Old Great Bulgaria: Origins, Culture and Legacy of the Ancient Bulgars
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 พ.ค. 2024
- The 7th century was a time of great upheaval in the Eurasian Steppe Belt. As the Turkic Khaganat, the first transcontinental Turkic Empire in history, pushed into Europe, it drove several steppe people to the west, notably the Avars. But a certain group of nomadic warriors located in modern-day Ukraine persisted in all of these arrivals: the Bulgars. These Turkic people spoke Oguric, the same Turkic dialect that was prevalent among the Huns in Europe and the White Huns in Central Asia, and are synonymous with the Onogur, a successor state to the Hunnic Empire of Attila. After the Turkic Empire’s complete disintegration, pressure from the Khazars and the newly arriving Majars made the Bulgar tribes leave their home, embarking on a journey to the southwest.
There, they founded the First Bulgar Empire and consolidated their rule in the northeast Balkans. In the following centuries, the Bulgars waged many wars against the Avars in the west, Magyars in the north, and the mighty Byzantine Empire in the east. As more nomadic Turkic peoples arrived from the steppe, including the Pechenegs and the Kipchak, the Bulgarians' identity was changing. Over time, they converted to Orthodox Christianity, and mixed with Slavic peoples, in the process adopting the Slavic language. While the political affairs of the Bulgarian Empire are well known, its pre-history - the history of Old Great Bulgaria - remains relatively obscure. We have mentioned the Bulgars many times on this channel, and will finally explore their complete history: from their roots among the Onogur people, to their traditions and culture, a possible connection to the Dulo tribe of the Göktürks, and their most prominent leaders.
Join us in this immersive exploration of the Bulgar legacy, from their roots in the Eurasian Steppe to their indelible mark on European history. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and click the bell icon for notifications on our latest content!
Support our channel by joining our TH-cam or Patreon community for exclusive behind-the-scenes content and early access to upcoming documentaries.
Patreon.com/khansden
Insta: @thekhansden
00:00 - Introduction to the Bulgars
03:25 - The Turkic Khaganate and the Eurasian Steppe Belt
07:40 - Founding of the First Bulgar Empire
12:15 - Bulgars and Byzantines: Conflicts and Culture
17:50 - The Onogur Era and Early Bulgar History
22:30 - Kubrat Khan and Old Great Bulgaria
27:45 - Bulgar Culture: Tengrism and Traditions
32:10 - The Evolution and End of Ancient Bulgar Culture
38:00 - Conclusion and Legacy of the Bulgars
I have roots of Chuvash ( Volga Bulgars) + Whiterussian = fill like a Bulgarian. Hello to my Bulgarian brathers!
Салам от волжского булгара я с чуваший
Поздрави от България!!
Поздрави от България!!
@@user-ru1rw4gs9u салам :)
Поздрави от България - Пловдив , брат !!!
Nowadays, no one is pure Germanic, Slavic or Turkic. What matters is what you feel in your soul. Greetings to those who gallop westward on the steppes with their majestic horses, get ambitious with war drums, and find awe with ancient melodies
I wouldn't say no one is pure.
@@zneytram1432well then you never had human evolution in school. It’s proven that no one is pure or can be because people have been living on the planet for a very long time and different peoples have always mixed with each other. We are all mixed. Keep that in your mind. :)
@@lakwerdmann3802 I'm pretty sure that most of what they teach about evolution is a lie.
Also I just said that I don't believe that everyone is mixed. Some people are pure.
@@lakwerdmann3802human macro evolution is wrong
@kaanhtr
They galopp first to the east and tocharians and indoeuropean scyhtians qonquared eastasia
Българите са индоевропейски народи. Арийци. Помислете кои европейски държави днес носят в името си ....ария
България
Унгария
Бавария
Всички те свързани с древната българска история
Българите са в основата на европейската цивилизация и по-скоро тюрките произлизат от древни български племена
Преди турците да създадат България не е имало народ или етнос с името българи
Ага, особенно венгры, предки которых были 100% азиатами.😅
@@Cano644 , кои турци бе тъпанар? През коя година е създадена Турция? П.п. Това е българска история , а не джамия в полето създадена нарочно... Такива като теб трябва да ги бесят с краката нагоре!
@@Jigurdinec , тъп си! В момента в който чуеш Украйна и трябва да ти е ясно , че този клип не отговаря на истината... Коя Волга? Не е ли Болга?
Ask yourself whether it is possible for a newly created country to be called by the Roman chronographs Old Great Bulgaria and then judge for the whole video.
from the Greeks
@@monkmarionson6287eastern romans- greeks 👍
@@monkmarionson6287,
Greeks (more accurately, Hellens) were only one ethnicity inside the Eastern Roman Empire…
Roman chronographs are just one "dominant" source of information(misinformation), reliabale and truthful in the same manner as bbc, nbc,.. they had all the time of dark ages to make "our history" how they see fit..
the Romans didnt call them Old Great Bulgaria, that is a modern term
Bulgarians using a varient of the Cyrilic alphabet????
"The Cyrillic script is a writing system developed in the First Bulgarian Empire during the 9th century. It was created to write the Old Church Slavonic language, which was the first Slavic literary language. The script is named after Saint Cyril, one of the two Byzantine brothers, Cyril and Methodius, who were credited with standardizing the Slavic languages and, thus, bringing literacy and Christianity to the Slavic peoples."
So we can easily say that Bulgarians are the creators of the script,it was literally made by them for them?
"Yes, it's accurate to attribute significant credit to the Bulgarians for the creation and dissemination of the Cyrillic script. The script was indeed developed in the First Bulgarian Empire during the 9th century. While Saints Cyril and Methodius, who were Byzantine brothers, are often credited with its creation, it's important to clarify their roles and the context in which Cyrillic was developed.
Cyril and Methodius were primarily responsible for the creation of the Glagolitic script, the oldest known Slavic alphabet, which they devised to translate the Bible and other texts into the Old Church Slavonic language for the Great Moravia territory (present-day Slovakia and Czech Republic). Their mission was part of a broader effort to spread Christianity among the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe. The Glagolitic script was the basis for the development of the Cyrillic script.
The Cyrillic script, however, was developed later, after the death of Cyril and Methodius, by their disciples and other scholars in the Preslav Literary School and the Ohrid Literary School within the First Bulgarian Empire. This new script was more influenced by the Greek alphabet and was adapted to better suit the phonetic peculiarities of Slavic languages. The Cyrillic script quickly gained popularity over the Glagolitic script due to its simplicity and the influence of the Bulgarian Empire."
Please stop making videos!
That sentence in the video was indeed poorly worded. I am well aware of Klement creating and distributing the Cyrillic Script in the 9th century.
Вие вероятно сте наш сънародник. Не Ви нападам. Това сте учили в училище, това знаете. Искам да Ви насоча към нещо. Има една пещера в България до Белоградчик. Казва се Магурата. Там има много пиктограми и 24 Букви от Българицата ( Вашата Кирилица) Който Букви са между 13,000 и 14,000 години. Не са измислени от нас. Това са най- старите откривани в света. Вероятно сте чували за Коптите в Египет азбуката е същата с две различни Букви. Само че Коптите я имат от 2000 години. Друго нещо. Целия Балкански полуостров и западна Турция имат сходно ДНК. От първите Фермери от последните 10000 години. Целта е да ни изкарат Пришълци. България е най-старата Бяла държава в света. Неможе да си съгласен със всяко копеле без да знаеш целите му. Историята се пише от победителите и е пълна с лъжи.
Is there a Byzantine ethnicity? I didn't know that my Greek friend. How about explaining the Cerho and Strahota, the names of Cyrill and Methodius before they became priests, how about explaining that they were from a Bulgarian diplomatic family living in the East Roman empire?
There was no Byzantine Empire either, it was Eastern Roman Empire - a MULTI-ETHNIC state. There are plenty of historical sources that point to the Bulgarian origin of Konstantin-Cyril and Methodius. The alphabet is indeed invented in the Preslav Literary School.
@@thebomb7590 This is absolutely true. Thanks and have nice day.
The Cyrillic language was invented by Bulgarians
българино прочети Георги Раковски и старите автори и ще видиш, че това видео е много наивно и погрешно
Nope
@@lyudmilpetrov79 Как да го прочетат, като са мързеливи и тъпи. Гледах едно интервю на Кеворк Кеворкян с едно циганче. Кеворкян го пита; Ходиш ли на училище? Ходя ами, всеки ден. А знаеш кой е ЛЕВСКИ, Апостола . Знам бе Сините от Герена, Само ЛЕВСКИ. Горкия Кеворк сигурно съжалява що го пита. Каквито са ни Депутатите и Правителството, такъв ние народа. Той родът си непознава а ние искаме да знаят историята на България.
@@LikeICare155 saying: „nope“ makes you really uneducated
There is not Cyrillic language.
I am very proud of my Turkic, Greek and Bulgarian Heritage! Long Live the Ancient Dreams!
Да живее Великата България ❤🎉
Your ancestors are smiling at you, since you accept all of them without discrimination. May your descendants honour you like this.
@@ForceOfUru всички сме разместени...Всякъде има етнически Малцинства!Здравей!
Bro stop living in the past. Look at americans they dont have either a history or a culture but they rule the world. Only losers lose time with the past
@@krahsmHowever, they have tourniquets that kill them like insects
Love this video 😍 I’m a Turk and I have had my DNA tested with the highest percentage of DNA from Bulgaria, my family currently lives near Tekirdağ - Trakya only 50km from the Bulgarian border. So this was very informative for me to learn about my history. Thank you kardeş 👏👏👏
Because ur ancestors was Bulgarians thats why DNA never lies
Your ancestors were Bulgarians and assimilated from the Ottoman Empire politics. The modern turks of Ottoman descent and bulgarians have different DNA.
All Bulgarians were Turks in ancient times. After mixing with Slavs they are not Turks anymore but they are still Turkic.
@@nurettinsarulNot so simple. At first there was a local Roman population ,dominantly Thracians with some other elements brought during the time of Roman empire the gothic tribes arrived followed by the Slavic and amongs them proto Bulgarian tribes and that was how exactly medieval Bulgarian etnicity was shaped during early medieval times.
Уважаеми Братко, наскоро имаше ДНК тестове в Турция. И какво показват резултатите. В Източната част на Турция има много Арменци и Кюрди и наследници на Hitite ( Хетите) Обаче какво се оказва на запад. Има малко Сирийска кръв останалата част е същата като на Балканите. Трако - Пеласгииска. Гърците ги знам че са Данайци от Етиопия. Османлиите не са били повече 80,000 мъже. Всички жени са местни от Византия а те са като нас Траките. Ти може да си MUSLIM по религия Обаче по кръв си мой Брат. Аз мога да живея в Канада и да съм Бодист, но Аз съм Българин - Тракиец по кръв. Приятен ден Ви желая.
