🚩 Install Friends & Dragons for free 🐲 iOS/Android: fndga.me/3sdwp9g and get a special bonus pack 🏵 🚩 This video was produced in collaboration with Bulgarian Empire Mapping, check out their channel and give them the credit that they deserve! ruclips.net/channel/UCD-0LPbxri4fSvd0UoisIfg - Big shout to BEM for collaborating with us on this video!
I thought Krum the dreadful was called Krum the fearsome? What are the sources that depict him as the dreadful? Great video as always and for me especially because one of the many holes i have to fill in history.
Bulgarian Empire Mapping has some cool videos. Check out his channel ruclips.net/channel/UCD-0LPbxri4fSvd0UoisIfg . This video was made in collaboration with him.
Same here! Very much looking forward to the next project! Big credit here for @Bulgarian Empire Mapping. Check out his channel everyone: ruclips.net/channel/UCD-0LPbxri4fSvd0UoisIfg
@@HistoryMarche Sometime about A.D. 463 a series of nomadic migrations was set off in Inner Asia... Archeological and literary evidence permits us to place the homeland of these newcomers, the Oghur tribes, in Western Siberia and the Kazakh steppes... The Oghurs were part of a large Turkic tribal grouping known in Chinese sources as the Tieh-lê, who were to be found in Inner Asia as well The fluidity of the situation in the steppes is mirrored in our sources, a kaleidoscope of dissolving and reforming tribal unions... Although some of the antecedents of this important migration are still unclear, there can be no doubt that the 0ghur tribes now became the dominant element in the Ponto-Caspian steppes. The term Oghur denoted “grouping of kindred tribes, tribal union” and figures in their ethnonyms: Onoghur, Saraghur, etc. The language of these Oghur tribes, which survives today only in Chuvash, was distinct from that of Common Turkic. In 480 we find our earliest firm notice on the Bulghars (“Mixed Ones”), a large conglomeration of Oghur, Hunnic and other elements. In addition, we have reports about the activities of the Kutrighurs and Utrighurs who appear in our sources under their own names, as “Huns” and perhaps even as “Bulghars.” Their precise relationship to the latter cannot be determined with any certainty, but all three clearly originated in the same Hunno-Oghur milieu. Golden, P. (1990). The peoples of the south Russian steppes, p. 257, in D. Sinor (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (pp. 256-284). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521243049.011 .
@@HistoryMarche You are both idiots. In that period, was a Valaho-Bulgarian Empire, not a bulgarian one. Was a union between valahians, which were some kind of romanians, and bulgarians.
@@papazataklaattiranimam Hanim Dulo is an Sarmatian word DWAL meaning Tribe Thracian --DULOS -Child ,Descendant Celtic-------DEULU--Family Ancient Greek--TELOS -Family, Tribe From the IndoEuropean root DEU or TEU --FAMILY/TRIBE T.T. Kambolov ,History of the Ossetian Language 6.2, Ossetian Synonyms
@@petertodorov1792 Burmov, Peter B. Golden, Gyula Németh and Panos Sophoulis concluded that claiming of Attilid descent shows the intermingling of European Huns elements with newly arrived Oğuric Turkic groups, as the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples.
@@petertodorov1792 Gyula ~ dzila are from the j - Turkic jula form . Jula is an old Turkic dignity name . Jula appears on the list of Bulgar princes as dulo . Jula was a personal name in the age of Arpád .
@@petertodorov1792 The Dulo clan noted in the later Bulgarian Prince List , has been connected with the Tu - lu subconfederation of the Western Türk / On Oq noted in the Chinese sources ( Pritsak , " Stammesnamen " , p . 55 , Fürstenliste , p .64
Its kinda sad how underrated the influence of the first bulgarian empire is in the mainstream hustirical narrative thank you guys soo much for making this video
@Jotaro97 lmfao you are cleary trying to either troll the comments or you basically never opened a book about the bulgarian golden age in the preslav and its influence on serbia, romania and the rus
Yes, the Arab siege, the Cyrillic, the first Slavic Patriarchate, the recognition as an empire, the move of the Hungarians. It's not only the First but the Second too. The cathars for example are washed out of any Bulgarian influence, although they were known as the "Bulgarian cult" this is how words originating in the Bulgarian ethnonym came into English for example. The influence of the cathars over the later religious reforms just can't be related to Bulgaria. I believe someone told the story of how Old Bulgarian turned into Old Church Slavonic. Bulgarians are just not people who will push themselves out there about all of this, and in general but would rather criticize themselves. Only recently I see some changes in this but they come in a rather negative way by some emotional youngsters who don't research serious sources but just get carried away with sci-fi essays.
@@Δούρειος_96 On the other side the Pechenegs will become a reliable ally in the next centuries and defend the Bulgarian cause all throughout the Second Bulgarian Empire.
I would like to point out how important Simeon the Great is for understanding Eastern European history. Simeon the Great was the first person in history to bear the title tsar (Slavic for Ceaser, i.e. Emperor). During his rule the Bulgarian empire experienced it's Golden Age, with much literature and cultural output. The invention, spread of Cyrillic and the already ongoing Christianization of the Slavs was greatly hastened due to the Bulgarian empire. Old church Slavonic, the language that Cyrillic was written in, was to become the liturgical language and the lingua franca of Orthodox Slavs throughout Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. Furthermore, Bulgaria set a precedent after the 927 establishment and recognition of the Bulgarian patriarchate, with every nation which accepted Christianity (Constantinople rite/Eastern Orthodoxy) establishing it's own patriarchate. Examples are Serbian and Russian empire later on. Furthermore in the 10th century the First Bulgarian empire was the most urbanized region in Europe alongside Italy and Preslav (the capital) was the second largest Christian city after Constantinople. (source is First Bulgarian Empire -wikipedia). In understanding Eastern Orthodox civilization, The First Bulgarian Empire is perhaps second only to the Eastern Romans themselves and the Russians. Thus, Simeon the Great is truly the Charlemagne of the East. Edit: Boris, his father, also played a significant role in establishing the Golden Age.
-Academician Omelyan Pritsak (specialist in medieval history) from Harvard University told COMPARED TO THE DESCENDANT OF ATTILES - KING SIMEON I THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR LOOKED LIKE A PARVENU ” - The French historian Alfred Rambo - "Tsar Simeon was Charlemagne for Bulgaria, but more educated than our Charlemagne and much happier than him, because he laid the foundations of a national literature."
More interesting is on which evangelical book the french kings gave their oath. (Tip: it was written in Cyrilic) 😊 but i feel good when I think about how important that Evangelie was for them. Nowadays the book is in the Castle of the British royal family. This fact is enough to show that we weren't some bunga bunga nomads.. like they represent us mostly. We came few thousand people, we got the Slavs like allies and we somehow made a miracle- Empire. The whole Thracians just disappeared somehow 😁. More interesting is that there are still people in Bulgaria who are romei/romans(and they speak Romaika, the greek language is Elinika) but nobody says "I am thracian". Paradox
When i read Bulgarian history... Its aways feel strange, how small nomadic tribe was able to defeat such a power like the Romans... I think there is a lot more behide the Bulgarian history from what we know today... Reading the history of the country it sound more like fiction than history... To achieve such victories i believe Bulgaria must be much older than 681 !
Bulgarians were settling in modern day Bulgaria as early as 480s during emperor Anastasius. The whole theory about them being just a few thousands warriors who were melted into the slavic Sea is false. Armenian sources say that there were Bulgarians north of the Caucasus as early as 2nd century AD
@Ebazel Brother, I love your videos The only thing I would add is our ancestors were in Armenia and the Caucasus from at least the 1st century AD The Armenian region of Vanand is named after the Bulgarian leader Vanand from the 1st century AD Please read Dr. Zhivko Voynikov and Petar Goliyski Phd
@@bulgariainsight429 Това е да си тотално неук. Какви 20 години те гонят какви 5 лева? Въобще не са били эавэели повечето от Европа. Бърэата им инвазия не оэначава че са контролирали много от това което се покаэва на мапа.
Lol nationalist people wrote Too much pseudo historical bs things… open some academic books With regard to topology, the obtained tree divides the modern Turkic languages into six principal sub-branches (in the order of their divergence): Bulgharic, North Siberian, South Siberian, Khalaj-Salar, Oghuz, and Kipchak-Karluk (‘Macro-Kipchak’). The time-depth of the Turkic family on the maximum credibility tree is estimated to be around 2,066 years BP (median height of the node), with a 95% highest posterior density between 1,517 and 2,755 years BP. The topology and the age of the obtained tree are discussed in further detail in Section 6. The early split between the Bulgharic branch and the Common Turkic languages shapes the Turkic language family as a clear-cut binary structure. This agrees with most of the previous classifications of the Turkic language family, whether they are based on the historical-comparative or lexicostatistic approaches (Tekin 1990: 16; Menges 1995: 60-1; Johanson 1998: 81-3; Dybo 2006: 766-817, 2013: 18; Mudrak 2009: 172-79). Alexander Savelyev, Martine Robbeets, Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 39-53 Bulgars (Turkic bulgha-'to mix, stir up, disturb', i.e. 'rebels') A Turkic tribal union of the Pontic steppes that gave rise to two important states: Danubian Balkan Bulgaria (First Bulgarian Empire, 681-1018) and Volga Bulgaria (early 10th century-1241). They derived from Oghuric-Turkic tribes, driven westward from Mongolia and south Siberia to the Pontic steppes in successive waves by turmoil associated with the Xiungnu and subsequently by warfare between the Rouran/Avar and northern Wei states. in Oliver Nicholson, The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2018, ISBN 0192562460, p. 271.. At the time,the new Khazar qaganate was expanding westward, squeezing out the Onogurs ,or Bulghars as they begin to be named. One of the Kuvrat’s sons,the Asparuch (Asparux,Isperih) now celebrated as the founder of Bulgaria ,forcibly crossed to the Danube arpund 679 to occupy imperial territory Moesia after defeating the forces of Constantine IV (668-685). The event is recorded in the preserved text of a Hebrew letter of a Khazar qahan,who wrote that the Vununtur(=Onogurs=Bulghars) has fled across the Duna,the Danube. Even if numerous for the steppe,Asparuch’s pastoralist warriors and their families were of necessity relatively few as compared to the agricultural Slav population that lived south of the Danube,and thus the Turkic-speaking Bulghars were assimilated linguistically by the Slav majority to form the medieval and modern Bulgarians. This particular ethnogenesis occuree gradually over a period of more than two centuries: there was the Turkic qan (or khan) Krum (803-814), Qan Omurtag (814-831), Qan Presian (836-852), then the wan who converted Boris I (852-889); then came Tsar Symeon (893-923), Tsar Peter I (927-970),and so on .But this transformation of Turkic shamanists into Slavic Christians did nothing to diminish the warlike character of the empire’s new neighbours. Because even warlike neighbours can be useful at times,the relations between the empire and the new Bulghar qaganate encompassed every possible variation,from intimate allience to all out-war,as exemplified by the career of the Bulghar qan or khan Tervel (or Tarvel-Terbelis in our Greek sources),the successor and probably son of Asparukh who ruled for some twenty-one years within the period 695-721,extant chronologies being inconsistent. “Bulghars and Bulgarians.” The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, by EDWARD N. LUTTWAK, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, 2009, pp. 173 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 The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states. The ethnonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-, "to stir, mix, disturb, confuse." The confederation appears to have taken shape among Oghur tribes in the Kazakh steppes following the migrations that were touched off by movements of the Hsiung-nu. Later Byzantine sources (Agathon, Nicephorus Patriarchus, Theophanes) closely associate or identify the Bulgars with the Onoghurs, who were enemies of Sassanid Iran in the late 4th century. When or how this connection developed is unclear. If we discount several (most probably) anachronistic notices on the Bulgars in Moses Kliorenats'i (Moses of Chorene), the earliest references to them are perhaps to be found in an anonymous Latin chronograph of 354: "Vulgares." They are absent from Priscus's account of the migration, ca. 463, of the Oghuric Turks into the Pontic steppes, but by 480 they are noted under their own name as allies of Constantinople against the Ostrogoths. Amity with Byzantium was short-lived. By 489 the Bulgars had initiated a series of raids on Byzantine Balkan possessions. Their habitat, at this stage, appears to have been in the eastern Pontic steppes stretch-ing into the Azov region and North Caucasus. It is here that Jordanes and Pseudo-Zacharius Ithetor place them in the mid-6th century. Shortly afterward, they were overrun and subjugated by the Avars and then the Turks. When Turk rule weakened, sometime after 600, the Avars appear to have reestablished some control over the region. It was against Avar rule that the Bulgars-under their leader Qubrat, whom Heraclius had been cultivating for some rime (he and his uncle were baptized in Constantinople to 619)-revolted ca. 631-632 and founded the Onoghundur-Bulgar state. Some time after Qubrat's death (660s), this Pontic - Maeotun Bulgaria, whose Balkan descendents would also claim Attilid origins, came into conflict with the Khazar khaganate, successor to the Turk empire in western Eurasia. The Khazars emerged victorious from the contest, and parts of the Bulgar union broke up and migrated. One grouping under Asperukh in 679 crossed the Danube into Moesia and, having subjugated a local Slavic confederatton, there laid the foundation for the Balkan Bulgarian state. Yet other groups joined the Avar state in Pannonia (where some would prove to be rebellious subjects or took up restience in Italy around the five Rasennate cities, to live as Byzantine subjects.The other Bulgars either remained in the Pontic steppe zone the (the “Black Bulgars” of Byzantine and Rus’ sources) or later migrated (perhaps as early as the mid-7th century or as late as the mid-8th to early 9th century) to the middle Volga region, giving rise there to the Volga Bulgarian state, which remained, however a vassal of the Khazars. Balkan Bulgaria soon became an important element in Byzantine politics, on occasion supporting contestants to the throne and also helping to defeat the Arab attack on Constantinople of 717-18.The iconoclastic Emperor Constantine (741-775) began a series of wars against them that remained a constant theme of Byzantine-Bulgarian relations until the destruction of the first Bulgarian empire by Basil II (976-1025).In 864 the Bulgarian king Boris, outmaneuvered by Constantinople, converted to Christianity. Thereafter, the Turkic Bulgars underwent Slavicization, and Balkan Bulgaria became one of the centers of medieval Slavic. The Volga Bulgars, however, converted to Islam in the early 10th century and created a highly sophisticated, urbane, mercantile Muslim society that, after stout resistance, was conquered by the Mongols in the early 13th century. Bowersock, Glen W. & al. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World pp.354 Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-674-51173-5.
