byzantine sovereigns were preferring supporting there rule of Moesian Turks occupying area – province of Moesia with Danubian plain was un-needed for empire, practically un-protectable (specially after break of Danubian limes in 602) and was anyway not meaning much for empire after being totally destroyed and devastated from Barbarians which finally occupying it, depriving it from its Byzantine populations.

Establishment of Moesian Turks was preferred or tolerated – instead for empire itself assuring its defense in Moesia against hostile Barbarians, either when risking leaving it to a much more dangerous foreign invader and enemy – when Moesian Turks would be protecting as buffer principal Balkan imperial parts without generally representing themselves serious danger; in 705 (twice dethroned) Justinian II is recognizing to khan (Turkish – prince) Tervel power over Zagore – Slavonic name (“land over the mountain”) of “Moesia” (with its North-Thracian neighborhood in the East Balkans) – empire preferring losing thus officially a Slavonic territory of “Zagore” to its own old Roman province of the Lower “Moesia” (some are supposing that the name of Zagore indeed attributed like to whole of Turkish Moesia also sometimes to different East-Balkan regions was meaning here a region in East Thrace).

After coming of Onogondourian prince Asparoukh establishing first Turkish Moesian state in Balkan East) which happening in autumn of 681 (pointed specifically from the Byzantine sources, and not in 680 like supposed from some – because of having earlier some mentions of “Bulgaria” – which wouldn’t be relating the Onogondours) and after 2 unsuccessful Byzantine campaigns – the Byzantines, without recognizing any Moesian Turkish state (like supposed from some) were only recognizing for the Barbarian prince right to a “financial aid” (called “tribute”) from empire for pacifying North “Barbarians” – a practice much common for empire which was preferring not much involving in struggles in North when being principally occupied only with great Muslim Arab menace. Much probably a Moesian Turkish state was not recognized also in 705 when prince Tervel would be recognized only as a Caisar (like said the highest court title but without political importance) of “Zagore” or Moesia.

Asparoukh and his dynasty (lasting in the Turkish Moesia only few decennia) was the only one directly relating the Onogondours (together with their belonging to that Caucasian “Bulgarian” union for 20 years) to a quickly appeared and disappearing Caucasian Bulgaria as he was son of founder of state – principality separated from prince from the West-Turkish khaganate where starting interior struggle and war for the throne between Turkish clans of Doulou and Noushibi and where Koubrat representative of Doulou was ruler of a “Bulgarian” province having as principal population the two Bulgarian branches of Outigours and Koutrigours.

Before his death the prince Koubrat placing under power of his sons the three parts and peoples of his principality – where eldest son Bayan (supporting later Khazar succession of the Caucasian Bulgaria – Khazars separating from principality before death of Koubrat) was having the major Bulgarian branch of Onogondours, Kotrag the second one – of Koutrigours, and youngest son Asparoukh was having the least important population of Scythians-Onogondours (their name literally meaning “people from central parts of state”), on their land was initially found capital of Koubrat’s principality – the impregnable (now called) “Khoumarino” fortress in the North Caucasus, for later capital moving in land of Onogours – to Phanagoria. Like said Onogondours are chased from successors of Caucasian Bulgaria, the Khazars, up to the Danube (where them occupying in 668 a fortified “Ongle” or angle between Danube and jonctions of the rivers Prout and Siret, from where them starting troubling neighboring Byzantine lands).

Onogondours are called from the Khazars “more numerous then grains of sand in sea”, the Onogondourians were quite numerous population (able of destroying important Byzantine armies and occupying Lower Moesia) and not at all a small military detachment, like pretended from some. In their Turkish Moesia they were uniting with autochtonous Turks – Huns occupying parts of East Balkans (Lower Moesia with probably also parts of Thrace with Rhodopes – where Turks could be having also since 8th a relation of assimilated from them Anatolian Isaurians) for more than a century earlier.

As recognized, organized and independent Orthodox state Turkish Moesia was existing for about century and half, after 864-971 becoming a Byzantine province of Paraistrion or “Cis-Danubia” in 971-1204, in upsurge from 1204 to 1241, then becoming a Tatar (becoming practically Tatar province in end of 13th), Serbian and finally an Ottoman dependence and protection. The short periods of military and political expansion (when using as principal support Turkish troops of brothers-Turks from Trans-Danubian lands) were quickly exhausting resources (financial, economical, like military or social) of Turkish Moesian state for being followed from long periods of loss of power and of military and political decadence.

The Onogondourian power was replacing for local Slavonics Avarian, from example of Avarian state was there existing a two-degrees structure where the Turks were controlling their Slavonic subjects (on the lower degree) through their Slavonic aristocracy (supported somehow for few decennia until final centralization process following Byzantine model), Turkish Moesian state was though quite quickly becoming ordered, organized and centralized and feudalized – following model of Byzantium and having a real, important and entire control over its own territories in Moesia (with adjacent East-Balkan North-Thracian parts on road to great Constantinople), when the other territories shortly recognizing union or presence with Turkish Moesia were quite weakly either not related and controlled or influenced, the Moesian Turks with their troops, rulers, aristocracy, administration and two always Turkish states were so, later muslimized and ottomanized, controlling Balkan East with its (feudally dependent) East-Dacian Slavonics for 12 centuries until 1878 – when after the 15th becoming muslimized and also religiously opposed for local Orthodox Slavonics.

Eventually already in 16th all regions east of a line of Nicopolis-Seres were having a considerable Muslim majority – meaning of those local (before representing for centuries a minority against a Slavonic majority) Turks with assimilated from them populations. Those were, together with some from local Christians, the assimilated slaves coming mostly as spoil after the military campaigns in frontier or neighboring lands of empire, like also after some local revolts (or with devshirme – so called “ortakchi” – for sultan and his sultan’s has, in this case “has” was meaning sultan’s feud).

In same way in 18th-19th the Moesian Slavonics (always greatly terrorized from local Turks, Tatars, Ottomans) were becoming again a majority in East Balkans when assimilating bigger but worse part from those Ottoman slaves placed on lands representing feuds of Ottoman aristocrats or the Ottoman sultan – as the East Balkans were divided between those feuds of Ottoman generals-aristocrats and sultan (those being only ones having right possessing slaves), those slaves in the East Balkans were coming from those East-Balkan Slavonics either much similar populations of neighboring Wallachian states and were representing 80 % from origin of Moesian Slavonics in end of 19th (same way slaves of Moesian Turks representing 60 % from origin of Moesian Slavonics in 14th).

Speaking of Christianization of those local Moesian Turks being much less successful than Muslimization and Ottomanization (from their Ottoman brothers) – Besides being weakly related to local Orthodox Church an important part of those Turks could be staying before later Muslimization and Ottomanization also Pagan – as seen for example in the Volga Bulgaria with case of Chuvash which staying there un-reached from Muslimization.

Different was case of the Gagauz – remaining Orthodox Moesian Turks – called Ghyaour “Infidel” Ouz,. Already in 19th biggest part of them was abandonning their old lands for the Russian Bessarabia. Those remaining were despite that forming (being centered near their principal city and area of Kavarna) their “Republic” in Dobroudja which had to be routed from Ottomans in the 1850’s.

Turks of Macedonia were generally settlers moved from Byzantines or Ottomans from Anatolia united under Ottomans with local Muslimized populations. Tatars penetrating East Balkans from Crimea or the North Anatolia (principally under the Ottomans) were staying attached to Muslim Turks, they were establishing among other in Turkish land of Dobroudja (keeping big part of Gagauz populations, when Muslim sects were since 13th slightly penetrating that later called Dobroudja – principal Turkish Balkan land) receiving its name from turcisized name of local Turkish Kouman Orthodox feudal (from dynasty of Terters) named in Slavonic Dobrotitsa or “Dobroudja” in Turkish.