The Kutrigurs are mentioned frequently in late antique sources from the 6th century, such as in Pseudo-Zacharias (Pseudo-Zacharias or in the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias of Mytilene), Procopius of Caesarea, Agathius and Menander Protector. Procopius cites a legendary account according to which Kutrigurians and Utigurians originally lived in the same state. Probably in the first half of the 5th century they attacked the Goths west of the Don and pushed them out of Black Sea Scythia. Gruset thinks that the Kutrigurs are remnants of the Huns. Procopius narrates: "In ancient times many Huns, then called CIMMERIANS, inhabited the lands I have already mentioned. They all had one king. Once one of their kings had two sons: one named Utigur and the other named Kutrigur. After the death of their father they divided the power and gave their names to the subject peoples, so that to this day some of them are called Utiguri and others Kutriguri." They occupy the Tanaitic-Meotian (Dono-Azov) steppe zone, the Kutrigurs in the western part and the Utrigurs in the east. The Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical History of Pseudo-Zacharius the Rhetor (c. 555) in Western Eurasia describes thirteen tribes, wngwr (Unogur) , wgr (Ugri), sbr (Sabir), bwrgr (Burğar , i.e. Bulgarians), kwrtrgr (Kutriğurs), br (probably Abar , i.e. Avar), ksr (Kasr ; Akatziri ?), srwrgwr ( Saragur), dyrmr(* [I]di[r]mar ? < Ιτιμαροι ), b'grsyq (Bagrasik , i.e. Barsili), kwls ( Khalizi ?), bdl ( Abdali ?) and ftlyt (Ephthalite). The first more reliable information about the Kutriguri dates from 482, when they entered into an alliance with Emperor Zeno against the Ostrogoths who attacked the Eastern Roman Empire. Agathia (c. 579-582) writes:...They are all called SCYTHIANS in general and HUNS in particular according to their nation. Thus, some are Koutrigours or Outigours, and others Oultizurs and Bourougounds... Oultizurs and Bourougounds were known down to the time of the Emperor Leo (457-474) and the Romans of that time, and seem to have been powerful... Perhaps they perished, or perhaps they moved to a very distant place." From 493 onwards, the Cutriguri waged repeated wars against the Empire, reaching Illyria, Thessaly and Constantinople. They also took part in the campaigns of the rebellious general Vitalian (514/515 and 518 /520). The contacts between the Empire and the Kutrigurs were multidirectional - in 528 Кanas Gord accepted Christianity and tried to impose it on his compatriots, but without success. In 550, the Gepids asked the Cutriguri for help in fighting against the Lombards. At that time, they came into contact with the Eastern Roman Empire. Although they received annual money from the emperor in Constantinople, they frequently invaded Eastern Roman territory. On the other hand, the Cutriguri also served in the Eastern Roman army, for example a Sinnion fought as an officer under Belisarius (505 - 565). In 551 the Kutrigurs again invaded the territories of the Empire. In 551, an army of 12,000 Cutriguri, led by many commanders, including Hynialon, came from "the west side of the Meotic lake" to help the Gepids, who were at war with the Lombards. Around 551, the Romans came to an agreement with Кanas of the Utigurs, Sandilchus, who with an army of Utigurs and Tetraxites attacked the undefended territory of the Kutrigurs, whose main troops were at that moment on the Balkan Peninsula.and inflicted a heavy defeat on them. The campaign was successful and thousands of Romani held captive were freed and returned to the empire. Part of the defeated Kutriguri were also accepted by the emperor and settled in Thrace. In 558, the Kutrigurian Кanas Zabergan undertook a new march towards Constantinople, but withdrew. Meanwhile, Kanas Sandilh, bribed by Emperor Justinian I, once again raided the lands of the Kutriguri and in the following years the clashes between Kutriguri and Utiguri continued. The Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language. The names Kutrigur, Bulgar and Hun are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group. Menander Protector described the time of the arrival of the Cutriguri in Thrace at the time of Justinian I in 558. Around 558, north of the Caspian Sea, the Avars appeared and formed an alliance with the Eastern Roman Empire against the Alans. Pursued by the Gökturk warlord Istemi, the Avars continued to move westward and 560 subdued the Utigurs. The rest of the Utiguri remained within the Turkic Haganate. (Istemi in the west subjugated the Alans, Khazars and some Utigurs, reaching the Black Sea, but not the Kutrigurs.) A large part of Utigurs moved west with the Avars to Pannonia, and part of their lands were occupied by the Slavic tribe Anti. In 576, an army of Turks and Utiguri besieged and captured Bosporus, but the civil war in the Haganate forced them to abandon the city. In the 7th century, 632, the Uti/Gur tribes, already known as "Uno/Gunduri"', regained their independence and together with the rest of the Kutri/Gurs in Black Sea Scythia, already known under the name "Kotragi", formed the state of Old Great Bulgaria, headed by Patricii, Kanas (Kniaz) U-vigi (from God) Kubrat. Towards the end of the 7th century, the Kutriguri from Pannonia under the leadership of Kanas Kuber migrated to the Balkans. Before that, they rebelled in the Avar Haganate. In their march to Byzantium in 680, they reached Thessaloniki. They concluded a peace agreement with Byzantium and settled where the Keramisian Field (Bitolsko Field) is. At the beginning of the 9th century, these lands were included in the composition of Danube Bulgaria. M. Artamonov accepts that the Utigurs are of mixed Hunno-Ugric origin. "After a period of chaos following Attila's death, dualism again reasserted itself in the succession of Dengitzik and Ernak (west and east respectively). The successor to the Hunnic Empire in the east, or rather probably the continuation, also featured two wings, the Kutrigurs (west) and the Utigurs (east), ruled presumably by Ernak's descendants.
Priscus Paniyski describes the HUNIS as a "gathering of peoples" and claims that the name HUNIS is devoid of ethnic meaning and is a common name for all the subjects of their empire. Some scholars such as Edwin Pouleyblanc and Yuri Zuev link the origin of the Utigurs with the Yueji. The Hun emperor Attila was also Bulgarian and Bulgarians played a major role in his empire. By Prisk Paniyski АTTILA is described as a Scythian of the Royal Scythians and there can be no question that the Bulgarians are some kind of Turks. THE BULGARIANS ARE ANCIENT THRACOCIMMERIANS. You have looked at the matter very superficially without evidence.
Bulgarians are slavic turcic iranic stock scityans and huns khazars😂 yiu writhe for nothing long poem 😂
Absolutely blushed. Genetically have been proven that the Bulgarians do not have anything with the Turks . But it is a lot of similarities between Turks and Persia.
Technically the Thracian provinces (modern day Bulgaria) were part of the Persian empire. So whatever you're trying to convey is unclear to me.
Fun fact; Timur called Tokthamysh as “Bulgar Khan”
ТоктамЪш хан! -не ТоктамИш...👍🇧🇬🫶
@altaigigachad I have read that, but never understood why. There is no information online. Do you know anything more?
@@sabercho2 well an Armenian sources in 13 century interestingly referred Chinggis Khan also as a “Bulgar”. the sources says “the Bulghar, from which came the Tartar family Hogta-khan, son of Chankzhan (i.e. Genghis Khan), Khulavu-khan, son of Hogtagha-khan, Abagha Khan…” but I think that medieval people thought that Mongols were part of the Turkic people because even Qalawun said to a crusader that Turks and mongols were from the same race.
@@sabercho2 or maybe due the regional name which he ruled “Volga Bulgaria”
I didn't knew about that. Thanks.
It's very possible the Armenians, who knew the Bulgars from earlier to have named all following stepe nomads as Bulgars, like the Buzantinians referred to all such as Skythians.
In the case of Timur, apart from the conquered Volga Bulgaria, it's possible also common tribal ancestor, like Dulo for example.
Ask yourself if it is possible for a newly created country to be called Old Great Bulgaria by the Roman chronographs and you will understand that the whole video is one big lie.
We The Bulgarian destroyed the Roman empire.
I have made this video as nuanced and balanced as possible, and hope that you guys and gals enjoy both the information that was given as well as my style. It took a lot of time to recreate some of these historical people and scenes. I tried to include as much historical imagery as possible, but as you might know, there is little content available. Almost all of the paintings that are supposed to depict the ancient Bulgars were made centuries later, anyway. Therefore, I oriented myself on the text descriptions about the Bulgars from ancient sources, but also on the clothing, hairstyles etc. of other steppe peoples of the Ponto-Caspian steppe.
The Volga Bulgars were mentioned twice in the video. Maybe it would be a good idea to check out their history in the future. What do you think?
History of Volga Bulgaria up to the Mongol invasion would be good, a thumbnail or title highlighting the fact that they were the first Turkic tribe to convert to Islam would also attract viewers
The name of the Khan is Asparuh not Asparu
@@ralitzanikolova9027 yes, that’s how it was written in the video. The subtitles were automatically generated and got it wrong.
Historians believe that the ancient Bulgarians spoke a language that is from a different group compared to today's Bulgarian. Some researchers attribute the speech of our ancestors to the Turkic languages, and others to the Iranian ones. None of the two groups of specialists explain the mystery: Why is there not a single Turkic or Iranian word in the entire Old Bulgarian equestrian terminology?
Neither кон - horse nor кобила, жребец, седло, юзда, стреме, лък, тулъ (колчан), стрела, тетива, острие, яздя, ездач - mare, stallion, saddle, bridle, stirrup, bow, quiver, arrow, string, blade, ride, rider, etc. do not belong to the Turkic or Iranian linguistic wealth. On the other hand, in the Thracian onomastics we find Kone, Kobilatus, tula-, Uzdika, Asdul, Ezdikaya, etc., but this apparently does not affect anyone. It is as if there is a taboo that any connection between the old Bulgarians and the local Balkan population should be avoided. Even if we did not have the Thracian words indicating that the Bulgarian equestrian terminology is of Balkan origin, the scholars were well aware of what a serious problem the complete lack of Iranian or Turkic terms was, and of course this was not shared neither with the students or with the general public .
I hope you to continue making videos about the Bulgars as well other Turkic Peoples,like Avars Magyars,Pechnegs,Cumans etc. My congrats ,from Portugal,for your work.
Grousset thought that the Kutrigurs were remnants of the Huns, Procopius recounts:
in the old days many Huns,[nb 1] called then Cimmerians, inhabited the lands I mentioned already. They all had a single king. Once one of their kings had two sons: one called Utigur and another called Kutrigur. After their father's death they shared the power and gave their names to the subjected peoples, so that even nowadays some of them are called Utigurs and the others - Kutrigurs.
Did the stupid Romans forget that the Scythians and Sarmatians were older than the Huns?
Exactly. The Bulgarians are the old Traco/Kimmerians. After that Skytians and Huns.
@@user-ey6pf2wv4t So these are Eastern Iranian people
@@user-fl5mq9kp7g true facts u can't denied so plz shhhhhh.... Be quite you distort things as it's pleased for you interpretations
As a Bulgarian 🇧🇬, thank you !