There was a huge hole in my head for what was going on in this part of the world in this time period and you painted the picture perfectly. Love the work
@@rayzas4885 no he wasn’t one of the most important emperors in Europe’s history, he isn’t even in the top 20 or 30, far better and stronger empires existed than the weak Bulgarian empire which wasn’t even an empire since it was giant joke
@@poukaa7047 If you understand the meaning of the Golden Age of the Bulgarian culture during his reign and his campaigns of war as well, you would understand. If not, read more.
What people don't get is that the Bulgarians didn't want to destroy the Byzantine Empire. They wanted to BE the Byzantine Empire. To Rule the Empire themselves.
Correct . Also Bulgaria under Simeon was a more liberal state than Byzantine Empire and thus thousands of Greeks joined them , elevating in this way Bulgarian cultural status.
@@Boykofan I don't really think he wanted it that much. He used it as an excuse to exact tribute. The fact he only did besiege when there was a economic reason shows that. Krum was a different story. He would likely have took constantinople if he did not die just before.
Byzantines were very lucky that khan Krum died just before he attacks Constantinople. Byzantines were also very lucky Basil the Bulgarslayer escaped alive at Trajan gates.
This is my favorite ruler. I am from the city bearing his name. We are to 10km. from Veliki Preslav his capital. I set foot on these lands where the lord of the world walked, I walking in to the woodlands and mountains where he hunted. This is amazing ❤❤❤❤❤❤🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬❤❤❤❤❤❤
@@papazataklaattiranimam Hanim, Krum was never Khan He was Kanasubigi a title he got from the Avars Avars were a Tungus/Manchurian speaking people ---NOT TURKS
I thank the organizers of this great historical channel for their respect for cultures and religions, especially the languages of peoples. Thanks to you, I can watch videos in Arabic. Thank you very much 🏳️
Thank you for making a video on the topic! It’s nice that now people from other states can learn about Simeon’s reign. It would be nice to follow up with more videos on his rule as we actually know many details about his wars with the Byzantines which I guess were saved for another time.
HistoryMarche: makes a video about Bulgaria Bulgarians: :))) This was indeed an awesome video, it's rare that I learn something new about my own history. Your attention to details makes your videos really great 👍
Thanks so much for this awesome video!! It is so good to see people talk about my country's history and I am so happy about it. I would also like to mention an interesting theory that has been developing in Bulgarian historiography regarding knyaz Vladimir. According to this theory he did not try to move back to paganism, but instead was attempting to warm up relations with the German kingdom to the Nord, breaking the peace with Byzantium. This prompts Boris to come out of retirement and dethrone him, to keep the peace he had signed withe the Romans. Something supporting this theory is Simeons later foreign policy. The war over Thesaloniki was fought well while Boris was alive, yet he did not object, but the conflict was remarkably short and did not, like Simeons later campaigns, turn into an existential war over Constantinople. The war proper that was started by Alexander was some time after Boris had passed away, which is also reflected by Simeons change I policy. He did not only try to earn the title tsar, but also was attempting to become the guardian of the emperor, being a lot more ambitious. Now, the validity of this theory is... questionable, but I thought it would be interesting to share it as it is an interesting read on historical events.
@@alien-vx2bj yeah, which is really cool. In reality the entire history of the balkans is extremely intertwined, I remember reading an account of a Bulgarian in Romania in the 20th century noticing how many words there are in Romanian that are similar in Bulgarian.
To me sounds like modern politics trying to back-date ties with the Germans. As they have a long history of hating eachother. Just my cynical view though :)
@@METALFREAK03 um, no, as there is no real need for this as Bulgaria and Germany have other ties. WW1, WW2, the germans are Bulgarias biggest trading partner from 1925(around) to 1944(around), so no, this is not what the theory is about but it tries to explain Vladimirs actions as he should have known better than to backside to paganism(in theory, in practice, we can only speculate). Also, Germano-Bulgarian medieval relations exist and later are solidified during the reign of tsar Samuil who sends emissaries to the germans and a form of recognition is given to Bulgaria (here there is a lot of context I will not get into).
Simeon's biggest contribution remain the enormous cultural development of the whole region and establishing the use of Bulgarian as liturgy language (stepping on his father's work). It became the blueprint for other Slavic language speaking countries.
( Tomorow in the morning ! Koga vrba ķe rodi grozje ) ! It is well stipulated that it was Slav letterwrithing and Old Slavic as Lingua franca in Cristian Churches ! Contribution on Simeon of course is great but he accepted Slavianisation and Cristianity as former tengrist !! Just imagine why it was called Old Slav language ? Because he didnt bring it but found it in use when he came to grab parts of Makedonian oficial Province and accepted Slavic macedonian speaking language !
@@voskreglavincevska3651 he was not a former tengrist. He was born in 864 when Boris I converted to Christianity. Simeon was a Christian his whole life. And modern Bulgarians (and Bulgarians after the 9th century) ARE descendants of both Slavs and Bulgars. And the modern language is 100% Slavic. Old Bulgarian is 100% Slavic as well as it is the language of the Slavs that lived in Bulgaria and that assimilated the Bulgars.
this is a leader we need, a leader who loves knowledge and willing to fund them, never bribes but rather hired for services and not the politician who bribes, power seeking and luxuries lifestyle living
Thank you for the video . I can tell you that we have more great moments in the history , but also few downfalls . But no matter what , Bulgaria always prevail and raise up again .
Въпросът е ,че вече знаем много неща,с което разбира се Мацква не е съгласна,щото видиш ли те обичат ,,матрьошка,,! Само,че ние вече много отдавна не ги обичаме .... То ...кой ги обича ....
Very interesting as an American we only get this history through Roman history and have to dig pretty hard to find other sources, as always the comment section is as good as the video, thank you to everyone we should keep an open mind to our history.
Hi! Are you spanish bulgarian? How is life there and is it easy to migrate there?Do you have bulgarian schools there as well?I am asking because i want to know why there are more than 300 000 bulgarians there and if the life there is better than in the other western countries in the EU ,Russia or the USA?
no, sure no, you have trade mark with your military strategi expose. all history profile youtube pages have this boring and simple politicaly format, pls remain to the famous military format.
@@m.hughmungus121 Hannibal, for all the victories he claimed for Carthage, was undone by Carthaginian politics. It has always been politics that decided the fate of our civilizations. War is just an extension of politics.
Great video ! i would like to see one about Krum . He also expandet Bulgarian teritory and had a great victory vs Nikifor , using the uniqe strategy of abandoning the capital and later on crushing the enemy while they backed down after their ''decisive victory'' in Pliska. P.S. love the chanel
@@carlustin4034 Yes, one day I hope to learn as much as I can of the Bulgarian language and travel there, and I’d obviously like to do the same for Greece and Turkey
Great video. I am not happy though that the name of the alphabet that was mentioned to had been developed a little before and spread during Simeon's rule was not mentioned. This is the so-called Cyrillic alphabet, which many (wrongly) know as the "Russian alphabet". It is indeed the Bulgarian alphabet. Same as the Latin alphabet is called "Latin alphabet" and the Greek Alphabet is called "Greek alphabet" - the Cyrillic alphabet should be called "Bulgarian alphabet". Little people know that Cyrillic alphabet is one of two alphabets that were developed during this period and spread by Bulgarian religious and literature writers. The other alphabet is called "Glagolic alphabet" and was used up until the latest middle ages.
Hello guys @ History Marche. As a fan of your channel I'd like to thank you for the awesome videos you make. Historical events have become a lot more comprehensible and enjoyable than how we learned them from textbooks. If you don't mind, I'd like for you to share with me (or us) the historical sources you used for the making of this episode. I am Hungarian and have heard of all these things, but would be thrilled to read up on your much appriciated, historically proved data about this particular period of Central-European history. The reason I ask you for this is that we are being taught a different course of how and why events unfolded. Keep up the good work and thanks for the answer! 😁
"We are being taught a different course of how and why events unfolded" I'm really curious now? • Does "events" refer to the events of this video specifically (1st Bulgarian Empire), or just History ig? • "We are being taught"; taught by whom? Hungarian schools? • I am curious about the things you are taught? I am asking, because in the Balkans, that's a serious problem, and everyone is taught different things. • For example, Serbians are taught that Bulgaria wasn't happy with the the decided territories, so Bulgaria declared war on Serbia and that is how the 2nd Balkan war begun. • But in Bulgaria, we are taught a different part of the same story: after the 1st Balkan war, it was agreed how the won territories should be divided. However Serbia went against the first treaty, and kept the won territories. Knowing Bulgaria won't be happy, Serbia signed a secret alliance Treaty with Greece. Upon finding out, Bulgaria was left with no choice but to declare war. • And the fact that we are taught different things, or at least different parts of the same story causes problems and arguments. So I am extremely curious what you, please tell me more :)
@@cerebrummaximus3762 I can't answer for Gabor and the Hungarians in general (as I'm Bulgarian myself), but from what I've seen, they indeed see their settling in Pannonia (Honfoglalas) in a slightly different way, i.e. as the culmination of a long process of colonization of the region which had supposedly been happening even before those events, with the battle of the Southern Buh being usually either completely dismissed as a factor in this or largely ignored. In that regard, I'd say those views are largely normal or at least expectable - all nations have a "national myth", a favoured view of their history and founding, with a more positive focus and interpretation of the events. It's similar, for example, to how we in Bulgaria tend to interpret the second Arab siege of Constantinople - we focus solely on "our own" participation, we cherry pick the primary sources which mention how "the Arabs feared the Bulgars more than the Romans" etc, and we largely ignore all other factors (Roman navy, walls of Constantinople, preparations of Roman emperors and failings of the Arab command, etc), just as considerable or perhaps even more important, for the Arab loss and the Bulgarian-Byzantine victory then. In any case, I personally find it quite interesting how connected Bulgarian and Hungarian histories are - we might have been connected in Old Great Bulgaria (some people even speculate that the Arpads and the Dulo dynasty were related), then Hungary and Danubian Bulgaria were neighbours for centuries (Leo VI in his Taktika noting a bunch of times how similar the Bulgarian and Magyar armies and leadership are), while at the same time Volga Bulgaria and Great Hungary (the Magyar homeland, per Friar Julian's mission in the early 13th c.) were neighbours as well in the east. Heck, it's the Hungarian court which preserved the Bulgarian royal title all the way into the times of the Austrian Empire, long after the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria. And perhaps most importantly - IIRC, the modern brewing of beer was actually first brought here by the Hungarians of Lajos Kossuth. ;)
🚩 Install Friends & Dragons for free 🐲 iOS/Android: fndga.me/3sdwp9g and get a special bonus pack 🏵 🚩 This video was produced in collaboration with Bulgarian Empire Mapping, check out their channel and give them the credit that they deserve! ruclips.net/channel/UCD-0LPbxri4fSvd0UoisIfg - Big shout to BEM for collaborating with us on this video!
Firstly, The Seven Slavic tribes were military allies of the Proto-Bulgars, and upon the formation of Danubian Bulgaria, vassals of the Proto-Bulgars, and by the time Boris (even Krum's diplomat to the Romans had a Slavic name), Slavic princely vassals had seized all positions of power, barring the position of marshal of Bulgaria's armies and that of the ruling dynasty, so Boris choosing Christianity, Slavic culture and literacy over the other options are not surprising, after all, his best friend and closest ally were Grand Zupan Sivin, another Slav. Secondly, the First and Second Bulgarian Empires were Slavic, not Turkic civilizations, even the Pliska-Preslav, a Slavo-Bulgarian material culture, was predominately Slavic. Furthermore, the names of the original Proto-Bulgar rulers weren't predominately Turkic but Indo-Iranian, whereas only two bore Slavic names and two had genuine Turkic names - this tells us that the ruling elites of the migrating Proto-Bulgars were heterogeneous, rather than homogeneous. Thirdly, The identity of the Proto-Bulgars has never been properly defined. Additionally, the Bulgars used the title "Khan" (hint: it was already mentioned that the only attested Bulgar royal title from the primary sources is "Kanasubigi" (which, some are translating through the Slavic "Knyaz u Bogu", meaning "ruler by God", a phrase which itself is common in the rest of the early Bulgar inscriptions written on Greek). The Bulgars being Turkic? We’re addressing primary sources, not modern historians who thought “They came from the East, therefore they're Asians”. And if they're Asians and probably nomadic, then they must be Turkophones and Tengri-worshippers." Or as one of the modern Bulgarian historians put it: "Why are they Turkic? Because they worship Tangra. And why do they worship Tangra? Because they're Turkic." In other words, circular reasoning. Besides, how can the Bulgars be Turkic, considering they were first mentioned (in Europe, by the Romans, in the mid-4th century) long before the first Turks formed in their Asian homeland (6th century)? If someone wants to argue about the Bulgars being potentially and partially descended from the Huns (and the eventual later influences by the emerging Turkophone tribes such as the Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans, etc) - that's a much more defensible point. But the classical Turkic theory has fallen under so much disrepute by modern scholarship that there are only two groups of scholars left still supporting it: communist hardliners and Westerners, who made no research of their own and are merely repeating what the old-time authorities had established as "the truth". In short, Proto-Bulgarians or 'Bulgars' weren't Turkic, but they used certain Turkic vocabulary and military terminology. They most likely originated in the North Caucasus and were linked to the late Sarmatian and post-Scythian populations. After ~460 AD there were some Oghur Turkic infiltrations among the nobility and Turkic influence in general, but the basis of the Bulgars is Indo-Iranian, not Turkic. One just needs to observe the Madara rider - its composition and symbolism refer to the Iranian cultural domain, not the Turkic one. The same goes for the treasures of Nad Sent Miklosh, Mala Pereshcepina, the temple ruins of Pliska, as well as the burial customs discovered in the mounds of Devnya, Nozharevo, Tuhovishte, and many others.