Thus Gagauz (without counting Orthodox East-Balkan Slavonics – much more numerous but not ethnically related to their conquerors Turks) were the only Turkish and true and original remnants of existing for few centuries East-Balkan Orthodox Turkish Moesia. Keeping their Orthodox religion was meaning that part of those Turkish populations was staying attached to its old identity, traditions and culture though much bigger part of Turks was quickly and easily and definitely joining their Ottoman conquerors.

Like all other Orthodox in empire the Gagauz were somehow underprivileged because of their Christian culture and so they were like some from the local Slavonics escaping imperial dominions for Russian Bessarabia where were keeping until now their principal parts, and only small part from them was keeping in their old land – East Balkans. Repeating that Gagauz were keeping for those many centuries their original culture, tradition, identity or definitions despite even having from long Ottomanized and Muslimized their Moesian Turkish brothers and despite hostility of Ottoman authorities.

Gagauz and Chuvash (both Turkish peoples were somehow relating the Turks-Bulgarians – Chuvash being their direct descendants and Moesian Turks pretending for long on their name) are considered now the only Orthodox Turkish peoples but certainly Gagauz were keeping their Christianity for those many centuries and Chuvash becoming Christianized from Catherine the Great only in the 18th. Meaning Gagauz are the only Turkish people staying originally Orthodox as being Christianized from Byzantines and from its own princes and aristocracy since 864 – that is before many of the European nations of today.

Turkish Moesia and its Balkan relations

Cheboksari (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

After forming on the South side of Danube (with probably few lands on the other side of river) in 681 Turkish Moesian state was having on Balkans a narrow strip along Danube (up to Iscar or Northwestern Haemus-Balkan) to control and was starting also penetrating the North Thrace, but was becoming in beginning of 9th a Balkan power after disintegration of Avarian khaganate destroyed from Franks of Karl the Great. Then the khan Kroum (considered from some coming from Bulgarians of khaganate, starting last and most important dynasty of Moesian Turkish state – dynasty of princes Boris and Simeon) was annexing whole East of the ex-Avarian empire and also a Danubian strip up to Belgrade, from where in 9th was starting penetration of Moesian Turkish influence in south along the axis of Morava-Vardar (with those always opposing empire Slavinias in Macedonia inclined easily towards some alliance or union with anti-Byzantine powers), when lands south of Balkan staying protected from the strong Byzantine limes – fortification line of Haemus and southerner.

Indicative of the growing power and self-assurance of the principality-khanate was the bold Moesian Turkish campaign towards a Byzantine stronghold like Sardica-Sofia. Kroum is advancing into “Greek regions” and is even entering Sardica where doors of the city are open from garrison which is promised from prince keeping their lives, the prince is staying there for three days (obviously not feeling welcome) and is quickly escaping (before that slaughtering garrison with part of citizens) as the Byzantine emperor learning of Moesian Turkish campaign is instantly organizing expedition towards Sardica where emperor is occupied of restoring city walls damaged from Kroum. The Moesian Turks for sure never put their feet there until beginning of next century, but local Slavonic principalities – Slavinias were already starting establishing and increasing their power and influence.

The prince Omourtag – the successor of Kroum was signing in 820 a peace treaty with empire where confirming border on Haemus-Balkan range (and so confirming lack of interest for “liberating” local Slavonics, it is known that empire was not losing territories south of Haemus-Balkan until 864, when Byzantium was christianizing prince Boris and his Turkish Moesia, to which being left a land of “Zagore”), the same prince in his inscription on a stone column was wishing for himself of continuing “trampling on the emperor and on the Slavonics”. The state was centralized under Byzantine model – probably creating later known the “10 comitates” on principal territories of the principality – in the East Balkans, the rest was always staying controlled much uncertainly and without much interest from princes. It is to notice that under the same prince Omourtag because of the anti-Slavonic policy of Moesian Turks three Slavonic tribes from the Western outskirts of Moesian Turkish principality had to demand from Franks to accept them under Frank suzerainty, the Slavonics complaining against the “cruel injustice” of Moesian Turks.

The khanate is having drastic transformations under Boris and Simeon (defeated from their neighbors), Boris was losing all his wars, when Simeon advancing up to Serbia was finally defeated from coming to Serbian support Croatian king.

The prince (keeping always his title of prince or archon – confirmed from Byzantine authorities, the patriarch was even crowning the prince with archon’s diadem during a prince’s visit to Constantinople, prince is also promised marriage of his daughter with Byzantine successor of throne – sure that was never realized) Simeon was even preparing declaring himself as “Roman emperor” that is Byzantine emperor – as seen with his seals produced and found in Preslav. With incredible idiocy and insolence the prince which meaning of naming himself that way was aiming replacing himself the lawful Roman emperor in Constantinople and was so proposing to the Arab Caliphs of attacking and taking together Byzantine capital of Constantinople, needing for this the support of the powerful Arab navy (was known for everyone that Constantinople can be taken only from a great navy).

Fortunately Byzantine policy was two times frustrating the prepared alliance which was menacing the existence of Byzantium – staying then the only European power able of defending the continent from great Arab Muslim menace which was fought in one total, exhausting and decisive struggle of 4 centuries. If plans of Simeon would be realized preserving him as small Arab sheikh was quite improbable and Arab occupation of continent would be eminent.

Should be always made principal difference between Turkish Moesia in Balkan East (with its two Moesian Turkish states in 681-971 and 1185-1395) and the older Slavonic-Byzantine Illyrian Bulgaria in the Balkan West of Illyria which was generally named as “Bulgaria” when Turkish Moesia was generally known as “Moesia” or “Zagore” (for Slavonics). Byzantines were naming sometimes both with the names of “Lower” (for the Illyrian Bulgaria) and “Upper” (for the Turkish Moesia) either “Bulgaria” or “Moesia”, as both were having their pretensions on “Bulgarian name” and were located on territories of ex-provinces and dioceses of Moesia.

Those were in prefecture of Orient diocese of “Thrace” of Odryssians in Balkan East for the Moesian Turks – including created earlier than diocese province of the Lower Moesia, when the first and veritable or Upper Moesia was staying in Illyria and giving its name to diocese of Moesia soon divided into two new ones of Dacia and Macedonia named again after their principal provinces – those lands staying in the prefecture of Illyria having main part of Balkans with also Pannonia).

Naming the North Barbarians as Moesians or Bulgarians was so met with Byzantine chronists as with much complicated and quickly changing situation on Balkans those apellations were simplifying and generalizing the picture. It is to notice that apellations of the Upper and Lower Moesia or Bulgaria were returned – most probably as that would be geographically seen from Constantinople with more close Turkish Moesia called “Upper” Moesia or Bulgaria and more distant Illyrian Bulgaria called “Lower” one.

The Moesian Turkish presence or union in Illyrian Bulgaria was in some relatively short periods only formally recognized from local Slavonic principalities – Slavinias always keeping, supporting and protecting there their principal power.

Indicative of growth of Moesian Turkish power was Moesian Turkish presence and union or influence in Illyrian Bulgaria and in a principal Byzantine and Slavonic-Byzantine stronghold like Shopeskho with eventually there Sardica – it was happening principally in four periods – between 904-930, then between 1202-08, between 1230-46 and 1341-56.

In 904-930 it seems that even a Byzantine and Slavonic-Byzantine stronghold like Sardica was falling under the Moesian Turkish presence and union or influence, though the local Slavinias sure were always keeping their power – recognizing formally some alliance or union with Moesian Turkish principality, and those Slavinias were after 927-930 originating the great Illyrian empire of the Comitopouls; under Moesian Turkish king Peter I Moesian Turkish state is losing the conquests of prince Simeon, Rassa-Serbia is so separating in 927-930 and so is the neighboring Shopeskho.

