08/20/2018 (Mon) 19:51:04
>>18547>4% of Bulgarian genes are of Central/East Asian origin.
That is nothing. Yes, Bulgarians have some genetical relation to asians, but mostly they are European-looking. Maybe somewhat Turkish, but not any Mongol-like.>Hell, their name derives from the Turkic tribe, the Bulgars, they're geographically and culturally closer to Turkey, they've been part of Turkey for more than 500 years, and their language has a large Turkic vocabulary, from both the Turks and the Bulgars.
They were part of Ottoman empire, not Turkish state. And Ottoman empire was relatively diverse, and didn't push their culture much in non-Muslim countries. Even more: many of Ottoman sultans weren't Turks. And modern Turks are mostly mix of Anatolian Greeks, Armenians and Kurds, not the real Turks from Central Asia.
It is hard question actually, because comparing cultures is not easy task. I was in Bulgaria, they are pretty Slavic-like in cultural sense. Even language sometimes is understandable.
Language closeness doesn't guarantee cultural closeness, nor genetic closeness. For example, some small nations in Russia even has own language (like Komi or Mordva), but you couldn't tell difference between them and average Russian. Even many Tatars (from Tatarstan) are 100% Russians in appearance, language skills (in Russian) and mindset. Assimilation works if applied properly and people didn't differ much externally.
I can't say anything about Hungarians, but looks like they are pretty European, and also suffer from same post-communism cultural experience too (although communism didn't hit them hard as USSR countries).