Each one of these tribes has a name, right? They are a little uncomfortable for the supporters of the Slavic theory. The truth is simple, but disguised with new names of the old tribes, which are very far from the Iranian myths😊
Bulgarian castles and palaces of the Golden Age had internal plumbing. The were built according to ancient Proto-Bulgarian techniques, without the use of mortar. They were deliberately destroyed in the 1850s by the Turks, to humiliate the Bulgarians and to use the material to build the railway of Baron Hirsch (the first railway to cross the Ottoman Empire).
Simeon is not talked about enough. Thank you for making a video on this topic. Simeon is for the East/South Slavs and Bulgarians what Charlamagne was for the Franks.
@@zdeneknovak455 he and his father created the cyrillic alphabet used by more than 250 million people today (the majority of whom are slavs). During his rain the spread of Orthodox Christianity and Slavic culture was enormous. That layed the foundation for much of Slavic culture and literature.
@@zdeneknovak455 LOL It was more than that. A whole civilization was created with its own alphabet. Cyrillic alphabet . In 10th century Bulgaria Church sermon was in Old Bulgarian (Slavonik) books were written in Old Bulgarian. In Western Europe that happen 500 years later after Reformation and Martin Luter.They used only Latin until 15th century.927 Bulgaria had its own Patriarch . Kings did not need to go to Rome or Constantinople to be crowned. But yes you can support Russian propaganda which does not want to admit the significance of the First Bulgarian Kingdom . Charlemane was illiterate and had to bow to the pope. Simeon was well educated completed the University of Constantinople,Magnaura fluent in Greek and Bulgarian running Preslav and Ochrid Literary schools. Written manuscripts by Clement, Naum, Constantine of Preslav, Chernorizec Hrabar, Simeon itself,Cosma Monk only from 10th century and etc . are Slavic heritage.I could've only been sorry for you whose sermons were in Latin at that time. Though everything had been destroyed by invadors it is fascinating that in Monastiries inscriptions from 10th century all alphabets were presented Latin,Greek,Glagolitik and Cyrilik in St .Panteleimon and Preslav,Ochrid , Ravna and etc Books were translated in Bulgarian . in 10th century. It is more significant than Charlagmain. In this manuscripts is sited st Cyril who made the Pope to accept that Slavic language must be allowed to be used in sermons and preaching. Much more ahead in time even from Martin Luter and Reformation. Charlamaighn is much beneath the significance of the accomplishments of Boris and Simeon.
@@georgimihalkov9678 edit: oh, my bad, I confused cyrillic alphabet with glagolic, the oldest slavic alphabet, which was then slightly edited. You know, for quite many Slavs it doesn't really matter, because we don't use it. So why should Symeon matter for us, or even be our Charlemagne?
@@carlustin4034 yup. it was. But it doesn't matter for quite many Slavs who don't use it. That's why claiming Symeon is superimportant for all Slavs is ridiculous.
@@papazataklaattiranimam Turkic Slavic and other ethnicities ..The class of rulers and nobles is Turkic, but the people are mostly Slavs, with a sizeable minority of Bulgars who are nomadic Turkic tribes
The Bulgarian Empire was great because was able to incorporate many cultures and create own by Boris I distinctive from that of Rome and Constantinople. At that time Western Europe used only Latin and was controlled spiritually by Rome. Eastern Roman Empire used Greek. Boris I managed to gain Church and cultural independence. The advanced Western states started using their languages 600 years later in administration and liturgy, Boris I and Simeon established that in 9th and early 10th century. They adopted glagolitik alphabet created by st. Kyril and Methodius and commissioned ''cyrilik'' alphabet created in monasteries of their kingdom. Many Empires used others languages Latin,Greek,Persian,Arab. Ottoman Empire used some versions of Persian and Arab. Turkish language was started being used in the late 19th and early 20th and fully after language reform in Turkish republic by Cemal Ataturk in the 1930s . Proto -Bulgarians were cultured people they built cities Pliska,Preslav ,Draster ..they were not simple nomads. The first who established state in Danubian delta Asparuh built intricate defense limes on the borders of his state.
@Gaytanity 638 Bulgarian kids think they found First and Second Bulgarian Empire😹 despite that their ruling classes being of Turkic Bulgar and Cuman origin lol
@@papazataklaattiranimam Wrong again Hanim, 1. Show primary sources that show Tengrinism in Bulgaria 2. Show Primary sources that show that the word Bulgarian comes from Bulgamak
There was 50 years of peace. The son of Simeon ,Peter was more Christian and schooler. Than came invasion of Kieviean Russ , Svyatoslav was paid to attack Bulgaria by Byzantium. He conquered Eastern part of Bulgaria. Byzantians turned against him. He was exosted already by the war with Bulgarians
@@Δούρειος_96 Yes a video will be nice. After Simeon was the longest peace between Byzantia and Bulgaria. Peter was married to Byzantian princes.First of foreigners married to Eastern Roman princes.His sons were taken prisoners in Byzantia and castrated . One of the princes was named Roman on his grandfather Roman Lokapenos.. Eastern Bulgaria was taken by Kievan Russ later by Byzantium. And then came the clash between Samuel and Basil II. Basil II won though called Bulgaroktonos he was a very noble man.
TO ALL PANTURK TROLLS ON BULGARIAN SITES 1. SHOW PRIMARY SOURCES OF TENGRINISM IN BULGARIA 2. SHOW PRIMARY SOURCES THAT SHOW THAT THE WORD BULGARIAN COMES FROM BULGAMAK
@mura Procheti kakvo pishe Zhivko Voynikov za PraBulgarskiat Bog Siavush ili Siva Bog Te sabili Rodni Hora na Alanite Procheti statiete na Zhivko Voynikov online
With regard to topology, the obtained tree divides the modern Turkic languages into six principal sub-branches (in the order of their divergence): Bulgharic, North Siberian, South Siberian, Khalaj-Salar, Oghuz, and Kipchak-Karluk (‘Macro-Kipchak’). The time-depth of the Turkic family on the maximum credibility tree is estimated to be around 2,066 years BP (median height of the node), with a 95% highest posterior density between 1,517 and 2,755 years BP. The topology and the age of the obtained tree are discussed in further detail in Section 6. The early split between the Bulgharic branch and the Common Turkic languages shapes the Turkic language family as a clear-cut binary structure. This agrees with most of the previous classifications of the Turkic language family, whether they are based on the historical-comparative or lexicostatistic approaches (Tekin 1990: 16; Menges 1995: 60-1; Johanson 1998: 81-3; Dybo 2006: 766-817, 2013: 18; Mudrak 2009: 172-79). Alexander Savelyev, Martine Robbeets, Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 39-53 Bulgars (Turkic bulgha-'to mix, stir up, disturb', i.e. 'rebels') A Turkic tribal union of the Pontic steppes that gave rise to two important states: Danubian Balkan Bulgaria (First Bulgarian Empire, 681-1018) and Volga Bulgaria (early 10th century-1241). They derived from Oghuric-Turkic tribes, driven westward from Mongolia and south Siberia to the Pontic steppes in successive waves by turmoil associated with the Xiungnu and subsequently by warfare between the Rouran/Avar and northern Wei states. in Oliver Nicholson, The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2018, ISBN 0192562460, p. 271.. At the time,the new Khazar qaganate was expanding westward, squeezing out the Onogurs ,or Bulghars as they begin to be named. One of the Kuvrat’s sons,the Asparuch (Asparux,Isperih) now celebrated as the founder of Bulgaria ,forcibly crossed to the Danube arpund 679 to occupy imperial territory Moesia after defeating the forces of Constantine IV (668-685). The event is recorded in the preserved text of a Hebrew letter of a Khazar qahan,who wrote that the Vununtur(=Onogurs=Bulghars) has fled across the Duna,the Danube. Even if numerous for the steppe,Asparuch’s pastoralist warriors and their families were of necessity relatively few as compared to the agricultural Slav population that lived south of the Danube,and thus the Turkic-speaking Bulghars were assimilated linguistically by the Slav majority to form the medieval and modern Bulgarians. This particular ethnogenesis occuree gradually over a period of more than two centuries: there was the Turkic qan (or khan) Krum (803-814), Qan Omurtag (814-831), Qan Presian (836-852), then the wan who converted Boris I (852-889); then came Tsar Symeon (893-923), Tsar Peter I (927-970),and so on .But this transformation of Turkic shamanists into Slavic Christians did nothing to diminish the warlike character of the empire’s new neighbours. Because even warlike neighbours can be useful at times,the relations between the empire and the new Bulghar qaganate encompassed every possible variation,from intimate allience to all out-war,as exemplified by the career of the Bulghar qan or khan Tervel (or Tarvel-Terbelis in our Greek sources),the successor and probably son of Asparukh who ruled for some twenty-one years within the period 695-721,extant chronologies being inconsistent. “Bulghars and Bulgarians.” The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, by EDWARD N. LUTTWAK, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, 2009, pp. 173 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 The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states. The ethnonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-, "to stir, mix, disturb, confuse." The confederation appears to have taken shape among Oghur tribes in the Kazakh steppes following the migrations that were touched off by movements of the Hsiung-nu. Later Byzantine sources (Agathon, Nicephorus Patriarchus, Theophanes) closely associate or identify the Bulgars with the Onoghurs, who were enemies of Sassanid Iran in the late 4th century. When or how this connection developed is unclear. If we discount several (most probably) anachronistic notices on the Bulgars in Moses Kliorenats'i (Moses of Chorene), the earliest references to them are perhaps to be found in an anonymous Latin chronograph of 354: "Vulgares." They are absent from Priscus's account of the migration, ca. 463, of the Oghuric Turks into the Pontic steppes, but by 480 they are noted under their own name as allies of Constantinople against the Ostrogoths. Amity with Byzantium was short-lived. By 489 the Bulgars had initiated a series of raids on Byzantine Balkan possessions. Their habitat, at this stage, appears to have been in the eastern Pontic steppes stretch-ing into the Azov region and North Caucasus. It is here that Jordanes and Pseudo-Zacharius Ithetor place them in the mid-6th century. Shortly afterward, they were overrun and subjugated by the Avars and then the Turks. When Turk rule weakened, sometime after 600, the Avars appear to have reestablished some control over the region. It was against Avar rule that the Bulgars-under their leader Qubrat, whom Heraclius had been cultivating for some rime (he and his uncle were baptized in Constantinople to 619)-revolted ca. 631-632 and founded the Onoghundur-Bulgar state. Some time after Qubrat's death (660s), this Pontic - Maeotun Bulgaria, whose Balkan descendents would also claim Attilid origins, came into conflict with the Khazar khaganate, successor to the Turk empire in western Eurasia. The Khazars emerged victorious from the contest, and parts of the Bulgar union broke up and migrated. One grouping under Asperukh in 679 crossed the Danube into Moesia and, having subjugated a local Slavic confederatton, there laid the foundation for the Balkan Bulgarian state. Yet other groups joined the Avar state in Pannonia (where some would prove to be rebellious subjects or took up restience in Italy around the five Rasennate cities, to live as Byzantine subjects.The other Bulgars either remained in the Pontic steppe zone the (the “Black Bulgars” of Byzantine and Rus’ sources) or later migrated (perhaps as early as the mid-7th century or as late as the mid-8th to early 9th century) to the middle Volga region, giving rise there to the Volga Bulgarian state, which remained, however a vassal of the Khazars. Balkan Bulgaria soon became an important element in Byzantine politics, on occasion supporting contestants to the throne and also helping to defeat the Arab attack on Constantinople of 717-18.The iconoclastic Emperor Constantine (741-775) began a series of wars against them that remained a constant theme of Byzantine-Bulgarian relations until the destruction of the first Bulgarian empire by Basil II (976-1025).In 864 the Bulgarian king Boris, outmaneuvered by Constantinople, converted to Christianity. Thereafter, the Turkic Bulgars underwent Slavicization, and Balkan Bulgaria became one of the centers of medieval Slavic. The Volga Bulgars, however, converted to Islam in the early 10th century and created a highly sophisticated, urbane, mercantile Muslim society that, after stout resistance, was conquered by the Mongols in the early 13th century. Bowersock, Glen W. & al. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World pp.354 Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-674-51173-5.
@@papazataklaattiranimam Wrong again Hanim The inscription is too badly destroyed to be readable Never was any Tengri or Tangra worshiped in Bulgaria If Tangra was suchan important god then why are there no place names in Bulgaria namedTangra?