War with the Byzantines
Agathias (c. 579-582) wrote:
...all of them are called in general Scythians and Huns in particular according to their nation. Thus, some are Koutrigours or Outigours and yet others are Oultizurs and Bourougounds... the Oultizurs and Bourougounds were known up to the time of the Emperor Leo (457-474) and the Romans of that time and appeared to have been strong.
Greetings to all brothers and sisters of the Steppes! Thank You Emre for putting such dedication into your excellent series of educational videos. I love learning about all of the Ural-Altaic Peoples that were part of our ancestors cultures.
Rise of nations .the soundtrack😊😊😊
Someone noticed! Awesome.
@@SolidSharkOFFICIAL Rise of Nations that was mentioned here was released in 2003. It was a real time strategy game about civilizations and warfare. It has nothing to do with the other child‘s game of the same game.
Educate yourself before preaching onto others.
Bulgars and serbs and hunns Magyars are 1000% original Turkish who came into Balkan and assimilated into slavic that’s why many bulgar serbs looking Turkish and Magyars even have similar language like Turkish
Thanks!
I enjoyed the video! I hope to see in the future an extensive video about the Pechenegs. Is it coming soon?
I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
I am loving these videos and this channel. Thank you so much from the UK
Thanks for watching!
I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
Hey Khans Den, just wanted to show my appreciation for these videos. This historical knowledge is very valuable for people interested in learning turkic history. Dont be discouraged by those with dishonest motivations. Keep your head up!
14:42-14:44 ongal means angle cause it creates the form of angle between the danube and the black sea...this is the cradle of the bulgarian state,unlawfuly given by the russians to romania ,as a compensation for moldavia,as like it was their teritorrie to give to somebody.....
A great video, I truly enjoy your informative videos. Keep'em coming.
you mean enjoy the misinformation and lies ...
I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
Thank you ❤ very much for the video!
българино прочети Георги Раковски и старите автори и ще видиш, че това видео е много наивно и погрешно
@@lyudmilpetrov79 Раковски не е историк!Кои стари български автори?От кой период?Кои са техните източници знаеш ли???
@@Stafo777 А кой историк доказва някакъв си "тюркски" произход на старите българи бе, балък псевдобългарин глупав? Безродник и предател прост! Ти въобще от български етнос ли си, или си от смесен брак, или от малцинствата? Защото предимно такива като теб в нета се правят на българи и поддържат тая анти-българска тюркоманска гнусна пропаганда, дето няма НИЩО ОБЩО с науката.
Great video. The symbol of the Dolu tribe looks much like of the Kayi tribe of Oguz.
Are the Magyars next?
Irony. My Surname is Dulo.
@@oddindian1 HI, If tipping in Google top 10 longest ruling DINASTY in world. The DULO DINASTY Is longest ruling in world. The second is Japan only 10 years behind. 3rd is Vietnamese or Korean. All Asian except DULO DINASTY .THE DULO symbol IYI you can find in many countries in Central Asia and in Turkey. But the oldest one is in Bulgaria in Balkans. 8,000 years old. This is the symbol of GODES MATHER . Is possible to have much older in Cappadocia, Turkey. Because this is the place where first farmers come to Balkans and mixed with hunters. If you looking top 10 oldest city in Europe 8 are in Balkans.
@@marinvalkov9755 My family surname is Bulgarian(I am Hungarian by birth). The Surname itself was carried by the khans/kings of Bulgaria. The Bolghar (from which Bulgarians came from) peoples were Turkic in origin, they were Asiatic. The symbol of my family is a Tamga or seal synonymous with Turks. Some of what you say I know to be true. I have never heard or found in research that my family's dynasty was older than the Yamato's in Japan. As far back as I could go concretely was to my ancestor Kubrat who may or may not have been a part of the Western Turkic Khaganate. The only thing for certain is that he founded the first Bulgarian State in what is now Ukraine.
Complete nonsense. Thеse ridiculous theories were written in the 19th century. There is not a single Roman document that describes the arrival of Bulgarians from Asia. On the contrary, Bulgaria has always been here in Thrace.
CHAPTER LXXXIX
72. And Vitalian, whom we have just mentioned, raised a revolt against the emperor Anastasius, and seized Thrace and Scythia 206 and Mysia, and mustered a numerous army. 73. And the emperor sent against him a general named Hypatius. And when they fought together, he was vanquished by Vitalian and taken prisoner. And on the payment of a large ransom he was set free. 74. But immediately on his return to the emperor, the latter removed him from his command, and appointed in his room another general, named Cyril, of the province of Illyria. 75. And he also gave battle to Vitalian, and there was great slaughter on both sides. Cyril the general retired into the city named Odyssus, and stayed there while Vitalian withdrew into the province of Bulgaria.
513-514 AC
@Atakan-ln2xv In order for me to believe you, you can do, like me. I show an authentic chronicle from the year 513-514, about the province of Bulgaria in the Roman Empire. The whole nonsense about " Bulgarian Turkic"from Great Bulgaria is a ridiculous and illogical theory. Show me your authentic information, if there is such a thing at all.
@@user-xc6co3ur2v Modern bulgayrians are not related to Turkic Old Great Bulgaria. Bulgars are Turkic ethnic group "The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 5th[3]-7th century. They became known as nomadic equestrians in the Volga-Ural region, but some researchers believe that their ethnic roots can be traced to Central Asia.[4]"
@@user-xc6co3ur2v And yeah, today's bulgayrians are like north monkeydonians. Your nation/country name is Turkic coming from The Old Great Bulgaria which is not related to you thracian g-y-ps-ys. Same thing goes for north monkeydonians, their nation/country name is Greek coming from Macedonian Empire.
Without old sources, everything sounds, as a friend told me. Whatever was on the Volga was destroyed by Mongols and Tatars. What they call themselves, the new inhabitants of these lands, is their business. Sources for the Bulgarians please.
@@emirkanfrat8653 You have zero sources to back up your claims.
Britannica - "...Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations...".
The contemporary Turks are wannabe Kurds and Armenians. There is nothing Ottoman in you.
Greetings from Bulgaria. Interesting theories. Modern Bulgarians have Slavic, Bulgarian, but let's not forget the ancient Thracian blood.
There is no thracian blood apart through the byzantine line🙂
@@plamenpetrov3806😂😂😂😂
I'm not arguing, but i have read a new monograph that argues that the elite class (Dulo, which are Turkic) is ruling the majority of people. The majority is from Sarmatian descent. If you look only from a linguistic point of view, you can say that the Bulgarians are of Turkic origin. This has been the view on the subject for some time. In recent years, tombs have been discovered in and around Ukraine, which can now help to look at them from a Paleoanthropology point of view
@georginedev951 I think you're right, although I must somewhat disagree with the linguistic point of view, as in modern day Bulgarian there is hundreds of words with Iranian origins, while only few turkic words remain. Most likely, truly, the Bulgars were of Sarmatian descent, but the expansion of the Gökturk Khaganate installed leadership over said tribes and had some mixing. When people see the Dulo sign and the names of the leaders, the Tengriist faith and what not, it is easy to label the Bulgars as turkic steppe nomads, but it is way more nuanced than that.
I would say Scythian-Sarmatian origin ascribing the same meaning to it. Where Asparuh initially settled prior to crossing the Danube was earlier known as Scythia Minor.
@@sirkydric1999 In modern Bulgarian language was influenced by Ottoman language. The Ottoman Türk language was heavily influenced by Arabic and Persian languages. It is obvious that the modern bulgar language has a lot of Persian loan words
@@sirkydric1999Hello, it was the same in the Ottoman Empire. There were dozens of Persian words. After World War 1, serious work was done to translate the language to its essence. There are still Persian words in Azerbaijani Turkish. Since I'm interacting with this, some word transitions are very normal.
Bulgarian God Tangra is not turkish. We the Bulgarians have nothing to do with turk , turkish and tatars this is a lie of Lenin comunist party.
Amazing video, as usual Thanks Emre
Congrats... Amazing video again. :)
Thank you komsho from all bulgarians for this video
Much obliged, friend.
Are you stupid? This is bullshit Turkish propaganda.
haha ... You are thanking for being told you are a "Turk"... You are a very confused man. Definitely not a Bulgarian.
Hahaha 😅😢 komsho We are NOT turks !!! And NEVER will be !!!
Недей да говориш от името на всички , папагал
However, given the common Turkic genetic background of the Bulgars and Khazars, these ethnicities may be difficult to tell apart either archaeologically or genetically.
Mikheyev, Alexander & Qiu, Lijun & Zarubin, A. & Moshkov, Nikita & Orlov, Yuri & Chartier, Duane & Faleeva, T. & Kornienko, Igor & Klyuchnikov, Vladimir & Batieva, Elena & Tatarinova, Tatiana. (2019). Diverse genetic origins of medieval steppe nomad conquerors.
According to Neparáczki: "From all recent and archaic populations tested the Volga Tatars show the smallest genetic distance to the entire Conqueror population" and "a direct genetic relation of the Conquerors to Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of these groups is very feasible."
I will tell you something. You never will learn the truth from European, Russian, the Fucken Anglo-Saxons and Jewish. Never. And don't tell me who's Bulgars.
There is no such thing as Turkic genetic background as Turkic is a cultural and linguistic term.
Huns /bulgars (they are the same) are genetically proven to be sarmatians(indo-european/indo-iranian ancestry )by the newest scientific researches, despite the turkic influence on them. They also show that nowadays bulgarians still carry big DNA ancestry from them.
I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
Bulgaria and the Bulgarian people are much more ancient than what is said in the schools and what is written in the textbooks. There have also been several Bulgarias in different places around the world. And we cannot say that Bulgaria was a Turkic nation !!!
Your consistency still inspires me in my research for proto indo european studies and religious studies that connects us all throughout pre Abrahamic religions and cultures, further more I deeply cherish and love your dedication to the studies of ancient past cultures and peoples of that time and era 😊❤ hail!
One of the best ,or should I say the best video so far made , explaining and bringing the history of the Bulgars, the greatests of the great warriors.
How can they have been the greatest when they were trounced by both the khazars and mongols?
@debnadaebna9981 , on what science do you relate to that you are opposing all said here?
Please explain
@@yuksi22 haplogroups give a very limited picture compared to autosomal genetics. I've given you citations. Go review them.
Mihail Ataliat - "History": "...misis are certainly the Bulgarians, who later received their new name..."
⬛ 2. Zonara, dictionary: "Paeonians - Latins or Thracian people, Macedonians. These are the so-called Pannonians. The Pannonians are Bulgarians."
⬛ 3 Fouche de Chartres, French priest, description of the First Crusade 1096: "From here they went through the lands of the Bulgarians, who are called Thracians"
⬛ 4. Ioan Tsetsas, "Hiliads": "The Paeonians are Bulgarians".
⬛ 5. Homatian, describing the life of Kliment Ohridski, explains - "This great father of ours and beacon of Bulgaria was a descendant of the European Mizis, whom the people usually know as Bulgarians."