It is notable that the Byzantine sources were always naming the four brothers – Slavonic-Byzantine Shope princes as “Comitopouls” that is as sons of a comita or comes-count but not being a comita for some of them, meaning that their father “the mighty comes-count of Sredets-Sofia Nikola” was losing his title long ago (before transferring it to some of his sons) – as a Byzantine either as Moesian Turkish comes-count – as his lands were since long ago losing their union with both monarchies and he couldn’t be succeeded that way from his sons as his title was lost before that. Thus the anti-Byzantine revolt of Comitopouls was started in one staying formally Byzantine land from long separated from Turkish Moesia. After Byzantine and Russian attacks over Turkish Moesia (Russians two times occupying Turkish Moesia) Comitopolus were starting pretending also on lands of the quickly and inevitably disappearing Moesian Turkish state, the emperor had to send from Constantinople held as hostages sons of Moesian Turkish king Peter “for returning their father’s lands and stopping advance of Comitopouls”.

Later with strengthening of Illyrian Bulgarian empire pro-Bulgarian parties are formed in Byzantium and Turkish Moesia, some of their supporters are receiving asylum in Illyrian Bulgaria (like Moesian Turkish successor of throne – made from Comitopouls governor of Scopye)

If Moesian Turkish prince Peter I was receiving from Byzantine emperor title of Caesar or Kaisar (highest court title after imperial one in Byzantium, already received from a Moesian Turkish khan Tervel in 705) with title as patriarch for Moesian Turkish archbishop (in Dristir-Silistra) – which was though staying canonically submitted to patriarch in Constantinople (same as for example the Abkhazian patriarch-Catholicos was staying submitted to one of Georgia), great Illyrian Bulgarian Slavonic-Byzantine empire was first time establishing later known and used imperial Slavonic title as “tsar” – documented for Illyrian Bulgarian tsars Samuel (for some receiving his crown from the Pope) and John-Vladislav (first named as “Autocrat”).

Empire with its independent patriarchate was giving birth to first independent European national Church recognized from emperor Basil with three imperial charters in 1019-20 – the Church transferred from him important part of power over principal territories of Illyrian Bulgarian empire (that is the Illyrian Bulgaria proper) now in union with great Byzantium, the reformed from Basil “autocephalous”, that is independent, archbishopric of Ohrid and of “Bulgaria” was transferred the official great state seal of the Illyrian Bulgarian empire.

With its enormous territory reaching from Illyria with North Greece and Bosnia or Dalmatia to Slovakia, South Poland and South Russia or Black sea with Bessarabia (Turkish Moesia – from Danube to Balkan was also occupied in 990 or probably 976, but as nobody was interested in it, it was lost as easily as conquered in 1000) – it was first great Slavonic empire with the first Slavonic-Byzantine culture, centers and schools and Church, and which playing principal role in Christianization of neighbors Poland and Russia, strategic alliance is established with powerful Hungarian neighbor – later playing principal role in Illyrian Bulgarian history, policy, directions, and empire becoming later united in a monarchical union with great Byzantium (in 1018-1204)

Union with Illyrian Bulgaria was greatest victory and success of greatest Byzantine Medieval emperor Basil II, like his contemporaries and himself are rightfully considering – for fighting Illyrian Bulgaria the empire is concentrating on Balkans after the year 1000 its principal military forces of more than 100 thousand soldiers. Byzantine attacks are ravaging principally the Slavonic-Byzantine Macedonia whose Slavinias are the traditional opposition of Byzantium.

After death of emp. Basil II was starting the decline of Byzantium and trials (becoming sure more and more successful) for incorporation of lands of autonomous Illyrian Bulgaria into the Byzantine structures. Less than century and a half later that was provoking re-appearance of already forgotten (since end of 10th) Turkish Moesia in the Balkan East re-established from its new Kouman lords.

In 1185 two small local Kouman feudal lords from Turkish Moesia in Balkan East were asking from emperor (passing near during a military expedition) being accepted as soldiers into the Byzantine army and together with that recognizing as their “pronia” (a Byzantine feudal land) “a small paying parcel” representing their family lands north from the Balkan. Emperor was refusing and chasing away the suppliants from his military camp. In response the two brothers were starting revolt which though being starting purely as an accident was going to represent beginning of a Second Turkish Moesian state in Balkan East ruled from Kouman dynasties.

The two brothers were (a third one named Ivanitsa or in Greek as Kaloyan – “Good” or “Beautiful John” was going to be known after rule of those two) establishing their new capital in Tarnovo (where them declaring resurrection – until that small town without importance) and after military campaign when occupying “the small towns and settlements north from Balkan” – brothers couldn’t be occupying the known and old capitals of Turkish Moesia like Pliska or Preslav, the rebels were besieged in Lovetch from emperor – without success as emperor was occupied with more important dangers and have no time continuing siege – so at the end of siege the Byzantines and rebels signing treaty according to which elder brother Peter was recognized as governor of province of “Cis-danubian lands” (or “Paraistrion” in Greek) – that situation was official until 1204, when Kaloyan was recognized king from the Pope (the king himself pretending receiving title of tsar or emperor).

The rebellion was called from contemporary and later chronists as being Walacho-Bulgarian and it should be considered that it was indeed at least initially including lands of Walachia over Danube (though as Walachs were named on Balkans all the stock-breeders – Slavonic god of Wlach or Weles being god of herds) as the Kouman rulers were pretending initially on title of tsar or emperor of Walachia and Bulgaria (Turkish Moesia), and Kaloyan was emphasizing in his correspondence with Pope on his own pretended partially Walachian origin (most probably being a fiction).

The dynasty was having its name from second of brothers which was though playing principal role in revolt – that was Kouman name of Assan (Kouman version of the Turkish Hassan where “h” was reduced – characteristic for Kouman language) translated for the Christians as John. That is how Kouman rulers were called with double form of John-Assan – that is with the Christian translation and name next to Turkish and Kouman name of “Assan” – that was case of first John-Assan and then his son John-Assan II.

Though starting accidentally and modestly as governors of Lower Moesia between Haemus-Balkan and Danube the Kouman rulers were starting much bold program and campaigns – as Choniates pointing for “causing the greatest harm to Romans (the Byzantines)” and even also for “uniting into one the rule over Moesians and Bulgarians like that happened once in ancient times”. Indeed political and military emissaries like Dobromir Chris were sent and establishing their points of control in Macedonia and other Balkan parts, the campaigns of Kouman rulers reaching also Sardica-Triaditsa (called from the Byzantines “the pride of Bulgarians”) and another.

It should be explained that name of “Bulgarians” was often used by Slavonic authors from Slavonic-Byzantine Illyria for pointing the Slavonic race, when in Byzantium those names were pointing different historical and political entities, until end of 10th and the end of first Turkish Moesian state the name (together with Huns, Scythians, Dacians or Moesians, etc.) was used sometimes for Moesian Turks as those were pretending attributing it to themselves, but difference between “Bulgarians” (Moesian Turks) and the Slavonics was made in that case until end of 10th.

For another historical reasons Middle Illyria was also pretending on the name (Illyrian “Bulgarian” identity, tradition and history was started there from installing in beginning of 4th christianized West branch of Turks-Bulgarians) and was becoming principally and exceptionally called that way from the point when it was forming with Byzantium the only great power on Balkans after 969 and also later when it was becoming part of the Byzantine empire – until middle of 13th when Turkish Moesia was re-establishing as local power. (that was happening through unexpected and surprising victories of Moesian Turks over Latin emperor of Constantinople in 1205 and then Thessalonica emperor in 1230 which establishing for few years Moesian Turkish supremacy over parts of Balkans).