Very well described and accurate video I can say as being... well... Bulgarian. I would like to see a battle strategy video as well... preferably some where we get to kick some ass.
@@anxileelcouncil4105 if Tsar Samuil had the elite Bulgarian cavalry or at least half of it then Basil II wouldve been a wine drinking cup in the office of the Tsar
I always find myself rooting for the Bulgarians. I like the Byzantines, but the Bulgarian region has always been pretty plucky. vs the Ottomans, vs eastern horse tribes, always pushing back. Lots of interesting history.
@@anxileelcouncil4105 one of the first battles basil 2 almost gets captured with his whole army annihilated by the bulgarians. Basil runs like a frightened rabbit all the way to constantinople escaping by the skin of his teeth. So yeah can watch that one too.
The imperial title itself wasn’t the only issue the Romans had. Simeon had claimed the title emperor of the Romans, which was in direct competition with the Byzantine empire which also claimed the title, which itself was the claim of universal empire. Peter kept the title “emperor of the bulgars”, which was a concession he made to keep peace.
The Problem with the Byzantines is that they see themselves as " Lord of the Metropolises" and they didn't bother developing the contriside, they put too much focus on the Polis, making the countryside prone to foreign invaders settling in and taking over.
Careful to avoid conflating various interest groups in Byzantine society. The court and its bureaucracy, in general, may be said to have had more of an urban perspective on the empire's interests, since the cities were the centers of trade and commerce. But the increasingly powerful aristocracy, particularly in Asia Minor, had a very different perspective and naturally wanted to maintain a strong army along the borders to protect their lands from raids. (This actually helped lead to the pivotal Battle of Manzikert, as the provincial aristocracy succeeded in putting one of their own on the throne and forced a battle with the Seljuks that could've easily been avoided with the usual diplomatic approach of buying off Rome's enemies). And in general, there were "court emperors" and "field emperors" and the emperors more comfortable campaigning with the army by no means tolerated raids on their territory.
The problem of the Byzantines is that they were surrounded by enemies without having much of natural terrain protection. Except for Constantinople with sea borders and massive walls and Thessaloniki and a not well garrisoned fortress at Adrianople the rest was open field for Bulgarians in the north and the Muslims to the east. They were most of the time at war on at least 2 fronts and since they were the "seat" of eastern orthodoxy, no help came from the Catholics, who also wanted Constantinople for themselves, hence the Latin Empire. So they had to bribe everyone around them to either stop the attack or someone else to attack their aggressors. Bulgaria in this manor was the same, the difference is she stood the test of time. Except for several great leaders we had, the rest of time it was a struggle for power and surrounded by enemies on each front. In the end the collapse of the Second Bulgarian Empire was partly the result of Bulgarian royalty brothers who split Bulgaria into 3 kingdoms and wouldn't help each other against the ottomans. Not like they could have been stopped at the time, but if the Christian world saw at the time the treat as a common one, not everyone from every branch of Christianity for themselves, Europe could look different today.
Nikov is the first Bulgarian historian to pay special attention to, and attri bute great significance to, the Turkic components in the Bulgarian ethnogen esis (i.e., after the Bulgars) and among the ruling aristocracy. He elaborated on the issue of the "Turkic element's" influence upon Bulgarian history in a 1928 unpublished manuscript (delivered as a public lecture). Nikov began with the following policy-setting statement: There is no period in our history on which the Turkic element did not exert its strongest influence and did not leave the deepest traces in the development of our people. [...] None of the Balkan peoples has experi enced the Turkic influence so strongly as our people, The Turkic pressure began from Central Asia and had two directions to the northwest through southern Russia, and to the southwest through Persia and Asia Minor. The Bulgarian state was founded due to one of the Turkic peoples, the Bulgars, who themselves joined a number of Turkic tribal alliances (of Huns, Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Avars, and Khazars). During Byzantine rule, the Turkic Pechenegs and Uz came from the north; many of them crossed the Danube and were assimilated by the Bulgarian people. Then came the Cumans, without whose decisive help the uprising of Asenevtsi would hardly have succeeded. Thus, just as the First Bulgarian Kingdom was founded with the help of the Turkic Bulgars, the Second Kingdom was founded with "the decisive collabora tion of the Turkic Cumans."129 Not only did Cumans settle south of the Danube and become assimilated and absorbed by the Slavic-Bulgarian people, but they were also of great significance politically in the Second Kingdom, whose dynas ties all had Cuman blood in them. There were also many Bulgarian boyars of Cuman origin, including Balic in Dobrudzha. It could even be said that the Cumans acquired a dominant position in the political life of the state. 130 There followed the influence of the Mongol Tartars, who even supplied one Bulgarian king, Chaka. But of greatest importance were the Ottoman and Seljuk Turks, who conquered the Balkans from Asia Minor. Concerning the Cumans, Nikov considers the "transfusion of blood" from Turkic "elements" an asset, a means of rejuvenating and strengthening the "race" and enhancing the vitality of the Bulgarian people (in contrast with the conquering Turks).
That might not be the case. Technically Tervel was the one who got the title "Caesar" which is what Tsar derives from. And Tervel got it formally from the ERE.
Psssss.....Rise of Ivaylo video since we're on this Bulgarian subject. I remembering pulling up a wikipedia page that listed every war between Bulgaria and the Eastern Roman Empire and my jaw dropped. I am glad channels are giving them coverage now.
With all this conflict between Bulgars, Serbs and Byzantines it always strikes me why no-one could seem to forsee the danger to ALL the Christian people that Islam represented.
@@zarni000 They called Savoyard crusade to help against Turks and sent it on Bulgarians LOL . Beforehand shiped Turks as far to Dobrudga and danube delta to attack Bulgarians. In the war in 1913 Greece ,Romania and Serbia made Bucurest treaty signed on JULY 1913to make sure their conquests of Bulgarian lands and did not allow Turkey to join negotiations . So Turkey was left 2 months against Bulgaria to complete the genocide in Eastern Thrace Bulgaria signed separate treaty with Turkey in Constantinople on 29th of September 1913. Turkey wanted to participate in Bucuresti in 25th of July. But Greeks , Serbians and Romanians decided it was best Turkey kill more Bulgarians and take back more territories from Bulgaria . Constntinople was supplied with guns and amunitions from port of Constanta during the First and Second Balkan war. In the genocide of Bulgarians in Eastern Thrace participated Greek volunteers armed by Greece alongside their Turkish brothers . Who few years after did the same against them. LOL . They want to unite with them LOL
The theory that the Bulgarians are nomadic Turks has no confirmation either in the sources or in DNA and other anthropological studies. Sources, including those from the Eastern Roman Empire, claim that the Bulgars were those Balkan tribes who fled north from the Danube River after unsuccessful wars. The Bulgarians were part of the Moesi and Getae-Daci
@@avoider707that's only true for late term Volga, just like how we got Slavicised they got Turkified by the predominantly turkic demographics of the Urals.
Hello, the title in spanish "¿Cómo superó Bulgaria al imperio romano occidental? ⚔️ La conquista de Simeon el grande" is wrong. The correct title would be "¿Cómo superó Bulgaria al Imperio romano de Oriente? ⚔️ La conquista de Simeón el Grande". I hope you can change it, and good video by the way
TO ALL PANTURKS ON BULGARIAN SITES YOU HAVE BETRAYED AND ABANDONED YOUR TURKIC UIGHUR BROTHERS WHY DON'T YOU HAVE THE COURAGE TO SUPPORT THE UIGHURS ON CHINESE SITES? INSTEAD OF BOTHERING BULGARIANS
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
🚩 Install Friends & Dragons for free 🐲 iOS/Android: fndga.me/3sdwp9g and get a special bonus pack 🏵
🚩 This video was produced in collaboration with Bulgarian Empire Mapping, check out their channel and give them the credit that they deserve! ruclips.net/channel/UCD-0LPbxri4fSvd0UoisIfg - Big shout to BEM for collaborating with us on this video!
Hey historymarche could you cover the fight of didgori? From Georgian history please
There's an error in the spanish translation of the video title, it says occidental instead of oriental!
I thought Krum the dreadful was called Krum the fearsome? What are the sources that depict him as the dreadful? Great video as always and for me especially because one of the many holes i have to fill in history.
@@georgiancountryball202 he should make Battle of Garni, Bolnisi, Krtsanisi etc.
@@georgiancountryball202 mid country
Finally someone does a video on Simeon the Great
Bulgarian Empire Mapping has some cool videos. Check out his channel ruclips.net/channel/UCD-0LPbxri4fSvd0UoisIfg . This video was made in collaboration with him.
The battle of Achelous deserves a video of its own.
Thats true
Edhaje made a Battle of Achelous on his own
Hope they do it
Largest battle in medieval Europe so far
I concur. The Battle of Achelous is one of the most important in Medieval Europe. Will be very glad to see History Marche doing it 🙏💜
Pleasure working with you on this one!
Same here! Very much looking forward to the next project!
Big credit here for @Bulgarian Empire Mapping. Check out his channel everyone: ruclips.net/channel/UCD-0LPbxri4fSvd0UoisIfg
@@HistoryMarche Sometime about A.D. 463 a series of nomadic migrations was set off in Inner Asia... Archeological and literary evidence permits us to place the homeland of these newcomers, the Oghur tribes, in Western Siberia and the Kazakh steppes... The Oghurs were part of a large Turkic tribal grouping known in Chinese sources as the Tieh-lê, who were to be found in Inner Asia as well The fluidity of the situation in the steppes is mirrored in our sources, a kaleidoscope of dissolving and reforming tribal unions... Although some of the antecedents of this important migration are still unclear, there can be no doubt that the 0ghur tribes now became the dominant element in the Ponto-Caspian steppes. The term Oghur denoted “grouping of kindred tribes, tribal union” and figures in their ethnonyms: Onoghur, Saraghur, etc. The language of these Oghur tribes, which survives today only in Chuvash, was distinct from that of Common Turkic. In 480 we find our earliest firm notice on the Bulghars (“Mixed Ones”), a large conglomeration of Oghur, Hunnic and other elements. In addition, we have reports about the activities of the Kutrighurs and Utrighurs who appear in our sources under their own names, as “Huns” and perhaps even as “Bulghars.” Their precise relationship to the latter cannot be determined with any certainty, but all three clearly originated in the same Hunno-Oghur milieu.
Golden, P. (1990). The peoples of the south Russian steppes, p. 257, in D. Sinor (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (pp. 256-284). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521243049.011 .
Good cooperation. Do more together.
Брат ше го кажа щото още никой не го е казал и щото съм локален шувенист, ама Видин не се е казвал Видин по това време 🤣😂🤣😅
@@HistoryMarche You are both idiots. In that period, was a Valaho-Bulgarian Empire, not a bulgarian one. Was a union between valahians, which were some kind of romanians, and bulgarians.
Bulgaria has a great history. Greetings from Albania 🇦🇱❤️🇧🇬
Bulgaria has great history due to Turkic warrior ruling dynasty Dulo
@@papazataklaattiranimam
Hanim
Dulo is an Sarmatian word DWAL meaning Tribe
Thracian --DULOS -Child ,Descendant
Celtic-------DEULU--Family
Ancient Greek--TELOS -Family, Tribe
From the IndoEuropean root DEU or TEU --FAMILY/TRIBE
T.T. Kambolov ,History of the Ossetian Language 6.2, Ossetian Synonyms
@@petertodorov1792 Burmov, Peter B. Golden, Gyula Németh and Panos Sophoulis concluded that claiming of Attilid descent shows the intermingling of European Huns elements with newly arrived Oğuric Turkic groups, as the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples.
@@petertodorov1792 Gyula ~ dzila are from the j - Turkic jula form . Jula is an old Turkic dignity name . Jula appears on the list of Bulgar princes as dulo . Jula was a personal name in the age of Arpád .
@@petertodorov1792 The Dulo clan noted in the later Bulgarian Prince List , has been connected with the Tu - lu subconfederation of the Western Türk / On Oq noted in the Chinese sources ( Pritsak , " Stammesnamen " , p . 55 , Fürstenliste , p .64
Its kinda sad how underrated the influence of the first bulgarian empire is in the mainstream hustirical narrative thank you guys soo much for making this video
@Jotaro97 lmfao you are cleary trying to either troll the comments or you basically never opened a book about the bulgarian golden age in the preslav and its influence on serbia, romania and the rus
Yes, the Arab siege, the Cyrillic, the first Slavic Patriarchate, the recognition as an empire, the move of the Hungarians. It's not only the First but the Second too. The cathars for example are washed out of any Bulgarian influence, although they were known as the "Bulgarian cult" this is how words originating in the Bulgarian ethnonym came into English for example. The influence of the cathars over the later religious reforms just can't be related to Bulgaria. I believe someone told the story of how Old Bulgarian turned into Old Church Slavonic.
Bulgarians are just not people who will push themselves out there about all of this, and in general but would rather criticize themselves. Only recently I see some changes in this but they come in a rather negative way by some emotional youngsters who don't research serious sources but just get carried away with sci-fi essays.
True
"Simeon hired another nomadic people the Pechenegs to attack the Magyars"
Byzantines: Wait that's illigel
Ironically the Magyars after this defeat become a bigger threat since they eventually manage to kick the Bulgarians out of Pannonia and Transylvania
@@Δούρειος_96 And also began raiding Bulgaria and Byzantium during the reign of Peter
@@tonit4233 yep I wonder if we would had Hungary in Pannonia if Bulgaria hadn't won that battle
@@Δούρειος_96 On the other side the Pechenegs will become a reliable ally in the next centuries and defend the Bulgarian cause all throughout the Second Bulgarian Empire.