⬛ 6. Cassiodorus (6th century, Roman historian) writes that the Bulgarians are an old Mysian or Illyrian people.
⬛ 7. Enodius of Titius (473-524, bishop, court historian of the Gothic king Theodoric) also states that the Bulgarians are an old Mysian or Illyrian people.
⬛ 8. Leo the Deacon (Byzantine historian from the 10th century) persistently calls the Bulgarians Mizis. For the Byzantines, the words Mizis, Scythians and Bulgarians meant the same thing, they used them as synonyms.
⬛ 9. The Byzantine chroniclers Ioan Skilitsa and Georgi Kedrin, reporting on the defeat of the Byzantines at the Acheloi River in 917 by King Simeon, maliciously write: "not the Bulgarian, but Simeon the Mysian defeated the Roman army with his characteristic Scythian madness". Skilitsa calls Simeon a Mizian, because the Bulgarians are Mizians, as he is. And another important thing - by attributing to Tsar Simeon the "Scythian madness", the Thracians and the Scythians are equated in the face of the Bulgarian people.
⬛ 10. Theophanes and John of Antioch, when they talk about the Bulgarians in the 5th century, use the expression "those called Bulgarians" - because Greek and Latin chronographers and chroniclers used another name - "Mizi".
⬛ 11. Ioan Malala writes: "Arrived with Atreides and Samsi Achilles with his own army, once called Myrmidons, but now Bulgarians, 3000 people". This information is also reflected in the Old Bulgarian translation of the "Iliad", made at the time of Tsar Simeon the Great at the Preslav Literary School.
⬛ 12 John Tsetsas writes: "and then they all arrived in Avlis in ships, and with them Achilles, the son of Peleus and Thetis, the daughter of the philosopher Chiron, leading an army of Huno-Bulgarian-Myrmidons numbering two thousand five hundred."
⬛ 13 Ioan Tsetsas "And the peons are Bulgarians. Do not believe fools, to think that peons are different from them."
Bulghar (Next mountain) The people of next mountain
Very interesting fakts about Bulgars nations. Thx
But not the trueth.
Further evidence linking the Balkan Bulgar state to Turkic cultural traditions was the nature of the Bulgars' primary settlement at Pliska, with its resemblance to a steppe encampment, and a Bulgar tradition of stone relief carvings and inscriptions found scattered throughout the eastern Danubian Plain.
P. Hupchick, D., 2017. The Bulgarian-Byzantine Wars for Early Medieval Balkan Hegemony. Cham: Springer International Publishing
Bulgaria at this time had acquired some traits typical of a barbarian state, because the bellicose tribe of the Bulgars had imported the Turkic traditions of the great steppe into the Balkans.
The Old Testament in Byzantium Edited by Paul Magdalino Robert S. Nelson Washington, D.C. :Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection : Distributed by Harvard University Press, c2010. pp. 255
Do not say that you are from the Scythians and Sarmatians, and they are older than you 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
just google battle for cross in botevgrad bulgaria you will see that you are right. born bandits same as turks
You're probably referring to Pliska being a city made of big rectangular stones, and the choice of a "traditional Turkic" name for their capital.
I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
@@cosmopolitanbay9508 What you say is untruthful. The name Pliska have absolutely no Turkic ethimology, it is 100% Slavic by origin and it was given the the proto-Bulgars. Also there are records of Antique names on the Balkans like Pliskova, Plistos etc.
Enough with the Turkish propagation campaign and misleading fantasy statements.
Great video. We are now left with the enigma of Sarmathians. Is that the beginning of what latter became Slavs? Question open, what happened to the original culture and language of the Schitians? What is diferent between Sarmats and Schitians besides geographic designation? Is it possible that Sarmats picked up turkic language after falling under Gokturks and brought it back to Europe? ,or kept their culture, language, and traditions. Is it possible that in the Gokturkic federation all spoke just turkic? Did people included in their confederation kept their original language and custom and when all fell appart they took independence? And also what happened to the Tracian and Gaeto-Dacian culture and language n the Balkans? How is it possible to have. 7 Slavic tribes when first mentioned in 17 Century by Russian Court. So, Trachians just evaporated? Impossible.The story of tangrism is a mixed bag, and if present, they melted away fast when they met the tracian helenised believes in the Balkans. Did Sarmats, Dachians, and Gaeti speak Trachian language or offshoot of it? How did that influence the nation creation when turks arrived later? Why did people of Sarmatogeteusa speak Dachian and not Turkic?There is still lots of grey. One thing is certain there were no 7 Slavic tribes in the Balkans as Russian inperial theory implied. If people living there and Asparuh's people spoke, the same or similar language was only natural to come south of the river. Byzantium had no choice. Centuries of pulling resources and man power for Rome or Byzantium were mostly over. That explains "sudden" rise. It has been said now that Bulgarians were present in the Balkans in the 4th and 5th century by Byzantine sources. That if true will contradict Slavic and Turkic narratives upside down. Is has been written in the old texts but chosen to be overlooked. Goes back to the Seapeople for which of course it has been said again "we can not explain were they come from?. From across the pond!
I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
Those known as "Bulgars" or "Proto-Bulgarians", were presented as Turkic or Iranian up to 2011, but we all knew this was politically made propaganda in the communist times (based on 19th century Austro-Hungarian anti-scientific ideas, when we were under Ottoman Yoke). It was officially thrown out of the historical diaspora as an untenable thesis recognized as politically made and untrue. This was done not only with historical analysis of data, but also through large-scale genetic studies performed in Bulgaria, in which samples were tested from more than 13 acropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and it was found that they carry an entirely WESTERN Eurasian gene pool, only from South and Southeastern Europe and no Asian types in their content.
This completely and surely proved that the Proto-Bulgarians or Bulgars are an old Eastern European race, which is the same as the one that lived in Eastern Europe thousands of years ago, especially when they compared the DNA probes with those of Ian Mathieson of 2018, from the Balkans.
There are still some scholars that are followers of the old political propaganda but it was disproven officialy !!!
All of the genetical data taken from more than 100+ graves of Proto-Bulgarians were tested and proven that they were 100% european and had 0% turkic or iranian composition.
It is funny because even in the comunist times when there was no difference between ideology and science, there were honest scientist who were fighting with the powers of that time.
In 1938 and 1959 the results of large-scale anthropological research were published, which completely shattered the prevailing at that time theory of the origin of the old Bulgarians. Contrary to other academics and associate professors, the data show quite clearly that the hitherto generally accepted views on the origin of the Bulgarian people are wrong and must be reconsidered. Here are the words of Dr. Popov, an anthropologist from BAS:
"From the analysis of the anthropometric studies of the Bulgarian people it stands out clearly - I allow myself to repeat once again that all the mentioned data speak categorically and clearly that the racial mixtures that are part of our people belong to the known European races."
-M. Popov, The Bulgarian people between the European races and peoples, Court Printing House, Sofia, 1938, p.111.
Regarding blood tests, Dr. Popov says the following:
"All this shows how far we are in our blood type from Asian nations." - p.122.
Twenty years later, he organized a new, more detailed study, the result of which was:
“The anthropological types that are part of the modern Bulgarian people belong entirely to the European race. Among these anthropological types, according to the detailed data from our research, the Pontic or Black Sea type occupies the first place in terms of distribution. ”
- M. Popov, Anthropology of the Bulgarian people, volume I, Physical appearance of the Bulgarians, BAS, Sofia, 1959, p.260. "
Genetics from our time says:
"Ancient (proto-) Bulgarians have long been thought to as a Turkic population. However, evidence found in the past three decades show that this is not the case. Until now, this evidence does not include ancient mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis. In order to fill this void, we have collected human remains from the VIII-X century AD located in three necropolises in Bulgaria: Nojarevo (Silistra region) and Monastery of Mostich (Shumen region), both in Northeast Bulgaria and Tuhovishte (Satovcha region) in Southwest Bulgaria. The phylogenetic analysis of 13 ancient DNA samples (extracted from teeth) identified 12 independent haplotypes, which we further classified into mtDNA haplogroups found in present-day European and Western Eurasian populations. Our results suggest a Western Eurasian matrilineal origin for proto-Bulgarians as well as a genetic similarity between proto- and modern Bulgarians. Our future work will provide additional data which will further clarify proto-Bulgarian origins; thereby adding new clues to current understanding of European genetic evolution.""
" It should be noted, however, that a well-known study worked with mtDNA from the remains of people considered undoubtedly "Proto-Bulgarians" - Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian Origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians. The results are that 13 individuals belong to to 10 mtDNA haplogroups: H, H1, H5, H13, HV1, J, J1, T, T2 and U3.
They are all found among individuals living in southeastern Europe several millennia ago, published by Mathieson et al. Therefore, 100% of the surveyed 13 "Proto-Bulgarians" have a maternal origin similar to those who lived in our lands thousands of years ago. "
Neither the "Iranian" nor the "Turkic" theories have meaningful evidentiary baggage.
Both rely only on linguistic equilibristics and speculation. Both have no confirmation of either archeology or historical records. And of course of anthropology and genetics too...
The only meaningful theory is the autochthonous one, supported by dozens of sources, DNA research and many other related scientific studies. Genetics proves that Bulgarians are a Balkan nation indistinguishable from their neighbors. If the Bulgarians were Iranians, Turco-Tatars or any Asians, there would be an Asian reception in their genes. This is not observed and this strongly supports the local origin of the Bulgarians.
Most of the supporters of this channel are Turks from the country Turkie so I leave the the conclusion to you all :) ...
I see the Bulgarian Aryanist movement found this video and heavily disagrees with it. However, the Turkic theory was never disputed despite what the Aryanist movement thinks. Despite this, the Aryanist movement is not entirely wrong either. "Turkic" is not a racial-taxonomic categorization, but a linguistic and cultural one. For example, modern Turks in Turkey have very little in common racially with Turkic nations such as Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan. Turks are counted as Turkic because of their cultural and linguistic traits. Likewise, it is entirely possible and even probable that the Bulgar tribe was racially European, i.e. white or Aryan (whichever term you prefer), by the time it arrived on the Balkans, despite being culturally and linguistically Turkic.
Bulgars also used Turkic titles like Boila & Kavkhan integrating some into Slavic for instance the popular name Boris derives from the Turkic Bars (Leopard) while the Slavic title Boyar originates from Boila
olso Tarkhan, The name Borris come from word borri mean wolf,
@@jivkotodorov84the Qaghan title was also used by Simeon the great in his letter to the Byzantine emperor.
@@AltaicGigachadSo the Seljuks are from the Persians, because the Romans say that the Seljuks are from the Persians 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@user-fl5mq9kp7gseljuqs were turks,and persians were their slave
Boris from turkic bars ?!!! You are clearly mental 🤣🤣🤣
Amazing work. Thank you!
Varna culture?