After those periods different combinations of those appellations were met. The Bulgarian historians are pointing that for about two or three centuries the name of “Bulgaria” was thus belonging only to Slavonic-Byzantine Middle Illyria and for Turkish Moesia in Byzantine empire were invented and used names like “Paraistrion” – “Cis-Danubian lands” or “Moesia” (before and later Byzantines were calling Moesian Turks also as Huns, Scythians or Dacians and other). The Bulgarians (Illyrian Bulgarians) themselves were calling the inhabitants of Balkan Northeast as “Zagorians” and their land as “Zagore” – “Land over the mountain”.

For sure the name and definition of Bulgaria was largely used predominantly for Slavonic-Byzantine Illyrian Bulgaria (then reaching from the Middle Danube with Belgrade to Thessaly and Epirus also included with their Slavonic-Byzantine populations into that “Bulgarian” entity) and much less used for pointing Turkish Moesia in the Balkan East until 18th and 19th.

It is wrongly pretended that as “Bulgarians” were called in Byzantine empire the inhabitants of theme of “Bulgaria” which should be including Macedonia, Shopeskho (with Sardica-Triaditsa), and Morava (Triaditsa was the capital of separate Byzantine province), the name of “Bulgaria” and “Bulgarians” was attributed already after start of the Illyrian Bulgarian expansion in 10th – the greatest medieval emperor Basil II was proudly called “Bulgarochtonus” – the slayer of Bulgarians (after tragically known batlle of Belassitsa), when emp. John Tsimiskes was conquering from Russians (after two campaigns of prince Svetoslav) only “Moesia”.

Repeating that all the time when it existed until 14th Turkish Moesia is generally known for those which knowing it as “Moesia” and its principal population (generally the Moesian Turks, but also Slavonics or another) as “Moesians” (together in beginning with “Huns”, “Scythians”, “Dacians” and other), in Slavonic – “Zagorians” from the name of Moesia – Slavonic “Zagore”, Byzantine chronist is speaking of “this dirty and new-appeared people” led by khan Asparoukh (when Turks-Bulgarians with their Caucasian Bulgaria and with different Turkish Bulgarian branches are famous, well known and respected in Byzantium from centuries), in 971 John Tsimiskes is declaring liberating “Moesians” from Russians and then incorporating “Moesia”, the Crusaders in Constantinople in 1204 were speaking of “Moesia” and also about and to “Moesians”, the Ottomans were never pointing or meaning any relation between Turkish Moesia and Bulgarians, the Moesian Turkish tsar (from the Kouman lords of Vidin – Shishman’s dynasty – recognizing first vassality from Serbian king for Vidin, then becoming with whole Turkish Moesia protection of Doushan’s Serbia) in corrsepondance with Ottomans was named a “ruler of Tarnovo”.

One Frouzhin, son of last Moesian tsar Shishman, and which passing on Walachian and Hungarian service is called in Venetian documents “emperor of Zagora” – Slavonic name of Moesia. Polish king Vladislav promises this Hungarian knight Frouzhin making him a “king of Moesia” before the defeat of king’s expedition in 1444, and that was also the last historical fact Moesia stayed in European history until the 19th (if not counting activities of Illyrists).

After that East-Balkan Moesia is for 4 centurries lying in complete oblivion, anonymity and alienation from Christian Europe as stopping existing as name, identity and tradition or definition. And that is as its foundation, meaning, realization and singinficance – Moesian Turks becoming Ottomanized, were leaving and left with no more any pretentions on their past identity, tradition and history (except sure minoritarian Gagauz), when sure nobody else could, would or should have those past pretentions – those “Bulgarian” identity, tradition and definitions relating those Moesian Turks and more specifically distant past of the Onogondurs as belonging until middle of 7th to Turkish and Turkish Bulgarian states, zones, policy and influence in Caucasus.

And that was exactly what allowed in 19th creation of some Moesian Slavonic group called today as “Bulgarians” (thus “sharing” its “name” with the Illyrian Bulgaria) as the Moesian Turks no more pretending on their own identity, tradition or history and culture – to which they seamed preferring those more attractive ones like the Ottoman (sure attractiveness of the Muslimization and Ottomanization was mostly a privileged situation in empire).

After Slavonic invasions since the 6th and 7th (principally sure after 602) Central Balkans (with Shopeskho – principally since the 9th) like most of Illyria were staying firmly controlled from the local Slavinias – Slavonic principalities – often recognizing some kind of union and presence or influence from Byzantium and sometimes from the Moesian Turks, when the East Balkans – strategic for both monarchies (and where the local Slavinias disappearing much quickly) were staying firmly and directly controlled from the Moesian Turks either Byzantines and their rulers, troops, aristocracy, administration and states, Moesia between Balkan and Danube was staying under incontestable control of the Moesian Turks and in Thrace the control was changing from Moesian Turks to Byzantines.

Sardica and Slavonic-Byzantine Shopeskho – a principal Slavonic-Byzantine stronghold in the Central Balkans – were again reached from a Moesian Turkish union or influence in 1202-08 (Serbian or Turkish Moesian attacks were before that already reaching Sardica and its region since end of 12th) with a second Turkish Moesian state under the Moesian Turkish king Kaloyan – receiving his title from pope against a religious union – receiving also archbishop and 2 bishops for the 2 ex-Byzantine dominions of Varna and Velbouzhd-Kyustendil, meaning important parts of Shopeskho were under Moesian Turkish union or presence most probably without Sardica (replaced for Shoepskho as seen from Kyustendil which couldn’t happen if Sardica would be under Turkish Moesian occupation).

Kaloyan’s successor Boril was totally defeated from Franks in Constantinople taking all his lands south from Balkan, Shopeskho was forming a conglomerate or federation of Slavonic principalities known for Franks as “Slavonia” (as “Slavonians” were called in West Europe the West Slavonics) which were knowing it being once a “part of Thrace” (Roman province of Thrace), “Slavonia” was becoming probably somehow a protection – being real or wanted of Frank empire in Constantinople which was proposing it as a future dominion to future emperor Jean de Brien.

In 1230-46 Shopeskho and Sardica were again under Moesian Turkish presence and union or influence, that is after catastrophic defeat of Thessalonica’s emperor against Moesian Turkish king John-Assan II in 1230 (in 1231-32 in Sardica-Triaditsa is establishing as sevastocrator – second highest court title, brother of Moesian Turkish tsar Stephane for opposing Hungarian advance into Illyria and Turkish Moesian lands, meaning Sardica at most late in 1231 falling under Moesian Turkish power), king in 1235 was receiving also recognition for his position on an Orthodox Council in 1235 establishing (together with for first time in Turkish Moesia the title of “tsar”) for a first time an independent Moesian Turkish patriarchate with few metropolitan seats and bishoprics and also three archbishoprics for the ex-Byzantine dominions in South – of Sredets-Sardica, Dragovitia and Anhialo. Dragovitia was peopled by West-Slavonic Dragovitians (only West Slavonics in East Balkans) region in Central Rhodopes transmitting its name to its whole East-Balkan area and sometimes even whole East Balkans having principally Slavonic population.

John Assan was having title of tsar or emperor. In his inscription on a stone column in Tarnovo he was bragging of taking from Thessalonica emperor all his lands – south from Haemus-Balkan “all his land – Greek and also Albanian and Serbian” and is declaring himself even as lord of Franks in Constantinople.