@@unlivethesystem8634 true didn't they form some sort of union in the 13th century?
I would like to point out how important Simeon the Great is for understanding Eastern European history. Simeon the Great was the first person in history to bear the title tsar (Slavic for Ceaser, i.e. Emperor). During his rule the Bulgarian empire experienced it's Golden Age, with much literature and cultural output. The invention, spread of Cyrillic and the already ongoing Christianization of the Slavs was greatly hastened due to the Bulgarian empire. Old church Slavonic, the language that Cyrillic was written in, was to become the liturgical language and the lingua franca of Orthodox Slavs throughout Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. Furthermore, Bulgaria set a precedent after the 927 establishment and recognition of the Bulgarian patriarchate, with every nation which accepted Christianity (Constantinople rite/Eastern Orthodoxy) establishing it's own patriarchate. Examples are Serbian and Russian empire later on.
Furthermore in the 10th century the First Bulgarian empire was the most urbanized region in Europe alongside Italy and Preslav (the capital) was the second largest Christian city after Constantinople. (source is First Bulgarian Empire -wikipedia). In understanding Eastern Orthodox civilization, The First Bulgarian Empire is perhaps second only to the Eastern Romans themselves and the Russians. Thus, Simeon the Great is truly the Charlemagne of the East.
Edit: Boris, his father, also played a significant role in establishing the Golden Age.
Tsar does not come from Ceaser but from the assyrian sar.
@@uragirimono6519 I think you will find it does indeed come from Ceasar.
@@kolai8862 nope you're wrong
@@uragirimono6519 No, it comes from Caesar/Czar
@@uragirimono6519 nope you’re wrong
-Academician Omelyan Pritsak (specialist in medieval history) from Harvard University told COMPARED TO THE DESCENDANT OF ATTILES - KING SIMEON I THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR LOOKED LIKE A PARVENU ”
- The French historian Alfred Rambo - "Tsar Simeon was Charlemagne for Bulgaria, but more educated than our Charlemagne and much happier than him, because he laid the foundations of a national literature."
Something about seeing Bulgarians and franks sharing a border looks so cool
More interesting is on which evangelical book the french kings gave their oath. (Tip: it was written in Cyrilic) 😊 but i feel good when I think about how important that Evangelie was for them. Nowadays the book is in the Castle of the British royal family. This fact is enough to show that we weren't some bunga bunga nomads.. like they represent us mostly. We came few thousand people, we got the Slavs like allies and we somehow made a miracle- Empire. The whole Thracians just disappeared somehow 😁. More interesting is that there are still people in Bulgaria who are romei/romans(and they speak Romaika, the greek language is Elinika) but nobody says "I am thracian". Paradox
Common border was a fact after the annihilation of the Avar khaganate by both the Franks and the Bulgars.
Franks led by Charlemagne annihilated the Avars in 793, that’s about 120 years before Simeon
@@johnnyboy3410 In 805 khan Krum annihilated the remains of the Avar khaganate and established a common Franko-Bulgarian border.
@@ra-ge main Avar strength was crushed by Charlemagne, Krum finished them off
Greetings for Bulgarian brothers from Serbia. They were badasses at the time.
Greetings fellow slav brother!
We balkan slavs have the power of rakia, artistic curse words, serbian music and AK47 on our side. lol
We Balkan people will be badasses together again. Just need some time to get along.
Brother LOL Backstabbing brother
@@carlustin4034 *1885 intensifies*
But yea, having our “forces” act as MP in occupational zones during ww2 was kinda arse move from our side.
Happy to see Bulgarian history being shared. Great video!
When i read Bulgarian history... Its aways feel strange, how small nomadic tribe was able to defeat such a power like the Romans... I think there is a lot more behide the Bulgarian history from what we know today... Reading the history of the country it sound more like fiction than history... To achieve such victories i believe Bulgaria must be much older than 681 !
Bulgarians were settling in modern day Bulgaria as early as 480s during emperor Anastasius. The whole theory about them being just a few thousands warriors who were melted into the slavic Sea is false. Armenian sources say that there were Bulgarians north of the Caucasus as early as 2nd century AD
Yes the history isn't full and if someone has found something it isn't fully proven.
@Ebazel
Brother,
I love your videos
The only thing I would add is our ancestors were in Armenia and the Caucasus from at least the 1st century AD
The Armenian region of Vanand is named after the Bulgarian leader Vanand from the 1st century AD
Please read Dr. Zhivko Voynikov and Petar Goliyski Phd
@@bulgariainsight429 Това е да си тотално неук. Какви 20 години те гонят какви 5 лева? Въобще не са били эавэели повечето от Европа. Бърэата им инвазия не оэначава че са контролирали много от това което се покаэва на мапа.
Lol nationalist people wrote Too much pseudo historical bs things… open some academic books
With regard to topology, the obtained tree divides the modern Turkic languages into six principal sub-branches (in the order of their divergence): Bulgharic, North Siberian, South Siberian, Khalaj-Salar, Oghuz, and Kipchak-Karluk (‘Macro-Kipchak’). The time-depth of the Turkic family on the maximum credibility tree is estimated to be around 2,066 years BP (median height of the node), with a 95% highest posterior density between 1,517 and 2,755 years BP. The topology and the age of the obtained tree are discussed in further detail in Section 6.
The early split between the Bulgharic branch and the Common Turkic languages shapes the Turkic language family as a clear-cut binary structure. This agrees with most of the previous classifications of the Turkic language family, whether they are based on the historical-comparative or lexicostatistic approaches (Tekin 1990: 16; Menges 1995: 60-1; Johanson 1998: 81-3; Dybo 2006: 766-817, 2013: 18; Mudrak 2009: 172-79).
Alexander Savelyev, Martine Robbeets, Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 39-53
Bulgars (Turkic bulgha-'to mix, stir up, disturb', i.e. 'rebels') A Turkic tribal union of the Pontic steppes that gave rise to two important states: Danubian Balkan Bulgaria (First Bulgarian Empire, 681-1018) and Volga Bulgaria (early 10th century-1241). They derived from Oghuric-Turkic tribes, driven westward from Mongolia and south Siberia to the Pontic steppes in successive waves by turmoil associated with the Xiungnu and subsequently by warfare between the Rouran/Avar and northern Wei states. in Oliver Nicholson, The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2018, ISBN 0192562460, p. 271..
At the time,the new Khazar qaganate was expanding westward, squeezing out the Onogurs ,or Bulghars as they begin to be named. One of the Kuvrat’s sons,the Asparuch (Asparux,Isperih) now celebrated as the founder of Bulgaria ,forcibly crossed to the Danube arpund 679 to occupy imperial territory Moesia after defeating the forces of Constantine IV (668-685). The event is recorded in the preserved text of a Hebrew letter of a Khazar qahan,who wrote that the Vununtur(=Onogurs=Bulghars) has fled across the Duna,the Danube. Even if numerous for the steppe,Asparuch’s pastoralist warriors and their families were of necessity relatively few as compared to the agricultural Slav population that lived south of the Danube,and thus the Turkic-speaking Bulghars were assimilated linguistically by the Slav majority to form the medieval and modern Bulgarians. This particular ethnogenesis occuree gradually over a period of more than two centuries: there was the Turkic qan (or khan) Krum (803-814), Qan Omurtag (814-831), Qan Presian (836-852), then the wan who converted Boris I (852-889); then came Tsar Symeon (893-923), Tsar Peter I (927-970),and so on .But this transformation of Turkic shamanists into Slavic Christians did nothing to diminish the warlike character of the empire’s new neighbours. Because even warlike neighbours can be useful at times,the relations between the empire and the new Bulghar qaganate encompassed every possible variation,from intimate allience to all out-war,as exemplified by the career of the Bulghar qan or khan Tervel (or Tarvel-Terbelis in our Greek sources),the successor and probably son of Asparukh who ruled for some twenty-one years within the period 695-721,extant chronologies being inconsistent.
“Bulghars and Bulgarians.” The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, by EDWARD N. LUTTWAK, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, 2009, pp. 173
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
The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states. The ethnonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-, "to stir, mix, disturb, confuse." The confederation appears to have taken shape among Oghur tribes in the Kazakh steppes following the migrations that were touched off by movements of the Hsiung-nu. Later Byzantine sources (Agathon, Nicephorus Patriarchus, Theophanes) closely associate or identify the Bulgars with the Onoghurs, who were enemies of Sassanid Iran in the late 4th century. When or how this connection developed is unclear. If we discount several (most probably) anachronistic notices on the Bulgars in Moses Kliorenats'i (Moses of Chorene), the earliest references to them are perhaps to be found in an anonymous Latin chronograph of 354: "Vulgares." They are absent from Priscus's account of the migration, ca. 463, of the Oghuric Turks into the Pontic steppes, but by 480 they are noted under their own name as allies of Constantinople against the Ostrogoths. Amity with Byzantium was short-lived. By 489 the Bulgars had initiated a series of raids on Byzantine Balkan possessions. Their habitat, at this stage, appears to have been in the eastern Pontic steppes stretch-ing into the Azov region and North Caucasus. It is here that Jordanes and Pseudo-Zacharius Ithetor place them in the mid-6th century. Shortly afterward, they were overrun and subjugated by the Avars and then the Turks. When Turk rule weakened, sometime after 600, the Avars appear to have reestablished some control over the region. It was against Avar rule that the Bulgars-under their leader Qubrat, whom Heraclius had been cultivating for some rime (he and his uncle were baptized in Constantinople to 619)-revolted ca. 631-632 and founded the Onoghundur-Bulgar state. Some time after Qubrat's death (660s), this Pontic - Maeotun Bulgaria, whose Balkan descendents would also claim Attilid origins, came into conflict with the Khazar khaganate, successor to the Turk empire in western Eurasia. The Khazars emerged victorious from the contest, and parts of the Bulgar union broke up and migrated. One grouping under Asperukh in 679 crossed the Danube into Moesia and, having subjugated a local Slavic confederatton, there laid the foundation for the Balkan Bulgarian state. Yet other groups joined the Avar state in Pannonia (where some would prove to be rebellious subjects or took up restience in Italy around the five Rasennate cities, to live as Byzantine subjects.The other Bulgars either remained in the Pontic steppe zone the (the “Black Bulgars” of Byzantine and Rus’ sources) or later migrated (perhaps as early as the mid-7th century or as late as the mid-8th to early 9th century) to the middle Volga region, giving rise there to the Volga Bulgarian state, which remained, however a vassal of the Khazars. Balkan Bulgaria soon became an important element in Byzantine politics, on occasion supporting contestants to the throne and also helping to defeat the Arab attack on Constantinople of 717-18.The iconoclastic Emperor Constantine (741-775) began a series of wars against them that remained a constant theme of Byzantine-Bulgarian relations until the destruction of the first Bulgarian empire by Basil II (976-1025).In 864 the Bulgarian king Boris, outmaneuvered by Constantinople, converted to Christianity. Thereafter, the Turkic Bulgars underwent Slavicization, and Balkan Bulgaria became one of the centers of medieval Slavic. The Volga Bulgars, however, converted to Islam in the early 10th century and created a highly sophisticated, urbane, mercantile Muslim society that, after stout resistance, was conquered by the Mongols in the early 13th century.
Bowersock, Glen W. & al. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World pp.354 Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-674-51173-5.
There was a huge hole in my head for what was going on in this part of the world in this time period and you painted the picture perfectly. Love the work
Simeon the great was one of the really important emperors in European history.
no not really
@@johnnyboy3410 Yeah he was lmao
@@rayzas4885 no he wasn’t one of the most important emperors in Europe’s history, he isn’t even in the top 20 or 30, far better and stronger empires existed than the weak Bulgarian empire which wasn’t even an empire since it was giant joke
@@johnnyboy3410
Fakedonian
Take your hate somewhere else
@@petertodorov1792 lel you chasing me around now ?
As a bulgarian i am proud that people actually care about our great history.
Wow Bulgarian history is awesome. I like the reign of Simeon the Great.
Greetings from Armenia! Always rooted for Bulgaria, especially when they converted to Christianity!
great history, much love from Romania
respect Bulgaria from Romania bro ... ez
The one of the most notorious medieval European monarchs. A great detailed video. Thank you and greetings from North Macedonia!
Why he is notorious?
@@poukaa7047 If you understand the meaning of the Golden Age of the Bulgarian culture during his reign and his campaigns of war as well, you would understand.
If not, read more.
What people don't get is that the Bulgarians didn't want to destroy the Byzantine Empire. They wanted to BE the Byzantine Empire. To Rule the Empire themselves.
Makes one wonder that if Simeon really did become Roman emporer if the Bulgarians would be Hellenized or not.
Correct . Also Bulgaria under Simeon was a more liberal state than Byzantine Empire and thus thousands of Greeks joined them , elevating in this way Bulgarian cultural status.
@@Boykofan I don't really think he wanted it that much. He used it as an excuse to exact tribute. The fact he only did besiege when there was a economic reason shows that. Krum was a different story. He would likely have took constantinople if he did not die just before.
That’s basically the same thing
Byzantines were very lucky that khan Krum died just before he attacks Constantinople.
Byzantines were also very lucky Basil the Bulgarslayer escaped alive at Trajan gates.
This is my favorite ruler. I am from the city bearing his name. We are to 10km. from Veliki Preslav his capital. I set foot on these lands where the lord of the world walked, I walking in to the woodlands and mountains where he hunted. This is amazing ❤❤❤❤❤❤🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬❤❤❤❤❤❤
Amazing video.Waiting for more videos between Bulgaria and Eastern Roman Empire! Cheers guys,great job!!