Great video
I am Bulgarian but one of my great grandfathers migrated to the Ottoman Empire in the region of what is now Bulgaria from Chuvashia fleeing Russian persecution. He was a Chuvash bey and was tengrist. That makes me a bulgar. The Kayı tribe is also one of the Dulo group as their tamga isIYI the same as Kubrat’s tamga. So we are related with the ottomans.
Not in particular with the ottomans but for sure the Turks
@@OG-ge8nuOttomans are Turks. Same thing
@@zorobutashina5086 @zorobutashina5086 yeah sure but not all Turks are Ottoman. Most of the Turks are not. Bulgars have ancestors which are not Ottoman. That is why I wanted to mention this.
Volga Bulgaria may be ia related but it is not true about all Bulgarians
@@OG-ge8nu Who are the ottomans? The ottomans are the kayı tribe which is related to the Dulo which is related to the bulgars who were ruled by Kubrat who is from the Dulo family. The kayı of which Osman was the bey are a branch albeit distant of the Dulo family which is evident by having the same tanga so it’s obvious and more than obvious that the Ottoman empire was in fact a bulgar empire but unfortunately it was Islamic and was a halifat and got a lot of Arabic influence to the point of losing its Turkic identity and language and thank God for Atatürk, also Bulgar by the way who restored the Turkic identity and language to a large extent but there are still about 80% of Arabic words in the modern Turkish language thanks to the backward and regressive Arabic religion of Islam which is actually only suitable for Arabs and very detrimental for the Turkic people in general.
Today there are like 3 Turkic ethnic groups with Bulgar or Oghuric roots
1. Chuvash (Oghur)
2. Volga Tatars (certainly Kipchakized Oghur)
3. Karachay-Balkars (likely Kipchakized Oghur)
Volga Tatars: You mean the Viking Slavs 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@user-fl5mq9kp7gVolga Tatars are genetically very different from Slavs
@@Kickboxer7267 Yes, he has white skin, yellow hair, and is tall. When a nobleman or a king among them dies, they build ships and put the ship in the river and then burn the ship. Of course, these are Turkish customs.
The traveler Ibn Fadlan describe the funeral rituals of the Viking Rus, which included burying a ship with human sacrifices.
@@Reader_curiosity He described the Bulgarians because he was on a mission from the Caliph, not the Russians
You are not fully correct. There are two more sons ot Kubrat - Kuber and Altzec. Last one made state in land of modern Italy :)
Алга българ-огур🇧🇬💪❤️🐺
nice work man ,go on like this.❤🇹🇷
LMAO some Bulgarians are seriously fascist right-wing idiots. It shows here. They really believe they would be the navel of the world. 😂
Cheap Turkish propaganda.
@@nikolapetrov7711 Today's bulgayrians are like north monkeydonians. Your nation/country name is Turkic coming from The Old Great Bulgaria which is not related to you thracian g-y-ps-ys. Same thing goes for north monkeydonians, their nation/country name is Greek coming from Macedonian Empire.
Historians believe that the ancient Bulgarians spoke a language that is from a different group compared to today's Bulgarian. Some researchers attribute the speech of our ancestors to the Turkic languages, and others to the Iranian ones. None of the two groups of specialists explain the mystery: Why is there not a single Turkic or Iranian word in the entire Old Bulgarian equestrian terminology?
Neither кон - horse nor кобила, жребец, седло, юзда, стреме, лък, тулъ (колчан), стрела, тетива, острие, яздя, ездач - mare, stallion, saddle, bridle, stirrup, bow, quiver, arrow, string, blade, ride, rider, etc. do not belong to the Turkic or Iranian linguistic wealth. On the other hand, in the Thracian onomastics we find Kone, Kobilatus, tula-, Uzdika, Asdul, Ezdikaya, etc., but this apparently does not affect anyone. It is as if there is a taboo that any connection between the old Bulgarians and the local Balkan population should be avoided. Even if we did not have the Thracian words indicating that the Bulgarian equestrian terminology is of Balkan origin, the scholars were well aware of what a serious problem the complete lack of Iranian or Turkic terms was, and of course this was not shared neither with the students or with the general public .
BRAVO YOVCHO ! All logical and correct...The Thachian link and other okd balcanic links are the right paths....and culturaly and lynguisticaly - the Thrachian words that you have mentiined are ethimogicaly and linguusticaly very close to Slavic which proves that ancient Slavic and old Helm or balkanic (Thracian, Dacian,Dardanian, Mesian, Dalmatian, Ilyrian, Macedonian) - are essentialy - the same - One People, many tribes. And these were tve origins of our Bulgarian brotbers as well. Of course, there are Turcic elements as:w3ll, especially tbe name Blgars, Bulgars, Bugars, but itbis related to o e leadi g group of wariors from Bulgar Khagabat who invaded tbe lands in what became Bulgaria and since being the rulling class at the begining at least - they left the name fir tge newly formed country and probably the first rulli g Dinasty....but that was intermixed and melted very soon in the ocean of Slavonic and other balkanic people living on that teritorry.
In fact there are historians who believe they were both Turkic and Iranian speakers. Some claim the ruling elite was Turkic, other Iranian, or both. But they surely were ruled by the Gokturks, which in itself explains a lot of the Turkic influence.
@@cosmopolitanbay9508 I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
@@stefanchaushev4732 Many homespun TH-cam videos purporting to tell the "History" of this people or that people are pure cartoon fantasies from 3 or 4 generations ago. You are not alone. Publishing bad history is what youtube does.
Кон,стреме,лък...-не е на езика на Аспарух..!
Great content . This is the part of their history , today's Bulgarians do not like to talk about or even admit Turkic roots .
Read what Herodotus wrote about Thracians, the most after Indians, so where did they disappeared so the Bulgarians to come...?
Yeah , the Thracians were named petrov , like you .
And stop quoting Herodotus who was just a story teller - he also said the Persians were 2.5 millions when they invaded Greece and Thrace .
By the time the Slavs and the Bolgars showed up in the Balkans , Thracians were history for a while , killed , assimilated , eliminated , decimated by Justinian plague .
Understand, petrov ? @@lyudmilpetrov79
@@lyudmilpetrov79траките са асимилирани от Римската империя 6 века преди да нахлуят българ-огурите на Балканите,демек българите на Аспарух са се биели с ромеизирани(траки)..българите са Туранци-съвсем друг народ!
Herodouts wrote crap - he never counted the number of the Thracians or the Indians . Also he wrote about the Persians which invaded Greece and Thrace that were 2,5 million - utter crap . And when you are called Lyudmil Petrov, for sure you are not Thracian but Slav . Not to talk about how many are Turks and Gypsyes , in your country .@@lyudmilpetrov79
@@SeamanX-qh9bw I challenge you to investigate Bulgarian genetics - use whatever means you wish and find East Asian or Central Asian ancestry.
In Bulgaria there has always been a mess on this topic, many theories, a lot of politics involved. People's preferences play big role as well.
българино прочети Георги Раковски и старите автори и ще видиш, че това видео е много наивно и погрешно
българино прочети Георги Раковски и старите автори и ще видиш, че това видео е много наивно и погрешно
@@lyudmilpetrov79 copy-paste празен аргумент, определено ги чаткаш нещата ...
@@lyudmilpetrov79 Георги Раковски, с цялото ми огромно уважение към него, работи, живее и проучва през 19ти век. Тогава не сме имали богатите археологични находки и достъп до мащабни генетични изследвания които имаме днес. Тук включвам не само тези подкрепящи местният-балкански произход на прабългарите а като цяло всички допринесли към разните теории включително Васил Златарски и Ганчо Ценов.
Този клип е абсолютна тюркофилска боза, тук съм доста съгласен. Но, за един по-обективен и обхваштащ поглед спрямо прабъларите конкретно, дълбоко препоръчвам новата книга на Тодор Чобанов:
"Произходът на прабългарите. Дебатът през XXI век". В нея той разглежда и хронологически описва всички теории от средновековието до ден днешен, техните разни защитници, както и разните методи използвани до стигането до заключенията им, и най-накрая сумарно в модерно време до ден днешен каква е обективната картинка.
@@NikolayNikoloff Ти много ги чаткаш, тюркоман-безродник. Само турци и псевдобългари поддържат тюркската пропагандна теза, която дори вече не е актуална в историческата наука. Пл-ю-я на такива като вас.
I was born Close to volga river so like between Varna and volga river
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage video about( Old Great Bulgaria 🇧🇬 ) origin ( onogur -the bulgars 5-6-7 AD centuries) (culture)&(legacy) .thank you 🙏 (Khan Den) channel for sharing this magnificent video
Bulgarians and Bolgars have nothing In common. We are different people genetically and cilturaly. Bulgarian rulers were never called Khans. There isn't any historical document confirming this
@@diyanivanov4107 Ibn Fadlan mentioned Almish as a Elteber of the Bulgars. Elteber is a kind of lord lower than Khan in Turkic hiarachy
Dian Ivanov what about khan Kubrat ....?
Dian Ivanov, something is not right in the video,just the connection is 500 years under Turkish. You could see from the lates history just after restoring Bulgarian country taken back from Turkish ,their Kemal Atatürk what he said. He was an ambassador in Sofia and very progressive Turks. He was happy to see something different in Bulgaria different European culture and habits.....
@@polysmith1950 DO YOU KNOW THAT IN THE ROMEIC SCRIPTURES OF BULGARIAN THE OWNER IS NEVER RECORDED WITH THE TITLE KHAN/KAN..?
There we meet Genghis Khan with the title χαν, but the title in Bulgarian rulers in the Romanian chronicle is imperator, dux, reges, rex, princeps - never χαν (khan/kan).
BULGARIAN OWNERS NAMED KHANOV CHAK 10-12 CENTURIES IN QUESTION FROM BULGARIAN HISTORY, summed up by malevolent foreign forces.
Find the Bulgarian inscriptions from the title on the ruler left by Omurtag and Malamir.
1. 814-829 - CANES - Medallion on Omurtag
2. 821-822 - KANAS - Chatalar inscription
3. 822 - КѦNNѦC - Omurtagov inscription in the Holy “Chetirideset of the Martyr”
4. 822-836 - KANAS - Turdachys, Omurtag
5. 822-836 - KANAS - Kopant Korsis, Omurtag
6. 822-836 - KANAS - Kolobart, Ichirgu, Omurtag
7. 836 - KANEC - from Malamir
belezhka, very important:
Prez 893 Romeyskiyat ezik in the Bulgarian scriptures, changing from Cyrillic and Old Bulgarian. Vednaga trace tova zabelyazvame promyana. The title is written in Bulgarian and appears in Bulgarian “ Ꙁ “. From KANAS, exchange me for KANѦꙀЪ
8. Around 900, in the Bulgarian palimpsest from the Vatican, the title appears:
KANѦꙀЪ
9. Around 950. In the Supraslski collection for the Bulgarians, the owners of the title appear:
КNѦꙀь
КNѦꙀ
КЪNѦꙀь
10. 10th - 11th century in Savin’s book, write:
КNѦꙀ
11. Ioan Exarch in “Six Days” writes for the prince himself.
12. Chernorizets Khrabar in “For the Letter” - write for the prince:
13. 996-7 -1060-61 - On the tombstone of Presian II, write:
KЪНѦꙀь
14. In “The Name Book of the Bulgarian Prince,” in three prescripts to the imam:
КЪNѦꙀЪ
КNѦꙀ
сii ҃е кнѧꙁ
princess
Isperikh КNѦꙀ
Esperikh КNѦꙀ
15. In the Bulgarian census on the Manasiev Chronicle, Imam KNѦZЪ, KNѦZA
From the point of view, there is a lot of writing from the source that goes from KANAS to KANѦꙀ and KNѦꙀ e is natural, logical and obvious.