The popes since end of 12th searching for expanding their religious power and influence towards East are agreeing naming Turkish Moesia and Moesian Turks as “Bulgaria” and Bulgarians” and pope is even writing in a letter to Hungarian king which is opposing the Moesian Turkish conquests in Illyria and Balkans that “the brothers (from Assan’s dynasty) were starting not so much seizing, but returning their father’s lands”. Since beginning of 13th Hungarian kings (succeeding of pushing the Moesian Turks from Illyrian Bulgarian regions like Machva with Belgrade) are taking titles of king and emperor in Bulgaria (until 16th), same like the independent Illyrian rulers like Jacob Svetoslav in Sardica or Rostislav Kikhailovitch in Belgrade.

Already in 1246 in Sardica is establishing as independent ruler a Russian prince Jacob-Svetoslav escaping to Balkans from Tatar invasion of Russia (in 1237-41). The prince is most probably taking shelter at the court of Moesian Turkish tsar John-Assan II, and is already in 1246 establishing as independent ruler in Sardica and Shopeskho with support of the Byzantines, either Hungarians or even Moesian Turks (in 1246 Turkish Moesia is losing practically all areas occupied since 1230 from John-Assan). He is having his title of (title introduced in Byzantium in 12th as second after imperial was becoming also one of Balkan independent rulers) despot most probably from Byzantines and marrying a daughter of emperor, like his Russian “brother” Rostislav Mikhaylovitch in Belgrade and Machva he is declaring as “emperor of Bulgaria” (Illyrian Bulgaria) and is pretending even on Moesian Turkish throne after death of tsar Constantine Tih.

Constantine Tih was an aristocrat from Scopye which was pretending on Moesian Turkish throne (becoming for some tsar of the “West” or “Illyrian Bulgaria” in 1257-64) during Civil war in Turkish Moesia (his own Scopye was since long lost for Turkish Moesia), for some he was supported for the throne from Sardica’s ruler despot Jacob Svetoslav which was though refusing the Moesian Turkish tutelage in 1246. It seams the expeditions of Constantine Tih (already on throne of Turkish Moesia) were reaching even the direct surroundings of Sofia like the Boyana fortress – like showing it frescoes of Boyana Church (made from an anonymous local master) when despot Jacob Svetoslav was keeping his stronghold of Sardica.

He was later delivered from his suzerain the Hungarian king vast lands in Triballia with Vidin and also Small Wallachia (or “Severin”) forming a considerable in territory Illyrian Bulgarian empire. After death of Constantine the despot is declaring his pretensions even on Turkish Moesian throne (which was later occupied from the rebel Ivaylo – despite one quite spread opinion he was not a peasant but a small Turkish Moesian aristocrat and military chief from Danubian plain), but is empoisoned from Turkish Moesian tsarina.

After that all lands of despot south from Balkan are annexed from the Byzantines keeping them for more than 60 years until beginning of Civil war in Byzantium, in 1341 with support of its Serbian protectors lands of North and Northeast Shopeskho with Sardica are annexed from Turkish Moesia become a Serbian protection under Serbian king and tsar Stephan Doushan. Under tsar John Alexander Turkish Moesia is for a last time appearing on Balkan political and military scene. With disintegration of both Serbia and its protection Turkish Moesia in 1356 following death of Doushan Sardica and Shopeskho with their Slavinias are independent again under the power of a local ban (“ban” was always a title of independent West Slavonic rulers).

The ban Yanouka is stopping for 14 years Ottoman advance towards Illyria and Serbia (giving the possibility to the Serbian forces preparing for the decisive fight), in 1385, the gate to Illyria, Sardica protected from local troops of ban and the allied forces of Serbian prince Lazar Hrebelyanovitch (last ones which defending last 24 towers of Sardica’s fortress) is falling under the Ottoman control (much probably somewhere after 1373 Sardica’s banate becoming Serbian protection – when Ottomans breaking through east borders of banate) after 14 years of heavy struggle with numerous Ottoman campaigns.

Staying independent are the lands of West and South or Central Shopeskho become in 13th and 14th part of Serbian state with dominions of the Dragashs – Shope feudals (from a Shope-Moravian region of Preshevo) or the successors of despot Hrelyo – Shope feudal Stephane Dragovola, his successor is credited from Ottomans as the first defeating on Balkans their forces (near Samokov) and is called from them as Sariyar (in Turkish “yellow valley” – most probably valley of Rilska river where in Rila monastery was situated capital of the despot) or “Despot Kral”.

Dragashs were (with capital of Velbuzhd-Kyustendil) known in Byzantium to which providing its last dynasty as the “despots of Serbia”, Constantine was declaring himself as the tsar of Bulgaria and lord of the “Cis-Danubia” – that is Turkish Moesia. Besides participating in the Ottoman conquest of Anatolia despot was also most probably participating in Ottoman expeditions for conquest of Turkish Moesia in end of 14th, dying like he wished “from a Christian hand” in won from Ottomans (for some contested victory) the battle of Rovine in Walachia, returning from there the sultan Bayezit is ordering decapitation of Moesian Turkish tsar Shishman (whom never met Ottomans in battle, after fall of Tarnovo in 1393 the tsar was left with an only fortress of Nicopolis).

After death of despot Constantine in 1395 he’s replaced in his “Constantine’s land” from his son (for some becoming probably later Muslimized) which named from Ottomans as Yussuf, that is Christian Joseph. Constantine letting his name (in its Ottoman version) to his Shope capital of Velbuzhd becoming Kyustendil. Those lands in Rila and the Shope West are keeping their relative independence or autonomy until beginning and middle of the 15th.

When coming to Balkans the Ottomans were calling the despot and tsar Constantine Dragash as “tsar of Bulgarians” when Turkish Moesian tsar Shishman in his “Shishman’s land” was called “the great blackguard” without adding a title. Turkish Moesia was falling under Ottomans after only two campaigns – in 1388 for East of country which was forming sandjak of Silistra, and 1393 for West with Tarnovo.

It seems that early or late those hardly Christian local Turkish populations in their Turkish Moesia were ready of welcome or tolerate the power and rule of their Muslim Ottoman Turkish brothers.

If adepts of Islam in other areas of peninsula were principally those in cities, populations like Albanian, Bosnian and Moesian Turkish were becoming quite quickly Muslimized, Albanians were always divided between influence of different foreign powers – final from which was Ottoman empire, Bosnians were Bogomiles opposing the Orthodoxy and so then with coming of Ottomans transferred to Islam, and the Moesian Turks unlike their Orthodox aristocracy were weakly relating their Orthodox Church and official Slavonic-Byzantine culture. The religious and cultural assimilation of Moesian Turks was probably not a sudden change and somehow happening gradually for few decennia after the end of 14th (but was happening much more quickly and certainly than one for example of their Albanian fellow-Balkanics), when Moesian Turkish aristocracy attached to official Orthodox Slavonic-Byzantine culture was becoming massively slaughtered or deported from Ottomans already in the end of 14th.

Name of the Gagauz

Cheboksari (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Spreading of one absurd, incoherent and anti-Balkan Russian-Ottoman invention (borrowed from Croatian Illyrists) of one Rumelian Slavonic “Great Bulgaria” was leading to the appearance of social, political and ideological movements, activities and directions leading to a formation of a Russian-created “Bulgarian” state, uniting parts of Slavonic Moesia and (quite less) parts of Illyrian Bulgaria, and those Russian-Ottoman inventions and policy creating sure for few Balkan communities a much strange situation.

The Balkan Muslim Turks were found in a country and territory which was supposed being foreign for them, though they were there already from 12 centuries (for Onogondours – almost same as local Slavonics being conquered, occupied and dominating from the local Turks for that whole period), when first from them, the Huns (most close relation of the Turks-Bulgarians), were establishing there in the middle of 5th – much before the Slavonics, cause of that alienation from their own country for sure can be considered also, when Muslimized, their preference for one new Ottoman – instead of their old pretended for them “Bulgarian” identity, tradition and history. Gagauz, already having migrated from Balkans were losing their old identity, tradition and history attributed to Moesian Slavonics (with whom they were having sure “enough” difference and separation).