That's it. I am adding Simeon the Great to my personal list of the Top 5 Greatest Rulers of the Middle Ages.
Great video!
How about Krum Khan?
@@papazataklaattiranimam Him too
@@thecrusaderhistorian9820 both Bulgarian not turkic
@@papazataklaattiranimam
Hanim,
Krum was never Khan
He was Kanasubigi a title he got from the Avars
Avars were a Tungus/Manchurian speaking people ---NOT TURKS
@@DimitarFCBM They had Bulgar Turkic origins not Slavic
Ive been watching bulgarian empire mapping since he only had a couple hundred subs, feels great to see him get on this channel^^
bruh
I thank the organizers of this great historical channel for their respect for cultures and religions, especially the languages of peoples. Thanks to you, I can watch videos in Arabic. Thank you very much 🏳️
هو ليه الحاكم البلغار ده كان ليه بيساعد العرب في السيطره علي جنوب إيطاليا
Thank you for making a video on the topic! It’s nice that now people from other states can learn about Simeon’s reign. It would be nice to follow up with more videos on his rule as we actually know many details about his wars with the Byzantines which I guess were saved for another time.
HistoryMarche: makes a video about Bulgaria
Bulgarians: :)))
This was indeed an awesome video, it's rare that I learn something new about my own history.
Your attention to details makes your videos really great 👍
Thanks so much for this awesome video!! It is so good to see people talk about my country's history and I am so happy about it.
I would also like to mention an interesting theory that has been developing in Bulgarian historiography regarding knyaz Vladimir. According to this theory he did not try to move back to paganism, but instead was attempting to warm up relations with the German kingdom to the Nord, breaking the peace with Byzantium. This prompts Boris to come out of retirement and dethrone him, to keep the peace he had signed withe the Romans. Something supporting this theory is Simeons later foreign policy. The war over Thesaloniki was fought well while Boris was alive, yet he did not object, but the conflict was remarkably short and did not, like Simeons later campaigns, turn into an existential war over Constantinople. The war proper that was started by Alexander was some time after Boris had passed away, which is also reflected by Simeons change I policy. He did not only try to earn the title tsar, but also was attempting to become the guardian of the emperor, being a lot more ambitious.
Now, the validity of this theory is... questionable, but I thought it would be interesting to share it as it is an interesting read on historical events.
didnt knew that romania was part of bulgarian empire.romania principates formed in 1200 i think. we kind of share the same culture.
@@alien-vx2bj yeah, which is really cool. In reality the entire history of the balkans is extremely intertwined, I remember reading an account of a Bulgarian in Romania in the 20th century noticing how many words there are in Romanian that are similar in Bulgarian.
To me sounds like modern politics trying to back-date ties with the Germans.
As they have a long history of hating eachother. Just my cynical view though :)
@@METALFREAK03 um, no, as there is no real need for this as Bulgaria and Germany have other ties. WW1, WW2, the germans are Bulgarias biggest trading partner from 1925(around) to 1944(around), so no, this is not what the theory is about but it tries to explain Vladimirs actions as he should have known better than to backside to paganism(in theory, in practice, we can only speculate). Also, Germano-Bulgarian medieval relations exist and later are solidified during the reign of tsar Samuil who sends emissaries to the germans and a form of recognition is given to Bulgaria (here there is a lot of context I will not get into).
@@iordanvassilev8091 i know there a some similar words because i started to learn bulgarian few years ago.
Thank you for doing more videos on Bulgaria. Keep em coming
Simeon's biggest contribution remain the enormous cultural development of the whole region and establishing the use of Bulgarian as liturgy language (stepping on his father's work). It became the blueprint for other Slavic language speaking countries.
The Bulgarian Caesar Augustus aka Octavian ;)
The thing is Bulgaria is not Slavic and there is no such thing as Slavic, check out my other comments to see why.
Според мен българите са много племена в едно.
( Tomorow in the morning !
Koga vrba ķe rodi grozje ) !
It is well stipulated that it was Slav letterwrithing and Old Slavic as Lingua franca in Cristian Churches !
Contribution on Simeon of course is great but he accepted Slavianisation and Cristianity as former tengrist !!
Just imagine why it was called
Old Slav language ?
Because he didnt bring it but found it in use when he came to grab parts of Makedonian oficial Province and accepted Slavic macedonian speaking language !
@@voskreglavincevska3651 he was not a former tengrist. He was born in 864 when Boris I converted to Christianity. Simeon was a Christian his whole life. And modern Bulgarians (and Bulgarians after the 9th century) ARE descendants of both Slavs and Bulgars. And the modern language is 100% Slavic. Old Bulgarian is 100% Slavic as well as it is the language of the Slavs that lived in Bulgaria and that assimilated the Bulgars.
Great another collab! thanks as always
Would love to see many more videos about Bulgaria! Splendid work, as usual!!!
I wonder where you are from? I mean in the last few years the interest in my country Bulgaria has increased so much.
Just got in the door and this popped up, it’s going to be a good day 👍
Thank you for this amazing and truthful documentary! ❤
this is a leader we need, a leader who loves knowledge and willing to fund them, never bribes but rather hired for services and not the politician who bribes, power seeking and luxuries lifestyle living
Thank you for the video . I can tell you that we have more great moments in the history , but also few downfalls . But no matter what , Bulgaria always prevail and raise up again .
България няма начало,няма и край!
@@radoslavpetkov абсолютно , виж че историците не могат да стигнат до ясно решение откъде идваме , където бръкнат там излизат българи ... 😉🍺
Въпросът е ,че вече знаем много неща,с което разбира се Мацква не е съгласна,щото видиш ли те обичат ,,матрьошка,,!
Само,че ние вече много отдавна не ги обичаме ....
То ...кой ги обича ....
Very interesting as an American we only get this history through Roman history and have to dig pretty hard to find other sources, as always the comment section is as good as the video, thank you to everyone we should keep an open mind to our history.
Muchísimas gracias por este video hermos de la historia de mi país BULGARIA 🇧🇬❤️🇧🇬
Hi! Are you spanish bulgarian? How is life there and is it easy to migrate there?Do you have bulgarian schools there as well?I am asking because i want to know why there are more than 300 000 bulgarians there and if the life there is better than in the other western countries in the EU ,Russia or the USA?
Love this format and how it focuses more on politics rather than the military campaigns.
Meh - it's a no for me, dawg
The most pivotal historical moments were made by iron and blood, so military history ought to take precedent
True that, though it may be just me I find diplomacy, scheming, etc. very intriguing
@@m.hughmungus121
Military action without the political context is just thrashing about with no aim.
no, sure no, you have trade mark with your military strategi expose. all history profile youtube pages have this boring and simple politicaly format, pls remain to the famous military format.
@@m.hughmungus121 Hannibal, for all the victories he claimed for Carthage, was undone by Carthaginian politics.
It has always been politics that decided the fate of our civilizations. War is just an extension of politics.
Great video ! i would like to see one about Krum . He also expandet Bulgarian teritory and had a great victory vs Nikifor , using the uniqe strategy of abandoning the capital and later on crushing the enemy while they backed down after their ''decisive victory'' in Pliska.
P.S. love the chanel
Красиво видео, поздравления! 🇧🇬
Simeon the Great. Now that is a nice title. And this video was a good one. Nice job.
Well done here all who put this together.
Bravo.
Thanks for another great episode! ⚔⚔⚔
Very clear overview - thank you.
Took a while to get to this. Very interesting piece of history I was unaware of, thanks
I absolutely LOVE that you guys covered this topic. Excellent choice. The eastern Roman Empire is one of my favorite historical topics. Thank you!
It is about Bulgarian history, not Eastern Roman
@@carlustin4034 Yes, one day I hope to learn as much as I can of the Bulgarian language and travel there, and I’d obviously like to do the same for Greece and Turkey
Another awesome video!
Saw mistakes and that is quite a short work! Thanks for reviewing Bulgarian history, you missed so much. Thanks for the video
Byzantium hires Magyars to attack Bulgaria.
Bulgaria: "Oh, you want to play like this, punk?"
*Bulgaria hires pechenegs to make a nomadic war*
Great video. I am not happy though that the name of the alphabet that was mentioned to had been developed a little before and spread during Simeon's rule was not mentioned. This is the so-called Cyrillic alphabet, which many (wrongly) know as the "Russian alphabet". It is indeed the Bulgarian alphabet. Same as the Latin alphabet is called "Latin alphabet" and the Greek Alphabet is called "Greek alphabet" - the Cyrillic alphabet should be called "Bulgarian alphabet". Little people know that Cyrillic alphabet is one of two alphabets that were developed during this period and spread by Bulgarian religious and literature writers. The other alphabet is called "Glagolic alphabet" and was used up until the latest middle ages.
👍👍👍
Благодарим ви!
Hello guys @ History Marche.
As a fan of your channel I'd like to thank you for the awesome videos you make. Historical events have become a lot more comprehensible and enjoyable than how we learned them from textbooks.
If you don't mind, I'd like for you to share with me (or us) the historical sources you used for the making of this episode. I am Hungarian and have heard of all these things, but would be thrilled to read up on your much appriciated, historically proved data about this particular period of Central-European history.
The reason I ask you for this is that we are being taught a different course of how and why events unfolded.
Keep up the good work and thanks for the answer! 😁
"We are being taught a different course of how and why events unfolded"
I'm really curious now?
• Does "events" refer to the events of this video specifically (1st Bulgarian Empire), or just History ig?
• "We are being taught"; taught by whom? Hungarian schools?
• I am curious about the things you are taught?
I am asking, because in the Balkans, that's a serious problem, and everyone is taught different things.
• For example, Serbians are taught that Bulgaria wasn't happy with the the decided territories, so Bulgaria declared war on Serbia and that is how the 2nd Balkan war begun.
• But in Bulgaria, we are taught a different part of the same story: after the 1st Balkan war, it was agreed how the won territories should be divided. However Serbia went against the first treaty, and kept the won territories. Knowing Bulgaria won't be happy, Serbia signed a secret alliance Treaty with Greece. Upon finding out, Bulgaria was left with no choice but to declare war.
• And the fact that we are taught different things, or at least different parts of the same story causes problems and arguments.
So I am extremely curious what you, please tell me more :)
@@cerebrummaximus3762 I can't answer for Gabor and the Hungarians in general (as I'm Bulgarian myself), but from what I've seen, they indeed see their settling in Pannonia (Honfoglalas) in a slightly different way, i.e. as the culmination of a long process of colonization of the region which had supposedly been happening even before those events, with the battle of the Southern Buh being usually either completely dismissed as a factor in this or largely ignored.
In that regard, I'd say those views are largely normal or at least expectable - all nations have a "national myth", a favoured view of their history and founding, with a more positive focus and interpretation of the events. It's similar, for example, to how we in Bulgaria tend to interpret the second Arab siege of Constantinople - we focus solely on "our own" participation, we cherry pick the primary sources which mention how "the Arabs feared the Bulgars more than the Romans" etc, and we largely ignore all other factors (Roman navy, walls of Constantinople, preparations of Roman emperors and failings of the Arab command, etc), just as considerable or perhaps even more important, for the Arab loss and the Bulgarian-Byzantine victory then.
In any case, I personally find it quite interesting how connected Bulgarian and Hungarian histories are - we might have been connected in Old Great Bulgaria (some people even speculate that the Arpads and the Dulo dynasty were related), then Hungary and Danubian Bulgaria were neighbours for centuries (Leo VI in his Taktika noting a bunch of times how similar the Bulgarian and Magyar armies and leadership are), while at the same time Volga Bulgaria and Great Hungary (the Magyar homeland, per Friar Julian's mission in the early 13th c.) were neighbours as well in the east. Heck, it's the Hungarian court which preserved the Bulgarian royal title all the way into the times of the Austrian Empire, long after the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria. And perhaps most importantly - IIRC, the modern brewing of beer was actually first brought here by the Hungarians of Lajos Kossuth. ;)
🚩 Install Friends & Dragons for free 🐲 iOS/Android: fndga.me/3sdwp9g and get a special bonus pack 🏵
🚩 This video was produced in collaboration with Bulgarian Empire Mapping, check out their channel and give them the credit that they deserve! ruclips.net/channel/UCD-0LPbxri4fSvd0UoisIfg - Big shout to BEM for collaborating with us on this video!
Simeon was a badass. No doubt about it.
What's super cool us he himself lead the cavalry charge at Achelos. He says his white horse was slain at that battle.
Tomislav was the King of badass.
@@daz7122 tomislav never faced off against Simeon himself though
@@rawka_7929 Don't know because I was not there. Their troops fought in Bosna and Simeon's boys lost.
@@daz7122 it wasn't even the main army, it was a small detachment not even led by Simeon
☦☦🤍🤍💚💚❤❤KESAR TERVEL THE SAVIOR OF EUROPE AND TSAR SIMEON☦☦🤍🤍💚💚❤❤ ARE VERY IMPORTANTS FOR EUROPE
Krum is my top 5 characters from antiquity.... but Mr. KRUM was also a big collector of those lil travel spoons you hang in the kitchen. True story.
Mna, he was more of a fan of modern organic art cups.
Firstly, The Seven Slavic tribes were military allies of the Proto-Bulgars, and upon the formation of Danubian Bulgaria, vassals of the Proto-Bulgars, and by the time Boris (even Krum's diplomat to the Romans had a Slavic name), Slavic princely vassals had seized all positions of power, barring the position of marshal of Bulgaria's armies and that of the ruling dynasty, so Boris choosing Christianity, Slavic culture and literacy over the other options are not surprising, after all, his best friend and closest ally were Grand Zupan Sivin, another Slav.