Sedite and enemy in Bulgarian was never called ONE ONE Bulgarian ruler khan. In the writings on Iztochnata the Roman Empire, with which they had a close relationship, the Romans wrote the Khanovet into the Turks, the Mongols cato χαν, but the Bulgarian sovereigns wrote down none of the knowledge with χαν.
Bulgarian rulers sa recording in Romeyskite scriptures:
emperor,
dux
reges
rex
princeps
dominus
ἄρχοντος υβηγη
ἄρχον
ἄρχηγός
ἐκ θεοῦ ἄρχοντος,
It means something: emperor, ruler, prince, ruler, but never before our enemies were called in Bulgarian by our rulers khan/kan.
It’s ironic that the same name “Khanova” was given to the enemy and that’s how it was in the 10th-12th centuries. Prez minalia century nay-veche under alien influence and without a single writer istochnik se sewing izkstveno vurhu bulgarskite dzrezhavnitsi titlata "khan".
Before the 30th year of freedom, access to many historical twists and possibilities in Bulgarian and foreign sources of the rule of the Izmat "Khan" was all obvious and absurd.
Balont na 100 godishnata izmislitsa se puka. So, historically, they added a scientific title and wrote a work for the title "khan" of coercion and I prefasonirat for not imposing this and renouncing this scripture. Poleka-leka se promkvat izkazvaniya, che vsaschnost titlat not beat “khan”, but “kan” Tova soil before 30-40 years.
Days "kan" is being used honestly. Ty izpolnyava perfectly zamisla na szdatelite si - visually decency on the truth - KANAS, KANѦꙀЪ, but the Turkic ѝ essence of the remainder is not exchanged.
Titla khan/kan is not present on nito, a single epigraphic monument, reminiscent of the Bulgarian ruler.
Titla khan/kan is not present in the Bulgarian palimpsest from the Vatican, which is a nay-ranniyat Cyrillic document.
Titla khan/kan is not present
nito in Supraslski collection,
Nito Savin's book,
nito Yoan Exarch,
nito Chernorizets Khrabar spomenavat kan/khan,
Nito Simeonoviya, Svetoslav’s collection from 1073,
neither Assemane's chosen gospel,
Nito Doxov's prescription,
nito kadeto and yes beat friend write for “kanove” and “khanove”,
and in every case it is the very Bulgarian title KANAS, KANѦꙀЪ, KНѦЗ.
An amazing video...
Musalla means prayer mate Or place of prayer
When did they become completely slavicized?
The Dulo Bulgars of the Danube ? In the late 9th century after the Christianization policies of king Boris I
@@nenenindonuboris was cuman though
never. google battle for cross in botevgrad bulgaria and you will see true asiatic horde
@@Nuruddunya No, he was not! Also Bulgars were not "slavicized" since the Bulgars are the ones that CREATED the first Slavic community, fist Slavic language and literary school.
I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
Love it ❤ Real History 😊
There are byzantine documents that Kubrat spent 10 years in Magnaur schools in Constantinople and got baptized there. The calvary of Emperor Justinian's general Belisarius was mostly from Bulgarian horsemen. His youngest son Alcek, that was christian took 300k bulgars and got settled in Italy around Vesuvius region. This is the reason people from modern day Bulgaria and Italy turned down to be very close genetically, also because a lot of thracians were exported to Rome as slaves and the modern day Bulgaria was mix of bulgars and Slavs AND thracians. Funny how in less than 100 year difference roman documents changed the seven thracian tribes to the seven Slavic tribes. Tangra and Perun and Zeus and Thor are kind of the same god, a thunder deity.
Bulgars separate 3 main group - one of them move to the Europe - lost language and etnical identity and became Bulgarians, other stay at motherland and defeat by Mongol empire and mixed with Kipchak turks which was big part of mongol army and lost his name and become Khazan Tatars. Other group moce to the Caucases and meet other Turks(Karachays) and became part of Circasians and save etnicity, language but still little nation by the name Balkars.
I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
This was a great and informative video. As the son of an immigrant from Croatia, I appreciated your video creation involving the Balkans.
I read that scathing comment from one of your followers. I hope you do not delete this video.
Many months ago, on my Vlog, Restaurant Adventures with Steve Yuri, I was comparing Croatian food to Serbian food, and I received a few negative comments from Croatian viewers. One was particularly nasty. He also wanted me to delete my video. But I kept it up, because I know that the owners of the Serbian restaurant I was reviewing really appreciated my video creation. So, please keep doing what you are doing. The majority of your viewers love your videos.
Приятелю ,постановките на видеото са изцяла грешни и плод на турска пропаганда !!Българите нямат нищо общо със сравнително младата тюркска държавност в сравнение с най-Старата Цивилизация и Култура на Европа / на близо 10 000 хиляди години / Тракийска- Българска цивилизация на която сме наследници ние българите , генетично и всякак ! М/у другото генетично Българите и Хърватите са почти идентични !! При ДНК изледванията не можеш да излъжеш за някакъв "тюркски " или "източен " произход ! Самото население на съвременна Турция генетично няма почти нищо общо с тюрките ! Всъщност то си е автохтонно !!! За това когато си направят ДНК изследвания се оказва ,например че имат български произход !:)) Всъщност въпросното видео представя нещата точно Обратното !! Хубав ден приятелю от Хърватия с почти еднаква генетична линия като на Българите !!:))
As Bulgarian I appreciate this work, we are still remembering our old roots, despite the long historical changes
Bulgarians are Iranian origin from Volga River the region of Sarmatians. Turk is mongolian and Turkey itself have Greek and Armenian DNA just the way Azeris genetically are 100% Persian. Long Live Aryan Bulgarians🇮🇷❤️🔥🇧🇬 watch this page @ossetian_great Bulgaria empire was located in North Caucus
Turkic roots are not Bulgarian roots.
@@kristiyanpeev9574 Watch the video again and you’ll understand
You are not Bulgarian! You are a fake account with foreign name and have no connection with Bulgarians. I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
@@stefanchaushev4732 Ти ще ми кажеш какъв съм и какъв профил имам. Не ми се спори с идиоти и като не ти харесва не ми коментирай. Бъди жив и здрав!
So Exciting letsss gooooo!!!!!, I’m more connected to this side of the Turkic nation!
This is an incredible video. Your channel has come so far and so fast, its inspiring. I wish you all the best and keep feeding me this steppe Turk history. Wonderful. When I visted Turkey I was suprised that the local fishermen kept an eye fixed to all their boats to prevent "evil". In such a staunch Muslim country this surprised me. Is this a hint of old Tengrist beliefs? I know all fishermen are superstitious, but this seemed odd. Saw the eye in your video and started to ponder............
I wish our only Tengrist belief would be the blue eye 🧿 we have too many non-sensical, partly harmful beliefs that we can’t get rid of. Especially women follow these traditions fiercely, despite Islamists telling them again and again that these are forbidden in Islam.
@@dahanler1599 Are you Turkish or Greek?
I think the eye at the bows of a boat can be seen on ceramics (amphora and the such) from the times of Homer... so it must be from at least from the times of the ancient Greeks.
@@dahanler1599 all religions today bring more harm than good. Long live science and reason.
As a Pomak-Turk from Bulgaria, i can see the roots of the Turkic era in our family traditions and beliefs from Tengrism in every aspect.
Pomak brides look like the Last Queen of Mongolia (TARTARIA) Queen Genepil and we have some really weird ceremonies and rituals but do it with a mix of Islam and Tengrism together.
The sources say; Pomaks converted from Christianity to Islam with the Ottomans but this isn’t true at all, because we all fled to the mountains and rivers during Christianization that we could live our beliefs and a lot of the Pomaks are still living there.
With the Ottomans we saw similarities in beliefs (Tengrism) and with time we also accepted Islam but still with Tengrism all together what Ottomans used to practice and modern Türkiye Turks practice until to this day. (The Islam of the Arabic nations are Sharia (Qoran) based) but we have beliefs like Mausoleum, Balbals (Kurgan Statues), the number 40 (kırk).
Тангризмът по българските земи, когато османците идват през 14 век отдавна е бил мъртъв. Просто сте се потурчили къде насила, къде доброволно. Същото както няколко века по-рано, езичниците са приели православното християнство. Днешните българи мюсюлмани така наречени помаци са потомци на населението в Родопите, приело исляма и всички академични среди са единодушни по тоя въпрос.
This is why I can't wait to go back to Bulgaria this summer, and my plans are to go to the pomak region . Hopefully, I will see a traditional wedding in the villages I visit
Да препоръчвам в село Рибново-Гоцеделчевско,там свадбите са забележителни!🇧🇬👍🫶
Don't forget the first Muslims who introduced Islam to Balkans were Alevi Bektashi Dervishes. They had kinda similar traditions to Tengri believers and Shamans.
@@user-br8ou7ej8m , благодаря за препоръката. Непременно ще посетим.
despite of drastic changes, wether modern Bulgaria sees itself descendants of proto Turkic Bulgars or something else, by keeping the name Bulgaria of the modern Balkan Republic deserves respect by all Turkic nations. we wish them long life and prosperity
They are not Turkish
@@user-fl5mq9kp7gYou should know the difference between Anatolain Turkish people and Turkic peoples in general by now. I know that you have watched quite a few of my videos, and I am disappointed by that lack of knowldege.
@@KhansDen My friend, I am only talking about the Volga Bulgarians. According to the contemporary Muslim traveler Ibn Fadlan, when he declared these people and spoke to their king so that they would become Muslims, Ahmed bin Fadlan described these Bulgarians as being tall, with yellow hair, and tattoos. When he spoke to their king, he said that we are from The Saqalba people (Slavs) and the most recent kings told me that the Turkish king Attila took a large number of his people and went to the west to fight the Romans.
@@user-fl5mq9kp7gAh, never mind. I take it back. Got a little confused after reading some other strange comments here before. Apologies.
@@KhansDen Question, brother: Do the Hungarians, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Croats have similarities with the Turks because they came from Central Asia?
Like Sir Steven Runsiman wrote in hie book. The Bulgarians were invaders who managed to build a nation at the gates of the most powerful empire in the Christian domain.
It’s a bullshits lol 😂
If anything, "bullshit" with the "s" at the end.