Illyrian Bulgarians were finding themselves in one absurd “union” with Slavonic Moesia. Thanks to treacherous policy of its decadent Top-clique (supporting the Russian-Ottoman inventions) and to one total, omni-present and perpetual propaganda (being starting already in Ottoman empire with new Russian-Ottoman policy), like to those, answering them, even more absurd inventions of Serbian, later Macedonian, policy – people, left without any (at least real – as inventions of Serbs and Macedonians were, like said, much more absurd than those of the Russians-Ottomans and were directing and convicting people about truth of the Russian-Ottoman inventions) real alternative, were so left with the only one possibility and choice of the most exceptional “Bulgarian patriotism”.

Thanks to Serbian-Macedonian inventions – stating that Illyrian Bulgarians would be eventually conquered, occupied and dominated from Moesian Slavonics, those being confused and identified with their old Moesian Turkish conquerors which would be “assimilated” (conquering, occupying and dominating local Slavonics for 12 centuries), and those Moesian Slavonics would be lying to Illyrian Bulgarians that those latter would be “Bulgarian” and having “Bulgarian” identity, tradition, history or culture, when those Illyrian Bulgarians would be so stupid that would be believing them for more than one millennium; thanks to those inventions (having the exceptional quality of representing something even more absurd than Russian-Ottoman inventions of “Great Bulgaria”) anything relating a national “difference” or “separation” of the Illyrian Bulgarians with Moesian Slavonics was accepted from those Illyrian Bulgarians or another as “flying saucers” tails, which can be sometimes listened and read or even discussed but couldn’t be having relation to real life.

If the Russian-Ottoman invention of a Rumelian Slavonic “Great Bulgaria” was taking from the Gagauz their own identity, tradition and history and they were forced adopting a new “Gagauz” one, for another Balkan community the situation was even more complicated because they couldn’t be denying their own “Bulgarian” meaning and history, tradition or identity, and also, as being certainly “Bulgarians”, were left without possibility denying their “union” with Slavonic Moesia.

When the adoption of new ideology of Russian-Ottoman-invented “Great Bulgaria” was changing the society, policy and directions of Illyrian Bulgaria inside the Ottoman empire, then the “Bulgarian” state, a special phenomenon of the society, policy, culture or directions was appearing – of a particular “Illyrian Bulgarian occupation” of the Illyrian Bulgaria, that is of directing whole of its own resources, development, existence and meaning on the profit and for the support, maintenance and welfare of an absurd, incoherent, faked (and that way anti-Illyrian-Bulgarian and anti-Balkan) Rumelian Slavonic “Great Bulgaria”.

That situation can be sure compared and identified to one appearing in Yugoslavian Macedonia and relating the invention of an “anti-Bulgarian” Macedonian local, ethnical, political and cultural identity, tradition, history which replacing the old, true, real and historical one of Illyrian Bulgaria

Many would be wondering why there the Gagauz would be considered or considering themselves as “Bulgarians”. Question is, like explained, that Moesian Turks were considering and naming themselves as “Bulgarians” (since 7th) much before the Moesian Slavonics which certainly being dominated from them for 12 centuries and which were borrowing the name (principally in the 19th when the Moesian Slavonics appearing on Balkan scene) from them, though today being those principally named as “Bulgarians”. Reminding here also that some Europeans, generally Slavonic supporters – namely the Illyrists, were starting attributing “Bulgarian” name to Moesian Slavonics already since the 16th when Orthodox Moesian Slavonics becoming the only principal remains of once Orthodox Turkish Moesia – much more numerous than minoritarian for Turks Gagauz (Turks from the Turkish Moesia were, though being quite numerous, themselves a minority in East Balkans where Slavonics were predominant).

It is no surprise that the Gagauz were distinguishing themselves from neighboring Moesian Slavonics (called from them “Toukans”) and were calling themselves as “True Bulgarians” and “Old Bulgarians”, pointing being the descendants of the first and true Turks and Bulgarians on Balkans (like it would be known and transmitted to them from their ancestors).

Most obviously (something being common for practically any Balkan group, but specially the Turks) through marriage when taking Slavonic or another women for wives, or also though practice of rapes, the Gagauz (also as part of generally the Moesian Turks) were becoming close genetically or by appearance to another Balkanics.

Like said also it is much probable that those autochthonous Balkan Turks would be on their own lands in different ways assimilating another local Balkan populations – having Byzantine or Slavonic either Walachian prisoners of war, or these being dominated in the Turkish Moesia from Turks and Ottomans as their subjects either feudally dependent, etc., it would be much probable of considering that, instead of pretending that Turks themselves – staying sure always principal, strong, numerous and superior in their own country – would be absurdly assimilated from another dominated from them Balkanics.

It is absurd noticing for some Slavonic populations in the Lower Moesia or Dobroudja some similarities and borrowings with the local autochthonous Moesian Turks as a proof of “assimilation” of the local Turks from the Slavonics, those similarities and borrowings are occurring much often with any neighboring or close populations, without noticing that during 5 centuries of Ottoman rule Moesian Slavonics were borrowing or trying borrowing almost everything from Ottomans and Muslims, or Greeks (whose upper crust was occupying privileged position in the empire – together with the Ottomans and Muslims) – starting there with clothing and language and finishing with architecture and way of life – that was not at all because Slavonics were “assimilating” those Ottoman and Greek populations but because them and their social situation would be attractive for those Moesian Slavonics – which would be for few centuries placed under their power (and “assimilating” or trying assimilating themselves in different ways to those dominating populations in the empire), like before being placed for centuries under power of autochthonous Moesian Turks.

Much probably the Gagauz should be renouncing to their old and traditional “Bulgarian” appellation already since the 19th for distinguishing from those newly appearing Moesian Slavonics – thus would be appearing or prevailing as new appellation name of Gagauz (even considered earlier demeaning from the Gagauz themselves) and would be establishing during the 19th and the 20th.

Requested move

Gagauz people → Gagauz Turks — It looks as though 'Gagauz Turks' is the commonest name for this group, rather than 'Gagauz people'. A Google search for "Gagauz people" gets 39,000 hits whilst Gagauz Turks gets 158,000 hits. It therefore looks as though the page should be called "Gagauz Turks", but feedback would be helpful.

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions. Turco85 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Any additional comments:

• Support: as stated for my reasons above and it should be followed as a precedent due to the article Meskhetian Turks etc Turco85 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be assuming that they are definately Turks, which might not be the case since nothing is proven, there exist 17 theories of their origin. One of the two major ones, as mentioned in the plaque in the official gagauz museum in the republic is that they are Bulgars or direct descendents of them. If that is the case then you cant say they are turkic, since the origin of the bulgars is strongly disputed, some say they weere turkic, others say they were Iranic, and although nothing is proved without a doubt, genetic evidence exists that they were Iranic, from an expedition in 2010, as mentioned in this reliable source (accordign to wiki rules) amongst others which I wont list now (if you want them, tell me and will post them):http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006. There is also a lot of other evidence which you can find on the latest talk page of the discussion at the Bulgars article under 'Bulgars". In any case, the academic Astrid Menz in his book on the Gagauz says they are Turkic speaking not Turkic, he notes their diversity in general and the many theories of their origin. In this paper: http://www.medgenetics.ru/UserFile/File/Varzar.pdf, genetics indicate that they belong to the balkan populations genetically and nothing in that paper (if you read it) proves them as being Turkic genetically, it says they are diverse genetically. So all in all it will make sense then, after the genetics and other studies, to call them Turkic speaking, because thats what they are, their ethnicity seems to be, according to the paper, as belonging to the balkan population and being diverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

About the origin

Cheboksari's essay is informative. But I would like to add two more points about the origin.