Secondly, the First and Second Bulgarian Empires were Slavic, not Turkic civilizations, even the Pliska-Preslav, a Slavo-Bulgarian material culture, was predominately Slavic. Furthermore, the names of the original Proto-Bulgar rulers weren't predominately Turkic but Indo-Iranian, whereas only two bore Slavic names and two had genuine Turkic names - this tells us that the ruling elites of the migrating Proto-Bulgars were heterogeneous, rather than homogeneous.
Thirdly, The identity of the Proto-Bulgars has never been properly defined. Additionally, the Bulgars used the title "Khan" (hint: it was already mentioned that the only attested Bulgar royal title from the primary sources is "Kanasubigi" (which, some are translating through the Slavic "Knyaz u Bogu", meaning "ruler by God", a phrase which itself is common in the rest of the early Bulgar inscriptions written on Greek). The Bulgars being Turkic? We’re addressing primary sources, not modern historians who thought “They came from the East, therefore they're Asians”. And if they're Asians and probably nomadic, then they must be Turkophones and Tengri-worshippers." Or as one of the modern Bulgarian historians put it: "Why are they Turkic? Because they worship Tangra. And why do they worship Tangra? Because they're Turkic." In other words, circular reasoning. Besides, how can the Bulgars be Turkic, considering they were first mentioned (in Europe, by the Romans, in the mid-4th century) long before the first Turks formed in their Asian homeland (6th century)? If someone wants to argue about the Bulgars being potentially and partially descended from the Huns (and the eventual later influences by the emerging Turkophone tribes such as the Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans, etc) - that's a much more defensible point. But the classical Turkic theory has fallen under so much disrepute by modern scholarship that there are only two groups of scholars left still supporting it: communist hardliners and Westerners, who made no research of their own and are merely repeating what the old-time authorities had established as "the truth". In short, Proto-Bulgarians or 'Bulgars' weren't Turkic, but they used certain Turkic vocabulary and military terminology. They most likely originated in the North Caucasus and were linked to the late Sarmatian and post-Scythian populations. After ~460 AD there were some Oghur Turkic infiltrations among the nobility and Turkic influence in general, but the basis of the Bulgars is Indo-Iranian, not Turkic. One just needs to observe the Madara rider - its composition and symbolism refer to the Iranian cultural domain, not the Turkic one. The same goes for the treasures of Nad Sent Miklosh, Mala Pereshcepina, the temple ruins of Pliska, as well as the burial customs discovered in the mounds of Devnya, Nozharevo, Tuhovishte, and many others.
Each one of these tribes has a name, right? They are a little uncomfortable for the supporters of the Slavic theory. The truth is simple, but disguised with new names of the old tribes, which are very far from the Iranian myths😊
Bulgarian castles and palaces of the Golden Age had internal plumbing. The were built according to ancient Proto-Bulgarian techniques, without the use of mortar. They were deliberately destroyed in the 1850s by the Turks, to humiliate the Bulgarians and to use the material to build the railway of Baron Hirsch (the first railway to cross the Ottoman Empire).
I think most were destroyed way earlier by thr ottomans
The technique was probably roman ;)
Great work! 👍
Oh, great video again my friend 👏
Great video ❤️we need one video about Georgia! 🇬🇪☦️
Golden age during crusades or maybe 🤔 other few great kings we had their struggle and glory. 🙏
He should make Battle of Garni or Bolnisi
There should be a video about St. Tamar the Queen of Georgia!!
@@papazataklaattiranimam ooof still sad about that battle that must not be named
@@giorgijioshvili9713 🐋
@@papazataklaattiranimam I will take that as a yes
You give a great historical info in few minutes that's great
Simeon is not talked about enough.
Thank you for making a video on this topic.
Simeon is for the East/South Slavs and Bulgarians what Charlamagne was for the Franks.
for Bulgarians sure, but for Slavs in general? Nope. Sorry
@@zdeneknovak455 he and his father created the cyrillic alphabet used by more than 250 million people today (the majority of whom are slavs).
During his rain the spread of Orthodox Christianity and Slavic culture was enormous. That layed the foundation for much of Slavic culture and literature.
@@zdeneknovak455 LOL It was more than that. A whole civilization was created with its own alphabet. Cyrillic alphabet . In 10th century Bulgaria Church sermon was in Old Bulgarian (Slavonik) books were written in Old Bulgarian. In Western Europe that happen 500 years later after Reformation and Martin Luter.They used only Latin until 15th century.927 Bulgaria had its own Patriarch . Kings did not need to go to Rome or Constantinople to be crowned. But yes you can support Russian propaganda which does not want to admit the significance of the First Bulgarian Kingdom . Charlemane was illiterate and had to bow to the pope. Simeon was well educated completed the University of Constantinople,Magnaura fluent in Greek and Bulgarian running Preslav and Ochrid Literary schools. Written manuscripts by Clement, Naum, Constantine of Preslav, Chernorizec Hrabar, Simeon itself,Cosma Monk only from 10th century and etc . are Slavic heritage.I could've only been sorry for you whose sermons were in Latin at that time. Though everything had been destroyed by invadors it is fascinating that in Monastiries inscriptions from 10th century all alphabets were presented Latin,Greek,Glagolitik and Cyrilik in St .Panteleimon and Preslav,Ochrid , Ravna and etc Books were translated in Bulgarian . in 10th century. It is more significant than Charlagmain. In this manuscripts is sited st Cyril who made the Pope to accept that Slavic language must be allowed to be used in sermons and preaching. Much more ahead in time even from Martin Luter and Reformation. Charlamaighn is much beneath the significance of the accomplishments of Boris and Simeon.
@@georgimihalkov9678 edit: oh, my bad, I confused cyrillic alphabet with glagolic, the oldest slavic alphabet, which was then slightly edited.
You know, for quite many Slavs it doesn't really matter, because we don't use it. So why should Symeon matter for us, or even be our Charlemagne?
@@carlustin4034 yup. it was. But it doesn't matter for quite many Slavs who don't use it.
That's why claiming Symeon is superimportant for all Slavs is ridiculous.
Very interesting, thankyou.
The Bulgarian Empire is slavic & but also multi-ethnic, like all the great empires, but what it lacks is a naval fleet
First Bulgaria Empire was not a Slavic state
@@papazataklaattiranimam Turkic Slavic and other ethnicities ..The class of rulers and nobles is Turkic, but the people are mostly Slavs, with a sizeable minority of Bulgars who are nomadic Turkic tribes
@@aleksandarstoichev5463 wöW şÖ TrÜe 😛
The Bulgarian Empire was great because was able to incorporate many cultures and create own by Boris I distinctive from that of Rome and Constantinople. At that time Western Europe used only Latin and was controlled spiritually by Rome. Eastern Roman Empire used Greek. Boris I managed to gain Church and cultural independence. The advanced Western states started using their languages 600 years later in administration and liturgy, Boris I and Simeon established that in 9th and early 10th century. They adopted glagolitik alphabet created by st. Kyril and Methodius and commissioned ''cyrilik'' alphabet created in monasteries of their kingdom. Many Empires used others languages Latin,Greek,Persian,Arab. Ottoman Empire used some versions of Persian and Arab. Turkish language was started being used in the late 19th and early 20th and fully after language reform in Turkish republic by Cemal Ataturk in the 1930s . Proto -Bulgarians were cultured people they built cities Pliska,Preslav ,Draster ..they were not simple nomads. The first who established state in Danubian delta Asparuh built intricate defense limes on the borders of his state.
@@carlustin4034 nice pseudo-history though
If that alliance between the Muslims and the Bulgarian had happened oh lord the history would be so much different!!
yep bro. Arabs and Bulgars would have conquered Constantinople together. But damn Byzantines always lucky
@@aleksk4151not really 😅
@@wankawanka3053 Actually Tervel helps Eastern Roman Empire to survive.
PROUD TO BE BULGARIAN!
No 😅
@Gaytanity 638
Nope ,
Bulgarian
Never been Turkic
@@papazataklaattiranimam No one believes you because the true people know the history 🤗
@Gaytanity 638 Bulgarian kids think they found First and Second Bulgarian Empire😹 despite that their ruling classes being of Turkic Bulgar and Cuman origin lol
@@papazataklaattiranimam
Wrong again Hanim,
1. Show primary sources that show Tengrinism in Bulgaria
2. Show Primary sources that show that the word Bulgarian comes from Bulgamak
As a bulgarian I aprove 🇧🇬
Will you continue the series am interesting to see how the situation changed after Simeon died and before Basil II took the throne
There was 50 years of peace. The son of Simeon ,Peter was more Christian and schooler. Than came invasion of Kieviean Russ , Svyatoslav was paid to attack Bulgaria by Byzantium. He conquered Eastern part of Bulgaria. Byzantians turned against him. He was exosted already by the war with Bulgarians
@@carlustin4034 still I would prefer if they made a video about it
@@Δούρειος_96 Yes a video will be nice. After Simeon was the longest peace between Byzantia and Bulgaria. Peter was married to Byzantian princes.First of foreigners married to Eastern Roman princes.His sons were taken prisoners in Byzantia and castrated . One of the princes was named Roman on his grandfather Roman Lokapenos.. Eastern Bulgaria was taken by Kievan Russ later by Byzantium. And then came the clash between Samuel and Basil II. Basil II won though called Bulgaroktonos he was a very noble man.
@@Δούρειος_96 There is video by Kings and Generals.Just type Basil II Restorer,reformer,bulgarslayer
@@krasihristov1066 am referring before Basil II came to power the interwar period of the 10th century
TO ALL PANTURK TROLLS ON BULGARIAN SITES
1. SHOW PRIMARY SOURCES OF TENGRINISM IN BULGARIA
2. SHOW PRIMARY SOURCES THAT SHOW THAT THE WORD BULGARIAN COMES FROM BULGAMAK
@mura
Procheti kakvo pishe Zhivko Voynikov za PraBulgarskiat Bog Siavush ili Siva Bog
Te sabili Rodni Hora na Alanite
Procheti statiete na Zhivko Voynikov online
With regard to topology, the obtained tree divides the modern Turkic languages into six principal sub-branches (in the order of their divergence): Bulgharic, North Siberian, South Siberian, Khalaj-Salar, Oghuz, and Kipchak-Karluk (‘Macro-Kipchak’). The time-depth of the Turkic family on the maximum credibility tree is estimated to be around 2,066 years BP (median height of the node), with a 95% highest posterior density between 1,517 and 2,755 years BP. The topology and the age of the obtained tree are discussed in further detail in Section 6.
The early split between the Bulgharic branch and the Common Turkic languages shapes the Turkic language family as a clear-cut binary structure. This agrees with most of the previous classifications of the Turkic language family, whether they are based on the historical-comparative or lexicostatistic approaches (Tekin 1990: 16; Menges 1995: 60-1; Johanson 1998: 81-3; Dybo 2006: 766-817, 2013: 18; Mudrak 2009: 172-79).
Alexander Savelyev, Martine Robbeets, Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 39-53
Bulgars (Turkic bulgha-'to mix, stir up, disturb', i.e. 'rebels') A Turkic tribal union of the Pontic steppes that gave rise to two important states: Danubian Balkan Bulgaria (First Bulgarian Empire, 681-1018) and Volga Bulgaria (early 10th century-1241). They derived from Oghuric-Turkic tribes, driven westward from Mongolia and south Siberia to the Pontic steppes in successive waves by turmoil associated with the Xiungnu and subsequently by warfare between the Rouran/Avar and northern Wei states. in Oliver Nicholson, The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2018, ISBN 0192562460, p. 271..
At the time,the new Khazar qaganate was expanding westward, squeezing out the Onogurs ,or Bulghars as they begin to be named. One of the Kuvrat’s sons,the Asparuch (Asparux,Isperih) now celebrated as the founder of Bulgaria ,forcibly crossed to the Danube arpund 679 to occupy imperial territory Moesia after defeating the forces of Constantine IV (668-685). The event is recorded in the preserved text of a Hebrew letter of a Khazar qahan,who wrote that the Vununtur(=Onogurs=Bulghars) has fled across the Duna,the Danube. Even if numerous for the steppe,Asparuch’s pastoralist warriors and their families were of necessity relatively few as compared to the agricultural Slav population that lived south of the Danube,and thus the Turkic-speaking Bulghars were assimilated linguistically by the Slav majority to form the medieval and modern Bulgarians. This particular ethnogenesis occuree gradually over a period of more than two centuries: there was the Turkic qan (or khan) Krum (803-814), Qan Omurtag (814-831), Qan Presian (836-852), then the wan who converted Boris I (852-889); then came Tsar Symeon (893-923), Tsar Peter I (927-970),and so on .But this transformation of Turkic shamanists into Slavic Christians did nothing to diminish the warlike character of the empire’s new neighbours. Because even warlike neighbours can be useful at times,the relations between the empire and the new Bulghar qaganate encompassed every possible variation,from intimate allience to all out-war,as exemplified by the career of the Bulghar qan or khan Tervel (or Tarvel-Terbelis in our Greek sources),the successor and probably son of Asparukh who ruled for some twenty-one years within the period 695-721,extant chronologies being inconsistent.