Very interesting. My ancestors were not from this region of the world but were from Mexico of Spanish & Ingenious Mexican descent, and the other side of the family were French Canadian. I've always been interested in cultures from Asia and the Middle East.
Alabala....Ialan
Are you going to make a video about Hungarians as well?
I've consulted a few fellow Hungarian followers about Hungarian sources and views about Magyar ancestry, and the Magyars are next in my schedule. I do feel confident about it. Alas, I will chose a different approach. I read your other comment and would like to hear your opinion about the Magyars, too. Feel free to contact me: info@thekhansden.com
Are not Dulos a Hunnic tribe? lead by Attila's son? Did they not become the leaders of the Bulgars after their state was demolished by Oghurs and Germanic tribes pressuring from west and east?
I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
I have reason to believe that the Bulgars are more nuanced than what is described. The expansion of the Huns and then the Gökturk Khanate crossed paths with the local population (of Sarmatian descent) present in the North Caucasus at the time. Short note on the Sarmatians, they were nomads with Iranian origins who were in the region for many centuries up until that point. In the modern Bulgarian language there are hundreds upon hundreds of words that remain, that are not slavic and come from Iranian origins, some of which are most common being ofcourse 'Kuche' (dog) and 'Kushta' (house), which would be 'Pes' and 'Dom' in the slavic tongue. An old bulgarian historical view is that the Bulgars were an ancient iranic people group that migrated from the 'Bulhara' mountains and settled in the North Caucasus and Dniepr areas. They might have not been even known as Bulgars during those times and were just a part of the Sarmatian tribes. The name 'Bulgars' could have come in as a term after the takeover of the Huns, then Gökturk Khanates as turkic people moved into the area, intertwined and leaders from said states became the heads of these tribes. If you take the names of the leaders, 'Dulo' clan name, the Tengriist faith and the symbol of the state, it is easy to label the Bulgars as turkic steppe nomads, while the reality could very well be although some were turkic steppe nomads, not everyone that made up their ethno-genesis was. It would simply not explain why the Bulgarian language is so filled with iranic origin words while only few remain of turkic origin, taking into consideration the 500 years of Ottoman rule over Danubian Bulgaria. As is known, migrations do not fully wipe out cultures and peoples, they just intertwine, seen alone as the makeup of the Bulgarians is Bulgars, Slavs, and other peoples native to the Balkan area, Thracians, Greeks etc. Some sources I've read mention that the free religious beliefs of the Bulgars stem from Zoroastrian beliefs. In the Alan language, what is described as a 'person beyond the mountains' (when the Alans settled in the Caucasus) was the name of the bulgars as a tribe and were possible seen as people with similiar origins. What is known though is that the Bulgars fought alongside Attila, some settled in Pannonia, others became 'Foederati' of the Byzentine Empire, many became mercenaries and were used in Belisarius' campaigns. They do have a rich history on their own.
That is why I believe the Bulgars were an amalagamation of primarily Sarmatians, secondarily Turkic peoples with Turkic leadership.
I fully agree with ur opinion,even greek chroniclers called Bulgarians as a Scythians and i can tell u another old word from our language we still used its "Dare" which it means river and its an iranic word true evidence of the past its not accidentally for sure !!
It is normal to see Iranian origin words in the bulgarian language. There are many turkish words from Iranian origin, too.After all, the Persian Empire was very influential and had a left impact to the region . However, this does not make the bulgars Iranians
@@yuksi22 dude go do something else, history its not ur best first of all persia has nothing to do with north black sea region for what impact u talking about and second yes its a prove iranian old words in Bulgarian language its a big prove fof the past for greek chroniclers who called Bulgarians as Scythians too and third a DNA of Bulgarians prove that there are no turkic left behind from the past so many facts and u still trying to tell me its not pathetic don't make laugh more from ur stupidity plz
@@yuksi22 what impact in northern black sea region u talking about at that time for example why is not influent Volga Bulgarians by persians but Danube's Bulgaria do u talking about?! Its easy for u to believe in nonsense plz do something else its better than spamming!!!
@user-gz3oi5ye2v ,how do you know that in the volga bulgars there is not worrds from iranian origin. What you talking about?
Go back to school and learn some history.
Stop with this nonsense.
Too much A.I. And the dialogue is sparsely related to the visuals.
It's weird how you AI generated images paint Bulgars(and Bulgarians) with Asian facial traits, considering others like Romanians, Hungarians and especially Russians don't get the same treatment while being more/farther Asian exposed.. Bias maybe?
Both Arabic, Armenian and Byzantine sources confirms that bolgars were Turkic specially from the Oghuric Brance.
I'm not arguing, but i have read a new monograph that argues that the elite class (Dulo, which are Turkic) is ruling the majority of people. The majority is from Sarmatian descent. If you look only from a linguistic point of view, you can say that the Bulgarians are of Turkic origin. This has been the view on the subject for some time. In recent years, tombs have been discovered in and around Ukraine, which can now help to look at them from a Paleoanthropology point of view.
Those recorded sources aren't even needed at all since the Bulgar language is already an attested Turkic language, their Turkic origin has never been a matter of dispute to begin with
Има Редица Международни ДНК Изследвания който КАТЕГОРИЧНО ДОКАЗВАТ че БЪЛГАРИТЕ са ИНДО-ЕВРОПЕЙСКИ НАРОД! И НЯМАТ НИЩО ОБЩО НИТО с ТЮРКИ нито с МОНГОЛИ.Това са РУСКИ ИЗМИСЛИЦИ.НЯМА такива ДАННИ.Сега разни Чалми и КАЗАХСКИ МАЙМУНИ, По -НАСЛЕТСТВО останало от Русията ПИШАТ ГЛУПОСТИ.Чети ИЗСЛЕДВАНИЯТА,БЕ ДЕБИЛ!
@@nenenindonu it is even in Bulgaria
@@nenenindonu yeah but i wrote it for Bulgarians who claims that bulgars weren’t Turkic 😅
The Pliska temple may have been in fact a monument erected to commemorate Krum, as the surviving elements of the building are strikingly similar to a number of similar monuments erected for the Turkic qagans in present-day Mongolia. Four other similar structures have been found in Pliska, Madara, and Preslav, all of rectangular or square shape with a north-south or east-west orientation. For the architecture of the “pagan temples” of Bulgaria, see S.
Curta, F. (2006). The rise of new powers (800-900). In Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250 (Cambridge Medieval Textbooks, pp. 111-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
True nonsense, have u ever been in those old capitals but to speaking for pagan temples lol 😂😂😂 u dont have any ideas of history omg
Like
Good afternoon ❤🇧🇬🦾😇👋
Bulgarians are NOT Turkic people.
Bulgarians RULED OVER Turkic people during Scythian Empire - thats 2 different things.
All Turkic states originate their Military State system from old-Bulgarian state - thats a fact.
But do not put the Chariot in front of the Horse.
Bulgarians exists few thousands years EARLIER, then any ,,turkic" guy walked on Earth.
ps: Tur-Ku is a Chinese word and its a nickname given to ALL PEOPLE WHO ATTACK CHINA, meaning, Turkic etnicity is artificially created and its a POLITIC AGENDA, same as ,,SLAVIC" etnicity.
Тази теория отдавна е отхвърлена с доказателства и факти
Докладвайте видеото на мазния турчак!
sadece bulgaristanda hahhahah
Modern genetic studies of bone material from Bulgarian burials from the period of the early Middle Ages clearly shows that the ethnic appearance of the discovered bodies belongs to the Indo-European group. Archaeologically, the Proto-Bulgarians belong to the Sarmato-Alan cultures.
The Proto-Bulgarians as inhabitants of the lands north of the Caucasus in the 2nd century are mentioned by the Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi. In his History of Armenia, written in the 80's of the 5th century AD, he speaks about two migrations of Proto-Bulgarians from Caucasus to Armenia. Proto-Bulgarians lived amongst Sarmato-Alan and Slavic tribes for centuries before migrating to the Balkans. However, Turkic elements could also be found due to the influence of the Huns and the Avars later on.
Most of the names of the rulers and aristocrats of the First Bulgarian Empire are of Iranian origin.
Names such as Sinnion, Zabergan, Kubrat/Xovrat, Bezmer/Bozmihr, Asparukh, Tervel, Kormes, Sevar, Kardam, Krum, Omurtag/Murtag, Negavon, Okorsis/Korsis, Malamir, Boris, Rasate, etc., are proven to be (Indo)Iranian and generally Indo-European in origin (and etymology) and does not have Turkic analogues. The last pagan ruler of Bulgaria was literally called Persian/Presian.
There is NO historical source or evidence of Tengrism in Bulgaria. The only "evidence" that suggests the alleged presence of ''Tangra/Tengri'' in the Bulgarian lands is a damaged fragmentary inscription found near Madara. The argument that the name "Tangra" was written on it has been refuted many times over the years.
The title ''Khan'' wasn't used by the Bulgarians because they were not linked to the Göktürks. The correct title is ''Kana subigi'' which comes from the Indo-European *su- and bhaga-, i.e. *su-bhaga and its a direct translation of the Greek phrase ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἄρχων, ho ek Theou archon.
And what do you mean ''a variant of the cyrillic alphabet''? Bulgarians literally created it.
2/10 video.
@@thracian2072Stop lying.
US National Library of Medicine - "...the Y-chromosome gene pool in modern Bulgarians is primarily represented by Western Eurasian haplogroups with ∼ 40% belonging to haplogroups E-V13 and I-M423, and 20% to R-M17. Haplogroups common in the Middle East (J and G) and in South Western Asia (R-L23*) occur at frequencies of 19% and 5%, respectively. Haplogroups C, N and Q, distinctive for Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations, occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5%...".
"Ancient (proto-) Bulgarians have long been thought of as a Turkic population. However, evidence found in the past three decades shows that this is not the case. Until now, this evidence has not included ancient mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis. To fill this void, we collected human remains from the 8th to the 10th century ad located in three necropolises in Bulgaria: Nojarevo (Silistra region) and Monastery of Mostich (Shumen region), both in northeastern Bulgaria, and Tuhovishte (Satovcha region) in south-western Bulgaria. The phylogenetic analysis of 13 ancient DNA samples (extracted from teeth) identified 12 independent haplotypes, which we further classified into mtDNA haplogroups found in present-day European and western Eurasian populations." - Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian Origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians, D. V. Nesheva, S. Karachanak-Yankova, M. Lari, Y. Yordanov, A. Galabov, D. Caramelli and D. Toncheva, 2015
@@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn Did you even bother referring to my citations before calling me a liar? Nesheva's report on haplogroups did not refer to the autosomal breakdown of the Bulgar genepool. Haplogroups by themselves mean nothing. A person can have an African haplogroup, but still be autosomally majority European and Europoid. You balkanic chauvinistic fantasists simply probably aren't bright enough to appreciate the nuances.