• According tp article the first theory about the origin is the Seljuk to Balkan hypothesis. Well I think this is suspicious. In 13th century Balkan peninsula was under the control of Byzantine Empire and other non muslim states. I don't think they'd welcome the refuges from a muslim country. (After Berke Khan's conversion to Islam, Crimean hypothesis seems more plausible.)
• In Turkey it is generally believed that the origin of Gagauz people is a group of tribes named Uz ( a branch of Oghuz ) who followed Pechenegs to east Europe in the 11th century. Although evidence for this theory is weak, there is some linguistic evidence. Gagauz people speak south western Turkic, ie Oghuz. (Kumans spoke north western Turkic.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation and stressed syllable?

I do not have any idea how this word « Gagauz » should be spoken. What is vowel sound of « au » ? Is the « z » silent ? Are syllables stressed equally, or does stress occur on the final syllable ? I would prefer an IPA indication, if possible. Thank you for your help. Charvex (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Turkic"

To say they are Turkic is mindless and crazy - how can they be when they have blue, green eyes and some have brown, blond hair - it doesnt add up -there are no such turkic people and there has never been. The Turkish people are almost half Greek and Goth hence their blond hair and blue eyes while the Kumans, as is proven by genetic tests done in Hungary (google it) were hald white half Turkic/Asian hence their Asiatic yet blue, green eyes with blond hair. Even more so if they are actually pure Bulgars - as one theory says; if they are then they are not Turkic since the Bulgars were Iranic (2010 genetic tests, google it) This just proves the proverb "The tiny fraction of the world population is intelligent and smart, the rest is not".

I haven‘t got well, what the post is exactly meaning (has anybody?), still I‘ll try there to answer. Gagauz are obviously Turkic, and that is undoubted, since they are speaking an undoubtedly Turkic language. There is for sure no reason for them speaking a Turkic language, if they wouldn‘t be based on the Turkic ethnical ground. Obviuosly if they have European appearance, that is because they have assimilated submitted local and close Slavonic or another populations (Greeks are depicting Thracians having fair skin and light hair).

The scientists are agreeing that Turks settling permanently in Balkans were important as number, but still a minority, much probably only a small minority in their own states and areas. Balkan Turks (like those in Moesia) certainly conquered, occupied, dominated and determined local populations in parts of Balkans. There were few waves of the Turkish settlers on Balkans, starting with the Bulgarians and Huns since 4th and 5th. Turkic-speaking Onogondurs from the Caucasian Bulgaria in 7th and then in 11th Pechenegs, Uz and Kumans were establishing and forming two Turkish Moesian states. The Tatars and Ottomans were appearing in 13th and 14th, but becoming Muslimized they could be much difficult attached to Orthodox faith.

It is widely agreed, that populations should be defined ethnically from the ethnical ground playing principal role for their formation, and their culture, language and society, no matter what would be its actual part in their genetic and racial origin. For example Indian populations are defined as Aryan (Aryans coming to India were depicted as having fair skin, light hair, blue eyes) – no matter of their racial belonging. Also Turks in Turkey (was the post speaking of them?) are defined as Turks, though they are actually belonging widely to the European or "Caucasian" race (of Mediterranean) and don‘t have the Mongol type of their Turkish predecessors.

Speaking there of Bulgarians, the Onogondurs coming on Balkans from Caucasian Bulgaria of Kubrat were most probably indeed Turcisized Scythians (North Iranians), but they were only a population of the Caucasian Bulgaria, not having Bulgarian origin, becoming Turcisized and Bulgarized (by their free will, but mostly as becoming there accepted – having much close society, way of life, culture – being the steppe horse nomadic peoples) from influence of their Turkic neighbors and rulers from Turkish khaganate and Caucasian Bulgaria.

Turks or Bulgarians have not supported policy of forced Turcization or Bulgarization, except one happening naturally for their most close, related, trusted and accepted and supported assimilated populations, sometimes Turks would be so probably assimilating some from principal populations of their states. True Bulgarians like Kutrigurs settling in so called Volga Bulgaria were much probably then belonging to Mongol race of Turks, though could be having significant another racial touches, and also lately would be somehow mixing local Uralian and another populations.

Turks were generally not uniting populations like Slavonics, and most specially in their own Turkish states, being sure there dominating, culturally, socially, politically and militarilly superior, having too much different society, way of life, subsistence, culture – Turks representing steppe horse nomadic peoples (only Ottomans with their great empire succeeding turning those Turks into peasants, representing generally special privileged dominating populations because of Muslim faith). Despite that assimilating local and close submitted Slavonics or another in any different ways sure wouldn‘t be excluded. Quite common way of ethnical „mixtures“ would be, widely spread among Turks, picking some alien women for wives. Also Turks during their military campaigns were taking big number of prisoners, becoming slaves, and which would be later so partially assimilated from them (if not becoming the state slaves those prisoners would be closely relating the society, way of life and subsistence or culture of those Turks).

Speaking of Gagauz again, is sure about them being Turks and having racial type of their submitted and assimilated populations of Europe.

They could be defined eventually as being Turkic-speaking, which for sure wouldn‘t be defining them rightfully – speaking of their history and ethnicity, society, language and culture.

Same like the Turks in Turkey or in those numerous Balkan parts (where belonging widely to Central European racial type), the Gagauz are Turkic. It‘s simple as that. Cheboksari (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

total population

the chart indicates 540 Gagauz in Bulgaria but the text says "nearly 20,000". In any case the cart seems problematic. 45 in Romania? And if upwards of 3,000 in the US, Brazil, and Canada, why did this not make the chart? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gagauz people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706003257/http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/ to http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120072310/http://www.perepis2002.ru/content.html?id=11&docid=10715289081463 to http://www.perepis2002.ru/content.html?id=11&docid=10715289081463
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302004629/http://www.recensamant.ro/datepr/tbl4.html to http://www.recensamant.ro/datepr/tbl4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219024839/http://www.iatp.md/ladom/downloads/M3.doc to http://www.iatp.md/ladom/downloads/M3.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gagauz people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029061551/http://enc.mail.ru/article/1900020242 to http://enc.mail.ru/article/1900020242

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gagauz people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706142940/http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=83&id=247 to http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=83&id=247
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225162947/http://www.yahadinunum.org/blog/our-work/moldova-trip-5-december-11-26-2014-3/ to http://www.yahadinunum.org/blog/our-work/moldova-trip-5-december-11-26-2014-3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Genetics, Genetic Origins, and Origins