“Bulghars and Bulgarians.” The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, by EDWARD N. LUTTWAK, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, 2009, pp. 173
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
The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states. The ethnonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-, "to stir, mix, disturb, confuse." The confederation appears to have taken shape among Oghur tribes in the Kazakh steppes following the migrations that were touched off by movements of the Hsiung-nu. Later Byzantine sources (Agathon, Nicephorus Patriarchus, Theophanes) closely associate or identify the Bulgars with the Onoghurs, who were enemies of Sassanid Iran in the late 4th century. When or how this connection developed is unclear. If we discount several (most probably) anachronistic notices on the Bulgars in Moses Kliorenats'i (Moses of Chorene), the earliest references to them are perhaps to be found in an anonymous Latin chronograph of 354: "Vulgares." They are absent from Priscus's account of the migration, ca. 463, of the Oghuric Turks into the Pontic steppes, but by 480 they are noted under their own name as allies of Constantinople against the Ostrogoths. Amity with Byzantium was short-lived. By 489 the Bulgars had initiated a series of raids on Byzantine Balkan possessions. Their habitat, at this stage, appears to have been in the eastern Pontic steppes stretch-ing into the Azov region and North Caucasus. It is here that Jordanes and Pseudo-Zacharius Ithetor place them in the mid-6th century. Shortly afterward, they were overrun and subjugated by the Avars and then the Turks. When Turk rule weakened, sometime after 600, the Avars appear to have reestablished some control over the region. It was against Avar rule that the Bulgars-under their leader Qubrat, whom Heraclius had been cultivating for some rime (he and his uncle were baptized in Constantinople to 619)-revolted ca. 631-632 and founded the Onoghundur-Bulgar state. Some time after Qubrat's death (660s), this Pontic - Maeotun Bulgaria, whose Balkan descendents would also claim Attilid origins, came into conflict with the Khazar khaganate, successor to the Turk empire in western Eurasia. The Khazars emerged victorious from the contest, and parts of the Bulgar union broke up and migrated. One grouping under Asperukh in 679 crossed the Danube into Moesia and, having subjugated a local Slavic confederatton, there laid the foundation for the Balkan Bulgarian state. Yet other groups joined the Avar state in Pannonia (where some would prove to be rebellious subjects or took up restience in Italy around the five Rasennate cities, to live as Byzantine subjects.The other Bulgars either remained in the Pontic steppe zone the (the “Black Bulgars” of Byzantine and Rus’ sources) or later migrated (perhaps as early as the mid-7th century or as late as the mid-8th to early 9th century) to the middle Volga region, giving rise there to the Volga Bulgarian state, which remained, however a vassal of the Khazars. Balkan Bulgaria soon became an important element in Byzantine politics, on occasion supporting contestants to the throne and also helping to defeat the Arab attack on Constantinople of 717-18.The iconoclastic Emperor Constantine (741-775) began a series of wars against them that remained a constant theme of Byzantine-Bulgarian relations until the destruction of the first Bulgarian empire by Basil II (976-1025).In 864 the Bulgarian king Boris, outmaneuvered by Constantinople, converted to Christianity. Thereafter, the Turkic Bulgars underwent Slavicization, and Balkan Bulgaria became one of the centers of medieval Slavic. The Volga Bulgars, however, converted to Islam in the early 10th century and created a highly sophisticated, urbane, mercantile Muslim society that, after stout resistance, was conquered by the Mongols in the early 13th century.
Bowersock, Glen W. & al. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World pp.354 Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-674-51173-5.
Inscription IV:[26]
Khan sybigi Omurtag, ruler from god [...] was [...] and made sacrifice to god Tangra [...] itchurgu boila [...] gold [...]
@@papazataklaattiranimam
Wrong again Hanim
The inscription is too badly destroyed to be readable
Never was any Tengri or Tangra worshiped in Bulgaria
If Tangra was suchan important god then why are there no place names in Bulgaria namedTangra?
Very well described and accurate video I can say as being... well... Bulgarian. I would like to see a battle strategy video as well... preferably some where we get to kick some ass.
Then you should watch a video about Basil the second.
@@anxileelcouncil4105 if Tsar Samuil had the elite Bulgarian cavalry or at least half of it then Basil II wouldve been a wine drinking cup in the office of the Tsar
I always find myself rooting for the Bulgarians. I like the Byzantines, but the Bulgarian region has always been pretty plucky. vs the Ottomans, vs eastern horse tribes, always pushing back. Lots of interesting history.
We fear them.
We fear him.
When the horseriders gallop upon the marshes
The earth itself shudders
Hail! Bulgars. Hail! Ivan.
@@anxileelcouncil4105 one of the first battles basil 2 almost gets captured with his whole army annihilated by the bulgarians. Basil runs like a frightened rabbit all the way to constantinople escaping by the skin of his teeth. So yeah can watch that one too.
The imperial title itself wasn’t the only issue the Romans had. Simeon had claimed the title emperor of the Romans, which was in direct competition with the Byzantine empire which also claimed the title, which itself was the claim of universal empire. Peter kept the title “emperor of the bulgars”, which was a concession he made to keep peace.
BULGARIA ON THREE SEAS!
The Problem with the Byzantines is that they see themselves as " Lord of the Metropolises" and they didn't bother developing the contriside, they put too much focus on the Polis, making the countryside prone to foreign invaders settling in and taking over.
Careful to avoid conflating various interest groups in Byzantine society. The court and its bureaucracy, in general, may be said to have had more of an urban perspective on the empire's interests, since the cities were the centers of trade and commerce. But the increasingly powerful aristocracy, particularly in Asia Minor, had a very different perspective and naturally wanted to maintain a strong army along the borders to protect their lands from raids. (This actually helped lead to the pivotal Battle of Manzikert, as the provincial aristocracy succeeded in putting one of their own on the throne and forced a battle with the Seljuks that could've easily been avoided with the usual diplomatic approach of buying off Rome's enemies). And in general, there were "court emperors" and "field emperors" and the emperors more comfortable campaigning with the army by no means tolerated raids on their territory.
The problem of the Byzantines is that they were surrounded by enemies without having much of natural terrain protection. Except for Constantinople with sea borders and massive walls and Thessaloniki and a not well garrisoned fortress at Adrianople the rest was open field for Bulgarians in the north and the Muslims to the east. They were most of the time at war on at least 2 fronts and since they were the "seat" of eastern orthodoxy, no help came from the Catholics, who also wanted Constantinople for themselves, hence the Latin Empire. So they had to bribe everyone around them to either stop the attack or someone else to attack their aggressors.
Bulgaria in this manor was the same, the difference is she stood the test of time. Except for several great leaders we had, the rest of time it was a struggle for power and surrounded by enemies on each front. In the end the collapse of the Second Bulgarian Empire was partly the result of Bulgarian royalty brothers who split Bulgaria into 3 kingdoms and wouldn't help each other against the ottomans. Not like they could have been stopped at the time, but if the Christian world saw at the time the treat as a common one, not everyone from every branch of Christianity for themselves, Europe could look different today.
The other 2 comments explained it perfectly, your statement is clueless
България Велика 🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🦁
Така е! Да живее България!🇧🇬🦁🇧🇬
Да живее България 🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬
БЪЛГАРИЯЯЯЯЯ ЗАВИНАГИИИИИ 💖🇧🇬🔥💖🇧🇬🔥💖🦁🦁🦁💖
Nikov is the first Bulgarian historian to pay special attention to, and attri bute great significance to, the Turkic components in the Bulgarian ethnogen esis (i.e., after the Bulgars) and among the ruling aristocracy. He elaborated on the issue of the "Turkic element's" influence upon Bulgarian history in a 1928 unpublished manuscript (delivered as a public lecture). Nikov began with the following policy-setting statement:
There is no period in our history on which the Turkic element did not exert its strongest influence and did not leave the deepest traces in the development of our people. [...] None of the Balkan peoples has experi enced the Turkic influence so strongly as our people,
The Turkic pressure began from Central Asia and had two directions to the northwest through southern Russia, and to the southwest through Persia and Asia Minor. The Bulgarian state was founded due to one of the Turkic peoples, the Bulgars, who themselves joined a number of Turkic tribal alliances (of Huns, Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Avars, and Khazars). During Byzantine rule, the Turkic Pechenegs and Uz came from the north; many of them crossed the Danube and were assimilated by the Bulgarian people. Then came the Cumans, without whose decisive help the uprising of Asenevtsi would hardly have succeeded. Thus, just as the First Bulgarian Kingdom was founded with the help of the Turkic Bulgars, the Second Kingdom was founded with "the decisive collabora tion of the Turkic Cumans."129 Not only did Cumans settle south of the Danube and become assimilated and absorbed by the Slavic-Bulgarian people, but they were also of great significance politically in the Second Kingdom, whose dynas ties all had Cuman blood in them. There were also many Bulgarian boyars of Cuman origin, including Balic in Dobrudzha. It could even be said that the Cumans acquired a dominant position in the political life of the state. 130 There followed the influence of the Mongol Tartars, who even supplied one Bulgarian king, Chaka. But of greatest importance were the Ottoman and Seljuk Turks, who conquered the Balkans from Asia Minor. Concerning the Cumans, Nikov considers the "transfusion of blood" from Turkic "elements" an asset, a means of rejuvenating and strengthening the "race" and enhancing the vitality of the Bulgarian people (in contrast with the conquering Turks).
Early medieval Bulgaria was a regional power
2nd Bulgarian Empire was a regional power too.
Nop Regional bro Europen and World power
First Tzar in history. I wish you weren't so reluctant to say it in the video, but it was very good, either way.
That might not be the case. Technically Tervel was the one who got the title "Caesar" which is what Tsar derives from. And Tervel got it formally from the ERE.
Furst tsar Simeon I. Last tsar Simeon II. Even more interesting
Psssss.....Rise of Ivaylo video since we're on this Bulgarian subject. I remembering pulling up a wikipedia page that listed every war between Bulgaria and the Eastern Roman Empire and my jaw dropped. I am glad channels are giving them coverage now.
Awesome and fascinating!
Thank you for representing our history so well.
With all this conflict between Bulgars, Serbs and Byzantines it always strikes me why no-one could seem to forsee the danger to ALL the Christian people that Islam represented.
That repeated in 1913 . Greeks allied with Turks against Bulgaria. Romania and Serbia also.
No any country cared about her Eastern neighbours problem until that reached her border.
@@carlustin4034 not to mention Greeks brought the turks into balkans to begin with - kantakouzenos.
@@zarni000 They called Savoyard crusade to help against Turks and sent it on Bulgarians LOL . Beforehand shiped Turks as far to Dobrudga and danube delta to attack Bulgarians. In the war in 1913 Greece ,Romania and Serbia made Bucurest treaty signed on JULY 1913to make sure their conquests of Bulgarian lands and did not allow Turkey to join negotiations . So Turkey was left 2 months against Bulgaria to complete the genocide in Eastern Thrace Bulgaria signed separate treaty with Turkey in Constantinople on 29th of September 1913. Turkey wanted to participate in Bucuresti in 25th of July. But Greeks , Serbians and Romanians decided it was best Turkey kill more Bulgarians and take back more territories from Bulgaria . Constntinople was supplied with guns and amunitions from port of Constanta during the First and Second Balkan war. In the genocide of Bulgarians in Eastern Thrace participated Greek volunteers armed by Greece alongside their Turkish brothers . Who few years after did the same against them. LOL . They want to unite with them LOL
@@zarni000What a misleading idiotic statement.
You think we wished for barbarism to enter Anatolia willingly or something?
Great as always
Fun fact is that Bulgarian traders create the village of BUDA
when both k&g and historymarche uploade at the same time it is a good day
I would really love to see a real live Debates between the best Historians of different nationalities doing it in a highly professional manner...
The theory that the Bulgarians are nomadic Turks has no confirmation either in the sources or in DNA and other anthropological studies.
Sources, including those from the Eastern Roman Empire, claim that the Bulgars were those Balkan tribes who fled north from the Danube River after unsuccessful wars. The Bulgarians were part of the Moesi and Getae-Daci
the bulgarians (bulgars came from the volga and the elite were related to the western turkic khaganate
@@avoider707that's only true for late term Volga, just like how we got Slavicised they got Turkified by the predominantly turkic demographics of the Urals.
They literally called their leader "Khan"
great work!
Krum the Dreadful ? Seriously?
That is the best name ever.
It's Krum the Fearsome actually
Basil II is nicknamed as Basil II the Bulgarslayer. Beat that
@@geodim3904 Kaloyan is named the Romanslayer. He revenged for Basil 2. Beat that.
@@EmperorStas One day Bulgaria will cease to exist, split between Greece, Turkey, and Serbia 🙌🙌
@@kafon6368 yeh bro, Byzantines said that as well. Even accomplished it. Where are they now?
Thank you for this video!
Long live the Bulgarian Emperor Simeon The First!❤
Great Channel thank you for sharing 🍀☀️🇬🇷🇩🇰
Hello, the title in spanish "¿Cómo superó Bulgaria al imperio romano occidental? ⚔️ La conquista de Simeon el grande" is wrong. The correct title would be "¿Cómo superó Bulgaria al Imperio romano de Oriente? ⚔️ La conquista de Simeón el Grande". I hope you can change it, and good video by the way
El traductor siempre se equivoca, no es de sorprenderse
David mc callion is doing a fantastic job. I love to listen to him. Great video ,👍
TO ALL PANTURKS ON BULGARIAN SITES
YOU HAVE BETRAYED AND ABANDONED YOUR TURKIC UIGHUR BROTHERS
WHY DON'T YOU HAVE THE COURAGE TO SUPPORT THE UIGHURS ON CHINESE SITES?
INSTEAD OF BOTHERING BULGARIANS
Bulgaria was the master of the Balkans in that period
Can you please just ban the Turk trolls, spammers and raiders who raid history videos? Thanks.
Simeon used title Tsar which is equal to emperor.