@@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn Nesheva's report is misleading. She probably knows as much about genetics as you do. mtDNA haplogroups say nothing about the general autosomal genetics of the Bulgars. I've provided you the evidence. Deal with it, rather than crying and calling people liars.
@@thracian2072 Yes, you are a liar. You wanted genetic research, and I gave it to you.
US National Library of Medicine - "...the Y-chromosome gene pool in modern Bulgarians is primarily represented by Western Eurasian haplogroups with ∼ 40% belonging to haplogroups E-V13 and I-M423, and 20% to R-M17. Haplogroups common in the Middle East (J and G) and in South Western Asia (R-L23*) occur at frequencies of 19% and 5%, respectively. Haplogroups C, N and Q, distinctive for Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations, occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5%...".
"Novel analyses of proto-Bulgarians epigraphic monuments, especially, of the major historical inscription - “the List of the Bulgarian Khans” - have revealed that the proto-Bulgarian language did not belong to the Turkic linguistic family. Therefore, leading turkologists [14]-[16] do not consider proto-Bulgarians a Turkic people, as also attested by the adoption of distinctive calendar systems by the two groups" "Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry", Sena Karachanak, Viola Grugni, Simona Fornarino, Desislava Nesheva, Nadia Al-Zahery, Vincenza Battaglia, Valeria Carossa, Yordan Yordanov, Antonio Torroni, Angel S. Galabov, Draga Toncheva and Ornella Semino, 2013.
@@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn Repeating it doesn't make your point valid. You are simply not bright enough to even understand the basics about genetics. You probably don't even know what an autosomal genome is. You're in over your head. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Yorumları okuyunca anladımki Osmanlı iyi yapmış bu mankurtlara
I have waited for this video for a long time, as someone who’s partially of Bulgarian extraction and is currently in the process of learning Turkish (lol). Bulgarian nationalists and revisionists cannot handle the fact that proto-bulgars were Turkic, just out of some antipathy toward Anatolian Turks due to the almost 5 centuries long period of occupation. It is very much regrettable and leads them to spewing nonsense. Anyway, thank you for the video and keep doing your good work, including on Hungarians.
👍👌🇧🇬❤️🐺
Точно казано кардаш👌👍
Bulgars were not Turkic. They are closer to proto-Iranians.
@@skladzasnimki6th818 That is incorrect and based solely on a desire from some Bulgarian nationalists to distance themselves from Türkiye, even though the Turkic proto-bulgars are very much different from the modern Anatolian Turks and the ottomans more broadly.
@@dimitrifaillard9972 That is incorrect and based solely on the desire of some Turkish nationalists to make the Ottoman Empire look less backward, medieval and bloodthirsty by claiming some European peoples as relatives.
We still read history through wars, rulers and territories. That's understandable. The Bulgarians have a lot to say in this regard :)). However, there is another aspect that really sets these people apart - the culture. Bulgaria arose between two great civilizations - the Greek and the Latin, in the place of a third one, about which we know extremely little - the Thracian. The Bulgars didn't just unite with the Slavs, they somehow created a lasting statehood with the local Thracians. Caught between the Greek and Latin worlds, they had the audacity and vision to create their own civilization. And here is their unique contribution to history - the Cyrillic alphabet. Their greatest victory is not on the battlefield, but in culture. The Bulgarians, creating the Cyrillic alphabet and the medieval literary schools, exerting an extraordinary influence throughout Eastern Europe. Five years ago, the Russian Patriarch Kirill said "Without the Bulgarians and the Cyrillic alphabet, today there would be no Russia, we would all be Latinized". Indeed, the first patriarchs of Russia were ethnic Bulgarians, the first church books were actually in Old Bulgarian or Church Slavonic. If we go back 1400 years in the history of Europe, we will not see any of the modern countries except Bulgaria. This resilience distinguishes the Bulgarians, and the Cyrillic alphabet is at its foundation. This is a key lesson that we can learn in modern times. Material culture is very important - fortresses , territories and resources. We still think through these categories today. But even more important is the building of culture. This is what has preserved these Bulgarians for so many centuries. We need to learn to read history beyond wars, territories and material resources.
Beautiful comment and statement.
Ще си позволя да цитирам покойния български писател Йордан Радичков:
"От цялата човешка история е останало само онова, което е изградено от камък и слово. В някои отношения словото даже превъзхожда камъка. Храмовете, изградени от него, са останали непокътнати, без никаква пукнатина в себе си, за разлика от каменните храмове. У нас словото продължава да има магическа сила. Българите много добре са разбирали неговата изключително голяма мощ. Може да се каже, че ние сме се съхранили през нашите тежки 13 века до голяма степен и чрез словото. Народът ни е казал, че човек не трябва да се бие с дърво, защото с дърво се бият скотовете, а човекът трябва да се бие с думи."
Thracians were basically gone already. They were already Slavicized or Hellenized, depending on the region.
From Bulgaria!!! SUPER!!!!
Fake profile, you are not Bulgarian. :)
До конца подлинная история скифского (до-гуннского) племени булгар не раскрыта. Предками булгар в Европе были догреческое население Балкан пелары (после греческого вторжения) часть пелар ушла на С.-В. до слияния Камы с Волгой и основали город Пелар -самый крупный город Европы в X веке. Таким образом наследниками ваногуров "Царских скифов" Приазовья (см. Скандинавские саги) являются волжские булгары, сами ассимилировавшие местные славянские и финно-угорские племена. Тамга шилк-эльтавара Кубрата совпадает с древнейшим обозначением Бога у пелар и этрусков, когда о славянах в Европе еще и не слышали.
Жалка, нескопосана работа.
Nonsense!!!
The Bulgari where invited into the Roman by the emperor this proved to be a great mistake
One could argue that the USSR was the last Oghuric empire, founded by Oghur Beg Lenin who was an ethnic Chuvash and close friend of Atatürk massively aiding his War of Independence
This is some astronomic levels of mental gymnastics. WE WUZ USSR N SHIET KARA BOGA
NEVER cook again lil bro
@@monkeymoment6478only Oghuric men can form such Eurasian war machines USSR = Turanic to the bone 😤
God, no. Not the Bolsheviks.
@@Red6Games idk smoking the Romanovs is a very Turanic flex Soviets are rightfully Oghuric
I'm sorry to say this, but you guys get the history completely wrong!
Especially about the foundation of Old Great Bulgaria, the origins of Bulgars and by the way, the Cyrillic Alphabet is a Bulgarian Heritage that spread all over the slavic people and in central Asia.
But, it is a good video.
At least the visuals...
I agree this history is true thay came to the Balkans
Туркери маман!
Не е ли името ви арменско?
Excelent video! You do a great job. I'm not Turkish myself, I’m South American, but I am a great admirer of Turkish history and culture, it's really incredible, even more so with your approach, references and explanations, congratulations!
This is Turkish propaganda, not historically occurate truth. Pure nonsense.
@@knazdimitar1245 I was actually referring to the channel's content. It was not my intention to offend, if that was the interpretation, I apologize.
A very beautiful historical episode about the Bulgars people.
The Kingdom of the Bulgars is considered the direct successor to the European Hun Empire through the Onogurs.
The Bulgars, together with Khan Kubrat of the Dulo tribe, founded the kingdom of Old Great Bulgaria in the Pontic steppe, which was later annexed by the Khazar kingdom.
The Bulgars were then divided into four sections, as Khan Asparuh migrated to southeastern Europe and founded the Danube Bulgar Kingdom.
There is confirmed and interesting historical information that the Bulgar leader Alcek immigrated with his group to the Lombard Kingdom in Italy and settled in southern Italy.
The Danube Bulgars were able to establish the first Bulgarian Empire in the Danube and defeated the Byzantine Empire in several decisive battles, so that it went through three stages in the first stage: the Asparuh dynasty from the Dulo tribe from 680-803 AD, with a short period for some rulers from another Bulgar tribe, the Uokil.
In the second stage: Krum's dynasty from the Dulo tribe, which represents the golden period in military expansions, urban and cultural achievements, and others.
As for the third stage, which is the Cometopuli dynasty, it descended from a military leader of Armenian origins and ruled for a short period of time, as their rule was accompanied by the Byzantine Empire’s military campaign against Bulgaria (968-1018), which led to the fall of the First Bulgarian Empire.
As for the Second Bulgarian Empire (1185-1422), it represents a second phase different from the first, and some historians suggest that some of the dynasties in the second period are of Cuman origin, such as the Asen dynasty.
The Danube Bulgars were able to achieve a political and military alliance with the union of the seven Slavic tribes that migrated to the Danube during the seventh century AD, and this alliance achieved military successes against the Byzantines.
It is worth noting that the region south of the Danube was inhabited by Thracian peoples with some Greeks.
Several gradual transformations occurred for the Bulgars people in the Danube, as they moved to practice agriculture and settle in cities. The city of Pliska was their first capital, and after they converted to Christianity, they developed other new cities.
Even King Omurtag (814-831) was known as a builder, as his reign was marked by a strong development in Bulgarian architecture with a number of important construction projects.
After the Kingdom of the Danube Bulgars adopted Christianity in the year 864, Christianity was imposed as an official religion and previous religions were abolished, and the Kingdom of Bulgaria became the cultural center of Slavic Europe, where the Glagolitic alphabet was adopted and the early Cyrillic alphabet was invented shortly after in the capital, Preslav, and soon literature produced in the Slavic language began to appear. Old Church began to spread northward and became the lingua franca of the Balkans and Eastern Europe.
The Byzantine Empire played a key role in its attempt to spread Christianity among the Bulgarians and Slavs by sending missionaries, converting local languages in Thrace into written languages, and building local churches. The Byzantines had a great cultural and religious influence on the Kingdom of the Danube Bulgars after its conversion to Christianity.
The emergence of the Bogomilian sect during the reign of Tsar Peter I in the tenth century can be considered the most prominent event, as a Gnostic Christian sect was established that rejected the ecclesiastical hierarchy. They did not use the Christian cross and did not build churches, as they sanctified their gifted form and considered their body to be the temple.
The Bogomil sect was subjected to severe repression measures, yet they achieved spread and were able to continue until the fourteenth century AD.
As for the Turkish influences specific to the Danube Bulgars, they were present in many aspects, whether in the Tengrian religion, language, names, titles, political system, military system, or artistic forms apparent in architecture and others.
Of course, there are the Volga Bulgarians, which go back to the founder Kotrag and were affiliated with the Khazar Kingdom. Then they became independent and adopted Islam in the tenth century AD and were able to achieve complete political independence and build a strong kingdom in the southern Volga region, where it was famous in the Middle Ages for its fur trade.
There is an interesting historical book, The Cäğfär Taríxı, which most scholars consider to be an apocryphal work, but it contains early historical material on the Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars, and other Eurasian nomads. This book covers the histories of the Danube Bulgars and the Volga Bulgars.
I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction.
It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist.
I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate.
A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy.
Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.
@@debnadaebna9981 Bravo, enough of those Wikipedia Turkish clown.