I feel like this could be made it two or even just one second. Three is clearly unnecessary. Just combine the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darokrithia (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the history second could also be combined with origins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darokrithia (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Gagauz people → Gagauzes – Wikipedia tends to avoid naming peoples and ethnicities using "people" on their title unless there's no choice. We cannot say "Frenches" or "Portugueses" and alternative opions (e. g. "Frenchmen") are unwanted for obvious reasons, so we say "French people" or "Portuguese people". In some ethnicities we can avoid using "people" to refer to them, like the Romanians, Russians, Bulgarians, etc.. This is the case of the Gagauz people, who can be called "Gagauzes" or "Gagauzians" (less common). They are called this way in pretty much every other Wikipedia, including the Romanian (Găgăuzi), Russian (Гагаузы), Turkish (Gagavuzlar) and Bulgarian (Гагаузи) and of course the Gagauz (Gagauzlar) ones (I listed these Wikipedias because they are the most related to the Gagauzes). "Gagauzes" is also more common than "Gagauz people", with the former getting 16,300 results in Google and the latter getting 14,100. For all of this, I believe "Gagauzes" would be a better option than the current title. Super Ψ Dro 20:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as you can see with NGRAMS, the proposed name is only used by a tiny minority of English language sources[1] (compare an ethnicity where plural is commonly used [2]) and is not any more common than variant with people (I suspect that a more common way of referring to this group in English is "the Gagauz"—ex Britannica,[3] stating "The Gagauz, a mainly rural people, have lived on the Bugeac Plain since the late 18th century."). What it's called in other languages is completely irrelevant. I would also support moving to Gagauz (ethnic group). (t · c) buidhe 10:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good solution. It would be like using German (ethnic group). It does make more sense with the Gagauzes as you've shown they are sometimes called like that in singular, but I see that option as the least preferable out of the alternatives we have. Super Ψ Dro 19:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Oxford dictionaries give “Gagauz (plural same)”; no -es or -ians. Oxford Lexico gives several examples of usage of the plural form Gagauz. (The first paragraph should reflect this.) Does anyone have the Ngram-fu or expertise with COCA to tease out a frequency comparison of this plural form and the alternatives? Unless we find sources to contradict Oxford, I would rather move to Gagauz and add a hat note or edit the first line for disambiguation. —Michael Z. 15:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  As a proxy for the plural noun, I searched for a short phrase in Google Advanced Book Search, gauging results according to WP:SET (with quotes, omitting “Wikipedia,” and reading estimated total on the last page of results):

  • the Gagauz are: 334 (77% of all results)
  • the Gagauzes are: 31 (7%)
  • the Gagauz people are: 25
  • the Gagauzi are: 19
  • the Gagauzy are: 9
  • the Gagauzians are: 8
  • the Gagauze are: 4
  • the Gagausians are: 2
  • . ..0.2TDXqt4Zy4c the Gagauzlar are: 0

  The same set in Google Scholar yielded 172 (70%), 21 (8%), 35, 10, 2, 14, 0, 0, and 0.

  Britannica uses the same plural form: “the Gagauz . . . responded by declaring . . ." The Library of Congress subject heading is “Gagauz (Turkic People),” in the same context they use un-disambiguated Ukrainians, Romanians, Turks. —Michael Z. 16:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess it's better to keep this title then. Super Ψ Dro 16:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be at Gagauz or Gagauz (people). Their name is a plural noun, not an adjective. Either better meets the WP:CRITERIA of naturalness, precision, and consistency. —Michael Z. 16:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Gagauz can also be used in singular or as an adjective (Gagauz language), it is a demonym after all. Gagauz should stay as a disambiguation and not using parentheses is preferable, both in my opinion. Super Ψ Dro 17:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is also an adjective as in the compound noun Gagauz people, but the demonym is the noun Gagauz (WP:CRITERIA: conciseness, naturalness). And “people” in the current title is not a disambiguator, it is a proxy noun standing in for Gagauz. As has already been pointed out, we don’t usually title articles about nations with adjectives as Moldovan people, Romanian people, Ukrainian people, etcetera, so why make an exception here (WP:CRITERIA: consistency)? —Michael Z. 19:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't seem to apply this for peoples whose name in singular is the same as in plural. Examples are the Sámi people, Ahom people, Altai people, Chuvash people and Cornish people. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

True that we don’t always, but I just found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), and it offers counter-examples. Maybe they’re not all at the best name, or maybe there are reasons for those examples. By my quick reading of it, I think Gagauz would fit that convention best. I also added “Gagauz people” to my unscientific relative-frequency survey above, and it is not the most common version in use. —Michael Z. 21:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving to Gagauz would require the people to be the primary topic – I don't think anybody is advocating that. The naming conventions for ethnicities have two common solutions for disambiguation: go for the plural if it has a distinct form and is commonly used (Germans), otherwise follow the pattern "X people" (like Zuni people, Igbo people..). The latter is not some sort of occasionally accepted aberration, but accounts for the larger group of articles. If this seems unusual to people here, that's probably because it's much more widespread outside Europe and the Middle East. – Uanfala (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t the nation the primary topic? Gagauz language is literally “the language of the Gagauz.” Gagauz-ia is literally the “country of the Gagauz.” (The rarely used Gagauzians is a sort of redundant back-formation, literally “inhabitants of the country inhabited by the Gagauz.”) —Michael Z. 16:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Names in bold

Regarding this edit: “this shouldn't be removed as they are used alternate names.”

Gagauz, singular and plural, is the only name I have seen endorsed by a professional dictionary (Oxford) and encyclopedia (Britannica). Neither reliable source mentions any alternate forms. The Library of Congress Subject Headings mentions variants Gagauzi (earlier established form) and Gagauzy (with reference to the Encyclopedia of Ukraine 2:1).[4]

Several alternate forms are used extremely rarely, presumably below the level of frequency that Oxford considers significant. Only one dominates all the others in frequency of usage, per a Google Books Ngram chart. To zoom in on the alternates, remove the significant name Gagauz, restrict the chart to the last three decades, set smoothing to zero, and I still see no reason to prefer any one. It looks like the order of frequency is:

1. Gagauz
2. Gagauzes
3. Gagauz people
4. Gagauzy
5. Gagauzi
6. Gagauzians
7. Gagausians
8. Gagauze
9. Gagauzlar

MOS:BOLDLEAD says to boldface “significant alternative titles.” What is the threshold of significance for a bold listing? Is that all, some, or none of these? Maybe it’s appropriate to mention some in “Etymology,” but without some support by WP:RSes on English or on the Gagauz, how do we choose which, if any, to put in WP:BOLD in the first line without risking promoting a mistake, spelling error, or typo?

Naming of identifiable group of people should be handled with care. —Michael Z. 17:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't searched about formal reliable sources but "Gagauzes" and "Gagauzians" are considerably used in Google, with "Gagauz people" getting 24,400 results while "Gagauzes" and "Gagauzians" getting 17.400 respectively. Gagauzy, Gagauzi and Gagauzlar are all foreign names and are barely used by English sources [5] [6] [7] (specially Gagauzlar), and they should be ruled out. "Españoles" has 74,000,000 Google results while "Spaniards" has 9,940,000, but nobody would think of moving Spaniards to Españoles. "Gagauze" is just the singular of "Gagauzes", it obviously shouldn't be considered as a title (as it's a singular name) or alternate name since it can perfectly be replaced by "Gagauz". "Gagausians" only has 606 Google results. So, in my opinion, "Gagauz" and "Gagauzes" are relevant enough as to be mentioned, and "Gagauzian" is used in some Wikipedia artickes (like 2021 Gagauzian legislative election, Gagauzian should probably be used when referring to Gagauzia as the existing political entity and not as the concept of a nation or ethnicity). Super Ψ Dro 20:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds right about Gagauzia, and Gagauzians is probably appropriate for its inhabitants, in distinction to Gagauz people, anywhere.

But what do you mean “in Google”? Are you familiar with WP:SET? Spaniards: Españoles give me 11,900,000 to 999,0000 results in English-language books. —Michael Z. 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, Gagauzia#Demographics tells us that 84% of Gagauzians are Gagauz. —Michael Z. 18:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

No results show up to me in the links you sent me. When I do Google searches for this kind of stuff I simply search the term I want between quotes. That's how I got the results I mentioned above. Super Ψ Dro 08:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Try paging back. Those were links to the last page of Google Books Search results, the only place where accurate total might appear. Since number of results vary, you might have to go back a few pages to see the last page Google gives you.

Google Web Search is not an indicator of what reliable sources use and of little use. Obviously you will get lots of Spanish-language results if you don’t exclude non-English results, so how is that helpful? The estimate at the top of the first page is wildly inaccurate anyway.

Please read WP:SET. —Michael Z. 14:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gagauz people.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Marriages

This section is gibberish. It’s sourced, but the source is Russian, and apparently not available online. Perhaps someone with access can fix it. Peter Flass (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)